User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 6:40:31 AM EDT
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 6:41:25 AM EDT
[#1]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 6:43:27 AM EDT
[#2]
what exactly am I watching
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 6:44:06 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
what exactly am I watching nvm |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 6:54:13 AM EDT
[#4]
IN! Right up the 'ol kazoo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:12:05 AM EDT
[#5]
Why does that look like it was filmed in a bathtub?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:21:33 AM EDT
[#6]
I wonder how big that ship is.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:28:37 AM EDT
[#7]
So they pack their targets full of pleasing secondaries too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:31:48 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they pack their targets full of pleasing secondaries too. FPS Russia's newest vid! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:35:52 AM EDT
[#9]
That's 2 missiles. Watch carefully
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:36:57 AM EDT
[#10]
Looks like two missiles, one penetrated pretty well, the other glanced off and detonate on the side.
Those look pretty mean. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:39:42 AM EDT
[#11]
Sunburn cruise missiles, there was an article on foxtrot alpha with this gif. This is from a Russian readiness exercise for their pacific fleet, right after the conference in whales. Supposedly a message from Putin. The article said the tactic of using two missiles attacking from the front is to take advantage of the Burkes and carriers with no frontal defenses like goal keeper and CWIS.
I haven't done any further reading on the subject so I don't know how accurate all of this is, but it's scary none the less. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:39:51 AM EDT
[#12]
Better make that Gatling gun defense system work of frontal attacks.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:45:12 AM EDT
[#13]
There were two missile impacts, one right behind the other, hence the large explosion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 7:46:06 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's 2 missiles. Watch carefully First one was bigger and sort of a glancing blow, then the 'litttle' one really messes things up. ETA: Hmmmm .... maybe not different sized projectiles. Hard to tell. Wait now ...... is that trail in the water you see behind the first one just from the shock wave? Looks like it's almost skimming the water. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 8:10:36 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Better make that Gatling gun defense system work of frontal attacks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 8:13:15 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's 2 missiles. Watch carefully |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 8:27:10 AM EDT
[#17]
Guess we better shoot first..........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 8:27:19 AM EDT
[#18]
damn, one went stem to stern
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 8:43:51 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait now ...... is that trail in the water you see behind the first one just from the shock wave? Looks like it's almost skimming the water. Traveling at Mach 2+ just a few feet above the water will tend to do that. These missiles do not need that large of a warhead as any object traveling that fast will pack a hurting just by its kinetic energy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 8:54:36 AM EDT
[#20]
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 9:18:47 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. Even if this were true (and it may be) i think their main issue would be getting close enough to a us navy ship to use these except in maybe a surprise launch. Once the cats out of the bag i don't see our ships letting them in range. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 9:27:30 AM EDT
[#22]
Bring back the Battleships...ohh wait !
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 9:29:49 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Even if this were true (and it may be) i think their main issue would be getting close enough to a us navy ship to use these except in maybe a surprise launch. Once the cats out of the bag i don't see our ships letting them in range. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. Even if this were true (and it may be) i think their main issue would be getting close enough to a us navy ship to use these except in maybe a surprise launch. Once the cats out of the bag i don't see our ships letting them in range. Whatever you tell yourself to help you sleep at night. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 9:34:49 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. Or supercavitating torpedos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 9:38:18 AM EDT
[#25]
I suspect based on the several different explosions that this ship was rigged.
The missile did hit but I don't believe something moving that fast can carry that much explosive along with it. Maybe they were simulating light offs of ordnance aboard the ship, but I suspect shenanigans since this was released publicly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 9:41:09 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your post could hardly be a better match to your avatar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 9:43:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I suspect based on the several different explosions that this ship was rigged. The missile did hit but I don't believe something moving that fast can carry that much explosive along with it. Maybe they were simulating light offs of ordnance aboard the ship, but I suspect shenanigans since this was released publicly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 9:50:13 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABv03Ru8I8E but i believe these have been decommissioned on ships. (correct me if i'm wrong) ETA replaced by LAWS? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:05:23 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect based on the several different explosions that this ship was rigged. The missile did hit but I don't believe something moving that fast can carry that much explosive along with it. Maybe they were simulating light offs of ordnance aboard the ship, but I suspect shenanigans since this was released publicly. I suspect shenanigans any time the russians are involved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:06:27 AM EDT
[#30]
Explosives filled barge?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:08:37 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Two missiles of 9900 lb each,carrying 1400 lb of explosive together. Impact speed Mach 3. Looks legit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I suspect based on the several different explosions that this ship was rigged. The missile did hit but I don't believe something moving that fast can carry that much explosive along with it. Maybe they were simulating light offs of ordnance aboard the ship, but I suspect shenanigans since this was released publicly. Hint, ordnance explosives do not create fireballs. Shenanigans |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:10:05 AM EDT
[#32]
In before the wardroom.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:10:16 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why does that look like it was filmed in a bathtub? All we need is Godzilla to swim up and take a bite of the hull. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:10:28 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suspect shenanigans any time the russians are involved. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I suspect based on the several different explosions that this ship was rigged. The missile did hit but I don't believe something moving that fast can carry that much explosive along with it. Maybe they were simulating light offs of ordnance aboard the ship, but I suspect shenanigans since this was released publicly. I suspect shenanigans any time the russians are involved. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:14:03 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Hint, ordnance explosives do not create fireballs. Shenanigans Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I suspect based on the several different explosions that this ship was rigged. The missile did hit but I don't believe something moving that fast can carry that much explosive along with it. Maybe they were simulating light offs of ordnance aboard the ship, but I suspect shenanigans since this was released publicly. Shenanigans |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:16:18 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, so assuming that this is clearly staged with extra explosives.... any ordnance guy is going to look at this and immediately know it is rigged. So what is the point? Makes them look kind of stupid. It would be like me shooting a car in the trunk, where I had a tank of propane, and a lit road flare, then claiming my 5.56 round is explosive. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I suspect based on the several different explosions that this ship was rigged. The missile did hit but I don't believe something moving that fast can carry that much explosive along with it. Maybe they were simulating light offs of ordnance aboard the ship, but I suspect shenanigans since this was released publicly. Hint, ordnance explosives do not create fireballs. Shenanigans OK, so assuming that this is clearly staged with extra explosives.... any ordnance guy is going to look at this and immediately know it is rigged. So what is the point? Makes them look kind of stupid. It would be like me shooting a car in the trunk, where I had a tank of propane, and a lit road flare, then claiming my 5.56 round is explosive. Makes it look scary to 'Muricans who will fear greatly having their sons and daughters face the bear. And it camoflages the missile's true characteristics and capabilities to an extent. In summary,a propaganda and deception twofer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:20:31 AM EDT
[#37]
The most important point is not the explosions. It is how far the missiles traveled through the ship.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:21:01 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABv03Ru8I8E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABv03Ru8I8E but i believe these have been decommissioned on ships. (correct me if i'm wrong) ETA replaced by LAWS? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABv03Ru8I8E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABv03Ru8I8E but i believe these have been decommissioned on ships. (correct me if i'm wrong) ETA replaced by LAWS? Lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:21:16 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Makes it look scary to 'Muricans who will fear greatly having their sons and daughters face the bear. And it camoflages the missile's true characteristics and capabilities to an extent. In summary,a propaganda and deception twofer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I suspect based on the several different explosions that this ship was rigged. The missile did hit but I don't believe something moving that fast can carry that much explosive along with it. Maybe they were simulating light offs of ordnance aboard the ship, but I suspect shenanigans since this was released publicly. Hint, ordnance explosives do not create fireballs. Shenanigans OK, so assuming that this is clearly staged with extra explosives.... any ordnance guy is going to look at this and immediately know it is rigged. So what is the point? Makes them look kind of stupid. It would be like me shooting a car in the trunk, where I had a tank of propane, and a lit road flare, then claiming my 5.56 round is explosive. Makes it look scary to 'Muricans who will fear greatly having their sons and daughters face the bear. And it camoflages the missile's true characteristics and capabilities to an extent. In summary,a propaganda and deception twofer. Makes sense hugo that it would scare the lemmings who run this country in to being docile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:25:38 AM EDT
[#40]
PRC YJ-18 testing
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:27:29 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The most important point is not the explosions. It is how far the missiles traveled through the ship. Are you going to make most of the posters here look stupid again? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:30:39 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Makes sense hugo that it would scare the lemmings who run this country in to being docile. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Makes it look scary to 'Muricans who will fear greatly having their sons and daughters face the bear. And it camoflages the missile's true characteristics and capabilities to an extent. In summary,a propaganda and deception twofer. Makes sense hugo that it would scare the lemmings who run this country in to being docile. It should alarm anyone who goes to sea in ships and understands the threat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:32:08 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It should alarm anyone who goes to sea in ships and understands the threat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Makes it look scary to 'Muricans who will fear greatly having their sons and daughters face the bear. And it camoflages the missile's true characteristics and capabilities to an extent. In summary,a propaganda and deception twofer. Makes sense hugo that it would scare the lemmings who run this country in to being docile. It should alarm anyone who goes to sea in ships and understands the threat. thats true i will agree with you too. But wouldn't have something in the works to defeat the threat? Serious question. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:32:27 AM EDT
[#44]
Try it on a moving ship in bad weather Vlad.
Their shit is so dicey it rots in the tubes. I'll take an Exocet for the real threat it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:35:20 AM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:35:57 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryLol*2 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:36:52 AM EDT
[#47]
Hit B5
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:40:10 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. What do you think is harder to intercept; one 9,900lb Mach 2.2 Sunburn, or six 1,500lb Mach .85 Harpoons? How about a dozen supersonic AARGMs followed up with GBUs once the ship's radars are taken out? The Russian supesonic anti ship missiles are the equivalent of equipping riflemen with bolt action .50BMG rifles IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:44:45 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you think is harder to intercept; one 9,900lb Mach 2.2 Sunburn, or six 1,500lb Mach .85 Harpoons? How about a dozen supersonic AARGMs followed up with GBUs once the ship's radars are taken out? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The U.S. Navy has no anti-ship missile that can match it. What do you think is harder to intercept; one 9,900lb Mach 2.2 Sunburn, or six 1,500lb Mach .85 Harpoons? How about a dozen supersonic AARGMs followed up with GBUs once the ship's radars are taken out? Why would there be only one SS-N-22 inbound? Can you launch AARGM from outside the threat's WEZ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 10:45:31 AM EDT
[#50]
It's obvious that a lot of people don't understand the amount of raw kinetic energy those missiles are carrying.
If you want to think that's a bunch of secondaries, go right ahead. Either way, the outcome without secondaries would still be the same: catastrophic damage and a sunken ship. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
