Though that might be an amusing meta-troll if you two did.pace51 wrote:
Please do. And what sh1fty said. It's not like we go out of our way to agree with eachother and piss everyone off.
I would think it would make it easier rather than harder depending on its accuracy. If it's an accurate weapon you know precisely where it will landFEOS wrote:
We're essentially talking about an ICBM with a MIRV here. Nothing cosmic (no pun intended). We have existing ABM systems on AEGIS--already pointed out--that are designed to deal with this threat. They may have to be tweaked to deal with something that maneuvers this much (which, at Mach 10, isn't that much), but it's still not that big of a difference.
The big change is that China figured out a way to accurately target a moving object with the warhead, whereas all other ICBM warheads target a non-moving spot on the earth...generally with rough accuracy (you don't need to be THAT accurate with a nuke). It doesn't dramatically change the warhead intercept problem we've already been working on and in large part solved.
True point. If it's a "carrier killer"...we KNOW where OUR carriers are. Should make targeting their inbound "carrier killer" warheads a bit simpler, eh?JohnG@lt wrote:
I would think it would make it easier rather than harder depending on its accuracy. If it's an accurate weapon you know precisely where it will landFEOS wrote:
We're essentially talking about an ICBM with a MIRV here. Nothing cosmic (no pun intended). We have existing ABM systems on AEGIS--already pointed out--that are designed to deal with this threat. They may have to be tweaked to deal with something that maneuvers this much (which, at Mach 10, isn't that much), but it's still not that big of a difference.
The big change is that China figured out a way to accurately target a moving object with the warhead, whereas all other ICBM warheads target a non-moving spot on the earth...generally with rough accuracy (you don't need to be THAT accurate with a nuke). It doesn't dramatically change the warhead intercept problem we've already been working on and in large part solved.
It's called the Air Force. Take the batteries out. Then let the ships move inCatbox wrote:
we have a carrier killer killer...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheri … phere-coneRDMC wrote:
How is it actually possible for a missle to maintain Mach 10 in the lower atmospshere, wouldn't the friction created simply tear the missle apart? Thought such high speeds were only possible in the upper atmosphere?
Yes of course, land batteries are so much easier to take out than carriers....Mekstizzle wrote:
It's called the Air Force. Take the batteries out. Then let the ships move inCatbox wrote:
we have a carrier killer killer...
the planes on the carriers could do it probably.
The most difficult thing about hitting a moving object is decyphering the aiming point. If you know where something is going to land, you can calculate the trajectory fairly easily.FEOS wrote:
True point. If it's a "carrier killer"...we KNOW where OUR carriers are. Should make targeting their inbound "carrier killer" warheads a bit simpler, eh?JohnG@lt wrote:
I would think it would make it easier rather than harder depending on its accuracy. If it's an accurate weapon you know precisely where it will landFEOS wrote:
We're essentially talking about an ICBM with a MIRV here. Nothing cosmic (no pun intended). We have existing ABM systems on AEGIS--already pointed out--that are designed to deal with this threat. They may have to be tweaked to deal with something that maneuvers this much (which, at Mach 10, isn't that much), but it's still not that big of a difference.
The big change is that China figured out a way to accurately target a moving object with the warhead, whereas all other ICBM warheads target a non-moving spot on the earth...generally with rough accuracy (you don't need to be THAT accurate with a nuke). It doesn't dramatically change the warhead intercept problem we've already been working on and in large part solved.
Carriers probably wouldn't bother to be within range until the land based 'Carrier-killers' are taken out. I dunno, the US has never really fought anyone with a half decent air force/air defence or anything since WW2. But usually they do those SEAD missions before they do anything else proper. Not that it would be easy to do such a thing to mainland China, but they'd probably have to give it a shotDilbert_X wrote:
Yes of course, land batteries are so much easier to take out than carriers....Mekstizzle wrote:
It's called the Air Force. Take the batteries out. Then let the ships move inCatbox wrote:
we have a carrier killer killer...
the planes on the carriers could do it probably.
Gulf War 1 Migs were pretty deadly afaik.Mekstizzle wrote:
Carriers probably wouldn't bother to be within range until the land based 'Carrier-killers' are taken out. I dunno, the US has never really fought anyone with a half decent air force/air defence or anything since WW2. But usually they do those SEAD missions before they do anything else proper. Not that it would be easy to do such a thing to mainland China, but they'd probably have to give it a shotDilbert_X wrote:
Yes of course, land batteries are so much easier to take out than carriers....Mekstizzle wrote:
It's called the Air Force. Take the batteries out. Then let the ships move in
the planes on the carriers could do it probably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAD
The fact only 1 aircraft was shot down by Iraqi aircraft (Mig-25 shot down F-18) in the 1st Gulf War doesn't really support that assertion.Cybargs wrote:
Gulf War 1 Migs were pretty deadly afaik.Mekstizzle wrote:
Carriers probably wouldn't bother to be within range until the land based 'Carrier-killers' are taken out. I dunno, the US has never really fought anyone with a half decent air force/air defence or anything since WW2. But usually they do those SEAD missions before they do anything else proper. Not that it would be easy to do such a thing to mainland China, but they'd probably have to give it a shotDilbert_X wrote:
Yes of course, land batteries are so much easier to take out than carriers....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAD
How would an F22 do vs Chinese radar? Or a B2 or an F117 for that matter?Mekstizzle wrote:
Carriers probably wouldn't bother to be within range until the land based 'Carrier-killers' are taken out. I dunno, the US has never really fought anyone with a half decent air force/air defence or anything since WW2. But usually they do those SEAD missions before they do anything else proper. Not that it would be easy to do such a thing to mainland China, but they'd probably have to give it a shotDilbert_X wrote:
Yes of course, land batteries are so much easier to take out than carriers....Mekstizzle wrote:
It's called the Air Force. Take the batteries out. Then let the ships move in
the planes on the carriers could do it probably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAD
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-08-13 21:45:22)
Logistics.Bertster7 wrote:
The fact only 1 aircraft was shot down by Iraqi aircraft (Mig-25 shot down F-18) in the 1st Gulf War doesn't really support that assertion.Cybargs wrote:
Gulf War 1 Migs were pretty deadly afaik.Mekstizzle wrote:
Carriers probably wouldn't bother to be within range until the land based 'Carrier-killers' are taken out. I dunno, the US has never really fought anyone with a half decent air force/air defence or anything since WW2. But usually they do those SEAD missions before they do anything else proper. Not that it would be easy to do such a thing to mainland China, but they'd probably have to give it a shot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAD
What?Cybargs wrote:
Logistics.Bertster7 wrote:
The fact only 1 aircraft was shot down by Iraqi aircraft (Mig-25 shot down F-18) in the 1st Gulf War doesn't really support that assertion.Cybargs wrote:
Gulf War 1 Migs were pretty deadly afaik.
They can't construct apartments for shit either.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
they can't make dog food without killing dogs that eat it, or a toy boat that floats ( ask my duaghter ). I won't lose any sleep over this one.
Cybargs wrote:
They can't construct apartments for shit either.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
they can't make dog food without killing dogs that eat it, or a toy boat that floats ( ask my duaghter ). I won't lose any sleep over this one.
If they can't tell the difference between an airbus and an F14 they won't be much of a problem.-Sh1fty- wrote:
I just spoke with a guy who works for the U.S. Navy, he's the guy who works on AEGIS (spelling?) systems. He says the carrier killer is just another missile they can shoot down.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2010-08-16 21:47:07)
Everytime someone posts a building falling over, I have to post this video. Especially if they talk about buildings staying intact. Just watch this:JohnG@lt wrote:
http://images.theage.com.au/2009/06/29/ … -420x0.jpgCybargs wrote:
They can't construct apartments for shit either.Hunter/Jumper wrote:
they can't make dog food without killing dogs that eat it, or a toy boat that floats ( ask my duaghter ). I won't lose any sleep over this one.
These look pretty well built, they stayed pretty much intact
that is pretty awesome actually.Mekstizzle wrote:
Everytime someone posts a building falling over, I have to post this video. Especially if they talk about buildings staying intact. Just watch this:JohnG@lt wrote:
http://images.theage.com.au/2009/06/29/ … -420x0.jpgCybargs wrote:
They can't construct apartments for shit either.
These look pretty well built, they stayed pretty much intact
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Twiq3Cy2A
Last edited by RDMC (2010-08-17 06:54:45)
