Problem is with the tone / general standpoint of the report.... this explains... so much. lolz
So, there is same confusion here.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.
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.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 Look at the dates it’s over 3 years out of date.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.