« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film  (Read 684 times)

Offline Halo

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3222
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #15 on: December 21, 2006, 07:09:25 PM »
(quote) hajo you mean the Russian Ekranoplan dubbed the Caspian sea monster which uses Ground effect to kinda skim/fly above the water (unquote).


Yes, Blank (I'm Halo, not Hajo), that's the big beast I was thinking about.  Thanks for the reference.
Logged
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity. (Seneca, 1st century AD, et al)
Practice random acts of kindness and senseless beauty. (Anne Herbert, 1982, Sausalito, CA)
Paramedic to Perkaholics Anonymous

Offline Fishu

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3789
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #16 on: December 21, 2006, 07:21:04 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
are you talking about the rusting russian sub fleet? Are any of them still seaworthy?


It's the technological knowledge that matters, not what they have built in numbers and which are now left to rust.
Logged

Offline DiabloTX

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9592
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #17 on: December 21, 2006, 07:34:53 PM »
"...the 2,000 ton battleship..."

:rofl
Logged
"There ain't no revolution, only evolution, but every time I'm in Denmark I eat a danish for peace." - Diablo

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #18 on: December 21, 2006, 07:41:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DiabloTX
"...the 2,000 ton battleship..."

:rofl


and people wonder why the news is so miss-reported.  Well it did have guns. :lol
Logged

Offline rabbidrabbit

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3910
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #19 on: December 21, 2006, 08:04:22 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
attacking a unmanned destroyer dead in the water sounds like milk-running to me.


I bet the bastage landed some perk points too.
Logged

Offline Billy Joe Bob

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 470
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #20 on: December 23, 2006, 12:43:41 AM »
i have never seen a real ship blow up... DAYM:eek:
Logged

Offline Suave

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2950
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #21 on: December 23, 2006, 01:24:14 AM »
Those rocket torpedos are great. Because they move so fast and have magnetic fuses they're basically fire and forget. Well I guess they'd have to be since they haven't wires. "torpedo in the water bearing 123", fire off a shkval heading 123 set heading for 303 and fire off some decoys. The thing is, shkvals are thunderously loud, if you set one off you've alerted every boat in the hemisphere of your presence and location.
Logged

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #22 on: December 23, 2006, 02:28:36 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by DiabloTX
"...the 2,000 ton battleship..."

:rofl


The guy has a future on the Discovrey Channel for sure :D
Logged

Offline Choocha

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 184
Modern Sub vs. Destroyer Film
« Reply #23 on: December 23, 2006, 08:54:12 AM »
Again Supercavitating tech. is old hat.  Do some reasearch on the subject.  For example a google search would reveal this:


The Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System (RAMICS) is a targeting, fire control, and gun system which fires a supercavitating projectile as a countermeasure against near surface moored mines.   The LIDAR and gun system are mounted on the helicopter.   The LIDAR directs the gun fire to the target mine.   Mine deflagration utilizes reactive material and kinetic energy of the super cavitating projectile."


Wow the USN may know something on this subject...can it be that they are as good as the mighty Russian Navy?
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up
« previous next »