Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Forget Sunburn - enter the new carrier killer

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Russia have for many years had a tactic of using EMP weapons as a for play to take out carrier groups. I mean if US and Russia got at it i bet EMP is what we will see a lot of from the east. If you hear what pentagon speaks of when it comes to real threats it is the Russian EMP weapons.




posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


actually it still is - the sea has an amazing property of changing state and its ability to reflect signals - so sometimes you can `see` things visually , like subs , and other times you would have a tough time picking out a warship ; a sea skimmer on choppy waters is the hardest target to find


a bit like saddams WMD`s really



but i digress - as we are talking at a chinese IRBM that apparantly can maneuver

[edit on 8/10/08 by Harlequin]



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Do satellites play a part in these sytems to work correctly ?????



posted on Oct, 8 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
it has a maneuvering warhead - or did you miss that as well?

No, I am curious as to what the terminal guidance for this thing is. Without a terminal guidance system that can update itself, this is nothing more than a ballisitic missile with no special properties.



and i know plenty of DEAD people thanks to the failures of CIWS.

Care to elaborate on the circumstances? CIWS is a great system IF you use it correctly.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by Harlequin
it has a maneuvering warhead - or did you miss that as well?

No, I am curious as to what the terminal guidance for this thing is. Without a terminal guidance system that can update itself, this is nothing more than a ballisitic missile with no special properties.


it has an onboard radar - active radar using a radar area correlator - guided very likely by control veins




and i know plenty of DEAD people thanks to the failures of CIWS.

Care to elaborate on the circumstances? CIWS is a great system IF you use it correctly.


There has only ever been excuses after excuses as to why ships have been hit when mounted with ciws `switched off` ` none functioning` - or they simply missed

ciws is not a great system , in ALL the times a missile has been used against a live target , it failed.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by spy66
Russia have for many years had a tactic of using EMP weapons as a for play to take out carrier groups. I mean if US and Russia got at it i bet EMP is what we will see a lot of from the east. If you hear what pentagon speaks of when it comes to real threats it is the Russian EMP weapons.


Fiber optics pretty much make EMP obsolete.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by punkinworks

A patent was issued to the US department of defence, last year for an orbital platform with a charged particle beam weapon.
The patent statment indicates that the weapon has a dual purpose, one is to destroy a range of targets from LEO to the ground.
And to detect hidden explosives by making them explode when painted by the device, even if buried .


If Obama becomes president, I would worry about weapons in space being a viable option, he has already said he would ban the use of weapons in space under his admin, while simultaneously slowing the progression of future combat systems in general. He also said he would cut "unproven" missile defense systems, and would also cut "tens of billions of dollars" from the defense budget (one of the few programs where our tax dollars should be going).



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Aircraft carriers obsolete? yes and no. They are great against developing countries (Iraq, afghanistan and other countries we like to bully). I think they are just huge sitting ducks against powers like China, Russia and even Iran.
Carriers can be easily tracked by satellites, I al sure their exact position around the globe are well known by many countries. Antiship missiles and their decoys can be built in their thousands and there are no reliable defense against them.
And if they are ever used it is certainly because the US attacked first, because the US is the biggest aggressor on the face of the planet. Those are defensive measures.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
...a sea skimmer on choppy waters is the hardest target to find


I don't disagree with this statement and it may have been very difficult in the past. However the E-2D was specifically upgraded to perform an enhanced surface mission (sea and ground) as well as airborne search/track. The Superbugs will all be receiving the APG-79 and the Navy is getting the F-35 with itss terrific sensor suite. Not to mention of course the P-8, Navy Global Hawk, AEGIS even AWACS and other USAF systems. All of these platforms combined under net-centric directives such as NIFCA will create a COP. Ushering in unprecedented capability in detection, targeting and destruction of enemy forces. It's part of the future concept the Navy is working on to achieve superior maritime domain awareness.

The C4ISTAR aspect is not the only area getting attention. With the SM-6 and AIM-120D both hitting the fleet soon, it's really a terrible time to be in the cruise missile business.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


whilst is very true - that also isn`t `today` - its all coming in the next 10>20 years , these offensive systems are here and now; and they are only just getting the aesa on the super bug working properly



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by West Coast
 



You don't get any energy from optics, you just pass on a signal that has to be transformed into a function (energy). There would be no energy to even make the optical signal.

If a EMP go of high above the fleet. The defence system won't work. Then you could probably take out the fleet with 3 gen fighters or other old weapons. The carrier fleet would just be high tech junk foating around.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 10:52 AM
link   
West point: None of this crap works underwater.... anyway, you can have all the tech and still be stupid... a year is a long time to have the the chinese make an arse of the worlds only superpower on the high seas (see below).

Can't say your weren't prepared or looking for them, they warned you once before.

I think the group 'carriers are dead outside blowing up goat hearding flip flop wearers' win the debate



China sub stalked U.S. fleet
Originally published 12:15 a.m., November 13, 2006,
A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.


Then nearly a year later....




Source: Daily Mail
The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced
By MATTHEW HICKLEY - More by this author
» Last updated at 00:13am on 10th November 2007

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed. At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders. That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory. American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 11:25 AM
link   
West, there has not been a ship made that cannot sink, and the main point is is that while the US has been spending billions on just one vessel others have been spending much smaller amounts on ship killers, any ship even the new US carrriers are not immune to damage or being sunk. So anti ship misslies are a good answer when you dont want to waste 5 billion on just one ship. But I'm sure you wont have to wait too long to find out and we will all see just how invincible all these ships are.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


By 2016 all that I mentioned will be in service with the USN, with all but a few systems having reached FOC by then. Not until the end of the next decade will any of the projected threat countries be able to have a fully functioning and capable Navy to match and significantly threaten the USN. It will take that long for either China, Russia or India to put all the pieces in place and have a somewhat a global Navy comparable to the what the USN is today.


Originally posted by Unknown Perpetrator
West point: None of this crap works underwater....


There is other "crap" for the underwater threat. I have always maintained that submarines pose the greatest threat to carriers. Torpedoes are also the most efficient way to attack and sink a carrier. As for the ChiComs, take such incidents with a grain of salt and don't depend on journalists for accurate information and sound analysis.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


Your right dont trust the media on evaluating forces thru history has never proved to be right. Oh and as for the chinese sub they dont use active sonar during fleet operations unless subs are involved in the war game. Reason is almost funny it harms whales the active sonar causes problems with there migrations.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


The issue though is all the war mongers want the fight NOW - and that capability isn`t ALL here yet , so a `risk` exists - fast n low missiles *MIGHT* get through and kill something big and flat top like in the event of a shooting war.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


Quite possible, but then again anyone who expect to go into war and not take casualties and losses is in the wrong business. At the end of the day the USN may lose ships, but we can absorb the impact and wont lose the war. Even if these missiles always work as advertised and our defense capabilities never work as advertised it's not enough to military beat the United States in a war. For that you need the total package, not just a very specific weapons capability. What happens when a country's limited platforms (compared to the size of the USN/USAF) for launching these missiles are destroyed by our superior capability?



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by WestPoint23
 


LOL

if all missiles worked as the makers want them then nothing would ever fly again



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 08:25 PM
link   
Its funny how some people think that just because someone might sink one of our carriers that we will somehow just give up, fighting.



posted on Oct, 9 2008 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
it has an onboard radar - active radar using a radar area correlator - guided very likely by control veins


Control Vanes will allow for only the grossest of course corrections in a ballistic path. The course of the warhead is essentially set at apogee. We (or anyone else for that matter) have yet to develop a manuevering system that works in the terminal phase for these kinds of weapons.



There has only ever been excuses after excuses as to why ships have been hit when mounted with ciws `switched off` ` none functioning` - or they simply missed

ciws is not a great system , in ALL the times a missile has been used against a live target , it failed.


Sounds like you have been drinking the anti-CIWS kool aid. Can you show any real evidence besides heresay? What proof do you have of your statements?






top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join