what about you?Originally posted by the.raven:you are a dumbFuck.
shouldn't tat comment be directed to u instead..??Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:what about you?
retard?
shouldn't this comment be directed at you instead?Originally posted by Lance_han:shouldn't tat comment be directed to u instead..??![]()
Originally posted by Gedanken:DonÂ’t mix PAC-3Â’s slant range to its max height range. So far, the PAC-3 only can reach maximum 23000M or so above sea level. In real practice, it will engage the target at much low altitude, ItÂ’s effect to destroy the warhead with Bio or Chem weapon, but not nuke. Because at such low altitude, Nuke still explode with the same or stronger damage than it does on the ground
The trouble they had with the original Patriot's 24-bit guidance system was that it was about 0.34 seconds slow in making its decisions. However, it is essentially a software problem. It's only a matter of time before they get their algorithms correct and improve the software so that it can intercept an MIRV - with a range of 100 km, the PAC-3 has more than enough range to catch a MIRV reentering the atmosphere.[/b]
Originally posted by coolant:Well and good, but:
DonÂ’t mix PAC-3Â’s slant range to its max height range. So far, the PAC-3 only can reach maximum 23000M or so above sea level. In real practice, it will engage the target at much low altitude, ItÂ’s effect to destroy the warhead with Bio or Chem weapon, but not nuke. Because at such low altitude, Nuke still explode with the same or stronger damage than it does on the ground[/b]
Originally posted by Gedanken:Sigh , ppl with wildest claim, usually is with minimum knowledge.
Well and good, but:
1) The RV is unlikely to come straight down, but is likely to also follow a sloping path down. If you're on either of the seaboards, chances are that you'll intercept the warhead over the sea. If you're living in middle America, you're screwed anyway
2) Destruction of the warhead will probably not cause detonation unless the warhead is set for high-altitude burst (in which case you're screwed anyway).[/b]Tell me how you hit the warhead with your 75KG HE but don't trigger the Warhead's chemical explosive to explode?
Won't have 2 much too say, the nuclear warhead OF COURSE contains chemical explosive for as you mentioned : detornation purpose, you should get some info on how the Nuclear warhead works before you make any comment.Originally posted by Gedanken:You wanna cool your jets there, noob? We're having light conversation here, so don't go looking to start a pissing contest, eh?
I'll attend to your second point first. We're talking about nukes in this thread, so your mention of chemical warheads is irrelevant in this context. Do you really believe that 75 kg of a diffuse explosive force from an external source is enough to compress that fissionable material correctly to start a chain reaction?
If you knew anything about demolitions, you would recognise the importance of using correctly-shaped charges in the warhead to compress the nuclear material, as a key part of the process of starting the chain reaction. The force and direction of 75 kg of HE diffusing spherically would not have the effect of the shaped charges within the warhead. So yes, even without my name being Jesus, unless the warhead was already set and ready to detonate at the point of interception, the blast from the Patriot's warhead would destroy the warhead without it detonating.
As for your first point, of course you are correct that the PAC-3 is defined by the DoD as a low tier weapon, but I'm not talking about the PAC-3, am I? Any data or DoD recommendations you raise about the PAC-3 are therefore irrelevant.
What I am talking about is a weapon based upon the Patriot platform, but with improved software. Before you start picking a problem with that, I'm not suggesting any improvements for the software - looking at the changes from PAC-2 to PAC-3, though, who's to say that such improvements are impossible?
I suggest that you act according to your nick, coolant. We're here to relax and throw a couple of ideas around, not to start fights. I'll disagree with your claim that your first post was polite - you're in no position to speak in such an instructive tone as to tell me not to mix this and that. Chill out, take your time to understand what I'm saying, and let's have a good discussion.
wad was i commenting anywae..??Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:shouldn't this comment be directed at you instead?
dumbnoob
Any SAF soldier with basic demolitions training would see what you have missed. Don't bother arguing about detonators, either - seeing as how you're the resident nuke expert, I don't have to tell you about how they're nowhere as fragile as your garden-variety sort.Originally posted by coolant:Won't have 2 much too say, the nuclear warhead OF COURSE contains chemical explosive for as you mentioned : detornation purpose, you should get some info on how the Nuclear warhead works before you make any comment.
Originally posted by Gedanken:1st, Put 72kg H.E in a Ammunition Dump and detonate the H.E, how you going to see?
Any SAF soldier with basic demolitions training would see what you have missed. Don't bother arguing about detonators, either - seeing as how you're the resident nuke expert, I don't have to tell you about how they're nowhere as fragile as your garden-variety sort.
Lucky here still not a chitchat board, your mordancy words only duly portrait what a person u r and what u r good @
In any case, I said I'm here to chill, shoot the breeze and throw some ideas around, but you just gotta go wetting your pants over something this trivial, don't you? Seriously geeksville, kiddo - you obviously feel like you got something to prove and I ain't got time for that Scrappy-Doo BS because, well, I'm not here to hold your hand while you work on growing up. Me, I've got much cooler people to spend my time on, so you're just going to have to find someone else's time to waste, little guy - all the best!
Depends on the kiloton yield of the warhead.SRAM,SLBM or ICBM?Originally posted by kaka_22:off-topic.......talking about nuclear weapons.....lets say an American ICBM with nuclear warhead can destroy up to wat area of landcan ani one give an approximate range
then if the maximum number kiloton is in the ICBM......?Originally posted by LazerLordz:Depends on the kiloton yield of the warhead.SRAM,SLBM or ICBM?
Originally posted by SMAPLionHeart:If anything fails , we can always ask LaserLordz to pilot a fighter jet aka
F/A-18 hornet suiciding on alien warship in independence day style , to crash onto the incoming missile![]()
![]()
or use the star wars defense system?