Gorth Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 6 hours ago, Zoraptor said: A 20kt explosion would be slightly bigger than that- see Operation Crossroads for an example. Duh... yes, I got my decimal points all mixed up That should read 20 ton, not kiloton... what's a few zeros? Â âHe who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.â - Albert Einstein Â
Gfted1 Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 I could be wrong, but I dont think the Chinese have any conventional warheads that big. Does anyone? Even the MOAB "only" has a blast yield of 11 tons. "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Malcador Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 8 minutes ago, Gfted1 said: I could be wrong, but I dont think the Chinese have any conventional warheads that big. Does anyone? Even the MOAB "only" has a blast yield of 11 tons. I assume for testing purposes, if the ship can weather the shock from that, it should be ok in real world conditions. Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Gorth Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 2 hours ago, Gfted1 said: I could be wrong, but I dont think the Chinese have any conventional warheads that big. Does anyone? Even the MOAB "only" has a blast yield of 11 tons. https://www.businessinsider.com.au/chinese-troops-practice-midnight-launches-of-carrier-killer-missiles-2021-6?r=US&IR=T âHe who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.â - Albert Einstein Â
Gfted1 Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 Yep Im aware of that model. Cracks me up when they aim it a carrier shaped carvings in the ground too. Aiming at air is easy. The pant crapper when I was in the Navy was the fearsome Exocet. "It comes in near supersonic at wavetop levels! We can'nae stop it, Captain!"Â "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Sarex Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 This is what they are testing against. "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
kanisatha Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 14 hours ago, Gorth said: Let's see if this thing keeps floating... testing how a 20 kiloton explosion next to a carrier affects it (I guess they are worried about the Chinese "carrier buster" bombs/ballistic missiles) https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-57547885 Edit: Video on the BBC page of the test. Apparently the carrier was scheduled for being taken out of action for a while anyway for maintenance work and repairs. Edit2: I suck at numbers FYI, USS Ford is our newest carrier and first in her class, so she's been having some teething problems. She's not yet declared fully operational and is yet to undertake her first cruise. Makes good sense though to use her for these tests, as she still needs a lot of drydock work anyway.
Gfted1 Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 US-developed hypersonic missile hit within 6 inches of target, says Army secretary. Warheads? We dont need no stinkin' warheads! Stick a tungsten penetrator in it and watch everything get shattered by the kinetic force. Ive always wished they developed the "Rods from God". 1 "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
Zoraptor Posted June 21, 2021 Posted June 21, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, Gfted1 said: I could be wrong, but I dont think the Chinese have any conventional warheads that big. Does anyone? Even the MOAB "only" has a blast yield of 11 tons. If you were making a 18t anti ship warhead for a missile I'd suspect you'd be better off making it fragment into bomblets under almost any circumstances rather than have it be 18t in one explosion. Guess they could put an 18t warhead on one of their big ballistic missiles but they're nowhere near accurate enough to hit near moving targets, so they'd be of limited use. OTOH, you could fairly easily pack 18t of explosives into a remote controlled suicide submarine (or alternatively, and prosaically, a 'torpedo'). That would have many of the advantages that UAVs have in terms of ignoring the needs of the squishy meats sacks for protection and the like while making them more difficult to stop too. Or use them like the Decima MAS of WW2 used their chariots to infiltrate harbours and anchorages. That would also explain why they do it as an underwater explosion. Edited June 21, 2021 by Zoraptor 1
ComradeYellow Posted June 24, 2021 Posted June 24, 2021 (edited) https://www.rt.com/op-ed/527402-russia-t14-armata-wonder-tank/ Wahahaha! (Well, to be fair, Ruskie budget isn't exactly Midas gold and they're new so the mechanical kinks and combat experience hasn't been ironed out yet but still, it's good to give the Americans a run for their money alwaysxD) Edited June 24, 2021 by ComradeYellow
Guard Dog Posted June 24, 2021 Author Posted June 24, 2021 On 6/21/2021 at 2:15 PM, Gfted1 said: US-developed hypersonic missile hit within 6 inches of target, says Army secretary. Warheads? We dont need no stinkin' warheads! Stick a tungsten penetrator in it and watch everything get shattered by the kinetic force. Ive always wished they developed the "Rods from God". Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best "While it is true you learn with age, the down side is what you often learn is what a damn fool you were before" Thomas Sowell
Gorth Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 On 6/22/2021 at 3:54 AM, Sarex said: This is what they are testing against. A few details about the Zircon missile... range around 1000km, speed mach 9, payload approx 300-400kg conventional or nuclear warhead. Depending on how it's deployed, leaving defending ships as little as 20 seconds from detection to impact (the window they have to do detect, evaluate threat and destroy it) Â 1 âHe who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.â - Albert Einstein Â
Gorth Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 On 6/22/2021 at 3:22 AM, Gfted1 said: Yep Im aware of that model. Cracks me up when they aim it a carrier shaped carvings in the ground too. Aiming at air is easy. The pant crapper when I was in the Navy was the fearsome Exocet. "It comes in near supersonic at wavetop levels! We can'nae stop it, Captain!"Â Say what you will about French cheese, but their missiles are quite good. I remember from the news back then, that there was a bit of bad blood between England and France because France had sold Exocet missiles to Argentina and was used to sink a British destroyer during the Falklands War. Most of the news back then were about said war. Edit: Before anybody wonders, if they had the missiles, why didn't Argentina just sink the Royal Navy ships? They only had a few missiles and used them sparingly. One was used to sink a destroyer, another used to damage another destroyer and one was intended for the aircraft carrier, but the plane doing the delivery was shot down. Edit2: I suspect modern anti missile defenses would make short work of them. The situation was a bit different back in the early 80's âHe who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.â - Albert Einstein Â
Zoraptor Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 The last Argentine exocet also went to the wrong spot, due to a good bit of British disinformation, so it was never even in a position to be used. The latter ships sunk were all done by dumb bombs (all iirc from ancient, even then, A4 Skyhawks). Probably would have been fewer ships sunk if the BBC hadn't mentioned that the bombs' fusing was wonky, so the Argentines fixed it. You'd have thought the Royal Navy might have learnt from that not to have BBC journos on board in case they said something they didn't like but it seems not, given recent events in the Black Sea. 1 2
Sarex Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 3 hours ago, Zoraptor said: You'd have thought the Royal Navy might have learnt from that not to have BBC journos on board in case they said something they didn't like but it seems not, given recent events in the Black Sea. Is it me or was that incident a little more dangerous that the usual fly full speed towards the boarder and then turn around shtick that Russia/US do to test readiness? I know the US does that in Chinese sea fairly often, but one would think that there is a big difference between the US and the UK. I would think that sinking of an UK ship could be overlooked in an effort to stop a third WW. "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
Zoraptor Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 Something like 99.5% of those incidents don't involve actually going into territorial waters/ airspace, just through completely arbitrary self declared Air Defence Identification Zones and the like that have no basis in international law. Actual intrusions are very rare and mainly happen in a few areas such as the Kurils/ South China Sea (competing claims) or around the Baltic where Finnish/ Estonian/ Russian airspace is a mess. This was definitely more dangerous than the average because it was a deliberate intrusion into claimed Russian waters with a warship. Which is an aggressive act which could result in the ship justifiably being sunk, at least so far as Russia was concerned. Practically of course that risk was still pretty much non existent; and they'd picked a relatively 'safe' ship to send since the Defender is pretty aptly named since it has next to no offensive capability at all. It was not a very well judged exercise otherwise though, especially with having the press along, precisely because while it was still unlikely that anything really significant would happen it should have been blindingly obvious that there would be a response, and that the press would report on it in an uncontrollable way. Not a great look having the MoD have to wave their hands and shout about there being nothing to see here like they were auditioning for a Naked Gun remake when they had the BBC and Daily Fail correspondents both talking about warning shots, near collisions and being buzzed by 20 planes while on the cusp of World War 3 breaking out. It was still all posturing, they just didn't expect quite the buy in to the Russian posturing from their own journalists.
ComradeYellow Posted June 25, 2021 Posted June 25, 2021 I would laugh if the 21st century turned out to be literally 1984 come to life (but with better living conditions hopefully!). 3 major powers competing with each other, having occaisonal military contests in remote seas/small 3rd world countries, and switching alliances periodically, and gaining combat experience and awesome Youtube videos in the process. Could be worse, right? I suppose it would be the better alternative to nuclear devastation on an existential basis.
Gorth Posted June 27, 2021 Posted June 27, 2021 On 6/25/2021 at 9:24 PM, Zoraptor said: Not a great look having the MoD have to wave their hands and shout about there being nothing to see here like they were auditioning for a Naked Gun remake when they had the BBC and Daily Fail correspondents both talking about warning shots, near collisions and being buzzed by 20 planes while on the cusp of World War 3 breaking out. Love those meme generators... âHe who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice.â - Albert Einstein Â
Sarex Posted June 27, 2021 Posted June 27, 2021 For anyone interested in military exercises here is one from Serbia that just happened. Â "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
Malcador Posted June 27, 2021 Posted June 27, 2021 No hardbass soundtrack, not worth watching. 1 1 Why has elegance found so little following? Elegance has the disadvantage that hard work is needed to achieve it and a good education to appreciate it. - Edsger Wybe Dijkstra
Sarex Posted June 27, 2021 Posted June 27, 2021 27 minutes ago, Malcador said: No hardbass soundtrack, not worth watching. Someone needs to make an effort to make that... Nothing overly cool in the video anyways. "because they filled mommy with enough mythic power to become a demi-god" - KP
Raithe Posted June 27, 2021 Posted June 27, 2021 A mix of that history and the reaction on it. Â "Cuius testiculos habeas, habeas cardia et cerebellum."
Gfted1 Posted June 30, 2021 Posted June 30, 2021 Lockheedâs F-35 topples competition in Swiss fighter contest. 1 "I'm your biggest fan, Ill follow you until you love me, Papa"
kanisatha Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 21 hours ago, Gfted1 said: Lockheedâs F-35 topples competition in Swiss fighter contest. Just saw this myself. People who like to whine about the F-35 (especially in the news media and in Congress) are idiots.
Amentep Posted July 1, 2021 Posted July 1, 2021 I keep reading that headline as "Lockheed's F-35 topless competition in Swiss fighter contest." and I keep doing a comedy double take reading it. 3 I cannot - yet I must. How do you calculate that? At what point on the graph do "must" and "cannot" meet? Yet I must - but I cannot! ~ Ro-Man
Recommended Posts