On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 21:14:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

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

I subscribe to Jane's. :)

You do not.

LMAO!!
--
** Good Day! **

John H

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

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.

Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:21:04 -0400, hk wrote:

More properly: carriers are becoming increasingly more vulnerable as
missile technology advances.

Fixed bases have been vulnerable for years.

So what is a brilliant arm chair naval strategist like yourself
supposed to do ?



Find ways other than warfare to resolve differences. You know, like Bush
should have done with Iraq.

Wayne.B 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.

Why waste a perfectly good missile when you could do the same thing
with say, a radio controlled/GPS guided Parker ?



Your barge would hold a lot more explosives, and make a much more
colorful boom. Especially if you were on it.

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


You could do a lot of things, but that doesn't mean any of them would work.

The V-1's flew at less than 400 mph, made a loud noise, and could be
shot down. The Exocets could achieve Mach .9. Imagine a "stealthed"
anti-ship missile coming just over the wavetops at Mach 2 or faster.

Please understand I am not knocking the capabilities of these huge
warships. Obviously, they are potent projectors of force. The point is,
though, that they are huge and inviting targets, and technology is
providing those who would like to damage or sink them with interesting
high-tech weapons.

Future wars are going to be far more dependent upon quality intel and
intelligent people to interpret it than on nuclear powered battle
fleets. As the ongoing war against Iraq proves, the fact that we have
every technological advantage there has not resulted in our pacifying
that country.

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

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

hk wrote:

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

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.

We already had one of these incidents in 1987 with the Iraqis and the
USS Starke.
This wasn't really a high tech missile either, it was the Exocet, a
fairly crude subsonic cruise missile that managed 2 out of 2 hits on
the ship.

The submariners have it right. There are only 2 kinds of ship.
Subs and targets.
When they asked (Zumwalt?) how long our aircraft carriers would last
in a real war he said "a couple days".

Yeah, and to this day, the attacks on the Stark have not been fully
explained.

These large ships are targets of opportunity for terrorists or rogue
nations. Imagine the "prestige" that will accrue to a terrorist group
that sinks or severely damages a U.S. carrier.

Despite the hopes of the "naysayers" here that our fleet can defend
itself, the fact remains that anti-ship missile technology is advancing.
The Chinese, the Russians, the Republic of China, and others are
developing larger, faster, more "guide-able" and more powerful anti-ship
weapons. 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.

Sinking or seriously damaging a big U.S. warship is a perfect way to
"get at" the United States without having to find 19 Muslim fanatics who
want to die crashing an airliner into an office building.

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Wayne.B 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.

Why waste a perfectly good missile when you could do the same thing
with say, a radio controlled/GPS guided Parker ?



Your barge would hold a lot more explosives, and make a much more colorful
boom. Especially if you were on it.

Wow... talk about a **** storm!

On Aug 14, 6:04*pm, "Don White" wrote:
"hk" wrote in message

. ..

Wayne.B 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.

Why waste a perfectly good missile when you could do the same thing
with say, a radio controlled/GPS guided Parker ?

Your barge would hold a lot more explosives, and make a much more colorful
boom. Especially if you were on it.

Wow... talk about a **** storm!

Actually I found Harry's post offensive.