|
More problems for the Navy...
In addition to the threats to large warships presented by anti-ship
cruise missiles, there's another threat - a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile but delivers a much bigger wallop. A hit from a "smart" ballistic missile would destroy an aircraft carrier. Which sort of makes these "capital" ships...obsolete. -- "In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior moment? |
More problems for the Navy...
On Aug 14, 7:36*am, hk wrote:
In addition to the threats to large warships presented by anti-ship cruise missiles, there's another threat - a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile but delivers a much bigger wallop. A hit from a "smart" ballistic missile would destroy an aircraft carrier. Which sort of makes these "capital" ships...obsolete. -- "In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior moment? Well Good Morning Harry. How are things in your neighborhood of land barons this morning? |
More problems for the Navy...
"hk" wrote in message . .. In addition to the threats to large warships presented by anti-ship cruise missiles, there's another threat - a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile but delivers a much bigger wallop. A hit from a "smart" ballistic missile would destroy an aircraft carrier. Which sort of makes these "capital" ships...obsolete. No it doesn't. It simply presents a requirement to develop more advanced defensive systems. Technology and jobs man, technology and jobs. A modern aircraft carrier is an amazingly efficient resource to have. A portable military base. Eisboch |
More problems for the Navy...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message . .. In addition to the threats to large warships presented by anti-ship cruise missiles, there's another threat - a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile but delivers a much bigger wallop. A hit from a "smart" ballistic missile would destroy an aircraft carrier. Which sort of makes these "capital" ships...obsolete. No it doesn't. It simply presents a requirement to develop more advanced defensive systems. Technology and jobs man, technology and jobs. A modern aircraft carrier is an amazingly efficient resource to have. A portable military base. Eisboch Until it is blown out of the water. -- "In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior moment? |
More problems for the Navy...
"hk" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message . .. In addition to the threats to large warships presented by anti-ship cruise missiles, there's another threat - a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile but delivers a much bigger wallop. A hit from a "smart" ballistic missile would destroy an aircraft carrier. Which sort of makes these "capital" ships...obsolete. No it doesn't. It simply presents a requirement to develop more advanced defensive systems. Technology and jobs man, technology and jobs. A modern aircraft carrier is an amazingly efficient resource to have. A portable military base. Eisboch Until it is blown out of the water. -- "In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior moment? Or an ICBM hits DC. |
More problems for the Navy...
D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message . .. Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message . .. In addition to the threats to large warships presented by anti-ship cruise missiles, there's another threat - a land-launched ballistic missile that converts to a cruise missile but delivers a much bigger wallop. A hit from a "smart" ballistic missile would destroy an aircraft carrier. Which sort of makes these "capital" ships...obsolete. No it doesn't. It simply presents a requirement to develop more advanced defensive systems. Technology and jobs man, technology and jobs. A modern aircraft carrier is an amazingly efficient resource to have. A portable military base. Eisboch Until it is blown out of the water. -- "In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior moment? Or an ICBM hits DC. Yes, well, I'm not sure how that relates to the efficacy of aircraft carriers. -- "In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." John McSame, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McSame senior moment? |
More problems for the Navy...
"hk" wrote in message . .. D.Duck wrote: Or an ICBM hits DC. Yes, well, I'm not sure how that relates to the efficacy of aircraft carriers. Because we can bring the conflict to them, rather than hoping (there's that "Hope" word again) they don't hit us first. 9/11 should have taught us a lesson. Eisboch |
More problems for the Navy...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message . .. D.Duck wrote: Or an ICBM hits DC. Yes, well, I'm not sure how that relates to the efficacy of aircraft carriers. Because we can bring the conflict to them, rather than hoping (there's that "Hope" word again) they don't hit us first. 9/11 should have taught us a lesson. Eisboch If that concept were ever true... There's little to nothing an aircraft carrier can do to stop ICBMs launched from an inland site thousands of miles away. Most of the Russian ICBM sites are not reachable by carrier-based planes. Besides, I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are sitting ducks for ballistic missiles. -- "In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior moment? |
More problems for the Navy...
"hk" wrote in message . .. If that concept were ever true... There's little to nothing an aircraft carrier can do to stop ICBMs launched from an inland site thousands of miles away. Most of the Russian ICBM sites are not reachable by carrier-based planes. Besides, I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are sitting ducks for ballistic missiles. Not to argue, but far less so than you may think. Carriers don't operate alone and they are defended with some of the most advanced systems ever deployed. That's not to say they are invulnerable, but it takes a lucky shot. Furthermore, it can take quite a hit and survive. Eisboch |
More problems for the Navy...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message . .. If that concept were ever true... There's little to nothing an aircraft carrier can do to stop ICBMs launched from an inland site thousands of miles away. Most of the Russian ICBM sites are not reachable by carrier-based planes. Besides, I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are sitting ducks for ballistic missiles. Not to argue, but far less so than you may think. Carriers don't operate alone and they are defended with some of the most advanced systems ever deployed. That's not to say they are invulnerable, but it takes a lucky shot. Furthermore, it can take quite a hit and survive. Eisboch Well, I disagree...but that's okay. Let me just say that I believe the U.S. goal of being able to project force, which, after all, is what these capital ships are for, has meaning only when that "force" is projected against dip**** little countries that fear such projection. It isn't effective against nations like China or Russia, or against countries where the rulers don't care about deaths of their own people, countries like Iran, for example. -- "In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations." John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain senior moment? |
More problems for the Navy...
On Aug 14, 10:15*am, hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote: "hk" wrote in message ... If that concept were ever true... There's little to nothing an aircraft carrier can do to stop ICBMs launched from an inland site thousands of miles away. Most of the Russian ICBM sites are not reachable by carrier-based planes. Besides, I was discussing the vulnerability of carriers. They are sitting ducks for ballistic missiles. Not to argue, but far less so than you may think. *Carriers don't operate alone and they are defended with some of the most advanced systems ever deployed. * *That's not to say they are invulnerable, but it takes a lucky shot. *Furthermore, it can take quite a hit and survive. Eisboch Well, I disagree...but that's okay. Let me just say that I believe the U.S. goal of being able to project force, which, after all, is what these capital ships are for, has meaning only when that "force" is projected against dip**** little countries that fear such projection. It isn't effective against nations like China or Russia, or against countries where the rulers don't care about deaths of their own people, countries like Iran, for example. -- And what would be a better deterent? Threat of a square dance? |
More problems for the Navy...
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. |
More problems for the Navy...
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. From Wiki: The "Bulava" (Russian: «??????», “mace”) is a Submarine-launched ballistic missile under development in Russia. The Moscow Institute of Thermal Technology is chiefly responsible for the missile's design. The Bulava carries the NATO reporting name SS-NX-30 and has been assigned the GRAU index 3M30. In international treaties, the common designation RSM-56 is used. The Bulava design is based on the SS-27 (Topol M), but is both lighter and more sophisticated. The two missiles are expected to have comparable ranges, and similar CEP and warhead configurations. The Russian military developed Bulava to possess advanced defense capabilities making it nearly impervious to existing missile-defense systems. *****Among its claimed abilities are evasive maneuvering, mid-course countermeasures and decoys***** and a warhead fully shielded against both physical and EMP damage. The Bulava is designed to be capable of surviving a nuclear blast at a minimum distance of 500 meters. [2] President Putin has stated that Bulava could penetrate any potential anti-missile defence system. The current version of the Bulava is able to carry up to six MIRV warheads, future variants are expected to carry a maximum of ten. A full-capacity payload requires the forfeiture of all final stage countermeasures and of some shielding. The missile completed the first stage launch-tests at the end of 2004. It was originally scheduled for completion in late 2006, but is now not expected to enter service until 2008. The test launches conducted on September 27, 2005, and December 21, 2005, from the Dmitry Donskoi, a Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine, were successful.[3] The next three flight tests, on September 7, 2006 October 25, 2006, and December 24, 2006, ended in failures of the missile, the causes of which have not yet been revealed. The most recent successful test of the Bulava happened on June 28, 2007 on Russia’s pacific coast.[4]. The missile flew almost the whole length of the country.[5]. |
More problems for the Navy...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:37:22 -0400, 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. When I was on my can we joked about a torpedo coming through the hull into our fireroom. And we were ASW. We all figured we'd be sitting ducks for missiles and jets if a real war broke out. One Russian tactical nuke getting just close could sink our carrier and its escorts. If you got a warning for that incoming the advice was to squat down on flexed knees with your head between your knees - and kiss your ass goodbye. Movie recommendation: Bedford Incident. Richard Widmark, Sidney Poitier. I think it was filmed on a DDG like mine. But I like Richard Widmark anyway. --Vic |
More problems for the Navy...
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? |
More problems for the Navy...
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. |
More problems for the Navy...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:11:46 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote: One Russian tactical nuke getting just close could sink our carrier and its escorts. Not really, assuming normal deployment. TNs have a kill radius of less than 1 kilometer and would normally be delivered via a cruise missile or aircraft for which there are good defenses. If you got a warning for that incoming the advice was to squat down on flexed knees with your head between your knees - and kiss your ass goodbye. Old joke. Carriers are not invulnerable but neither are fixed bases, and fixed bases are not available in many parts of the world. |
More problems for the Navy...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:11:46 -0500, Vic Smith wrote: One Russian tactical nuke getting just close could sink our carrier and its escorts. Not really, assuming normal deployment. TNs have a kill radius of less than 1 kilometer and would normally be delivered via a cruise missile or aircraft for which there are good defenses. If you got a warning for that incoming the advice was to squat down on flexed knees with your head between your knees - and kiss your ass goodbye. Old joke. Carriers are not invulnerable but neither are fixed bases, and fixed bases are not available in many parts of the world. Nobody is claiming that fixed bases are invulnerable. |
More problems for the Navy...
"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 |
More problems for the Navy...
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. |
More problems for the Navy...
"hk" wrote in message . .. I subscribe to Jane's. :) No wonder you are confused. Eisboch |
More problems for the Navy...
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. |
More problems for the Navy...
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 |
More problems for the Navy...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:49:48 -0400, hk wrote:
Carriers are not invulnerable but neither are fixed bases, and fixed bases are not available in many parts of the world. Nobody is claiming that fixed bases are invulnerable. Let me try and summarize your main points: - Carriers are worthless because they are vulnerable. - Fixed bases are more worthless. |
More problems for the Navy...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:43:23 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote: On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:49:48 -0400, hk wrote: Carriers are not invulnerable but neither are fixed bases, and fixed bases are not available in many parts of the world. Nobody is claiming that fixed bases are invulnerable. Let me try and summarize your main points: - Carriers are worthless because they are vulnerable. - Fixed bases are more worthless. I'm more and more understanding the draw that arguing with Harry has. -- ** Good Day! ** John H |
More problems for the Navy...
Wayne.B wrote:
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:49:48 -0400, hk wrote: Carriers are not invulnerable but neither are fixed bases, and fixed bases are not available in many parts of the world. Nobody is claiming that fixed bases are invulnerable. Let me try and summarize your main points: - Carriers are worthless because they are vulnerable. - Fixed bases are more worthless. Never said that, never implied that. You spend too much time out in the hot sun. More properly: carriers are becoming increasingly more vulnerable as missile technology advances. Fixed bases have been vulnerable for years. |
More problems for the Navy...
|
More problems for the Navy...
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 ? |
More problems for the Navy...
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 ? |
More problems for the Navy...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:04:32 -0400, hk wrote:
I subscribe to Jane's. :) You do not. |
More problems for the Navy...
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 |
More problems for the Navy...
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 |
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. 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. |
More problems for the Navy...
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. |
More problems for the Navy...
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. |
More problems for the Navy...
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. |
More problems for the Navy...
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 |
More problems for the Navy...
|
More problems for the Navy...
"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! |
More problems for the Navy...
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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:15 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com