Pakistan Inadvertantly Admits That Its First Strike Capability Is Neutered:--

[leftfordead]

you can't live without trolling, can you

I was serious

 

[Mentee]

I was serious

damn serious

 

[leftfordead]

damn serious

No , I don't take that " damn Serious " , not my style but in serious ( lightly ) note , its true that Few Anti-Ship Missiles on Right Target can Disable any A/C for some time period ..

 

[Mentee]

No , I don't take that " damn Serious " , not my style but in serious ( lightly ) note , its true that Few Anti-Ship Missiles on Right Target can Disable any A/C for some time period ..

may be for years

 

[leftfordead]

may be for years

Who care ? but as far as the A/C is out in times of Battle , the work is done ... Even one Good hit on Run way will be disastrous

 

[Mrc]

Even i single missile can achieve a functional kill....

U dont have to sink ...its even better to leave it at sea disabled and take shots at all the rescue shios that show up for salvage....

Like ww2 german snipers.... who will wound the first victim and than kill the rescuers

 

[Freyja]

Lockheed Martin's LV-2 ballistic missile (intercepted during a test in 2014; see the link above) is superior to many ballistic missiles that are deployed around the world with the exception of current-generation ICBMs. In-fact, LV-2 can be converted into a real weapon for use in a war on moments notice; it is a finished product.

It never will be converted into a weapon again, given Trident D5 outranges and is more accurate, but the LV-2 is a freaking Poseidon SLBM!!!

LV-2 is a derivative of the C-3 variant;

Its sole purpose is as a target missile for GBI, SM-3 and THAAD. That alone should demonstrate the US can down long-ranges missiles.

Add to this long range targets like the air-launched E-LRALT and the ground-launched Hera;

A Frankenstein creation forged from Minuteman II ICBMs and Pershing II IRBMs, and I think your point stands pretty well.

The US is well positioned to down existing missile threats. And here's a rundown of existing target and countermeasures options the US leverages in its ABM testing- though the PDF is dated a bit.

http://www.mda.mil/global/documents/pdf/targets.pdf

 

[Mrc]

I want to re emphasize on myth of unsinkable cariers....

Use of multiple water tight compartments instead of one large hull, is not the extreme cutting edge.... technique is thousands of years old used by natives of atlantic islands and probably persian navy as well.....

Titanic was first modern ship to be built on this technique....

And we all know how unsinkable that was....

Its sister ship was also sunk by a torpedo.

Its not the matter of technology.... the day tgese cariers face a competent enemy we will see how unsinkable they are...

 

[Freyja]

I want to re emphasize on myth of unsinkable cariers....

Use of multiple water tight compartments instead of one large hull, is not the extreme cutting edge.... technique is thousands of years old used by natives of atlantic islands and probably persian navy as well.....

Titanic was first modern ship to be built on this technique....

And we all know how unsinkable that was....

Its sister ship was also sunk by a torpedo.

Its not the matter of technology.... the day tgese cariers face a competent enemy we will see how unsinkable they are...

large ships also have pump systems to right any listing that happens due to a hull rupture by diverting ballast to other areas of the vessel, so damaging them needs to be done with care - or repeatedly. But that hardly matters. With carriers, you don't need to sink them, just mission kill them. Unlike gun or missile boats, it's hard to operate a carriers weapons when it's sailing like this:

It'll live, but it sure as hell isn't fighting.

But getting cocky is stupid too. Carriers don't sail lone.

 

[Spectre]

large ships also have pump systems to right any listing that happens due to a hull rupture by diverting ballast to other areas of the vessel. But that hardly matters. With carriers, you don't need to sink them, just mission kill them. Unlike gun or missile boats, it's hard to operate a carriers weapons when it's sailing like this:

It'll live, but it sure as hell isn't fighting.

Modern AC are a totally different beast. Anyway I wanted to ask if the reactor can be specifically targeted and uncontrolled reaction initiated? Something like shooting down the death star in star wars?

 

[Freyja]

Modern AC are a totally different beast. Anyway I wanted to ask if the reactor can be specifically targeted and uncontrolled reaction initiated?

They'll never explode other then from steam pressure in the piping, as carriers and nuke subs tend to operate on pressurized water reactors, rather then the more volatile liquid metal ones. The physics don't allow for a nuclear bomb type blast, though steam explosions will ripe the vessel asunder, as NYCs post-9/11 explosion demonstrates nicely with roads and subterranean piping:

So no Death Star. But it'll cause damage, steam explosions are rarely subtle, and radiation too. But depending on where the carrier is, hitting the reactor may be a bad situation for both sides.

A Chernobyl in the ocean, leaking radiation into regional fisheries? Image one going down in the SCS, which all the regional nations relying on fishing for food - or at least making it a staple of their diet. Now, because of a toxic wreck, you're fishing up this:

And you can't eat that. So sure, you can target the reactor if you'd like, but it's no Death Star and may or may not be smart anyway.

...

Nations have lost nuclear subs before, even those with nuclear tipped missiles on board, but so long as the reactor is contained, it's not a radiological threat to the local wildlife or ecosystem. Rupturing the containment structure will allow for radiological contamination to leak:

 

[Spectre]

They'll never explode other then from steam pressure in the piping, as carriers and nuke subs tend to operate on pressurized water reactors, rather then the more volatile liquid metal ones. The physics don't allow for a nuclear bomb type blast, though steam explosions will ripe the vessel asunder, as NYCs post-9/11 explosion demonstrates nicely with roads and subterranean piping:

So no Death Star. But it'll cause damage, steam explosions are rarely subtle, and radiation too. But depending on where the carrier is, hitting the reactor may be a bad situation for both sides.

A Chernobyl in the ocean, leaking radiation into regional fisheries? Image one going down in the SCS, which all the regional nations relying on fishing for food - or at least making it a staple of their diet. Now, because of a toxic wreck, you're fishing up this:

And you can't eat that. So sure, you can target the reactor if you'd like, but it's no Death Star and may or may not be smart anyway.

You show me the nicest things!

Your post raises some troubling implications. The very act of sending a AC in hostile waters - can serve dual purpose. In the end, a nuclear powered boat can serve as nuclear delivery device without actually having employed that tactic. Devious - Don't shoot at us and we dominate your skies, shoot us and have a significant fall out.

 

[Mrc]

Sistership of titanic was sunk by a torpedo exploding below the ship without hitting it.... explosion punctured multiple compartments in a single blow....

Cruise missiles will achieve functional kill with direct hit but wont sink it as they would hit above water line....2ndry explosions from munition or fuel may completely sink it by chance... hypersonic missiles have a greater kill probability due to high knetic damage (hence name carier killers)...

Even US navy is worried by increasing variety and range of chinese anti ship missiles and infact have tested tomahawk in anti ship role...

Tomahawk has been around since 1960s but with now increasing lethality of chinese missiles need has arisen to changes its role to antiship missile....

 

[Tiger Genie]

Lol. thanks for your sympathy. what did india learnt from Adi and Ghandhi that you think pak should learn from them ?

Pak was good when it was usa buddy fighitng for usa in Afghanistan. but after ?
India is usa buddy getting ready to confront china. but after ? (worst than pak.)

it is an insult to Adi and Ghandi if india of today is attributed to them.

- India build nuclear bombs
- India recognized palestine occupiers
- india provided logitics support to usa during Iraq aggression,
- india provided technical support to Saddam during iran aggression,
- India provided support to saddam in acquiring chemcial weapons
- India having secret alliance with wahabi arabia, israel and usa
- India conspiring to destroy its neighbour.
- India conspiring and sacrificing its high profile spy and its pm getting the highest wahabi medal in return to keep Iran away from pak.
etc etc

Adi or Ghandhi would have never allowed india to have done this all.

India is only having its hay days and can assemble rovers to send to moon and mars till china is taken care. global manipulators will keep only smaller countries in future.

everyone knows that things can fix if Leaders like Imam Khomeini, Dr. Iqbal, MA Jinnah, Adi and Ghandhi are adhere to.

rest what is said by the poster is his own views and frankly most people think like labourers. rent out army give bases to foreigners and get money in return and 200 million nation will become rich and safe. it is hilarious.

99% of my post was about what ails Pakistan but you took the last 1% and used it to write all this about India. In the process you missed or managed to completely forget the original problem being discussed here - which Pakistan's inability to recognize, admit then work to solve the dire straits it has pushed itself into. you are within on epost proving @MastanKhan's point about this inability to see yourself in a mirror and see what has become of you!

While experiencing serious problems it is human nature to compare with the neighbor - but in addition to that comparison which can give momentary solace, you still have to repair yourself. Indians did that and succeeded. You guys failed and are simply stuck and reduced to taking solace at whenever something goes wrong in India.

Wouldn't it be great for a change to make something go right in Pakistan?

 

[MastanKhan]

I want to re emphasize on myth of unsinkable cariers....

Use of multiple water tight compartments instead of one large hull, is not the extreme cutting edge.... technique is thousands of years old used by natives of atlantic islands and probably persian navy as well.....

Titanic was first modern ship to be built on this technique....

And we all know how unsinkable that was....

Its sister ship was also sunk by a torpedo.

Its not the matter of technology.... the day tgese cariers face a competent enemy we will see how unsinkable they are...

I just posted this picture and link to it yesterday----this carrier could not be sunk with a nuc strike---