U.S. Navy Spooked by N.K. "Mystery Weapon"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
And yet misses entirely the occasional airliner...


Missile plume heat signature is a bit different from an airliner...and to be honest, there are places where we look very closely....and the part of the Indian Ocean where MH370 disappeared is not on that list...
 
Originally Posted By: Astro14
there are places where we look very closely....

Which would lead me to believe that MH370 isn't in North Korea or Iran, for instance.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Merkava_4
Originally Posted By: jcwit
It was a "boat"?


Yes it was a boat. 598 feet long.
grin2.gif



I was Army, I carried a rifle, but some called it a "gun". LOL
 
Originally Posted By: Shannow
And yet misses entirely the occasional airliner...



Ha. Yep.

America the mighty doesnt seem to be able to fight a guerrilla movement. Vietnam,sandbox,Korea.
All the tech in the world won't help one bit when the enemy doesn't mind dying,and volunteer for the trip.
The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves looking at what their idea has metastitized into.
 
Originally Posted By: jcwit
I was Army, I carried a rifle, but some called it a "gun". LOL

Did they have to march doing the "This one's my rifle and this one's my gun" cadence after being caught?
wink.gif
 
Easy and cheap enough to fix.
Just add a few more of these systems and any threat can be dealt with.
Drones large enough to carry any appreciable explosives load would be pretty easy to detect at some distance and a smallish explosive detonation on the surface of most hulls won't sink the ship.
The drone would have to have some penetration capability or would have to be single-seat fighter sized to carry enough explosives and have enough performance to reach a ship in a task force and do any real damage.
Such a drone would be neither cheap nor easily built.
Close surveillance would also always be used in any dangerous area of deployment, so the source would be known at once, probably at launch, allowing ample response time.
Both aircarft and satellite systems would be deployed.
Any detection of hostile drone launches would in turn bring swarms of aircraft from the carrier or two that would be a part of any major task force, which would in turn destroy the base from which the drones were launched.
Not all that easy to mess with a nation having a large blue-water navy.
 
I think Aircraft carriers are too large a liability and they are akint to WWII batttleships.

We really don't need Carriers anymore. At 12 billion each their sole purpose is to carry airplanes..which really are increasingly un necessary. Cruise missles are almost free compared to the cost of building and maintaining aircraft, both attack and fighters . And these fighters are not air superiority aircraft. Their main purpose is to defend the carrier lol. And again cruise missles can and are more effective than strike jaircraft.

Our military is operating under an outdated paradigm. Especially the Navy.

Both boomers and fast attacks can launch Tomahawks carrying a W80 Nuke warhead.
 
Originally Posted By: Clevy
Originally Posted By: Shannow
And yet misses entirely the occasional airliner...



Ha. Yep.

America the mighty doesnt seem to be able to fight a guerrilla movement. Vietnam,sandbox,Korea.
All the tech in the world won't help one bit when the enemy doesn't mind dying,and volunteer for the trip.
The founding fathers would be rolling in their graves looking at what their idea has metastitized into.


Completely false. And Korea was hardly a "guerrilla war"...

It wasn't "guerrillas" that took Saigon in 1975, it was North Vietnamese tanks. And the "Surge" was successful in Iraq, it was the stupid Shia dominated and corrupt government that caved to ISIS...
 
Originally Posted By: dja4260
N.K. doesn't have ANYTHING revolutionary. They purchase Chinese and Russian dated equipment.

...


Only when they can afford it, which is rare nowadays...
 
Originally Posted By: Al
I think Aircraft carriers are too large a liability and they are akint to WWII batttleships.

We really don't need Carriers anymore. At 12 billion each their sole purpose is to carry airplanes

Both boomers and fast attacks can launch Tomahawks carrying a W80 Nuke warhead.



A carrier battle group is capable of power projection. Something a submarine really isn't capable of doing.

It is also capable of both sea control and denial, while a sub is better suited for the latter.

And as it is conventional weapons that are used, a CBG has superior firepower to a SSN or SSBN. A CBG also carries far more munitions than a sub is capable of.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top