US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member
... this explains... so much. lolz
Problem is with the tone / general standpoint of the report.
The military doesn't issue a critical analysis / comparison, rather they try to sell the plane like they own child.

Russian MOD suing the suppliers, there is not so much involvement of the jurisdiction in the country of million lawyers.

Indeed.

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.
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.
2. Due to the first the supersonic warhead can penetrate the ship 50-100 meter deep

The bazooka and the supersonic missile works with different principle.

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.

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.

But up to 1km/sec the energy of impact is way lower than the force of explosion.


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?
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.


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 .
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
First why is this here? Oh wait LoLz. Trolling. Look at the dates it’s over 3 years out of date. Hardly news.
yes it out lines problems but again 3 years out of date. And every program has problems just remember the first SU57 unit that crashed.
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.
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.
2. Due to the first the supersonic warhead can penetrate the ship 50-100 meter deep
what where are you getting that? If you mean vs a bunker that’s one thing but that would be a top down approach.
The bazooka and the supersonic missile works with different principle.
yet here you are trying to make a ATGM a scaled down ASM
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.
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.
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.
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.
But up to 1km/sec the energy of impact is way lower than the force of explosion.
true

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.
Of course not factoring corruption or cover ups common in the Russian system.
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 .
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.

Incidentally USS Kearsarge (LHD-3) an other Wasp class also suffered a fire last week caused. It was cases during welding and put out rapidly with minimal damage as it was put out quickly. A stop work order was issued by the Navy and Lockheed Martin is doing a safety review. Litigation IE Law Suits is only a solution to problems if the parties want to try and prevent future problems but often only ends in pay offs and happy lawyers. The problem is often the problems that be are not the contractor but the program managers. If the problem is with the service and not the service provider than the safety problems persist and all the law suits do is serve to cover up the problems well money is shuffled back and forth. The old Russian Adage is the Fish rots from the head first.
 

Anlsvrthng

Senior Member
Registered Member

Ok, so try to summarise : the length of the Nimitz is 300 m , the full height is around 40 m
300*40=12000 square meter.

IF you divide 100 000 ton mass of ship with 12 000 then the result will be 8. something .

This is aprox one meter of iron.

So, simplifying, if the whole ship compressed into a silhouette then it will be a meter thick metal plate.

A half steel density , two meter long supersonic penetrator can go 50 meter deep, if the density increase or the length increase it can go further proportionality.

A three meter long, tungsten encapsulated explosive can go halfway in the length of the ship.



And generally, about the USA NAVY, in the past three years they had two big accident involving loss of life and heavy damage to the ship, both of them contributed to the overstretched operation tempo and lack of funding .

Now here is the next ,when the navy badly wanted to get back as fast as possible a ship.

This is the same patter.

Lack of money , too many deployment of the ships , not enough time for training, maintenance, too much risk taken in every area.

After the mishaps of McCain/Fitzgerald I presume they increased the training time, maybe with designating bit more personel, but the maintenance issues doesn't fixed.
Check this :
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


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.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
[/quote]
WASHINGTON — In four years, one ship maintenance center was only able to complete three out of 24 ship repairs on time, despite a new contracting strategy aimed at improving delays, according to a new report. [/quote]
REMARK : of course, you feel deeply down that the USA navy is superior, noble and perfect, not comparable to anything on earth. So, if something showing different picture your gut telling to you the picture is wrong, and you goes into defensive mode try to drop anything to defend your faith : ) no prob, mate, lot of people behave like this : )
Your answer doesn't carry any information/data/logic, just simple quick gut reactions : )
 

Khalij e Fars

Junior Member
Registered Member
7 Marines, [1] sailor presumed dead

The eight U.S. service members who went missing after their landing craft went down in hundreds of feet of water off the Southern California coast following an accident are presumed dead, officials said early Sunday.

The rescue operation for the seven Marines and one sailor has been called off and now is a recovery mission, officials said.

Helicopters and boats ranging from inflatables to a Navy destroyer searched a roughly 200-square-mile area for the Marines and Navy corpsman.

Sixteen U.S. service members were aboard the amphibious assault vehicle that had just completed a training exercise when it began taking on water about a half-mile from Navy-owned San Clemente Island, off San Diego.

The 26-ton, tank-like craft quickly sank in hundreds of feet of water — too deep for divers — making it difficult to reach.

One of eight Marines rescued from the water later died.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Total deaths from this incident are 9 deaths (8 US Marines + 1 US Sailor), with 7 survivors (2 of which are in critical condition).
 

Top