dark light

talltower

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 406 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Dumping of fuel #519565
    talltower
    Participant

    And it can generate acid rain.

    http://itech.dickinson.edu/chemistry/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/acid-rain-1a.jpg

    in reply to: subsonic vs. supersonic missiles #1813292
    talltower
    Participant

    Here are the railgun advantages, once the development is done.

    1. Higher rate of fire. A less massive shell can be manipulated faster into a firing position. With all things being equal, this allows for a higher ROF.

    2. Lower ammo storage requirements, no powder needed.

    3. Better transfer of energy to projectile. In a chemical round, all of the impulse is applied to the round at the start and then drops off till the round leavs the barrel. In a railgun, the acceleration is constant fo the entire barrel.

    4. Less duds. With a gentler acceleration, the electronics come under less G stress upon firing.

    5. No muzzle flash (of powder anyways).

    6. Safer operations… remember the USS Iowa

    Here is the US Navy’s FAQ on railguns

    http://www.onr.navy.mil/emrg/faqs-electromagnetic-railgun.asp

    About the railgun.

    in reply to: subsonic vs. supersonic missiles #1813336
    talltower
    Participant

    It would be better if the rail gun launched a guided projectile.

    The projectiles are too small to have guidance systems, and with the extraordinarily high velocity of 20+ km/sec, it can hit any target in less than a few microseconds. The railgun has the advantage of higher rates of fire owing to its unique mechanism.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_VyTCyizqrHs/R7DumbGVTuI/AAAAAAAAAFI/0U0R1lPys_Y/s320/railgun-8.gif

    in reply to: subsonic vs. supersonic missiles #1813364
    talltower
    Participant

    In the future, when railguns become operational, they would be slaved to computer guidance systems, enabling high accuracy shots.

    in reply to: subsonic vs. supersonic missiles #1813408
    talltower
    Participant

    The small subsonic missiles are far more economical vs missile boats and other near defenseless targets, hypersonic missiles might be nigh unstoppable, but they are far to scarce and expensive to use vs defenseless targets.

    But, like I said, such supersonic missiles are useful against defended high-value targets, like aircraft carriers, fortified bunkers and time-sensitive targets such as Scud TELs and S-300 SAM sites.

    in reply to: subsonic vs. supersonic missiles #1813412
    talltower
    Participant

    The only point defense weapon available against supersonic cruise missiles is the rail gun.

    Its projectiles can reach a velocity of at least 20 km/sec, guaranteeing an instantaneous hit probability. Also, more ammunition can be carried an a high ROF can be enabled, owing it its unique operating system.

    http://www.ohgizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/electric%20rail%20gun.jpg
    http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_Rail_Gun_Slide_pic.jpg
    http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/rail-gun-theory.jpg

    Whoa, these railguns look sickly good as hell, and they would shoot down swarms of supersonic Sunburns, Yakhonts and Sizzlers coming at U.S. ships like clay pigeons.

    in reply to: subsonic vs. supersonic missiles #1813414
    talltower
    Participant

    For a supersonic / hypersonic cruise missile, stealth is irrelevant. Its immense advantage is speed.

    http://www.noahshachtman.com/images/RATTLRS%20art.JPG
    http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-Equipment/Fasthwkb.jpg

    A missile like the projected Fasthawk can reach speeds up to Mach 7, enabling it to penetrate enemy missile defenses like the S-300 family, and accumulating over 30 times the kinetic energy of a subsonic cruise missile, thereby enabling it to penetrate heavily fortified bunkers, reach time-sensitive targets and sink enemy ships the size of supertankers with ease.

    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/hystrike_view.gif

    in reply to: subsonic vs. supersonic missiles #1813486
    talltower
    Participant

    A supersonic missile, e.g. Brahmos, SS-N-22 Sunburn, maybe even a hypersonic missile like the Fasthawk is far superior to a subsonic one, e.g. Harpoon, Tomahawk, AS-15 Kent.

    The advantage of speed is critical nowadays on today’s 21st Century battlefields, where time-sensitive targets have to be hit.

    A Fasthawk can cover the same distance in eight minutes as the Tomahawk can do the same in one hour.

    in reply to: Harpoon modified for land attack #1813630
    talltower
    Participant

    [I]US taking Harpoon modification by Pak ‘very seriously’[/I]

    Washington The US has taken “very seriously” the reports about illegal modifications made in the American-made Harpoon anti-ship missile by Pakistan, to expand capabilities to strike land targets, a potential threat to India, even as Islamabad has agreed for “mutual inspections”.

    “This is something that we take very seriously. We have raised the issue with the Pakistani Government. The (Pak) Government has responded with an agreement in principle for mutually agreed inspections,” the Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs P J Crowley, said when asked about a news report published in ‘The New York Times’.

    In a news report published August 30, ‘The New York Times’, quoting unnamed American official, said the US has accused Pakistan of illegally modifications in the Harpoon anti-ship missile to expand its capacity to strike land targets, a potential threat to India. Between 1985 and 1988 the Ronald Reagan administration delivered 165 Harpoon missiles to Pakistan.

    “In this particular case, we have some concerns. We shared them with the Government of Pakistan. The Government of Pakistan has been responsive,” Crowley said.

    “We would wait and see if those inspections can address the concerns that we have raised,” he said. The US has also accused Pakistan of modifying American-made P-3C aircraft for land-attack missions. Both are violations of the US law, including the Arms Control Export Act.

    “I am not going to talk about specific issues, brought up in the story. We watch this closely. These are important agreements. This is not about any one country. With any country with which we exchange our defence articles, we have this kind of agreement,” Crowley said.

    “When we have concerns about how those systems should be used, we raise these concerns with the appropriate governments,” he noted.

    The violation by Pakistan were first noted by the American intelligence agencies on April 23, ‘The New York Times’ said, when Pakistan had an unannounced suspicious missile test, that appeared to give the country a new offensive weapon. While Pakistan has denied those charges.

    The modified version of the missile would be a significant new entry into Pakistan’s arsenal against India as these would enable its small navy to strike targets on land in India, this complementing the sizable land-based missile arsenal that Pakistan has developed.

    Since early this year, when the Obama Administration had proposed to triple the non-military aid and also increase its military assistance to Pakistan, a number of US lawmakers have been making similar charges against Pakistan and demanding that any military aid to the country should be conditional.

    The Congress is in the final stages of taking a decision on providing USD 7.5 billion in civilian aid to Pakistan. The latest expose has the potential to “derail” this, the daily said.

    Crowley said the Administration is keeping the Congress full informed on this issue. When asked if this would have any impact on the future of US aid to Pakistan, he said:

    “I would like to take one step at a time. We have raised some concerns. It has been done at the highest levels over lengthy period of time. As we gain more facts, will understand its potential implications.”

    Source: US taking Harpoon modification by Pak ‘very seriously’

    in reply to: General Discussion #317840
    talltower
    Participant

    Al-Megrahi should have been in the Mediterranean

    I’d wished it had not been the case, for the sake of the victims’ family members, but how self-righteous can they ever stay?

    Well, in my opinion, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi should have been taken aboard a RAF C-130 and ‘flown’ to Libya.

    Over the Mediterranean, an RAF loadmaster should have strapped a parachute to Al-Megrahi, opened the door and kicked him out at 30000 feet, and after that, the C-130 would have RTB.

    What do you think?

    in reply to: Lockerbie bomber to be released on compassionate grounds #1900430
    talltower
    Participant

    Al-Megrahi should have been in the Mediterranean

    I’d wished it had not been the case, for the sake of the victims’ family members, but how self-righteous can they ever stay?

    Well, in my opinion, Abdelbaset Ali Mohmet al-Megrahi should have been taken aboard a RAF C-130 and ‘flown’ to Libya.

    Over the Mediterranean, an RAF loadmaster should have strapped a parachute to Al-Megrahi, opened the door and kicked him out at 30000 feet, and after that, the C-130 would have RTB.

    What do you think?

    in reply to: Favorite BVR missile #1814123
    talltower
    Participant

    -> []

    :p

    Novator R-172 = AA-14 Asteroid (proposed NATO codename)

    http://www.ausairpower.net/KS-172-1S.jpg

    in reply to: US says no to Georgian arms request– Jane's #1814234
    talltower
    Participant

    Georgia already has SPYDER SAM systems. Israeli aid may be their best option given the SPYDERs and UAVs already imported, but come on, “deter Russia from starting another war’? Clearly that means they asked the USA for nuclear warheads, because that’s really what it’d take.

    At least deter Russia from launching another attack against Georgia.

    in reply to: US says no to Georgian arms request– Jane's #1814236
    talltower
    Participant

    Unfortunately, Georgia is made defenseless.

    Too bad.

    in reply to: Favorite BVR missile #1814304
    talltower
    Participant

    KS-172

    Big beast. Big punch. Big range.

    http://www.ausairpower.net/Su-35-AAM-L-P8210524.jpg

    It should have a NATO codename: AA-14 Asteroid
    (because the Novator R-172 races toward its juicy airborne AWACS / ISR target like an asteroid).

    Another one is the Vympel R-77 (AA-12 Adder), or AMRAAMski.

    http://www.emilitarynews.com/priv/editor_data/20090330/1238376006.jpg

    R-77PD ramjet powered variant

Viewing 15 posts - 286 through 300 (of 406 total)