On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:42:13 -0400, hk wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:53:05 -0400, hk wrote:

I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are
sitting ducks for ballistic missiles.

Not really. A ballistic missile, by definition, can do little or
nothing to alter course after the launch phase. That's why they are
called "ballistic".

An aircraft carrier on the other hand is constantly on the move.
Where it is at launch time is not where it is going to be 15 or 20
minutes later when the missile arrives.




Your knowledge base it out of date. There are ballistic missiles capable
of "course corrections," and there are very very fast "cruise" missiles
being developed that achieve super high speeds that can be guided.

A cruise missile and a ballistic missile are two entirely different
things. Cruise missiles are defended by traditional radar and
interceprion technologies - not perfect but quite good. The ability
to make precision mid-course corrections by a ballistic missile is
very, very limited.

Claiming expertise in hi-tech weapons after reading a couple of
Wikipedia articles is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:42:13 -0400, hk wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 09:53:05 -0400, hk wrote:

I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are
sitting ducks for ballistic missiles.
Not really. A ballistic missile, by definition, can do little or
nothing to alter course after the launch phase. That's why they are
called "ballistic".

An aircraft carrier on the other hand is constantly on the move.
Where it is at launch time is not where it is going to be 15 or 20
minutes later when the missile arrives.



Your knowledge base it out of date. There are ballistic missiles capable
of "course corrections," and there are very very fast "cruise" missiles
being developed that achieve super high speeds that can be guided.

A cruise missile and a ballistic missile are two entirely different
things. Cruise missiles are defended by traditional radar and
interceprion technologies - not perfect but quite good. The ability
to make precision mid-course corrections by a ballistic missile is
very, very limited.

Claiming expertise in hi-tech weapons after reading a couple of
Wikipedia articles is a bit of a stretch don't you think?



I quoted Wiki because I noted your knowledge base was out of date, and I
didn't want to burden you with too much reality. I could have quoted
some other sources...The Chinese, for example, are developing a
high-speed, long-range, tactical anti-ship missile. The "other" Chinese,
our allies, have already developed a supersonic anti-ship missile, the
Hsiung Feng-III. My point was that missiles that travel at very high
speeds, capable of delivering very large payloads, *and guidable* and
conventional or nuclear, are under development, and that will spell the
end of the usefulness of aircraft carriers when trying to face down a
serious, modern enemy. Oh...and let's not forget the Russian's
Kh-101...a subsonic but stealth anti-ship missile.

As always, the effort I put into posting depends upon the audience.

"hk" wrote in message
.com...


I quoted Wiki because I noted your knowledge base was out of date, and I
didn't want to burden you with too much reality. I could have quoted some
other sources...The Chinese, for example, are developing a high-speed,
long-range, tactical anti-ship missile. The "other" Chinese, our allies,
have already developed a supersonic anti-ship missile, the Hsiung
Feng-III. My point was that missiles that travel at very high speeds,
capable of delivering very large payloads, *and guidable* and conventional
or nuclear, are under development, and that will spell the end of the
usefulness of aircraft carriers when trying to face down a serious, modern
enemy. Oh...and let's not forget the Russian's Kh-101...a subsonic but
stealth anti-ship missile.


Fortunately, there are scores of civilian and military technical experts,
gainfully employed, who study this type of thing who develop and deploy
equally capable defenses. Let's hope this continues.

It is also fortunate that you ain't gonna read about them or the systems on
Wiki.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
.com...

I quoted Wiki because I noted your knowledge base was out of date, and I
didn't want to burden you with too much reality. I could have quoted some
other sources...The Chinese, for example, are developing a high-speed,
long-range, tactical anti-ship missile. The "other" Chinese, our allies,
have already developed a supersonic anti-ship missile, the Hsiung
Feng-III. My point was that missiles that travel at very high speeds,
capable of delivering very large payloads, *and guidable* and conventional
or nuclear, are under development, and that will spell the end of the
usefulness of aircraft carriers when trying to face down a serious, modern
enemy. Oh...and let's not forget the Russian's Kh-101...a subsonic but
stealth anti-ship missile.


Fortunately, there are scores of civilian and military technical experts,
gainfully employed, who study this type of thing who develop and deploy
equally capable defenses. Let's hope this continues.

It is also fortunate that you ain't gonna read about them or the systems on
Wiki.

Eisboch




I subscribe to Jane's. :)

What I suspect will happen is that someday some assholes will launch one
of these new missiles at one of our capital ships, hit it, and sink it,
and *then* we'll have the sort of "missile crisis" that results some
years later in a new ship defense system. Defense systems tend to be
reactive.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..



I subscribe to Jane's. :)



No wonder you are confused.

Eisboch

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I subscribe to Jane's. :)



No wonder you are confused.

Eisboch




Right...it's much easier to accept the bs poured out by the U.S. DoD and
its suppliers.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I subscribe to Jane's. :)



No wonder you are confused.

Eisboch


Right...it's much easier to accept the bs poured out by the U.S. DoD and
its suppliers.

Sorry Harry. The contracts issued by the DoD to it's suppliers are much
more indicative to the state of the art than what you read in the sanitized,
civilian orientated "Jane's".

Eisboch

On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:06:37 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...



I subscribe to Jane's. :)



No wonder you are confused.

Eisboch


Jesus H.

Unreal.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

And Confused. Harry go to bed Your making a fool out yourself. (wife
talking)

Eisboch wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


I subscribe to Jane's. :)


No wonder you are confused.

Eisboch

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

I subscribe to Jane's. :)

You do not.