Page 1 of 2
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 9:23 pm
by DoctorChaos
I think the MSM is overstating this. If I'm reading this right it's basically a conventional ballistic missle that targets ships. I have a hard time believing this telephone pole can hit a target moving in excess of 60 miles an hour. Even if they were to use a multi warhead delivery system, the reduced damage wouldn't be able to take out a carrier.
Posted: Thu Aug 05, 2010 11:20 pm
by GORDON
In the first Gulf War WW2 era iron bombs were retrofitted with simple optics and fins, so they could hone in on targets. Probably no reason they couldn't do that to a 2 ton titanium rod.
With no electronics to fuck, the Sea Wiz may not be effective.
I've heard of radar, though, that could pinpoint incoming mortar fire, and was fast enough to train a laser on it and melt it before it lands.... maybe that's an option. Still, a telephone pole is bigger than a mortar round. More mass to disturb.
Assuming it is as big as a telephone pole. Mine would be.
Just spitballing.
Edited By GORDON on 1281064833
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 12:00 am
by Malcolm
As long as it's attached to something vaguely aerodynamic, modern targeting systems would have no trouble drilling a carrier-sized ship from a distance.
If it's just a large mass with rocket engines, there's a few options :
1) Burn it, preferably with sharks with frickin' laser beams, but a really effective beam weapon seems like it'd take a HUGE amount of power to destroy one, let alone a few dozen that you could chuck at once if you were going to be a bastard.
2) Deflect it, except we haven't invented force fields just yet.
3) Explode the motherfucker, might take a big-ass rocket, though ... but maybe.
4) Shred it. With bullets. If you had batteries of guns that could pound out thousands or tens of thousands of rounds per minute at high speeds, you'd be throwing up a wall of shrapnel that could ventilate damn near anything. Possible, but expensive.
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 3:27 pm
by DoctorChaos
My assumption is at the point it would actively targeting the carrier, it's in free fall. There is only so much that can be done. Carriers are the fastest ships in the Navy (no shit). The only way to compensate would be a multiwarhead delivery system, which breaks it down to a big shotgun.
Also, if it follows a ballistic trajectory, the carrier knows it's coming and has a plenty of time to move.
A French exocet missile has a better chance since it flies close to the surface and pops up at the last second.
Edited By DoctorChaos on 1281122888
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:36 pm
by Malcolm
My assumption is at the point it would actively targeting the carrier, it's in free fall.
No engines or targeting?
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 4:52 pm
by GORDON
I believe the nature of "ballistic" is that it powers up to a certain altitude and then just climbs on over and falls. Fins to steer on the way down, possibly. Of course, we are using "ballistic" as used by the main stream media, well known and notorious for their ignorance of the military, and lack of fact checking. Who knows what reality is.
Speculating on classified chinese hardware, heh. Wonder if they used any tech stolen from that spy plane they knocked down in 2000.
Edited By GORDON on 1281128031
Posted: Fri Aug 06, 2010 8:04 pm
by Malcolm
I'd still prefer one of my countermeasures.
Posted: Sat Aug 07, 2010 11:33 am
by TPRJones
The problem is our defensive tech is all designed to destroy the brain of the equipment, rendering it into a mostly harmless lump that is free to hit the ship after because it won't cause any real damage when it doesn't explode. This thing can't be made into a harmless lump. Even if you shattered it the shrapnel would cause plenty of damage. You need to either vaporize it or knock it completely off course.
We'll develop a defense for it pretty quickly, of course. In the meantime it could be a problem.
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:08 pm
by WSGrundy
TPRJones wrote:We'll develop a defense for it pretty quickly, of course. In the meantime it could be a problem.
the article I read said that a fully functioning one is between 2-10 years away.
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:01 pm
by GORDON
Wouldn't it have been interesting if just let MacArthur nuke all of China's coastal cities when he said that it might be a good idea.
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:24 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Wouldn't it have been interesting if just let MacArthur nuke all of China's coastal cities when he said that it might be a good idea.
Uh, no. Unless by "interesting" you mean "catastrophic."
Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:46 pm
by GORDON
Malcolm wrote:GORDON wrote:Wouldn't it have been interesting if just let MacArthur nuke all of China's coastal cities when he said that it might be a good idea.
Uh, no. Unless by "interesting" you mean "catastrophic."
Please, Karnack, enlighten me.
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:57 am
by DoctorChaos
Malcolm wrote:Uh, no. Unless by "interesting" you mean "catastrophic."
That's not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:18 am
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:Malcolm wrote:GORDON wrote:Wouldn't it have been interesting if just let MacArthur nuke all of China's coastal cities when he said that it might be a good idea.
Uh, no. Unless by "interesting" you mean "catastrophic."
Please, Karnack, enlighten me.
Soviets had the bomb in '49. If we'd decided to drop a few on China in '51 (when orders were actually getting drawn up for Dougie to nuke Chinese cities), I've got no doubt they would've lent the cash, materials, & scientists to China & they wouldn't've'd to wait until the mid 60s to develop nuclear capabilities. In fact, it would've given them an A-bomb right in time for the Korean war.
Edited By Malcolm on 1281367144
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:25 am
by GORDON
China and Russia were engaging in open warfare in that decade, along their border.
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:24 pm
by Malcolm
GORDON wrote:China and Russia were engaging in open warfare in that decade, along their border.
Friendship Treaty of '45, right after they'd been bitching at each other towards the end of WWII.
They didn't start getting really pissed at each other till the late '50s. & I'm betting us dropping some nuclear bombs on China would've made them temporarily set aside whatever growing differences there were. They would've been chummy with each other at precisely the wrong time.
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:47 pm
by GORDON
And as we now know, we vastly overestimated Soviet delivery systems. If they knew their rockets were shit, they wouldn't have done shit. If they didn't know their rockets were shit, they'd have launched and sent a lot of rockets into the Pacific, or into Kamatchka of the Arctic Circle or Siberia.
I sez.
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:52 pm
by Malcolm
Overestimated, sure. That doesn't mean they were useless or harmless.
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:25 pm
by TPRJones
And if we'd nuked China we would have proved that we'd happily use our nukes outside of wartime. The doubt about that was one of the key factors keeping us out of total meltdown that whole time.
Posted: Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:14 pm
by GORDON
China should have been nipped in the bud. They WILL be the dominant superpower on Earth within 25 years.