- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 60,421
- Points
- 113
Yes you're right, your history is better than mine.
i missed one of the most symbolic u.s. carrier sinking in ww2. take a guess.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Chinese DF-21 carrier killer
- Thread starter longbow
- Start date
i missed one of the most symbolic u.s. carrier sinking in ww2. take a guess.
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 60,421
- Points
- 113
nope. that's a sci-fi movie. it's real history in ww2.
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2008
- Messages
- 18,719
- Points
- 0
That I don't know too, care to enlighten?
Agree with you. But as Navy admiral you just would not know if the incoming is nuclear or not. That is the whole point right. The guy coughing next to you may be just clearing his throat after a spicy curry lunch or he may have swine flu - makes you take 4 steps away.
Carriers are basically very vunerable. If the flight deck is destroyed you lose effectiveness.
Carriers are basically very vunerable. If the flight deck is destroyed you lose effectiveness.
DF-21 (CSS-5) is old news from almost 2 decades back and it has been estimated that China possibly has 60 of these at any time.
Newer variants has a range of 3000kms and a speed of Mach 10.
At such speeds, even if the warhead is a dud, the impact would be sufficient to cause catastrophic damage to an carrier and rendering it useless.
Newer variants has a range of 3000kms and a speed of Mach 10.
At such speeds, even if the warhead is a dud, the impact would be sufficient to cause catastrophic damage to an carrier and rendering it useless.
It is old proven technology.
But Chinese are trying to upgrade its tracking system and range. Qty can easily be ramped up once they are assured of its effectiveness. After all Chinese are aware of US capability of shooting these down so increase in numbers will increase probability. However it is more of a deterrance if anything.
But Chinese are trying to upgrade its tracking system and range. Qty can easily be ramped up once they are assured of its effectiveness. After all Chinese are aware of US capability of shooting these down so increase in numbers will increase probability. However it is more of a deterrance if anything.
Don't think the US has anything that can intercept Mach 10.
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2008
- Messages
- 8,533
- Points
- 0
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vs5FVxepsB8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vs5FVxepsB8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Who in today's market aren't copycats?
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2008
- Messages
- 60,421
- Points
- 113
there were two cvn id in that movie - cvn-71 and cvn-74. n in cvn or carrier designation means nuclear. cvn-74, which is the uss john c. stennis, was supposed to be sunk early in the movie and cvn-71, which is the uss theodore roosevelt, was supposed to be the carrier hosting the survivors and transformers at the end of movie. however, the movie mixed them up - an error observable only by folks who know their aircraft carriers.
Similar threads
