• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US Navy’s Shipbuilding Plan Doesn’t Meet Congress’ Needs, Lawmakers Say

Dayton3 said:
I can determine if they did or didn't based on the stupid statements they make.
Click to expand...

No, you can't. You lack the required experience.
 
Dayton3 said:
I can determine if they did or didn't based on the stupid statements they make.
Click to expand...

You know nothing, and prove it with every inane comment.

Who was SECNAV at the time? You wouldn't know unless I told you.

But, hurry.......................go do your Google search and come back with a few more authoritative comments.
 
RetiredUSN said:
When you promote lies.........nobody can.
Click to expand...
You're the one who made the unremittingly ignorant statement that ALL U.S. carriers were in drydock or in port at one time. And as "evidence" you presented a picture from Norfolk. Ignoring the obvious that not all U.S. carriers are based in Norfolk.

You lose.
 
Dayton3 said:
You're the one who made the unremittingly ignorant statement that ALL U.S. carriers were in drydock or in port at one time. And as "evidence" you presented a picture from Norfolk. Ignoring the obvious that not all U.S. carriers are based in Norfolk.

You lose.
Click to expand...


No

I stated Norfolk.

Then you and a couple other "know it alls" shifted it to all US carriers.

Post #39


It was fun talking :ROFLMAO:
 
Last response loses
 
gino said:
I don't see why it couldn't be done. The tech is already there in other systems. The idea I am afraid of is that China could just launch a bunch of missiles at a carrier group and hit a few ships at a time. Overwhelm our defenses with sheer quantity. Add in a few subs to the mix and things would get jumping pretty quickly...

While I think our carriers are still great strategic assets, I do think they are becoming more and more susceptible to attack as tech gets more sophisticated.
Click to expand...

Because it is a ballistic missile.

Think of it like this. You have to hit a person moving across a large field with a baseball. Now, between the two of you there will be a two meter tall wall, so you will not be able to see them. And you will have to throw the ball almost straight up, and you must strike them on the head as it falls back down.

Beginning to get a picture of how difficult it is now? They will be unable to see the target, and must hit it perfectly with an object falling in excess of MACH 4.
 
Dayton3 said:
You're the one who made the unremittingly ignorant statement that ALL U.S. carriers were in drydock or in port at one time. And as "evidence" you presented a picture from Norfolk. Ignoring the obvious that not all U.S. carriers are based in Norfolk.
Click to expand...

And that they were all called into dock, not that the carrier assigned to be at sea had a technical emergency and only pulled in for fast repairs.

It was not "recalled", it went there to get fixed. Once again, nothing like he tried to claim.

I simply gave up because I find it useless to try and debate people who use moving goalposts.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Because it is a ballistic missile.

Think of it like this. You have to hit a person moving across a large field with a baseball. Now, between the two of you there will be a two meter tall wall, so you will not be able to see them. And you will have to throw the ball almost straight up, and you must strike them on the head as it falls back down.

Beginning to get a picture of how difficult it is now? They will be unable to see the target, and must hit it perfectly with an object falling in excess of MACH 4.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that nuclear ballistic missiles had reentry warheads that split up and could steer themselves to separate places before detonating. Can't a warhead be controlled to hit something as large as a carrier? Like a smart bomb? Or couldn't a ballistic missile deliver a second missile that can detect something as large and metallic as a carrier?
 
gino said:
I was under the impression that nuclear ballistic missiles had reentry warheads that split up and could steer themselves to separate places before detonating. Can't a warhead be controlled to hit something as large as a carrier? Like a smart bomb? Or couldn't a ballistic missile deliver a second missile that can detect something as large and metallic as a carrier?
Click to expand...

Wrong. They still follow a "Ballistic Path". In other words, are completely unpowered, and in "freefall" based upon the ballistics used when they are launched.

Just like with my description of the baseball. The individual warheads of a MIRV are not "controlled" either, think of it like you tie 5 darts together, with a string that can be pulled to release them when it starts the downward fall. Exact same thing, precision is not even needed when discussing nukes.

And now I am going to go into some more details I have many times already. When discussing ballistic missiles, one thing of critical importance when you discuss them is the CEP, or "Circular Error Probable". This is really the actual accuracy of the individual missile itself. And in short, if you make a series of circles on the ground and lob 20 ballistic missiles at it, the tightest grouping where over 50% fall within a diameter circle, that is the CEP. And when talking about ballistic missiles, that is of critical importance.

Now, the CEP of the DF-21 class missiles (which is what the DF-21D is) is estimated to be between 50 and 100 meters. THat means if you launch 20 of them at a ground target, half of them will land inside a circle 50 meters across. With me so far? In other words, half will be inside the circle, and half will be outside the circle.

Now the flight deck of a Nimitz class carrier is 333 by 77 meters. That means that even if the missile launch and everything else goes absolutely perfectly, it still has to hit a target where one of the dimensions is barely larger than the CEP of the missile itself.

And this has only been talking about just the absolute basics of only the missile itself. There is no such thing as a "steerable ballistic warhead", they simply do not work that way. Everything is determined from the moment they are launched in the ballistic capabilities at that time. Then we would have to go into other things, like how they could possibly acquire and track a moving target over the horizon. Once again, goes right back to my analogy of throwing a baseball at a moving target on the other side of a fence.

And no, "Smart Bombs" are not quite what you think they are. They have to have somebody controlling them. Most times they are actually following a LASER designator, either projected on the target by somebody on the ground, or by the attacking aircraft itself. The "bomb" or missile itself is really quite stupid, think of it as a kamikaze moth that only knows to follow the light.

All missiles used for decades against things like this are flat trajectory missiles. And they are perfect, because they only have to really worry about two dimensions. Literally point and shoot, they are either aimed and fired at a selected target, or put into a "homing mode" and will lock onto the first target that matches the specifications programmed into it. But all they need is direction, and how high to fly over the surface. The actual distance to the target itself does not even matter, so long as it has the fuel to reach it. That can be off by a dozen miles, it will still keep going until it intersects it. Ship moves 6 kilometers between launching and the missile finding it? No problem, tiny correction in heading and it is aiming right at it again.

With a ballistic missile, the placement must be absolutely perfect. On a moving target.
 
gino said:
I was under the impression that nuclear ballistic missiles had reentry warheads that split up and could steer themselves to separate places before detonating. Can't a warhead be controlled to hit something as large as a carrier? Like a smart bomb? Or couldn't a ballistic missile deliver a second missile that can detect something as large and metallic as a carrier?
Click to expand...
Yes and no
Yes they have multiple warheads
No because the manner (kinematics) by which they are released was preset on the ground and they have no way to steer. It is a ballistic free fall
Since it takes a long time for a ballistic missile to reach apogee the carrier would have changed direction five times at 40 mph
 
Last edited:
gino said:
I was under the impression that nuclear ballistic missiles had reentry warheads that split up and could steer themselves to separate places before detonating. Can't a warhead be controlled to hit something as large as a carrier? Like a smart bomb? Or couldn't a ballistic missile deliver a second missile that can detect something as large and metallic as a carrier?
Click to expand...

Your talking about Multiple Independently Targeted Reentry Vehicles (MIRVs).

1) MIRVs are not designed to hit moving targets. In concept and execution they are designed to hit multiple fixed missile silos and launch control centers.
2) Even then the ability of MIRVs to hit a wide range of targets is limited. The longer they have to wait after launch to lock on to a new target the less target options they have..
3) Overall size matters little in the ability to hit a target.
 
gino said:
I was under the impression that nuclear ballistic missiles had reentry warheads that split up and could steer themselves to separate places before detonating. Can't a warhead be controlled to hit something as large as a carrier? Like a smart bomb? Or couldn't a ballistic missile deliver a second missile that can detect something as large and metallic as a carrier?
Click to expand...

MIRVs have a CEP measured in dozens or even hundreds of yards. Which doesn't matter when you've got a 300 Kiloton warhead on the thing, but does matter when you've got a 1 ton warhead and it has to get a direct hit to do damage.

And no, "smart bomb" ballistic warheads don't exist.
 
fortune said:
Locking on usually applies to radar or guidance. The MIRVs have none but they can be preprogrammed to get booted out of the last stage with independent kinematics which can change the ballistic downward path of each of them.
en.wikipedia.org

Multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Click to expand...
Without radar or guidance they would have no hope of hitting a mobile target like a carrier. Assuming 15 minutes from launch to impact, a carrier will move at least 7 miles from the point they were originally at by the time the ballistic missile arrives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom