Forum: Air Power

Can we start to get some quality control here before this board goes the way of just about every board out there? We see it in every walk of life. The news goes from news to tabloid. The history channel goes from the history channel to reality TV. It stinks and I'm sick of it.

To those people with no grasp of how weapons work, go learn or ask someone. Stop posting childish garbage. There is a place for you (ATS or Key) but it's not here. It is ridiculously easy to learn that carriers are propelled by props and that over 30 knots the props' cavitation becomes serious. Any bonehead with google could see that the powerplant of a carrier is about as powerful as an Iowa calss BB. The Iowas did 32-33 knots. They were smaller than carriers.

To those people who know stuff: Try and educate the idiots. If they don't want to learn, trash them and they will respond in such a way as to be banned. You have to do it so this board doesn't die as well.

F-16.net Sponsor

jeffb wrote:

Conan wrote:

jeffb wrote:

I don't think it'd be that hard.

Sorry, can’t get to your linked document. Do appreciate the “help” though. Your link to the shuttle re-entry at mach 30 isn’t really a fair comparison to a mach 10 projectile though. The shuttle is a vast object deliberately orienting itself to produce as large a cross-section as it reasonably can while remaining stable. This necessarily produces a huge shock wave and considerable plasma heating as it slows down in the upper atmosphere. A projectile re-entering in a manner designed to minimise drag except for what would be necessary to generate some course correction effect is a very different beast. Whilst there are bound to be plasma effects of one sort or another involved with high hypersonic flight through the atmosphere, predicting exactly what those effects would be and their impact on sensors carried by said hypothetical projectile are much more difficult to predict.

I’m sorry again, I just threw out the subs idea, because frankly it would work. But of course the chinese have a number of means of detecting a carrier group from their own NOSS constellation right down to mark one eyeballs on “fishing” boats. With a flight time of 15 minutes and comms turnaround of say another 5 the carrier group can move (assuming 60 knots surface speed) about 35km. That puts it in a box 80km to a side. That doesn’t sound too big a box to me.

The link works fine for me. Of course it completely shoots down your argument, so I'm not surprised you "can't get to it".

Same old argument as the PAK-FA. If it's designed by the Russians or Chinese, it's infallible. If the realities of the situation are pointed out, they are conveniently ignored...

Oh please, you only wish that people were making those sorts of arguments.
As usual as soon as someone points out the holes in your own arguments you slide back into this sort of rhetoric, trying to paint persons as unwilling to listen to argument just after you've summarily dismissed theirs.

And typically, you provide no real evidence except for a link to something which appears to be behind a paywall and then say I'm ignoring your evidence, by all means copy it to somewhere we can all see it and I'll read it there.

The Chinese ASBM had a planned IOC of 2007-8. The US Navy obviously takes the threat very seriously and appear to be "switching their focus from a close blockade force of shallow water vessels to return to building deep water ballistic defense destroyers". What that says about the efficacy of the SM-3 in the face sustained attack by these sorts of weapons I'll leave for you to consider, along with the consequences for US foreign policy if these sorts of weapons start being exported.

I have not claimed that these weapons are infallible or that the PAK-FA is infallibile and I will continue to argue that the JSF and it's arsenal of toys is not infallible either. Grow up and stop trying to put words into other peoples mouths.

shingen wrote:

Can we start to get some quality control here before this board goes the way of just about every board out there? We see it in every walk of life. The news goes from news to tabloid. The history channel goes from the history channel to reality TV. It stinks and I'm sick of it.

To those people with no grasp of how weapons work, go learn or ask someone. Stop posting childish garbage. There is a place for you (ATS or Key) but it's not here. It is ridiculously easy to learn that carriers are propelled by props and that over 30 knots the props' cavitation becomes serious. Any bonehead with google could see that the powerplant of a carrier is about as powerful as an Iowa calss BB. The Iowas did 32-33 knots. They were smaller than carriers.

To those people who know stuff: Try and educate the idiots. If they don't want to learn, trash them and they will respond in such a way as to be banned. You have to do it so this board doesn't die as well.

If your concerned about the quality of posts perhaps you should read them a little closer. I did not say the carriers are capable of moving at sixty knots. I was drawing the largest possible box around the last reported position of a carrier group to illustrate that an ASBM does not require that much cross-range capability to target a carrier once it's position is reported and the ASBM is fired in to it's general vicinity.

Possibly Pete was telling me tales, possibly I'm mis-remembering what he told me; it doesn't really matter because, as I've stated, I was merely using the figure as the basis of a calculation to draw the largest possible box around a carrier group.

jeffb wrote:

shingen wrote:

Can we start to get some quality control here before this board goes the way of just about every board out there? We see it in every walk of life. The news goes from news to tabloid. The history channel goes from the history channel to reality TV. It stinks and I'm sick of it.

To those people with no grasp of how weapons work, go learn or ask someone. Stop posting childish garbage. There is a place for you (ATS or Key) but it's not here. It is ridiculously easy to learn that carriers are propelled by props and that over 30 knots the props' cavitation becomes serious. Any bonehead with google could see that the powerplant of a carrier is about as powerful as an Iowa calss BB. The Iowas did 32-33 knots. They were smaller than carriers.

To those people who know stuff: Try and educate the idiots. If they don't want to learn, trash them and they will respond in such a way as to be banned. You have to do it so this board doesn't die as well.

If your concerned about the quality of posts perhaps you should read them a little closer. I did not say the carriers are capable of moving at sixty knots. I was drawing the largest possible box around the last reported position of a carrier group to illustrate that an ASBM does not require that much cross-range capability to target a carrier once it's position is reported and the ASBM is fired in to it's general vicinity.

Possibly Pete was telling me tales, possibly I'm mis-remembering what he told me; it doesn't really matter because, as I've stated, I was merely using the figure as the basis of a calculation to draw the largest possible box around a carrier group.

I've read the posts, in this thread and others. First, quoting APA as a source is the mistake of people who know nothing about how things work. Second, let me take my own advice above and show you what's wrong with the trash you've posted in this thread:

"Too right. The RAN "sank" enough US carriers during exercises that the US Navy went out and bought themselves a couple of diesel electric subs so they could get more practice finding and killing them."

No, the USN has not bought any DE subs since the Barbel class.

Triangulating the position of a CVBG using subs? How does this work? How does the sonar data get collated andcollected in one place and used? How do these subs comm with this entitiy and still survive?

A box 80km on a side is 6400km square. That's huge for targeting.

I'm sorry to have to tell you that you don't really have a clue about much. Some people here are trying to help you learn but you snap back at them. You're either a troll or hopelssly uninformed and comfortable with it.

shingen wrote:

jeffb wrote:

shingen wrote:

Can we start to get some quality control here before this board goes the way of just about every board out there? We see it in every walk of life. The news goes from news to tabloid. The history channel goes from the history channel to reality TV. It stinks and I'm sick of it.

To those people with no grasp of how weapons work, go learn or ask someone. Stop posting childish garbage. There is a place for you (ATS or Key) but it's not here. It is ridiculously easy to learn that carriers are propelled by props and that over 30 knots the props' cavitation becomes serious. Any bonehead with google could see that the powerplant of a carrier is about as powerful as an Iowa calss BB. The Iowas did 32-33 knots. They were smaller than carriers.

To those people who know stuff: Try and educate the idiots. If they don't want to learn, trash them and they will respond in such a way as to be banned. You have to do it so this board doesn't die as well.

If your concerned about the quality of posts perhaps you should read them a little closer. I did not say the carriers are capable of moving at sixty knots. I was drawing the largest possible box around the last reported position of a carrier group to illustrate that an ASBM does not require that much cross-range capability to target a carrier once it's position is reported and the ASBM is fired in to it's general vicinity.

Possibly Pete was telling me tales, possibly I'm mis-remembering what he told me; it doesn't really matter because, as I've stated, I was merely using the figure as the basis of a calculation to draw the largest possible box around a carrier group.

I've read the posts, in this thread and others. First, quoting APA as a source is the mistake of people who know nothing about how things work. Second, let me take my own advice above and show you what's wrong with the trash you've posted in this thread:

"Too right. The RAN "sank" enough US carriers during exercises that the US Navy went out and bought themselves a couple of diesel electric subs so they could get more practice finding and killing them."

No, the USN has not bought any DE subs since the Barbel class.

Triangulating the position of a CVBG using subs? How does this work? How does the sonar data get collated andcollected in one place and used? How do these subs comm with this entitiy and still survive?

A box 80km on a side is 6400km square. That's huge for targeting.

I'm sorry to have to tell you that you don't really have a clue about much. Some people here are trying to help you learn but you snap back at them. You're either a troll or hopelssly uninformed and comfortable with it.

I have to say I was completely amazed by your last post. After pointing out to you, quite politely, that your stated complaint for my previous post was completely unfounded and in error. You proceed to insult me and then call me a troll based on the argument that I’ve just shown you is false!

I was concerned initially that somehow I hadn’t made it clear, but then I realised that, of course, you are the troll! You deliberately ignored what I said, selectively argued points of little or no relevance, trawled my previous posts for some ammunition to smear my character , made a series of allegations unsupported by any evidence except for the ravings of your obviously delusional mind and then rounded it of with a barefaced lie and a piece of misdirection.

Your claim that you were going to take a leaf out of your own book and educate me is of course, another lie. Claiming that the USN has not bought itself any SSKs may well be true, but to then pose a series of questions for me to answer shows anyone reading that you’re a complete fraud. You have no insider knowledge at all and are merely offering me the chance to say something else, get a single detail wrong and have you rail on about that for the next five posts. No thanks.

It’s a little sad the way you’ve so desperately claimed that the Chinese ASBM “just can’t be”. No evidence, no cogent argument just name calling and bluster.

You know what I’m sick of on this forum? The lack of adult conversation. You want to improve the quality of posts? Stop posting!

jeffb wrote:

And typically, you provide no real evidence except for a link to something which appears to be behind a paywall and then say I'm ignoring your evidence, by all means copy it to somewhere we can all see it and I'll read it then

Fine seeing as though clicking a link or "save target as" is obviously too difficult, here is the PDF itself.

Have fun learning...

Aegis BMD and Boeing's ABL operating out of guam or australia (if things really heated up)being refueled by F-18's or tankers as well as EA-18 growlers will be able to provide decent protection. not to mention special forces,USS texas and other subs launching tomahawks to remove missile sites/silos etc so not really living up to hype chinese government is giving it,but still it still poses a threat to USN CBGs

Hate to be posting twice in a row but...
no way to tell what warhead it is carrying (HE or Nuclear) so the only thing the missile sinks is its self.
Guiness

Tinito_16 wrote:

Imagine the total WTF moment I had when I read this:

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-facts ... eal-with-8

The 'source': https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp

I'm skeptical about the capabilities, but assuming the thing exists as advertised, does the Navy have a plan (perhaps using the F-35 and its superior sensors) to defeat this threat?

Meanwhile I'm still WTF

none to be talking about Smile

Quote:

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

it means nuke because conventional warhead needs the useful cruise missile but not a ballistic BS Very Happy

What, so you couldn't read the no carrier parking sign? They don't use tow trucks around here bro.

Forum: Air Power

China has a 'superweapon' that can kill carriers?