You win a cookie!

I actually have no idea, I didn't do the math but that sounds about right.
And really take away a second from that because of minimum engagement distances if they apply to the system.

super fast sea skimmers are scary shit.

I'd be very interested to see video from sea-level.

I get a horizon of 14mi.  at half a mile a second, that is ~28 seconds.  Good thing NIFC-CA and SM-6 are entering service.

Not an explosives guy, but I am a ship guy..

Second missle looks to have hit right at the mast and penetrated through the ship.. It looks like it detonated in the engineering area..

Depending on the layout of the ship and its load of fuel there may have been anywhere from a few tons to over 100 tons of some kind of fuel oil on board..

If it was stored in the side wing tanks the blast would have ripped through those tanks and blown the whole fuel load..

IMO, that explosion was possible without any secondary..

"Can be" is an ambiguous statement; does not address the challenges and negatives of doing so; and does not describe "as is" condition.

What ships have SEARAM?




You can have your thesis.  I'll stick with observed performance.

Does not answer my question re:  how that helps an ADU defend the HVU



How many of those were stream raids?  Better hope Red shoots onesies.

Compare end games and altitudes between Vandal and Sunburn, Sizzler, Brahmos, etc




And observed performance always matches the brochure; that's why testing is a waste of money.  Do you work for Raytheon?

Nope, but I can only post public sources, don't need any opsec edits.

I think you are correct.  I got miles per second and seconds per mile backwards in Windows calculator.

Why has every other major country (Including Norway...) put effort into developing highly advanced anti-ship missiles and we're still stuck with the Harpoon? And why do our newest ships not even carry anti-ship missiles?

The United States Navy is incompetent. The same could be said for all the armed forces in this country. Too many resources have led to idiocy.

Thanks for that.



Anyone else?



 

Rigged or not, I wouldn't want to be on the ship that got slapped with one of those.

Prove your statement. I dare you.

Take a look around you. It is obvious on the face of it. Procuring systems that bring jobs to the districts of Congressmen has replaced actual thought.

I think the navy has decided subs and aircraft launched from carriers will be used to kill enemy warships.

I asked you to prove your statement, and you haven't. Wanna try again?

If you cannot see the obvious then no amount of writing will help you to see the truth. I am sadden by your lack of critical thinking ability.

him again

he won't......

hey look - that answer again.... hold on, let me find the last time you said that as a response....

somewhere in this abortion of a thread.....

It is not my fault it holds true in so many cases.

Because we have aircraft and submarines that are more than capable of handling any current surface threat.  Now that it looks like China will build a substantial surface fleet, we are developing LRASM.

Interesting. So we have a .mil hating 14er who can't back up his statements. My shocked face

Would you stick a carrier with 3000 american Servicemen on it in a dangerous zone if you knew this could happen and you couldn't do much to stop it?

Arguably the US Navy is the only one capable of taking control of the seas without them.

We are, by far, the strongest Navy in the world.  When you have disproportionate strength, you fight asymetrically.  Anti-Ship missiles are the tools of the defensive, weaker opponent.

Real navies use submarines to sink ships.

Witness the falklands.

Both are effective weapons systems.  But the US Navy doesn't need great ASCMs to do its mission (though I advocate they should have them.)

Our allies certainly do, however.

About half of the SSM and ASM and bomb hits in history have resulted in no warhead detonation.  Just kinetic damage.

Lots of those tin cans sank or were out of the fight a long time.

He who has the most toys, wins.

I could point out the very fact Mr(?). electricsheep brought up. The United States Navy fields brand new ships without the ability to shoot other ships at range. How is America's navy supposed to sweep the seas of their adversaries if it cannot shoot those adversaries? Congress doesn't care as long as the Navy continues to build expensive ships and radars in their districts.

We could also talk about the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am quite sure the response is going to be the tired old response of "if only the politicians had given us more time." The truth of the matter is the United States Army and to a lesser degree the United States Marine Corps fails to understand that military action does not exist in a vaccum. They are on a timeline. They need to think quickly and creatively to restore order and set the conditions for a healthy nation. They do not. They would rather spend hundreds of millions of dollars, or even billions of dollars, over the course of a decade then blame the politicians for their failures. That's O.K. by Congress to a point, because their districts get to refurbish worn out tanks, build mine resistant vehicles

The United States Marine Corps is especially incompetent. It is operating extremely old amphibious assault vehicles. Marines did not care about their amphibious assault vehicles when they were receiving money acting as a second land army. Now that the marines are being pulled out of Iraq and Afghanistan they are left with the very same vehicles they started with, only those vehicles are older, and the nation is poorer after the failed development of the advanced amphibious assault vehicle. They didn't care about being amphibious until the wars stopped and they realized they had to distinguish themselves from the U.S. Army. In the mean time, they have enriched Congressional districts with the MV-22, CH-53K, AH-1Z, UH-1Y, and the F-35B, all systems the marines could use while playing America's second land army. They have newer aircraft than the United States Air Force. This is the service who used to complain about U.S. Army hand-me-downs.

The United States Air Force still does not understand the what a nuclear deterrent is and continues to insist on manned bombers in a deterrent role. They continually underfund the very weapons the nation depends on for its existence. Without nuclear weapons the continuity of the nation is not assured. The United States Air Force would rather fund expensive pork projects like long range strike bomber and F-35A. What is so absurd about United States Air Force spending is they have fewer ongoing new manned aircraft acquisitions than the United States Marine Corps does.

If you do not see this and do not understand the implications behind all of these follies then I truly weep for your lack of ability to think critically.

Afghanistan and Iraq would quickly disprove that idea.

We should have them because, while we may have the strongest navy in the world, it can't be everywhere.  There may be times when we can't dedicate  a CSG to patrol an area but still have a requirement to dissuade unfriendly navies while not commiting a large force our current inventory demands.

Lets see some actual sources on all this bullshit you're spewing, cupcake.

Hey... I remember this guy

The EFV/AAAV has been under development for decades. Delivery is supposed to be taking place now, but I have no idea if that's actually the case. I'm sure some Marines will be along shortly to comment on this.

That... is a good point.

I cannot source every news article over the last fifteen years. Perhaps you should pay more attention, pop tart.

Is Primorsky back as a `14'r?

So try a few.

edit: has norcal checked this guy yet?

The marines cancelled that program.

Try www.google.com.

edit: That's not how this works kid. YOU get to back up YOUR arguments. Not me.

Now that's a kill shot!

I agreed with H46 when he said pretty much the exact same thing.  But i also asked if the navy would have something in the works to defeat a seaskimming supersonic missile?  I thought about it after he scolded the first time and since changed my mind. Even if the test isn't real the threat is very real.  But yes the idea of a supersonic missile is scary without being able to protect yourself from single to multiple threats coming your way.  And to your question no I wouldn't want our sailors out there without a way to protect themselves.

I am no "kid." I am neither a goat nor a child.

If you are truly interested I suggest several sources you should read daily:
www.janes.com
www.defenseindustrydaily.com
www.aviationweek.com

Those three require subscriptions to get at the really good content. Except for Aviation Week, the subscriptions are not cheap.

You can also use sites like:
www.defensenews.com
www.defencetalk.com
www.breakingdefense.com

Those sites are free.

I will give you fair warning. There is not one source or article that has everything I posted in it. You have to be able to gather information, comprehend what is being conveyed to you by written word, think critically, and then realize what is going on. If you have the reading comprehension and critical thinking ability to do so. I do not hold out hope.

picket ships.

the question is can we even afford those anymore?

At some point you need mass.

You forgot to have it having a Putin action figure in one hand and a Russian-to-English dictionary in the other.

Ooo you're sooo close. Keep trying though. Remember, the teacher can always tell when someone else does your homework for you.

The Putin action figure is buried up his ass. I couldn't draw that, it would violate CoC

As the old saying goes, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." I think you will die of thirst.

Is it technically feasible to have drone ships & tenders? Just something large enough to mount a CIWS that could circle larger ships/fleets? Or do you actually need crew to keep the engines running minute-to-minute?

Which part of the United States that is not represented in Congress should we be procuring systems from? Guam?

I have no idea.
Maybe those blimp things.

Good call!  Makes sense!  Yeah that is true but even so they are pretty important.  Thanks for answering my question.