meazza Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Never took US history in school up there, I take it? Or history of aviation... I have. It just never interested me that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Tom knows more about this subject than I do... but I believe China uses 4 targeting satellites for their missiles. Even with radar and inferred targeting, the missiles can't distinguish between a tanker and a carrier. Never heard that...but if so, so much the better. Satellite signals can be jammed pretty easily...if that's their mid-course guidance, the missiles can't distinguish between a tanker and open ocean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Which leads me to another question. Who the hell names a ship the Kitty Hawk? Kitty Hawk, North Carolina is where the Wright brothers first flew. The carrier USS Kitty Hawk is the second ship to hold the name; the first was an aircraft transport (AKV - a glorified freighter, basically) in WWII. It ain't exactly a long tradition of naming avaition ships after where the Wright brothers flew...but at least it's consistent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Kitty Hawk, North Carolina is where the Wright brothers first flew. A minor technical foul. The flight took place in the town of Kill Devil Hills - next to Kitty Hawk. For obvious resaons, Kitty Hawk is attributed as the birthplace of flight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Never heard that...but if so, so much the better. Satellite signals can be jammed pretty easily...if that's their mid-course guidance, the missiles can't distinguish between a tanker and open ocean. I read that somewhere. I can't remember if that is something they already have in place or if that's something they are aiming to do. Anyways... The maximum effective range of the missile is roughly 186 miles. Technically, a submarine could get a shot off outside the carrier's defensive perimeter, but it's highly unlikely they would hit anything. Ofcourse this is taking into account the target is stationary and the US hasn't blown their targeting satellites out of the sky. The royal navy already has a ship in place that can shoot down an SS-N-27. So the technology is already out there. Google: Type 45 destroyer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Which leads me to another question. Who the hell names a ship the Kitty Hawk? Who the hell names a ship Protecteur or Ville De Quebec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I read that somewhere. I can't remember if that is something they already have in place or if that's something they are aiming to do. Anyways... The maximum effective range of the missile is roughly 186 miles. Technically, a submarine could get a shot off outside the carrier's defensive perimeter, but it's highly unlikely they would hit anything. Ofcourse this is taking into account the target is stationary and the US hasn't blown their targeting satellites out of the sky. The royal navy already has a ship in place that can shoot down an SS-N-27. So the technology is already out there. Google: Type 45 destroyer I know the ship. Technology stolen from the Horizon FFG. Aster 15 and Aster 30 missiles. Good tech. And it's not in service yet; I'm not even sure it's been launched yet. Hopefully they remembered to make the ship long enough to carry a decent-sized magazine this time. But the effectiveness of anti-ship missiles tends to be grossly overrated by just about everyone - especially nitwits like Molson_Goldfish. People's perceptions of ASM's is that they're basically unstoppable, thanks to the USS Stark, the Falklands War, and such. They don't realize that what they hear about tends to be pretty unusual, even exceptional (as both the Stark incident and the Falklands were). More typical is the Israeli experience in '73, where they demonstrated that a combination of countermeasures and maneuver can stop most anti-ship missiles cold. These things aren't magic; they're complex technological devices that are more failure-prone than Microsoft Windows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 These things aren't magic; they're complex technological devices that are more failure-prone than Microsoft Windows. Windows for Warships Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Windows for Warships You do know that actually exists, right? And you do know that it caused a complete power plant failure in an Aegis cruiser a few years back that resulted in the ship being towed back to port? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 You do know that actually exists, right? And you do know that it caused a complete power plant failure in an Aegis cruiser a few years back that resulted in the ship being towed back to port? Yep. Yorktown, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Yep. Yorktown, right? I believe so. Although I can never remember if Yorktown was the ship, or the port she was towed to, or both. I always loved Microsoft's excuse for it, too: "It wasn't our fault; we're not the ones that tried to divide by zero..." Well, yeah, true...but a divide-by-zero overflow still should crash an entire operating system, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 I believe so. Although I can never remember if Yorktown was the ship, or the port she was towed to, or both. I always loved Microsoft's excuse for it, too: "It wasn't our fault; we're not the ones that tried to divide by zero..." Well, yeah, true...but a divide-by-zero overflow still should crash an entire operating system, either. It was towed into Norfolk (i know someone who was stationed there when she was towed in) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Another good reason to switch to OSX! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Kitty Hawk, North Carolina is where the Wright brothers first flew. The carrier USS Kitty Hawk is the second ship to hold the name; the first was an aircraft transport (AKV - a glorified freighter, basically) in WWII. It ain't exactly a long tradition of naming avaition ships after where the Wright brothers flew...but at least it's consistent. Well I figured it had to do with something. Doesn't seem like a very menacing name Thanks for the history lesson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Who the hell names a ship Protecteur or Ville De Quebec Apparently I'm as shocked as you are that Canada has a navy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 24, 2007 Share Posted March 24, 2007 Well I figured it had to do with something. Doesn't seem like a very menacing name Thanks for the history lesson In late WWII, there was a US aircraft carrier named "Shangri La". How's that for menacing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 So the question now becomes: How far is Iran gonna push this thing? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1563877.ece They have to know that anything less than a catch and release is not only going to incur the wrath of the US and the Brits, but seriously hurt their world standing at a time where they are already on shaky ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted March 25, 2007 Share Posted March 25, 2007 So the question now becomes: How far is Iran gonna push this thing? http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle1563877.ece They have to know that anything less than a catch and release is not only going to incur the wrath of the US and the Brits, but seriously hurt their world standing at a time where they are already on shaky ground. They're going to push it as far as the UNSC pushes sanctions. That's all this is. Political leverage against the Anglo-American cabal co-opting the UN and prosecuting a war against them. The irony is, the Taleban did something very similar with Iranian diplomats back in the late 90's, and Iran very nearly went to war with them over it. Does Tehran honestly think the Brits are going to act all that much differently than they did in a similar situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 A minor technical foul. The flight took place in the town of Kill Devil Hills - next to Kitty Hawk. For obvious resaons, Kitty Hawk is attributed as the birthplace of flight And Bunker Hill (I think even a ship named after it too!?) gets all the glory when it was actually fought on Breed's Hill... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 My guess is that the captured Brit sailors never expected such. Probably were amicable until they suddenly got grabbed. Through the centuries, the Brits have charted most all of the ocean hazards on the useful shipping routes. From this port, and away from this port. Accidents happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts