|
What Teabaggerism Begets
wrote:
On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:13:11 -0400, BAR wrote: How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. We have systems to shoot them down these days. The massive damage was caused by ship design, not the Exocet missile. Build the superstructure out of a flammable alloy. Really great warship design. Not! |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/9/13 8:03 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:13:11 -0400, BAR wrote: How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. We have systems to shoot them down these days. The massive damage was caused by ship design, not the Exocet missile. Build the superstructure out of a flammable alloy. Really great warship design. Not! Are you saying a few "modern" Exocets with HE warheads in piercing shells won't blow up/sink a destroyer? |
What Teabaggerism Begets
"F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 10/9/13 8:03 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:13:11 -0400, BAR wrote: How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. We have systems to shoot them down these days. The massive damage was caused by ship design, not the Exocet missile. Build the superstructure out of a flammable alloy. Really great warship design. Not! Are you saying a few "modern" Exocets with HE warheads in piercing shells won't blow up/sink a destroyer? Probably not. And you would have to have a few. I think the Exocet was not a huge ship killer, ala Harpoon missile, but ignited the superstructure. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
"Califbill" wrote in message ... "F.O.A.D." wrote: On 10/9/13 8:03 PM, Califbill wrote: wrote: On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 08:13:11 -0400, BAR wrote: How soon you forget about the 40 year old French weapon called the Exocet. We have systems to shoot them down these days. The massive damage was caused by ship design, not the Exocet missile. Build the superstructure out of a flammable alloy. Really great warship design. Not! Are you saying a few "modern" Exocets with HE warheads in piercing shells won't blow up/sink a destroyer? Probably not. And you would have to have a few. I think the Exocet was not a huge ship killer, ala Harpoon missile, but ignited the superstructure. separator A well placed Exocet or any anti-ship missile might sink a destroyer, but not a cruiser and certainly not a modern carrier. Traditional Destroyer functions are typically performed by Frigates now and are still considered to be the most "expendable" in a major sea battle. They are designed and built as lower cost warships. Frigates were the former Destroyer Escorts ("DE's") of the fleet. DE's were re-designated as "FF" or "Frigate" in the 1970's. Then there are DDGs ...Guided Missile Destroyers. They are still based on low cost design. But that said, the USS Cole didn't sink after having a huge hole blown in it's side at the waterline. Compartment integrity and excellent damage control training saved it. Guided Missiles Cruisers, most equipped with Agies systems and cruise missiles are more valuable and are thereby designed to take hits. Nimitz class carriers just are not going to sink, even with multiple hits. Sure, a nuke will take them out, but that's not what they are designed for. You can't hit a US nuke sub. Nobody, including us, could find them without being told where they were. I witnessed this in the earlier versions on a ship equipped with very sophisticated, passive towed array sonar. The sonar system was capable of hearing and specifically identifying a surface ship hundreds of miles away, just based on the noise signature. Land based SOSUS systems could detect and identify for 1,000's of miles. There is a documented case of a land based SOSUS system located in Bermuda positively detecting and identifying a surface ship transiting the Straits of Gibraltar. The DE I was on was equipped with the first of the mobile, ship based passive towed array systems that was going through performance evaluations. We could detect and identify virtually anything within XXXX miles, including Soviet nukes. The Navy scheduled a test for our ship to detect the USS Skipjack, an early nuke fast attack sub that was quiet for it's time but was a marching band compared to today's US nukes. We had a general idea of where it should be, but after hours of trying to detect unsuccessfully, the test was terminated. The Skipjack then surfaced about 200 yards off our port bow. The Passive Towed Array system is now a standard component on most US anti-sub warships and are much, much more improved. The US nuke subs today are also the quietest subs on the planet and are virtually undetectable. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/10/2013 12:28 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
not a huge ship killer, ala Harpoon missile, but ignited the superstructure. separator A well placed Exocet or any anti-ship missile might sink a destroyer, but not a cruiser and certainly not a modern carrier. My newsreader sees Bill's post and your post as the same post. Try Thunderbird or another reader and see what happens. Either your Microsoft reader is not set up right or is defective. You and the goofy canadian are messing up our serene newsreading experience. ;-) |
What Teabaggerism Begets
Jeeze Hankie,
I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. -- John H. Hope you're having a great day! |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote:
On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. |
What Teabaggerism Begets
On 10/10/13 10:54 AM, True North wrote:
On Thursday, 10 October 2013 11:48:54 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Thu, 10 Oct 2013 06:34:23 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Jeeze Hankie, I'd use stronger words than "goofy" when describing Dickson, but then again y'all do share a "special" relationship eh? Don, did you ever define 'stupis'? Also, have you made a decision regarding unsociable versus sociable posts? Remember, I'm plenty willing to agree to 'sociable only' posting with you. John H. Thought you went camping, Johnny. I'll ponder your requests over our Thanksgiving Holiday this weekend. Herring camping? Has anyone warned the squirrels? - |
What Teabaggerism Begets
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:29 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright �2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com