Problem is with the tone / general standpoint of the report.... this explains... so much. lolz
Supersonic antiship missiles work like a bazooka. The whole thing is intended to defeat spaced armor, e.g. bulkheads.
The fuse is that the bottom of the penetrator, which is a sharp armored shell. On impact, the fuse ignites from the bottom which will force the penetrator forward. The plume is shaped to concentrate the energy forward in a narrow cone. The short phrase for it is a shaped charge. The antiship missile is essentially a giant antitank missile.
Your point was to indicate your typical bias. I am well aware of.
I mean how many accidents has the Kuz had now? I mean there was the fire what covered 600 meters on her to.
Before that the Dry dock and the other fire from 2009 pardon me if I got confused on the individual incidents.
Or the Kilo submarine fires in Vladivostok... The Lohshairk Fire.
But safety culture... like the times a Soyuz was discovered to have a hole drilled in it? That safety culture? The Kursk? Chernobyl?
First why is this here? Oh wait LoLz. Trolling. Look at the dates it’s over 3 years out of date. Hardly news.
which doesn’t mean dick as 1) No one has built a Carrier like a battle ship and 2) the missile isn’t a solid penetrator.So, there is same confusion here.
1. an MBT has a meter equivalent of rolled steel of frontal protection. If you divide the mass with length * height of a ship then the value will be in the range of a meter iron, means to punch a hole across example a Nimitz class require less energy than to penetrate the frontal armour of an MBT. Considering that the best part of it is structural iron, machinery, fuel, water, humans supply and so on the actual rolled steel equivalence will be maybe half compared to the MBT.
what where are you getting that? If you mean vs a bunker that’s one thing but that would be a top down approach.2. Due to the first the supersonic warhead can penetrate the ship 50-100 meter deep
yet here you are trying to make a ATGM a scaled down ASMThe bazooka and the supersonic missile works with different principle.
no and yes and absolutely not. No as the trajectory is wrong. Yes as no one builds like battle ships but still no as the principal is still wrong. Battle ships shells had heavier warheads.The supersonic missile works like a good, old fashioned battleship main gun shell, only difference is the jacket to explosive ratio is lower , due to the non-existing armour.
except the penetration rod isn’t the mass of the missile and warhead are smaller. The effect may penetrate but saying it would have the same energy across the whole of the ship is ludicrous.For the bazooka the penetration deep defined by the DIAMETER of the shaped charge, for the penetration rod by the length and square of density difference, and due to the point 1 the penetration deep can be extreme without any heavy metal.
trueBut up to 1km/sec the energy of impact is way lower than the force of explosion.
Of course not factoring corruption or cover ups common in the Russian system.As a baseline to compare the general safety culture of a US company to a Russian one can lead to a laughable outcome ,considering the litigation opportunities in the two country in the case of a workplace accident.
Factor 1 is correct factor 2 is a laughable how many carriers or LHA do the Russians have again? Oh 1 that has had two severe fires. Has languished as a dock queen for years now and has as spotty a record as one can think of. Factor 3 The key system needed to control that fire was the fire suppression system which at the time was under repair. This falls into the category of dumb luck.But in this case the different outcomes of the two accident could be attributed to the next possible root causes:
1. sheer luck.
2. Different ship design . The russians always preferred the more robust design capable to withstand more battle damage
3. Due to the fast operation tempo the USA allowed more compressed schedule, it lead to the cramped workplace shared by many contractors, blocked doors and so on. It increased the risk for the USA NAVY, other side the Russians gave more time for the suppliers to finish the ship, so there was less worker, blockage and combustible material on the ship.
Now, by the reports the ship was full with oil, cardboard, equipment of marines and so on , so the no 3 is the most probable reason, followed by the no2 .
Seeking to ease the burden on public shipyards, the Navy turned to HII’s Newport News yard for the maintenance, but those jobs also fell behind. Overhauls for the Los Angeles-class attack submarines Helena and Columbus are behind by 12-18 months, as Newport News balances work on the Virginia class with preparations for the Columbia class and a new maintenance requirement.
On August 7, when the next stage of the competition starts, they’ll work problems on a tabletop satellite called a FlatSat, which is basically a terrestrial replica of the hardware and software you’d find on a real orbiter. Then, if they succeed, they’ll get to try to type their way into an actual space satellite.
As cyber-conflict scholar Will Akoto of the University of Denver pointed out in a February op-ed for Undark, “there are currently no cybersecurity standards for satellites and no governing body to regulate and ensure their cybersecurity,” and no organization to enforce standards anyway. (Two of the more egregious instances he points out: In 1998, hackers got to an astronomical satellite called ROSAT and pointed its solar panels directly at the sun, ruining it. And in 2007 and 2008, hackers gained access to NASA and US Geological Survey sats.)
The US military and intelligence communities are also increasingly worried about conflict in space, often citing—as this Defense Intelligence Agency document does—China’s and Russia’s alleged development of directed-energy weapons, signal jammers, anti-satellite missiles, satellites that can scoot up close to other satellites and robotically mess with them, and, yes, cyber skills.
That vulnerability, plus a fear of impending attack, explain why the Air Force and the Defense Digital Service dreamed up Hack-a-Sat: so they can learn about holes and bugs before someone exploits them, and so they can foster the talent that could patch things up if someone does maliciously access a satellite. “That’s where we started,” says Clair Koroma of the Defense Digital Service, who helped organize Hack-a-Sat. “We give this community access to a satellite in a way that they never would have had before, and we get to learn all of the nuances, and all of the vulnerabilities, that we weren’t anticipating. And we get to mitigate those.”
After testing and perfecting that code on their FlatSat, the team with the most accurate, efficient, and timely solution will get to issue commands to the real satellite, sometime in a 24-hour window, and take a lunar portrait. “A literal moon shot,” says Roper (a former string theorist who’s now assistant secretary of the Air Force for acquisition, technology, and logistics, and who helped organize both last year’s and this year’s military-hosted challenges). A shot that, Roper believes, the organizers would tweet out that day.
Artificial Intelligence Defeats Human Lockheed F-16 Pilot In Virtual Dogfight
An artificial intelligence algorithm defeated a human F-16 fighter pilot in a virtual dogfight sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Thursday.
After two days of competition, the winning algorithm of Darpa's Air Combat Evolution program took on a human pilot in a Lockheed Martin (
Artificial intelligence teams from Boeing (
In a semifinal Thursday, Lockheed beat Physics AI. Heron defeated Aurora in the other semifinal and then took down Lockheed in the final. Heron scored five kills vs. zero for the human pilot.
The first round on Tuesday featured each team flying their algorithms vs. adversary AI algorithms. The teams then competed against each other in a round-robin style competition Wednesday.
"Regardless of whether the human or machine wins the
Looks as if AI is making advancements in the aerial combat sector;
Basically, US has achieved a step further in developing swarm engagement/6th generation fighter on the battle field.