Slashdot Mirror

Then you might like these links:

Gun aiming computer
nother
US and Japanese versions
a list with links

Perhaps intelligent road studs with assault weaponry to take out bad drivers would be more useful!

Hmmm. A trunk-mounted proximity detector coupled to a pair of M2s would be simple enough... wouldn't leave much room for the groceries, though.

my info on this was incorrect.
indeed...

The f-22 and the su-35 were counter parts. in mid 90's the su-35 was further along in developement then the f-22

The Su-35, while possibly a good aircraft (refit of the Su-27) never went into service . Vaporware aircraft do not count.

A "super sonic" torpedo?
this is implicit. 'the SR-23 is super sonic'. Is a statement that it can go faster then the speed of sound. No ammendments need eb made

Let's get this straight. There is no underwater torpedo that travels faster than sound. None, zero, nada. Not ever, not anywhere.

The fastest torpedo I have found in unclassified documents is the Russian "Shkval", which has a claimed speed of 200 knots, or 230mph. However....this speed prevents any actual guidance, so it is merely point, shoot, hope. A weapon of last hope, after you've lost the actual battle. An unguided underwater rocket, as opposed to a homing torpedo.
Normal torpedo speeds are around 50-60 knots.

Now..if you have some factual info on this mythical super sonic, underwater uber-weapon, please share...

Taiwan, on the otherhand, has been buying fairly modern US cruisers and destroyers

On the other hand, China just received 2 Sovremennys with 2 more on order. It also launched the indigenous Type 52C, an Aegis-class destroyer capable of fleet defense. Submarine wise, China has 8 Kilo's, 5 Han's, and around 30 SSK's of indigenous design (Ming's and Song's). It's also working on a new Victor-III class Type 093 SSN which reportedly was launched for sea trials in 2000.

as well as maintaining one of the world's most elite airforces (yes, China has the largest airforce, but much of it is Mig 15's and 19's, which don't really count)

First of all, the Mig 15 and 19's were retired in the 1980's. The PLAAF is currently composed mostly of modernized J-7's (Mig-21's) but is rapidly modernizing. Through deals with Russia, it has around 150-200 Su-27's and Su-30MKK's not to mention the F-16 class J-10's that are in production now.

The discussion of air superiority is a moot point anyway because all of the ROC airfields are targeted by IRBM's and will be hit the moment war begins so the ROK airforce won't even be able to take off.

Check out for more info.

" Thankfully new UK carriers don't have catapults..."

True, but according to the defense industry press, your new boats are being designed for them. You're not getting them right off, but if the US/UK Joint Strike Fighter program tanks, you'll probably have to add them to get a modern strike fighter on the seas. The UK government learned the hard way during the Falklands war that while small STOVL carriers are a cheap method of sea control, they suck at power projection, and a handful of old A-4 Skyhawks and some Exocet missles gave them all the trouble they could handle. This is why the U.S. Navy abandoned it's Sea Control Ship (on which the Spanish light carrier Principe De Asturias is based) concept in the 70's and decided to stick with large catapult flattops. Nothing says intimidation like a flattop with 70+ tactical aircraft sitting off of your coast.

The only reason the Royal Navy is going with the STOVL JSF is because Lockheed Martin promises it will deliver F-18 caliber performance (around Mach 2, with the ability to carry lots of ordinance) with vertical flight capability. Considering how badly the F-22 program has gone (which LM also runs), I'm not real optimistic about JSF. Besides, I'm still not sold on the idea that you can take one aiframe and make it do EVERYTHING. Most newer fighters have multiple abilities, but you wouldn't take an F-15 and turn it into a dedicated tank-buster, or a carrier-born anti-sub bird. Don't be terribly shocked if JSF is eventually canceled.

If that happens, the Royal Navy will want to get a Mach 2 class bird out to sea fast, and that'll mean an F-18 derivative or a navalized Eurofighter. And having a carrier designed for catapults would allow them to make that transistion quickly. It's actually a smart move on the part of the UK. The RN just can't continue to use Sea Harriers forever. They're just not up to snuff for fleet defense AND power projection, and they're getting long in the tooth.

No, AEGIS is something else. This is Goalkeeper, the US have built something similar, called Phalanx. Both are designed for very close range defense esp. against cruise missiles. The Exocet missile scared quite a few people in the Falklands war.

Hehe. I stand corrected- sort of- it may have been done but was definitely a really silly idea :-) This interesting link talks about what actually happened when the ship was hit (although the failure mode described is almost certainly wrong):

"The Italians made the next, much more negative leap in 1934, with the Pugliese System introduced in the Vittorio Veneto Class and the reconstructions of the Conte di Cavour Class and Andrea Doria Class ships. The Pugliese design filled the volume of the TDS with a large cylinder, which was in turn filled with closed tubes reminiscent of those in HMS Ramillies. Pugiese's theory was that the torpedo would expend its energy crushing the cylinder. In practice the design failed miserably. Following the path of least resistance, the blast traveled around the cylinder and concentrated itself against the weakest point of the complex structure supporting the cylinder: the concave holding bulkhead.

This bulkhead acted much like a dam mistakenly built bowing downstream, rather than upstream against the current. This concave surface was structurally the weakest possible arrangement for containing the force of an explosion, and to make matters worse, the workmanship proved tragically defective. Conte di Cavour sank from a single torpedo hit at Taranto, and Caio Duilio had to be beached to prevent her sinking, also after one hit. Littorio suffered three hits, grounding her bow before she could sink. Vittorio Veneto twice, and Littorio once, suffered severe flooding in dangerous situations at sea when struck by torpedoes, more than such modern ships should have.

Pugliese's design also consumed tremendous volume, and foreshortened the depth of the armored belt, making the ships so fitted more vulnerable to shell hits below the waterline. Once again, practical experience proved that not every innovation represented an improvement. "

thanks for pointing me at this, I learned something from it (and have a new example to show my students).

Think of all the terrible things that would happen if computers had the ability to make life or death decisions!!!!!

http://www.warships1.com/Weapons/WMBR_Sea_Dart.htm