Speaking of Vampires this bird arrived at Reno/Stead on Sunday. Rumour has it she will compete in the Jet category!

His numbers are a bit off. For instance there is not and never has been a 100megaton bomb made(there was a 100 meger in a card game about twenty years ago though!) so based on a cursory review I am not too impressed by his facts. There is no doubt though that having a large nuke go off over your head would ruin your day!

Cheers
Gary

A Granit’s 500kt warhead will cause massive destruction

http://www.magnetbox.org/archive/aol/nuclear.html

Site that 10kt (50 TIMES less) than a Granit, vaporizes .5 miles.

Go figure. The Nimitz would be reduces to nothing – for the most part. I’m not suggesting it would disappear though 😛

The action that comes to my mind is staying underground. I know in Malaya the communists stayed in the trees and stayed quiet until the aircraft had passed overhead. Nowadays with thermal imagers that is not nearly as effective a strategy however. And if they are underground they are not hurting anyone else which works too. Also with a proper COIN aircraft with a good loiter time, when they finally do come up for air you get a shot at them.

Cheers
Gary

All of the systems mentioned in this thread are easily negated by the insurgent’s primary countermeasure against COIN airplanes (it’s incredibly simple act that nearly anyone can perform). That countermeasure was effective in 1949 Malaysia and is effective today in Afghanistan. Anyone want to guess what it is?

Hello MR,

Yes GE does make a darn good engine no doubt about it and as they are used in the AH-64 there is probably a good chance they have the ruggedness you would need, also they have uprated them to 3000 HP now. And as you say pairing them up in an armored nacelle would probably be a much better and in the long run more survivable option for a COIN aircraft.

Cheers
Gary
While you would have more range and higher speeds, the latter works against you in the coin role. You want time on station and the ability to operate independently when you meet a target of opportunity, therefore you want a useful payload.

Gary Cain-

The T700 turboshaft engines come in a 2600 shp variety if you really need some insane amounts of power. I figure the baseline T700 models already used by the Army would make more sense. Used in a pair, separated by a blastwall and firewall, would offer a survivable plan form, too. I think the advantages of the turboshaft in maintenance, weight, and availability make them pretty attractive power plants.[/QUOTE]

Everything you say is true. The problem is getting it that close. The only way would be to sail a ship close aboard and then detonate. Nukes are not designed for impact detonation. They can’t take the stress of impact and that limits your options on delivery and accuracy. And as I said I was replying to the gentlemens query as to what would sink the ship. If you have read my posts I fully agree that a mission kill is far easier to accomplish. A airburst nuke would destroy the machinery and the prop shafts would be bent to the point of immobility. Additionally no turrets save the main battery would survive. The main battery itself would probably be jammed from the overpreassure beating it into the ring. Obviously nothing electronic would survive, and anyone who was not three or four decks down would be in a world of hurt…..but the ship would still be afloat and that is what he asked about.

Cheers
Gary

Perhaps not, and while I wouldn’t say vapourisation is necessarily likely (though 100m is extremely close) the yield of a current nuclear AShM would be far beyond that of any comparable test. Both the Crossroads tests had yields of ‘only’ 23 kilotons. Comparable situations in modern warfare would involve warheads at least ten and perhaps even thirty or forty times as powerful. I have no doubt that if such a blast went off just 100m from an Iowa you’d be combing the sea floor for the pieces. Moreover, as I said, a nuclear explosion need not be within extremely close distances to destroy a ship’s ability to fight even in the unlikely event hull and systems remain mostly intact – unlikely because I can see no reason for a nuclear warhead in modern weaponry to miss a warship by any considerable distance.

So are you being intentionally obtuse or did you not read the part where I was referring to a new made airframe? Also as this was merely a fun discussion on the merits and by no means a serious subject you should probably take it that way.
If you want to get serious about it we would be talking about a minor redesign of a radial engine that put out up to 3,700 HP(2760kW) at it’s most powerful iteration not the measley 1500 you are talking about. Also if this were a serious discussion the number of aircraft would probably be in the 200-300 figure which makes a little more sense for cost scaling etc.
If you wish to have a serious discussion by all means start a new thread!

Cheers
Gary

So how much would it cost… or i should say…. how profitable would it be to redesign a “radial” engine to pump out 1500HP or so, including certification, etc… for a small batch to fit “one” aircraft in a limited market in a world where AVGAS will be gone in a few years.

Hardly worth the effort is it?

Again the wasted millions could be saved on strapping on a turbo-prop to a weary 40yr old airframe……

I don’t think so. We are not talking about the General Belgrano here. The Iowa’s were built to take hits from a few Long Lance’s and those are still the most powerful conventional torpedoes ever made. The Iowa’s have a double hull scheme as well as a torpedo bulge (effectivley a third hull)that runs 2/3 of the hulls length. Please note the man asked about sinking them. I agree that a mission kill is much easier to achieve(though once again those ships can soak up quite a bit of damage and still be a combat effective unit for close range targets.

As regards the Crossroads test, quite a few warships survived the blast, even those within a few hundred feet of the bomb. They were scuttled later.

Actually, a single well placed torpedo should suffice.
And again: modern warfare is not the attrition oriented stuff from WW2, were sunken ships counted as any damaged ship might return to service soon. Today mission kills count (additionally, seamen tend to feel sorry for the sunken comrades, even from the opposing navy).

A nuclear attack would most likely not sink a ship, but it would severely reduce its ability to continue fighting. The Crossrads test was a ground burst in shallow water with a huge wave going over the ships.

That’s a good one!! You forgot to mention the two second time lag however!

Take a good look at his mug shot. Shine his laser into one of his ears and the beam will come out the other.