Clark wrote:
:Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
:
: Clark wrote:
:
::Fred J. McCall wrote in
:
::
:: Clark wrote:
::
:::Fred J. McCall wrote in
om:
:::
::: "Dean A. Markley" wrote:
:::[snip]
::::
::::A quick search reveals the following:
::::
:::
::: Should have searched a bit slower. Let me correct:
:::
:::
:::Why do you claim authority?
:::
::
:: Because I can read and you apparently cannot.
::
::In other words you are a parrot with no authority. Start backing up your
::claims or drop your 'tude to a sociable level.
::
:
: In other words, I can read and go with the facts and you cannot. Feel
: free to go sod yourself.
:
:And you too, my fine parrot friend.
:
Sorry you can't stand having actual facts injected.
:
::
::
:::
:::
::::
::::Harpoon weight of 1145 lbs Max Speed = 530mph
::::
:::
::: That's the weight for the air-launch Harpoon. If you launch it from
::: a ship it weighs almost 1500 pounds.
::
::Yup and that weight drops back to the 1145 as soon as the booster drops
:
ff. Now why didn't you note that Freddy? Hmmmm. You failed to note that
::because it detracts from your arguement, doesn't Freddy.
::
:
: I don't have an "argument", you stupid git.
:
:Thanks for admitting you don't have a leg to stand on.
:
Thanks for demonstrating you can't read simple English sentences.
:
:
: And the weight of both of them changes as they burn fuel. So what?
:
:Get real. You tried to make out the Harpoon to be better by neglecting an
:important point. I exposed the weakness in your position. Sorry 'bout that.
:Really.
:
I did no such thing. What I did was CORRECT NUMBERS SOMEONE GAVE THAT
WERE INCORRECT. That's it. That's why I don't have an 'argument';
because I'm not taking any position except to state that the numbers
given were wrong.
Sorry you're so allergic to facts.
:
:
::
::
:::
:::
::::
::::SM2 weight of 2980 lbs(don't know if this includes booster) Max
::::Speed = 1900mph
::::
:::
::: That's the weight for the ER version. It's over 26 feet long and I
::: don't believe we currently have any ships that fire it. The MR
::: version of SM-2 weighs around 1400 pounds.
:::
:::Just what system is the Navy using for ABM? They are in service even
:::if
::it
:::is a small number of ships...
:::
::
:: SM-3. It's a very different configuration with different guidance and
:: a different warhead.
::
::
::SM-3 is a derivative of SM-2 ER Block IV. For the purposes of this
::argument it is SM-3 because the you're arguing weight.
::
:
: Do you know for a fact that a VLS cell that will handle SM-3
: (essentially a 4 stage missile of much greater weight and height) will
: handle an SM-2ER? I don't.
:
:I do. The SM-3 operates from an Aegis VLS system. No doubt and no question.
:Read up a little bit old boy (since that's what you claim to do)
:
There's no such thing as "an Aegis VLS system", old boy. Aegis is the
*RADAR*. VLS is a generic term for 'Vertical Launch System' and is
the hole in the deck that holds the missile. The 'standard' VLS
system used on modern US ships is the Mk 41 VLS system. The SM-3 will
*NOT* fit in a standard Mk 41 VLS cell. They're nowhere near deep
enough. It takes a specialized cell to hold them.
Let me help you out, since you're apparently incapable of learning
anything on your own.
"The RIM-67 SM-2ER was the Navy's replacement for RIM-2 Terrier
missile. Ships carrying the SM-2 ER were often still called Terrier
ships even after the SM-2ER. Because the RIM-67's first stage booster
was very long, it could not fit into the Mk 41 VLS system, and thus
could not be used with the Aegis weapon system."
--
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_missile
:
:
: Do you know for a fact that SM-3 with a LEAP warhead even *has* a
: secondary anti-ship mode? I don't. Again, the guidance is *VERY*
: different.
:
:
:And do you know that it doesn't? Of course you don't but what ever you do
:don't let that slow you down one little bit my fine parrot friend.
:
Well, hell, maybe they have a thousand Marines with slingshots. I
don't KNOW that they don't, but it's pretty unlikely in the judgment
of anyone with a couple of neurons still working above the neck.
I suggest you look up LEAP and how it works. I also suggest you look
up SM-3 and how it works.
:
:
::
::
:::
:::
::: Oh, and that 1900 MPH is at altitude. It's going to be slower down
::: in denser air.
:::
:::
:::??? What trajectory does the SM use? Is it a sea skimmer in the
:::surface attack mode?
:::
::
:: You think enemy ships are at 30,000 feet? I'd find that pretty
:: surprising, personally.
::
::
::Look up the word trajectory. Try to understand that there are several
:
aths between two points. Now try to think about my question and then
::smack yourself in the forehead when you realize how absolutely stupid
::your comment is. Now hit yourself in the forehead again so you remember
::not to leap to an idiotic conclusion next time.
::
:
: Look up the guidance for SM-2, you stupid clod.
:
:I'm sorry parrot boy but you made the absurd claim that a ship would have
:to be at 30,000 feet.
:
Nonsense! I see you can't read. I can't say I'm surprised.
:
:You are the one sorely in need of education on the
:matter. So sorry 'bout that parrot boy.
:
Poor dumbass. Perhaps some day you'll develop an actual clue.
:
:
::
::Since you still haven't figured it out, I neve said the SM would stay at
::any particular altitude. Now try to remember the concepts of potential
::energy and kinetic energy. Try real hard. Get some help if you can't
::figure out why an arcing trajectory is desirable for some points of
::view.
::
:
: It certainly makes you easier to shoot down. It also screws up
: guidance for this particular missile.
:
:No to both. It may or may not make it easier to detect. Interception is a
:whole 'nother story.
:
Oh? You speak with authority in this area, do you?
So tell us, how does a missile with the type of guidance that Standard
has engage a surface target that is over the horizon?
So tell us, just what miracle of geometry comes to pass that a missile
with a high trajectory isn't in view at much longer ranges?
So tell us, how hard is it to shoot down something that is CBDR and
visible a long way off?
Dumbass.
:
:
::
::
:::
:::
::::
::::Now the Harpoon carries a much larger warhead but the SM2 is heavier
::::and impacts at a much higher speed. Is it reasonable to make a SWAG
::::that a Standard SM2 will inflict as much or more damage?
::::
::::After all, speed kills....
::::
:::
::: By the time they reach the target, Harpoon is probably heavier
::: (because of the heavier warhead). A lot of that weight in the
::: Standard round is fuel.
:::
::: Speed isn't what kills. That's why we put warheads on the things.
:::
:::
:::Speed kills. Blast kills. How much energy is delivered to the target?
:::That question is all that matters.
:::
::
:: And much more is generally delivered by something going 'boom' than by
:: something that doesn't.
::
:: Go run the numbers for yourself...
::
::
:
on't tell me what to do punk. You really should allow room for the
::world to change Freddy. It is going to change whether you like it or
::not.
::
:
: Fine, don't run them. You've just shown you're merely a loudmouth
: idiot incapable of supporting your own position.
:
:
:Har, har. Is that the best you can do?
:
Yep. Nothing better than pointing out that you can't be bothered to
support your own outrageous claims.
:
:Well I suppose it is after you've
:been beaten to a pulp by pointing out the flaws in your own argument.
:
You're apparently too thick to even understand that I don't have an
'argument'. I merely corrected some incorrect numbers.
:
:Sorry
:'bout that parrot boy. Better luck next time.
:
Sorry you're such a dumbass. Get back to me if you ever develop a
clue.
:
:You know what they say don't you parrot boy? I'll give you a hint: If you
:can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
:
Guess we're having fried dumbass for dinner tonight. All heat and no
light.
:
:Bye now and try not to suck so bad next time. 'kay?
:
Poor, ignorant Clark. He can't support his own rants, so he blats the
preceding and declares victory.
So, just what fast food joint do you earn your living in, anyway?
--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson