Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Battleship Yamato
AThousandYoung    12/15/2010 9:49:55 PM
What would be the minimum modern surface force needed to take this bad boy out? Could an LCS with surface warfare kit do it? An Arleigh Burke could almost certainly take her out...no?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4
Arbalest       12/19/2010 6:21:16 PM

Did I just get accused of being a Chinese intelligence agent? http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emcrook.gif" alt="" align="absMiddle" border="0" />

 

I have been suspecting that stealth technology will bring aircraft cannon back into the game.  This sounds similar.


  I clearly owe the commenter "AThousandYoung" an apology. I apologize.

  The original question "... Could an LCS with surface warfare kit do it? An Arleigh Burke could almost certainly take her out...no?" and the nic suggests to "information collector" me. A discussion of a WW2 object in WW2 terms (where most weapons that still exist are now museum pieces, charts and data files) reduces the information value. And a nic like "Invincible Hammer of Flying Doom" is much less suspicious here.

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/19/2010 6:34:02 PM
I may be naive here but I think the PRC is looking for harder stuff online - I think these discussions would have to get a hell of a lot more specific and technical before anything here was of much use...
 
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Realize   12/19/2010 6:39:47 PM




Did I just get accused of being a Chinese intelligence agent? http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emcrook.gif" alt="" align="absMiddle" border="0" />



 



I have been suspecting that stealth technology will bring aircraft cannon back into the game.  This sounds similar.






  I clearly owe the commenter "AThousandYoung" an apology. I apologize.



  The original question "... Could an LCS with surface warfare kit do it? An Arleigh Burke could almost certainly take her out...no?" and the nic suggests to "information collector" me. A discussion of a WW2 object in WW2 terms (where most weapons that still exist are now museum pieces, charts and data files) reduces the information value. And a nic like "Invincible Hammer of Flying Doom" is much less suspicious here.



That what you read is tailored for those who skim these blogs and threads for usable information. In other words, even if ATY doesn't fish for data, there are those who do, and I always bear that in mind-especially when people demand 'proofs' I only give what open source shows.
 
That is why I will not comment at all on the BONE in a PRC scenario for example, and I doubt that others will either. Let the fanbois argue that one to their hearts content. It is also why I do not use modern American teaching examples for aircraft or missile design choices.   
 
H.
     
 
Quote    Reply

Arbalest       12/19/2010 9:47:30 PM
Reactive:

Combine the "Thousand Grains of Rice" concept with the fact that occasionally commenters here are active duty or recently retired, and just might slip ......
 
Quote    Reply

USN-MID       12/19/2010 11:11:56 PM

Reactive:



Combine the "Thousand Grains of Rice" concept with the fact that occasionally commenters here are active duty or recently retired, and just might slip ......


And it's certainly happened before.
 
In addition to the feigned innocent curiosity approach, there's also the "act like an obstinate jackass and bash US equipment and performance to get the hot-blooded types to let something slip" approach.
 
Quote    Reply

Mikko       12/20/2010 3:36:11 AM
I'll play with this a little, do some guessing on how it might work.
 
Military intelligence gathering eh? Why not. Works with consumer products and is used in masses in that sector. Same methodologies would apply perfectly in military intelligence too; making analysis on how much certain words appear with each other and so forth. Collecting and using a vast list of known defence professionals to weigh other hits more than others (some sites even list them for you!). And as the internet is such a huge free database, you have to have huge resources and determinity to distort the information one can extract from sources like this.
 
Adding confusion to valuable information is ineffective as long as the confusion shows up as "noise" on your analysis tool. The effort to lead the information gatherer astray has to be planned to fool the software, and executed in a way that isn't obvious. Hard, if not impossible in peace time legislation.
 
English language is, in a sense, a weakness to those who share no other languages. A code that is broken globally. No translators as chokepoints; every feeble intelligence squad of a Myanmar's little town's sheriff's office can go and take a shot at it. 
 
Information can be extracted also by examining what has not been said: If a list of suspected defence professionals leave a certain subject untouched with a far larger probability than the general "fanboy" population, then there is a sweet spot to look closer into. And, by using filters like this, you get to determine the forums and threads you actually want to read through. I am not sure of any of this but this is what my logics would suggest.
 
I also think that defence professionals would do a patriotic deed if they changed their nics every now and then. Still could be recognizable, we could discuss with Herdal, Helrad and Härdel and yet know who we were talking with but the scanner software didn't. Maybe they use other ways for identification, maybe they don't maintain a defence professional's database at all or it isn't centralized, but if I thought of it then it is very probable the intelligence gatherers thought of it ages ago. Of course your intelligence gathering software can search professionals automatically but it always takes multiple posts before a statistical relevance is reached. 
 
All this is ultimately cost efficient, one person able to do eavesdropping on thousands of defence professionals per day.
 
These forums can be used as valuable sources of information in other ways too. You can measure the success of your own information campaigns by monitoring the fanboy population. You can extract logics and rationale of different political alignments and try out ways to influence them in secure conditions, implant ideas and see how they stick.
 
And all this is something that your average talented Chinese or Russian mathematics student can do, but the average American can't do back. The western world is the soft belly side up shouting information (which is a good thing but not in this particular sense) and thus gives far better metrics for those who seek their own interests on the expense of the west.

What can you do! Boards are here to stay and defence professionals are mostly entitled to life too. I think Herald's approach is the right one: Stay away from topics that you simply can't enter without giving out information. It is hardly a surprise to anyone that breaking Chinese air space defences is a classified topic to everyone who knows.

M
 
Quote    Reply

CJH       1/2/2011 7:10:16 PM
Do any of current ASM warheads have depleted uranium incorporated in them?
 
Some of the tank ammo at least used to be depleted uraium saboted darts.
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       1/2/2011 9:58:51 PM
Not that this is a conclusive answer but I wouldn't think so - DE rounds are used because uranium has a very high atomic weight, for a given volume it weighs more than tungsten or any other readily available material - you use it with APFSDS rounds because the primary weight limitation is the diameter of the dart itself, the heavier the material you use the more energy is transfered to that small area of the target, there are also secondary advantages to DU rounds when compared to tungsten but that's another story.
 
The reason I doubt you'd use this on an ASHM is that the armour of current surface combatants is a fraction of the RHA equivalent of a tank, once you get through that you're basically travelling through internal compartments and want something that isn't going to deform too much until the explosives detonate internally, steel alloys would be more suitable for this purpose as far as I'm aware. If you look at some of the sinkex videos you can see just how easily a subsonic ASHM travels through a modern frigate/destroyer.
 
What I don't know is whether the Chinese-developed ASBM uses a KE or HE KV - For a 1 tonne warhead @ mach 8 (2722ms) that is 3.8 gigajoules of energy travelling through the ship...
 

 
Quote    Reply

buzzard       1/24/2011 3:01:00 PM
Do any of current ASM warheads have depleted uranium incorporated in them?
 
I believe the only use of depleted uranium ammo on ships was on the Phalanx CIWS. I imagine the idea was to make sure any hit was a sure kill since you don't want to be screwing around with missiles that can kill you. There's no point in using it on missiles targeted at ships. Ships aren't really designed to be armored targets anymore. Thus you really don't have to worry about punching a hole in armor plate like in the old days. A DP slug would likely just make small holes all the way through (unless it ran into something substantial enough to trigger the pyrophoric effect and cause a fire).
 
Some of the tank ammo at least used to be depleted uraium saboted darts.

Yes, but that is because tanks are small armored boxes, where if you punch a hole in the armor, you have everything in a tight enough space that a flaming uranium dart is going to cause amazing havoc. 
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics