More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:31:02 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:40:55 -0400, hk wrote:

I'd like to know how a ship is supposed to avoid being hit by a
wave-hopping, supersonic missile "steered" by a couple of guys via a
video camera on the weapon and a laptop computer. That's where anti-ship
missile technology is headed.

You mostly have to shoot them down. Spitfires chased the first guided
missiles, V-1's during WWII. They had to be high and dive on the
missiles as they were slightly faster. You can get a hand aimed 95 lb
20mm cannon with 1000RPM and 3300 ft/sec MV. You could put a hundred
of them just below the flight deck edges on a carrier. Take care of
the speedboats, at least. And any ship with hundreds of marines could
man a bunch of machine guns. They have some fifties now, but a state
of the art 20mm would be nice, and not very expensive.
You can jam a control radio link, and they can home on the jammer.
Chaff has been known to work against a radar only missile. missiles
however, could have both radar and infrared homing. Defence gets
harder and harder.

Casady

And that's only the stuff we know about.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 6:09*pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. *No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

* * * * * John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

More problems for the Navy...
 

and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:

On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 6:29*pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission.. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. *No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

* * * * * John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

Just repeating what John called you (Tom).

More problems for the Navy...
 

hk wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:04:32 -0400, hk wrote:

I subscribe to Jane's. :)

You do not.


Yeah, I do. Comped. Long, long story, the gist of which is that I used
to handle the marketing and PR for a now-defunct pro-military
entanglement "diplomacy" publication, and when the pub folded (long
after my involvement with it), the senior editor, a buddy, hopped to the
Jane's group, and I got a comp. After some years, at my request, he
switched it to an electronic subscription. I still look at it once it a
while.

Harry,
I wonder why people don't believe your stories? This senior editor who
gives you a free subscription to Jane's for all these years, reminds of
when you elevated a Social Worker to a Dr. Dr. just so you could use her
as your expert witness to diagnose the mental illnesses of regulars in
rec.boats. No one believes this anymore than the Dr. Dr. story.

More problems for the Navy...
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:04:32 -0400, hk wrote:

I subscribe to Jane's. :)

You do not.

Sure it is a comp from all of Harry's work for a diplomatic publication.
They are very common for those in the inner circle of world affairs.

More problems for the Navy...
 

On Aug 14, 6:29*pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission.. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:

Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. *No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.

Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **

* * * * * John H

Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

I give up with the ever changing handles you, Tom, Scotty and Reggie
have. Try to keep a single handle so you are not accused of being
married to a bull****ter.

More problems for the Navy...
 

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:
Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.
Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **
John H
Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

I give up with the ever changing handles you, Tom, Scotty and Reggie
have. Try to keep a single handle so you are not accused of being
married to a bull****ter.

What is wrong with me using my official titles, bestowed upon me based
upon my diplomatic work with world leaders?

More problems for the Navy...
 

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:29 pm, Bullschitter wrote:
and you know this for a fact. Why are you bringing Tom's into a ducission. your a
Putz.

JimH wrote:
On Aug 14, 6:09 pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 22:00:51 GMT, Bullschitter
wrote:
Take the air, then bomb the schit otta the Oceans. No need for a Navy, lost
it's edge after WW11.
Definitely got your handle right.
--
** Good Day! **
John H
Tom's wife is a bull****ter?

I give up with the ever changing handles you, Tom, Scotty and Reggie
have. Try to keep a single handle so you are not accused of being
married to a bull****ter.


Why bother with crap posters who keep changing their handles?