Great... just freakin' great...

bondoman

I think the point that the officer was making to me on the frigate, was that the best defense against that sort of thing is to have other very large steel objects in the immediate area.

In the Falklands, the antiship missiles were fired at long ranges, a couple of hundred miles,towards targets unseen but located in general by coordinates from airborne and ground radar. In the attack against Sheffield, the pilots were rather more successful, probably because they had practiced against their two own destroyers of the same class. In the attack on Invincible, one missed and the other hit a big cargo ship, unless you want to believe some sources that claim the missile hit the carrier and the British covered it up by sinking Atlantic Conveyor themselves.

But after flying for 15 minutes or so, the AM39 only had a couple of seconds to find a target, looking for a big radar hit.

Granted that's old technology, but if I were an Admiral and deployed a super carrier, I'd probably surround her with empty container ships. Hey, they are cheap.

Actually the Exocet has a much shorter range, something in the area of 100 nautical miles max depending on the flight profile. The two Falklands war shots were "snap shots" where the Argie Super Entendards were vectored to the general target area at low level, made a pop up maneuver to locate and target the ships with the onboard radar, then launched the missiles and went back to low level to escape and evade.

As far as false radar targets/decoys go, I believe they are equipped with RBOC- mortars that launch a chaff cloud false radar target for any radar guided missile to home in on.

Killjoy

So are we supposing that it fires like an ICBM?  That is, it leaves the atmosphere, tips over, releases the payload and re-enters the atmosphere?  That would make precision guidance, especially the degree needed to aquire and hit a moving surface vessle, very challenging.  More likely is that it 'flies' much like a cruise missile.  In which case, the high end speed you get with a re-entry vehicle would not apply.

OK, I went back and re-read the article.  It doesn't specify ICBM like I thought it did.  It just says a Dong Feng 21 missle.  They do, however, say near the end of the article its expected speed will be Mach 10.  So isn't this a bit faster than anything currently available?  I believe someone mentioned above the current fastest is a Russian missle at Mach 7?   I guess the world will just have to wait and see if they can really do it.

tucchase

From what I understand of the article, this is a converted ICBM.  Don't they mave a bit faster than smaller missles?

So are we supposing that it fires like an ICBM?  That is, it leaves the atmosphere, tips over, releases the payload and re-enters the atmosphere?  That would make precision guidance, especially the degree needed to aquire and hit a moving surface vessle, very challenging.  More likely is that it 'flies' much like a cruise missile.  In which case, the high end speed you get with a re-entry vehicle would not apply.

Killjoy

subfixer:

This missile supposedly travels at 10,000 miles per hour.  Dang the clouds!  Gotta use the deathray!

 

Almost Mach 14?  I find that a bit hard to believe.  Most surface to air missiles cruise in the Mach 3.5 range.  Some of the Soviet SAMs can hit close to Mach 7, and that is really cooking.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around the Chinese making a piece of precision guided missile technology that moves twice as fast (or better) than it's contemporaries.

Chris

From what I understand of the article, this is a converted ICBM.  Don't they mave a bit faster than smaller missles?

subfixer

This missile supposedly travels at 10,000 miles per hour.  Dang the clouds!  Gotta use the deathray!

Almost Mach 14?  I find that a bit hard to believe.  Most surface to air missiles cruise in the Mach 3.5 range.  Some of the Soviet SAMs can hit close to Mach 7, and that is really cooking.  I have a hard time wrapping my head around the Chinese making a piece of precision guided missile technology that moves twice as fast (or better) than it's contemporaries.

Chris

I think the point that the officer was making to me on the frigate, was that the best defense against that sort of thing is to have other very large steel objects in the immediate area.

In the Falklands, the antiship missiles were fired at long ranges, a couple of hundred miles,towards targets unseen but located in general by coordinates from airborne and ground radar. In the attack against Sheffield, the pilots were rather more successful, probably because they had practiced against their two own destroyers of the same class. In the attack on Invincible, one missed and the other hit a big cargo ship, unless you want to believe some sources that claim the missile hit the carrier and the British covered it up by sinking Atlantic Conveyor themselves.

But after flying for 15 minutes or so, the AM39 only had a couple of seconds to find a target, looking for a big radar hit.

Granted that's old technology, but if I were an Admiral and deployed a super carrier, I'd probably surround her with empty container ships. Hey, they are cheap.

This missile supposedly travels at 10,000 miles per hour.  Dang the clouds!  Gotta use the deathray!

The carrier killer missiles of the past a very different type. None were ballistic type, instead being ship, sub, surface or air launced. They usually are not faster than Mach 3 or so usually being a cruise missile type for extended range. They have either IR or radar systems for terminal guidance when in the area of the target in oder to hit it while it manuevers. Ballistic missiles usually have completely different guidance progrrammed prior to launch for use against a stationary target.

The guidence system shouldn't be that hard. Missiles have been tracking and hitting high speed jet aircraft for over 50 years, they should be able to track and hit an enormous lumbering carrier. How to counter  antimissile missiles is the real question.

bbrowniii

 

Bgrigg:

 

I would suggest that the US military has technology that the media doesn't know about. It quite likely has technology that Congress doesn't know about.

And all back-engineered from alien tech from Area 51!

 

 

Oh, I have no doubt...  And, maybe it is just coincidence (pppffft, like I believe in coincidence), but the movie Independence Day was on TV a couple weeks ago.... hmmmmmmmmm.....

Thank God for Apple computers !

Bgrigg

I would suggest that the US military has technology that the media doesn't know about. It quite likely has technology that Congress doesn't know about.

And all back-engineered from alien tech from Area 51!

Oh, I have no doubt...  And, maybe it is just coincidence (pppffft, like I believe in coincidence), but the movie Independence Day was on TV a couple weeks ago.... hmmmmmmmmm.....

I would suggest that the US military has technology that the media doesn't know about. It quite likely has technology that Congress doesn't know about.

And all back-engineered from alien tech from Area 51!

So, I was off by a year, but in February of 2008, the Navy shot down a 'dead' spy satelite.  According to the artilcle (link provided), the satelite was the size of a school bus and traveling about 17,000 mph.  Soooo, might this be the logical counter-measure?  I'm not sure of the technical differences between something in outer space and something in the atmosphere (probably getting a clear enough 'picture' of it and having time to respond is a big one), but it seems that at least some of the technology is already in use...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,331591,00.html

smeagol the vile

 

so your saying that when a sniper fires, if he aimed right, the soldier can avoid the bullet?  No.

No Smeagol.  That is not what I am saying....

smeagol the vile

 

bbrowniii:

 

 

smeagol the vile:

 

I think its more that a well trained fighter pilot can keep himself alive against anything thrown at them by remembering his training, but a sniper can take a soldier out no matter what he does if the sniper gets the shot.

 

 

Sorry Smeag, but that comment rings of too many video games and not enough reality.... Snipers aren't supermen and even the best trained pilot can be killed.  Just like pilots, grunts get trained too, and some of that training even covers how to avoid being shot be snipers... and just like grunts, pilots can make mistakes, be caught unaware, or simply do the wrong thing at the wrong time...

 

 

 

so your saying that when a sniper fires, if he aimed right, the soldier can avoid the bullet?  No.

No, what he is saying is that the soldier can avoid getting shot by a sniper by keeping out of the target area. IF a sniper gets a shot not much can be done about it. Of course, that means that a sniper who can get a shot at a F-22 pilot who's waiting on the tarmac can also get his kill.

The point I'm laboring to make is that Congress, and/or the military leaders, aren't investing enough money in the common foot soldier, at least when it comes to personal protection. And yet all the high tech toys can't win a war. You need to put that young soldier on the ground with a gun in his hand to do that. Not bloody much good if he ends up getting blown up by an IED, just because the Hummer he was in drove over top.

subfixer

stikpusher:

Hasn't the Navy been workign on a ABM capabilty for the Standard Missile system for some time now?

 

I don't know about that, but who needs an ABM when you've got a Deathray?

Very true, but clouds tend to do negate laser death rays. Nice to have a back up system for killing those things.

bbrowniii

 

smeagol the vile:

 

I think its more that a well trained fighter pilot can keep himself alive against anything thrown at them by remembering his training, but a sniper can take a soldier out no matter what he does if the sniper gets the shot.

 

 

Sorry Smeag, but that comment rings of too many video games and not enough reality.... Snipers aren't supermen and even the best trained pilot can be killed.  Just like pilots, grunts get trained too, and some of that training even covers how to avoid being shot be snipers... and just like grunts, pilots can make mistakes, be caught unaware, or simply do the wrong thing at the wrong time...

so your saying that when a sniper fires, if he aimed right, the soldier can avoid the bullet?  No.

Right, I keep forgetting you're a Marine!

Bgrigg

bbrowniii:

 

Bgrigg:

 

But that's my point. The big ticket items, like $150 Million F-22 fighters, get the funding, but the grunt on the line gets a bit of camo cloth and a set of ROEs that makes it nigh well impossible to do his job.

 

Those items aren't sexy, though, are they? Not when the Congresscritter can get re-elected for bringing in multi-billion dollar earmarks for their region.

 

 

Ahh, I got ya, Bill...

 

I figured if I used short words and talked slow...

Single syllabals... uhhh, syllables () are best....

bbrowniii

 

Bgrigg:

 

But that's my point. The big ticket items, like $150 Million F-22 fighters, get the funding, but the grunt on the line gets a bit of camo cloth and a set of ROEs that makes it nigh well impossible to do his job.

 

Those items aren't sexy, though, are they? Not when the Congresscritter can get re-elected for bringing in multi-billion dollar earmarks for their region.

 

 

Ahh, I got ya, Bill...

I figured if I used short words and talked slow...

Bgrigg

But that's my point. The big ticket items, like $150 Million F-22 fighters, get the funding, but the grunt on the line gets a bit of camo cloth and a set of ROEs that makes it nigh well impossible to do his job.

 

Those items aren't sexy, though, are they? Not when the Congresscritter can get re-elected for bringing in multi-billion dollar earmarks for their region.

Ahh, I got ya, Bill...

smeagol the vile

I think its more that a well trained fighter pilot can keep himself alive against anything thrown at them by remembering his training, but a sniper can take a soldier out no matter what he does if the sniper gets the shot.

Sorry Smeag, but that comment rings of too many video games and not enough reality.... Snipers aren't supermen and even the best trained pilot can be killed.  Just like pilots, grunts get trained too, and some of that training even covers how to avoid being shot be snipers... and just like grunts, pilots can make mistakes, be caught unaware, or simply do the wrong thing at the wrong time...

That's a brilliant idea!

I've always thought that politician's kids should be automatically enrolled in the military at age 18. I think you would see a huge difference in how they vote!

I always thought all congressional votes on military matters should be held in front of the Viet Nam war memorial instead of the capitol. Bet we'd see a different military that way.

Or they could crash and get killed trying to eject, like David Cooley. It will be only a matter of time before the F-22 is shot down, meanwhile under armored Hummers are getting blown up by IEDs. Snipers sometimes miss.

There are approximately 84,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, quite a few of those will be support, but for arguments sake, we'll take the entire tally. $150 Million divided by 84,000 is $1785.71 per soldier. Surely the Air Force can do with one less F-22 and surely $1800 will by a nice radio and some armor for vehicles? I'm not saying we have to do the same for every soldier in the Forces, just the ones in the hot zones.

I think its more that a well trained fighter pilot can keep himself alive against anything thrown at them by remembering his training, but a sniper can take a soldier out no matter what he does if the sniper gets the shot.

150mill for 1 fighter or a alot smaller number per soldier... but then you have alot of soldiers and it ends up costing alot more in the long run.  Thats what I expect, but im not defending them, I find it to be absolute ***

But that's my point. The big ticket items, like $150 Million F-22 fighters, get the funding, but the grunt on the line gets a bit of camo cloth and a set of ROEs that makes it nigh well impossible to do his job. No decent armor, no radios, just a bit of clothesline to hang them with if they break the ROE in a firefight.

But Killjoy gives the explanation, the 18YO grunt is expendable.

Now I'm not against F-22 fighters, or big destroyers, but if they built one less F-22 and gave the troops some decent armor for their vehicles and spend a few bucks on a radio...

Those items aren't sexy, though, are they? Not when the Congresscritter can get re-elected for bringing in multi-billion dollar earmarks for their region.

Bgrigg

Boyd, you've done a good job of illustrating the negative of letting Congress decide on budgets for the military. The old saw about committees designing camels come to mind.

Perhaps it would help if more Congresscritters had Hummer armor kit manufacturers in their ridings?

Valid point, Bill.  But when you consider the US spends as much on our military as the rest of the world combined (and about 9 times the amount China does), you'd think they could squeeze out a few extra bucks for radios and body armor....

Killjoy

bbrowniii:

Really??  You mean, just like we were so quick to produce enough body armor and up-armored humvees for service in Iraq.  I guess all that scrap metal I had welded to my hummer was just for show...

 

You don't cost the government 4.5 billion dollars to construct. If you did, your hummer would have space-age armor, and a method for defeating incoming RPGs.  I was 11B for 6 years, I know the deal.  We're far cheaper to replace.

Chris

Chris

Absolutely.  We are expendable.

At the same time, and without going completely off topic, it was also the consequence of fighting a war in such a way as to inconvenience as few people as possible. 

I'd go on, but my rant has nothing to do about ships, so I'll leave it there...

Hey Bill, aren't ya proud of me??