Prev: Re: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant) Next: Re: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant)

Re: Aircraft Vs Dreadnoughts (Which is what the topic mutated into :o)

From: "Alan and Carmel Brain" <aebrain@d...>
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 09:00:53 +1100
Subject: Re: Aircraft Vs Dreadnoughts (Which is what the topic mutated into :o)

From: "Richard and Emily Bell" <rlbell@sympatico.ca>

> I confess that I am only a spirited amatuer with military technology,
but
the
> people on sci.military.naval claim that one of the phalanx's
shortcomings
is that
> the large soviet missiles cover the 1000 yard range of the phalanx in
> approximately one second, and the shells do not have enough HE to
reliably
> detonate it, nor the momentum to send it off course and it is far too
late
for the
> missile to "go stupid" and miss, even if the guidance package is
destroyed
and
> airfoils shredded.

This professional concurs. I don't go quite as far as some others, who
state
that 3 solid hits from a 30mm is required, but I'd rather have a
Goalkeeper,
or a Sea Zenith (25mm APDS) protecting me. The latter payload is a
14.5mm
long rod penetrator, will go through any ballistic protection the target
has, and


Prev: Re: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant) Next: Re: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant)