What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
The countermeasure is not shooting down the bomb, but jamming the GPS signal. Since the bomb is receiving data from GPS satellites that are broadcasting signals 24/7, it should be no problem to jam or otherwise affect the signals locally. Unless the military has the option of turning the signal on and off at will and at a different frequencies, something I'm not aware of, it shouldn't be a problem.
ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2
How much dammage would a silkworm do to a iowa class BB?.
Do silkworms really have a shaped charge warhead?, I think that a modern SS rocket is just strong enough to penetrate todays lightly armed warships...
ORIGINAL: byron13
My two cents:
Without addressing the costs and other downsides to reactivating the glorious BB's, my gut reaction is to have at least one around. Those that argue technology is the answer make me nervous. Rumsfeld is the ultimate advocate for an all high-tech military. But his shock and awe campaign nearly failed because he forgot some simple truths that high-tech has not yet solved: it takes grunts on the ground to secure and occupy a country. Our gee-whiz weaponry is subject to countermeasures, but we haven't faced an opponent able to employ them. GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil. Unless they bugger things up, China is the next superpower. I believe their military power will equal if not surpass the U.S. in our lifetime - if not the next twenty years - and they will have an economy and military at least as comfortable with high-tech as ours.
All this goes to one point. The U.S. relies on high-tech, and it works because no one has been wealthy enough to compete with the U.S. in military high-tech since WWII, and the U.S. has always been a step ahead in the high-tech field. That will change. On the other end of the scale, high-tech doesn't always work when your facing not lower-tech but no-tech. High-tech didn't save our bacon in Viet Nam. Hence, I don't want to put all my eggs in the high-tech basket.
The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell. I like that. I don't know how ship electronics are hardened against EMP nor do I know whether the BBs still have the capability of visual targeting but, in theory, the 16" gun should still be effective in an EMP environment when other systems might be fried. In addition, the BBs have unique abilities that no other ships possess such as big guns, thick armor, and high survivability. I can't to what uses these capabilities may be put in the future, but I like the idea of having a ship that has strengths and capabilities completely different from any other ship. What's more, it's a weapon system that no one will trump by building a bigger or better one. For my own toolbox, I'd rather have 19 wrenches and 1 screwdriver than 20 wrenches.
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Just out of curiosity - the 16" shell moves at something like 1000 mph, which is in the same range as some of the soviet antiship missiles. Could a CIW like Phalanx or Goalkeeper shoot a shell down (or blow it up)?
ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag
The fact is that there presently is no countermeasure to a 16" shell. I like that.
Sure there is, it's called a submarine and it's also a hell of a lot cheaper to get a fleet of very quiet diesel boats for coastal defence. [;)]
ORIGINAL: Iridium
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
Just out of curiosity - the 16" shell moves at something like 1000 mph, which is in the same range as some of the soviet antiship missiles. Could a CIW like Phalanx or Goalkeeper shoot a shell down (or blow it up)?
Actually this can shoot down shells and pretty much anything else that I can think of: Link
This is an old link so if someone is able to find more up to date material on this MTHEL system please hook us up.
Edit: I found this as well: Linky
I think taking out mortars is pretty neat. [&o]
ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2
Remember, 16" shells will most likely have an armoured nosecap. Some 20 mm shells from a phalanx would probably do not much damage.
But the "goalkeeper" CIWS (by holland signaal of course) probably COULD knock those puppy's down, it has been build around the GAU 8 avenger gun that is also installed in the A-10.......................
ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2
could't the impact of multiple 30 mm rounds set of the tail fuse, or does it use an accelerometer to detect the moment of impact on target ???
ORIGINAL: Iridium
ORIGINAL: wild_Willie2
could't the impact of multiple 30 mm rounds set of the tail fuse, or does it use an accelerometer to detect the moment of impact on target ???
I think that it does use a type of accelerometer. Doesn't this shell have two fuses though? I was under the impression that it had a standard tip fuse and a tail fuse.
ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
In a related measure, the Joint Chiefs announced that it is considering arming troops with bows and arrows. The reasons given are that they can penetrate today's modern body armor, they can be made from non-strategic materials, and are completely immune from electronic countermeasures...[:'(]
ORIGINAL: DeepSix
ORIGINAL: Iridium
...
Basically, I think that if we throw out the old fashioned idea of the BB and replace it with a new model you might come out with what you may refer to as a modern BC in terms of traditional terminology.
That's an interesting idea.... what if such new ships were "nuke-yoo-ler" powered? A BBN?
The Russkies had - and I believe still have - nuclear powered battlecruisers, the Kirov class. No armour, but a big dreadnought size asskicker loaded down with missiles.
ORIGINAL: freeboy
GPS-guided weapons are very easy to foil
A free fall bomb that only is receiving telemtry and adjusting fins is almost undetectable and impossible by most standards to shoot down.. How can you justify this statment?