Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
StriderX said:
With all the equipment Russia has pointed toward the Black Sea, I think they'd have a pretty good chance of hitting something there.
Click to expand...

We need cheat codes for the Type 45s LOL - couple of times people running simulations in stuff like DCS have had them bug out and have infinite missiles (ammo count) and they just tank everything ballistic LOL.
 
BowdonUK said:
What's the mood of the thread/forum? Should we be getting involved or not?
Click to expand...

Personally, if we just shout "No, stop" from behind the sofa when Russia invades Ukraine then it shows how weak the west has really become. NATO doesn't seem to be able to provide a united answer which also shows a lack of strength.

It will be a sad day if we allow the people of Ukraine to be subjugated into USSR MK2.
 
Probably a better way to answer this:

An aircraft carrier radar : 250 nmi (460 km)
MACH 8 = 2,700+m/sec

So the 460/2.7 = 170 seconds from the outer limit of detection. 3 minutes. Most US carrier groups have an eye in the sky, so it would be longer with the AWACs (if the plane is between the launch and the carrier you could get 800km for example).

A carrier, say 56km/h top speed, means 15.5m/sec max, or in the 3 minutes 2,790m. That's a maximum angle of tan-1(2790/460000) = 0.3475 degrees at full range. Assuming a 90 degree angle attack to the carrier.

So MACH9, turning radius is 190 miles (305.77km) at 3g max (given our missile is liquid propellant) or 305770m/360 *0.3475 = 295.15m distance to perform a maximum angle deflection at 3g. Or the last 295/2700= 0.109 seconds of flight time. The ship may have moved 1.55m forward in that last 0.1 seconds.

So I suspect it would (technically) be able to hit a carrier, given the carrier is 40m-76m beam (ie the narrowest target).

3 minutes is a long time for a sensor package to remain on target, with noise from countermeasures.
 
Last edited:
NickK said:
Probably a better way to answer this:

An aircraft carrier radar : 250 nmi (460 km)
MACH 8 = 2,700+m/sec

So the 460/2.7 = 170 seconds from the outer limit of detection. 3 minutes. Most US carrier groups have an eye in the sky, so it would be longer with the AWACs (if the plane is between the launch and the carrier you could get 800km for example).

A carrier, say 56km/h top speed, means 15.5m/sec max, or in the 3 minutes 2,790m. That's a maximum angle of tan-1(2790/460000) = 0.3475 degrees at full range. Assuming a 90 degree angle attack to the carrier.

So MACH9, turning radius is 190 miles (305.77km) at 3g max (given our missile is liquid propellant) or 305770m/360 *0.3475 = 295.15m distance to perform a maximum angle deflection at 3g. Or the last 295/2700= 0.109 seconds of flight time. The ship may have moved 1.55m forward in that last 0.1 seconds.

So I suspect it would (technically) be able to hit a carrier, given the carrier is 40m-76m beam (ie the narrowest target).

3 minutes is a long time for a sensor package to remain on target, with noise from countermeasures.
Click to expand...

I don't know the flight profile exactly but they only do speeds like Mach 8 for part of the flight - it will also depend a bit on the missile and mode - some will slow down a lot in the terminal phase others will slow then accelerate again for the final part.
 
NickK said:
Think cruise missile at MACH 5+. There is also a concept of reusing ballistic missiles with conventional re-entry warheads as a ship missile - especially against larger ships and subs.
Click to expand...
I read somewhere they are accurate to within 7 metres and I'm assuming thats not a moving target


hypersonic weapons that is
 
Washout said:
Can you imagine the Russian media going after Putin about the levels of corruption or sleaze over there. No, because reporters that do end up in a body bag after killing themselves jumping from their balcony and shooting themselves on the way down.
Here, the government are held to account when they do stupid things. Which they do, a lot. As it should be! If the news was state controlled do you think they'd be getting such a hard time?
Click to expand...
yea and look how much he got away with....


What was the thing where he basically said "cases closed move on" and all the media did just that

the amount of crap he got away with is ridiculous


whats the other one gag orders that would never be abused by anyone
 
arknor said:
I read somewhere they are accurate to within 7 metres and I'm assuming thats not a moving target


hypersonic weapons that is
Click to expand...

At the expense of slowing them down, with advanced computer systems they can get down to around 7m accuracy - probably even more accurate than that. It just doesn't happen with an end to end flight profile at crazy speeds though.
 
are tanks even the main worry.
wouldn't artillery be the main problem and rockets.

isn't that russian tactics? blap the area they want to take, enemy withdraws and Russia moves in.

rinse and repeat until you've conquered a waste land
 
arknor said:
rockets.
Click to expand...

They love their rockets and modern day Stalin's Organs


Certainly would not enjoy being on the other end of that barrage

The thermobaric rockets are particularly nasty

The [blast] kill mechanism against living targets is unique—and unpleasant. ... What kills is the pressure wave, and more importantly, the subsequent rarefaction [vacuum], which ruptures the lungs. ... If the fuel deflagrates but does not detonate, victims will be severely burned and will probably also inhale the burning fuel. Since the most common FAE fuels, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide, are highly toxic, undetonated FAE should prove as lethal to personnel caught within the cloud as with most chemical agents.
Click to expand...
 
arknor said:
are tanks even the main worry.
wouldn't artillery be the main problem and rockets.

isn't that russian tactics? blap the area they want to take, enemy withdraws and Russia moves in.

rinse and repeat until you've conquered a waste land
Click to expand...

Been a fair bit of tank based conflict so far but not sure that would be the case with an invasion - Russia has been moving a lot of heavy artillery and like their MLRS for assaults.

Ukraine has quite a bit of long range artillery of its own and potentially better intel provided by allies for counter-battery engagement - depending on how well communications/leadership, etc. hold up if they are attacked. So tanks could be utilised a fair bit.

EDIT: If things kick off I wonder if the US would still operate the reapers, etc. in Ukrainian air space, likely manned ISR missions would be pulled back but makes for a bit of a tricky situation.
 
Last edited:
NickK said:
Think cruise missile at MACH 5+. There is also a concept of reusing ballistic missiles with conventional re-entry warheads as a ship missile - especially against larger ships and subs.

The latest 2020 Harpoon anti ship missile variant is MACH <0.7
Click to expand...

Russia, and China for that fact, can bang on about how fast and how manoeuvrable in the terminal phase their new hypersonics are all they like, that doesn't detract from the fact that they're easily tracked and, if they get past the initial interceptors, they'll get shredded by the solid wall of tungsten put out by numerous CIWS.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom