Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby geeth » 09 Aug 2002 18:18

So much fun!

Let me finish my job. I shall also join with my own "fundas".

Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Badar » 09 Aug 2002 18:36

Hi,

It makes no effort to check the out come of its firing instruction

Harry.V, Both an open loop as well as an closed loop system do a periodic target destruction evaluation.

The point is Russian CIWS is no way inferior to Phalanx or other western systems

How do we _know_ that?

Close In Weapons System , which by definition means a Closed loop System

Nathan, It is not. A CIWS is any hard kill weapon that provides defense at very short ranges. It _may_ or _may_not_ be a closed loop one.

It must be pointed out that a Man in Loop system is essentially a closed loop system

Having a man in the control loop has nothing to do with its being a close or a open loop system.

IR guidance is the best and in fact the safest

Harry.V, it might arguably be best(?) but why is it safest?

IIRC no IR guided missile (SAM or Air to Air) is used for head on interception

Arun_S, We have had all aspect IR missiles for a few decades now. Older missiles (both SAM and AAM) were limited to a rear quarter shot (when the hot exhaust of a jet engine was clearly visible).

eg:- The RIM-166 RAM for terminal defense against supersonic AShM's has a IIR seeker (an upgrade will result in a dual IIR/PRH seeker). The RIM-161 Standard 3 uses a FLIR for intercepting ATBM. The French Mistral used as a VSHORAD on some naval platforms is also IR guided.

Note that range and bearing cueing for an IR guided missile might still be provided by an active radar or ESM system. If necessary the IR seeker might acquire the target only in the terminal stages of the interception.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2123
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby John » 09 Aug 2002 19:51

As for Barak vs Trishul, what is the status of Trishul missile after the test held in early 2002 i haven't a word about it, btw there are already reports that Israel has chosen Barak-2 missile for the next five Eiliat corvetees I assume Barak-2 program was probably funded by IN.

geeth
BRFite
Posts: 1195
Joined: 22 Aug 1999 11:31
Location: India

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby geeth » 09 Aug 2002 20:40

As many had mentioned before, a closed loop system through its feedback control will feed the error and try to correct the aim. Let us see how it should work, if a weapon system such as AK630 has the closed loop system.

Take the effective range as 2 KM. Take the speed of incoming missile as 300 m/sec and that for the shell as 700 m/sec. Time available to destroy target ~ 7 seconds.

To get an error signal, the shell has to cross the missile. Suppose the gun has already fired so that the first salvo of shells crosses the missile at 2 KM. The control system detects the error and feeds it to the gun control system. correction is made and the gun again fires. This time, the shell will cross the missile after travelling 1400 M from the ship, after an elapse of 2 sec, and the missile would have come 600 M closer (if you fire in between, it is without knowing/measuring the error). That is, precious 2 seconds was lost by the time you get the first error signal inside the range. Next error signal would be received after another 1.35 sec or so. i.e., half the time is lost before you get two error signals.

That is not all - after the error signal is fed to the gun control system, the electrical part of the system will feed it to the hydraulic control system, which has further time lag. So the actual time lag / reaction time would be more. Even the hydraulic system has feedback control / closed loop to aim the gun.

The so called 'stream' of shells is not exactly a stream. In reality, the shells diverge / disperse as they travel farther - something similar to a jet of water coming out of a pipe. Hence tracking them individually or as a stream is indeed difficult.

So, digital electronics may be able to iterate and feed a firing solution to the gun control / weapon aiming system in pico seconds. But the mechanical/hydraulic system assciated with it retards the response. There is also limitation to the accuracy one can get from a hydraulic system. These sort problems are not encountered by guided missiles, because the the system is onboard the missile itself and once the target is locked in, it homes on to it.

harishn
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 27
Joined: 05 Jul 2002 11:31
Location: Bombay

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby harishn » 10 Aug 2002 12:34


Having a man in the control loop has nothing to do with its being a close or a open loop system.
U have misunderstood. Man in the control loop is different from Man-in-Loop systems. The earlier generation of anti aircraft weapons on Naval destroyers were Man operated anti aifcraft Guns. The Gunny would track the plane when it becomes visible over the horizon and then could aim the gun to target the plane . He would then continue to fire the weapon while tracking the plane as it flew over the ship. That is Man-in-Loop system. The present gen weapons like Goalkeeper or Phalanx removes the gunny and replaces him with a radar and computer. The man in the control loop can now play a role of initialising the weapons system or do some initial targetting using computers. But systems like Phalanx would still be closed loop system.

To get an error signal, the shell has to cross the missile. Suppose the gun has already fired so that the first salvo of shells crosses the missile at 2 KM. The control system detects the error and feeds it to the gun control system. correction is made and the gun again fires.
The computer does not have to wait for the shells to cross the missile. Assuming that the radar is tracking both the missile and the shell stream, the trajectory can be calculated by measuring the vector of the initial path of the shell. When u put the above statement in proper context it reduces the response time considerably.

Harry Van
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 14 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Harry Van » 11 Aug 2002 14:19

The basic confusion here is people are using different contexts.

In control theory , there is a term called CL which refers to feed back control mechanism.Human beings are held as ideal examples.They way we avoid oncoming traffic , eat etc are good examples.It has got nothing to do with military field.

Weapon experts are using the term to describe weapons which track shells and target.That is their definition.We are all arguing in different contexts.

originally quoted by Badar :
----------------------------------------------
IR guidance is the best and in fact the safest

Harry.V, it might arguably be best(?) but why is it safest?

-----------------------------------------------

Well for one thing no HARM would lock on to it.Also when it is tracking a target the target dosen't know about it.Its silent operation.

Harry Van
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 14 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Harry Van » 11 Aug 2002 14:36

Since I have problems editing the previous post I am asking here , what does IIRC stand for.I could guess IMHO and AFAIK , but IIRC has been a tough nut to crack.

Nandai
BRFite
Posts: 175
Joined: 14 Jul 2000 11:31
Location: Sweden

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Nandai » 11 Aug 2002 14:40

IIRC - I think I ReCall

Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Badar » 11 Aug 2002 18:06

Hi,

IIRC - If I Recollect Correctly

Harry Van
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 14 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Harry Van » 11 Aug 2002 18:44

Whom should I believe ? Anyway both almost mean the same.I got the general idea , when to use it .

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Div » 11 Aug 2002 21:06

Badar was rightish,

IIRC - If I Remember Correctly OR If I Really Cared though it is usually used for the former.

Div
BRFite
Posts: 327
Joined: 16 Aug 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Div » 11 Aug 2002 22:34

We All Live for Another Submarine
A multi-billion dollar arms race is gaining speed in Asia's waters. Some countries are preparing new defence strategies; others simply seek symbols of maritime power. Either way, for manufacturers, there's a lot of money to be made

http://www.feer.com/articles/2002/0208_15/p012region.html

Roop
BRFite
Posts: 255
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Roop » 12 Aug 2002 03:14

Originally posted by harryvandeusan:

Whom should I believe?
You should believe Badar and Div.

member_4565
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 1
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 05:32

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby member_4565 » 12 Aug 2002 12:30

what are the chances of a klub lunched from 100-120 km range penetrating an aegis controlled
SM2 screen.
when a klub is launched -how vulnerable the killo will be from a lurking los angeles class attack boat.

How effectively can a klub equipped killo defend agaist a carrier based naval attack

Harry Van
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 14 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Harry Van » 12 Aug 2002 15:46

The Klub will have to penetrate 5 levels of defence.At wartime , the missile launch will be detected by E-3 sentries and F-14's will be sent to shoot the Klub using AAM.If they escape it , they will have to counter the Aegis SM-2.If they escape it they willl have to deal with active electronic jamming.Then chaff.Finally Phalanx and RAM.

However now many levels of the above five have said to have degraded substantially in capabilities.

Raman
BRFite
Posts: 266
Joined: 06 Mar 2001 12:31
Location: Niyar kampootar onlee

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Raman » 12 Aug 2002 21:03

Originally posted by harryvandeusan:
The Klub will have to penetrate 5 levels of defence.At wartime , the missile launch will be detected by E-3 sentries and F-14's will be sent ...
You probably mean the carrier-borne E-2 Hawkeye. E-3 uses the Boeing 707 (land based), and cannot accompany a carrier as it goes on extended blue water ops.

++Rajesh

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Vick » 12 Aug 2002 21:30

Harry, now redo the Klub firing scenario vis-a-vis the PN. You will see that they have a little less in terms of assests that they can put out to thwart a Klub.

Their first line of defense would NOT be the detection of the launch of the missile. Their situational awareness would most likely not 'see' the launch but rather see a couple of really fast objects headed their way.

The PN boats defenses after detecting the missile would be evasive manuevers, ECM, decoys (SRBOCs, flares), CIWS, and prayer. Remember that the radar on the PN boats might pick up the missile at around 80-100kms if they get lucky. For a missile going at around 2M that gives the PN boat about 2.5 minutes (150 secs) to do whatever it is they want to do. Thats not a lot of time.

Harry Van
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 14 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Harry Van » 12 Aug 2002 21:44

Can a RADAR on a boat spot a missile at 100 kms ??? Also don't forget the Klub's supersonic only during its final approach.

What is SRBOC ?

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Vick » 12 Aug 2002 22:02

My goof on the Klub cruising speed vs. terminal speed. Yes, the 54I is only supersonic (2.9M) at terminal mode. It still should be a very difficult missile to avoid once launched.

SRBOC: Super Rapid Blooming Offboard Chaff

Harry Van
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 14 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Harry Van » 12 Aug 2002 22:15

Yes PN vessels will undoubtedly sink in the face of Klub attacks.I think it should be possible to use PGM against some of them due to radar range limitations.Yes Rajesh you are right about the aircraft.Its E-2 Hawkeye and not E-3 sentry.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Vick » 12 Aug 2002 22:48

If a PN ship gets hit by Klub, sinking is not a given. The charge is "only" 200kg. Sinking would depend on the size of the ship, the number of hits, and the region of impact along with the degree of effectiveness of the PN damage control teams. If the Klub hit a 200 ton FAC then most likely the ship will sink. Although it may not resemble a ship after the hit. But I doubt if a single Klub can sink a 2500 ton ship. The hit and the effects would have to be very favorable for a sink. The ship would most likely be up in flames with considerable internal damage and dead in the water but most likely not sink. Another Klub or two will put it out of its misery.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Shalav » 12 Aug 2002 23:08

Originally posted by harryvandeusan:
[QB]Can a RADAR on a boat spot a missile at 100 kms ???QB]
distance to horizon can be calculated roughly using

d (in NM) = 1.169 x sqrt(h [height in ft])

to calculate the distance where one can spot the missile one would add the distance to horizon of the radar antenna to distance to horizon of the missile

arriving at

D (spot range) = d(radar antenna) + d(missile)

Therefore for 100 km detection range of a missile at 5 metres MSL the radar antanna would have to be

d(missile)
= 1.169 x sqrt (5x3.28)
= 1.169 x sqrt (16.40)
= 1.169 x 4.05
= 4.73 NM
= ~8.75 km

d(antenna) = 100km - 8.75 km = 91.25 km

Therefore

91.25 km = 1.169 x sqrt(h)
sqrt(h) = 91.25 / 1.169
sqrt(h) = 78.06
h = 78.06^2
h = 6093.36'
h = ~1857 m

therefore only AEW observation is possible if a missile has to be spotted at 100 km.

If one is dependant purely on surface antennae the detection ranges would be in the range of 20 to 30 km assuming the missile flies at 5 m MSL and antenna are mounted 20 to 30 m high.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Vick » 12 Aug 2002 23:15

The missile isn't skimming at 100km. The skimming starts at its terminal range, around 10-20km.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Shalav » 12 Aug 2002 23:36

True but even then the max detection range will be 69-70 km from surface vessels - AFAIK the max height it attains is 150 m MSL before jettisoning its rocket boosters and descending to 15 m MSL.

I dont think the 150 m make much of a difference if the missile is going to be launched 100+ km from the target.

@ 15 m MSL the detection range is 36-40 km, at this point the missile will rise to 40 m MSL to achieve target lock. Let me correct myself the max detection range will be 36-40 km assuming 15 m MSL for the missile and 30 m for the radar mount.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Vick » 12 Aug 2002 23:44

That reduces the PN's reaction time even further if their best hope of detection is at around 70-80km. The Klubs will most likely be launced at around 110-120kms even though their max range is higher. So, while the missile is visible to the PN ship it will be going.6-.8M for about 60km then the missile will dive and enter the terminal mode going 2.9M.

Guest

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Guest » 12 Aug 2002 23:56

The missile isn't skimming at 100km. The skimming starts at its terminal range, around 10-20km.
So, there is a way to detect it before entering it's terminal phase. This raises the question, Does the Brahmos have sea-skimming capability all the way from launch till terminal phase??

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Shalav » 13 Aug 2002 00:09

Vick,

It would depend. To launch 100+ km from target the launcher would have to use AEW helos to target the PN vessels.

So if the helo can "see" the ship to target it, the ship can also "see" the helo. In all probability the captain is going to be alert for an incoming missile, and his reactions will be quicker.

Unless the IN wants achieve complete surprise and launch in the general vicinity of the PN fleet hoping the missile will lock on a significant target when it reaches 40 km, the PN will definitely know if they are being probed by either the radars of the AEW or MP aircraft.

George J

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby George J » 13 Aug 2002 00:16

Originally posted by Vick:
If a PN ship gets hit by Klub, sinking is not a given. The charge is "only" 200kg. Sinking would depend on the size of the ship......I doubt if a single Klub can sink a 2500 ton ship. The hit and the effects would have to be very favorable for a sink.......
I had similar thoughts....until i saw what a rubber dingy laden with explosives can do to a Arligh-Burke Class Destroyer.
<img src="http://www.ompg.com/catalog/psi107/sample/cole.gif" alt="" />

That hole caused by a rubby dingy led to this...
<img src="http://www.pascagoula.net/PhotoGallery/USS%20Cole/Cole-Air.JPG" alt="" />

So my conclusion is that any ship in any navy bedder have the chedder to stop one of them AShM, if not they be toast.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Shalav » 13 Aug 2002 00:35

Dear Mr. Technician;

Quite right. A 200 kg warhead is going to make any PN surface vessel mission incapable. If it sinks with one shot so much the better - no need for a coup-de-grace after one hit, unless one wants to make a point.

Lets see:

-o- The Type 21's are firetraps, and would go down with one hit (one reason the UK got rid of them quickly after the Falklands).
-o- Its not worth wasting a klub on the gun equipped Leanders.
-o- The Jalalat missile boats would also go down one hit.
-o- The Huangfens are equivalent to our OSA I class boats and similarly would go down with one hit. These are not bad at all, and with the Chinese mfg styx's can pose a problem along with the Jalalats.

In fact I don't think there is any vessel in the PN fleet which would actually survive and stay afloat after being hit by one of these warheads.

Vick,

Are you sure the terminal velocity of the klub is 2.9M, I think the versions we have have terminal velocities of 0.6 to 0.8 M

George J

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby George J » 13 Aug 2002 00:39

Technician kaun?

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Shalav » 13 Aug 2002 00:44

Aap! :p

George J

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby George J » 13 Aug 2002 00:48

Why?

BTW you in Chicago right? Why didnt you come for the BR Chicago meet? Since this thread has gone through more tangents than amma's silk sarees its best you mail your reply to gjman@hotmail.com

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Vick » 13 Aug 2002 00:49

The Klub and similar missiles will not necessarily hit that close to the waterline.

John
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2123
Joined: 03 Feb 2001 12:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby John » 13 Aug 2002 01:04

"Quite right. A 200 kg warhead is going to make any PN surface vessel mission incapable. If it sinks with one shot so much the better - no need for a coup-de-grace after one hit, unless one wants to make a point."
actually it is not warhead that poses the greatest threat it is the speed of the missile klub terminal speed is Mach 2.0 at altitude of 5 meters the impact alone will easily cripple the
superstructure of any vessel remember E=MC^2.

Shalav here is simple way To calculate the radar horizon
http://home.att.net/~wittenberg/radar/calculators/horizon.htm
you're calculation is off 1300 meters you need only AEW helicopter flying at 596 meters to detect a target as far away as 100 km. Technically the KA-31 should be able to detect targets as far away as 250 km since they will be flying around at 3500 meters.

"It would depend. To launch 100+ km from target the launcher would have to use AEW helos to target the PN vessels. "
As i said earliar KA-31 will be used to provide beyond horizon targeting for the Klub PN has no vessels with radar capable enough of spotting KA-31 250 km away. But Klub missile has its drawback first being that it requires absolute Beyong horizon targeting and its takes more than 12 minutes to reach its target.So attacking fast moving target like FAC with Klub missile is quite difficult. That is why IN is going for the brahmos it requires very little beyond horizon targeting and it can travel 280 km in 5 minutes.

Does the Brahmos have sea-skimming capability all the way from launch till terminal phase??
That all depends on the flight path.

Chinese mfg styx's can pose a problem along with the Jalalats.
actually they carry the chinese version of exocet.

Are you sure the terminal velocity of the klub is 2.9M, I think the versions we have have terminal velocities of 0.6 to 0.8 M
Yeap that is what all the articles say but I am not partically fond of 3M-54E missile it does have supersonic terminal speed but it weights too much and is too large so is not worth it! consider this Brahmos SSM weights only 700 kg more than this missile and its range is far greater and its fully supersonic.

Vick
BRFite
Posts: 753
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Vick » 13 Aug 2002 01:18

Actually john, the warhead is the main damage contributor. What the high impact speed will do is make sure that the missile penetrates further into the ship, where more sensitive equipment are located, before detonation. Heck a really lucky hit might kill a good chunk of the DC crew. :) The warhead will do most of the primary damage and the resultant fires (exacerbated by the unused rocket fuel) and the possible flooding will be the bonus.

Shalav
BRFite
Posts: 588
Joined: 17 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Shalav » 13 Aug 2002 01:39

ooops!!! my bad

Forgot to convert the units on the left to NM, and used 92.25 km instead of 49.81 NM

Therefore going back to the equation

92.25 km = 49.81 NM

Therefore

49.81 = 1.169 x sqrt(h)
sqrt(h) = 49.81 / 1.169
sqrt(h) = 42.61
h = 42.61^2
h = ~553m MSL

More or less the same. The descrepancy is because he uses the earths radius as 6,378,551 m (from meteosat images) and I use the mean radius which is 6,371,010 m. But one gets the rough answer.

To get an accurate answer one could use the following formula

l = cos^-1(r / r+h) x (2pi r / 360)

BTW john are you sure about the terminal velocity of the klub, I always thought they had velcities of 0.6-0.8M. I can't find any reference to 2M terminal velocities for the klubs. Sunburns YES - NOT the klubs.

Nope the huangfens carry the HY2 which are chinese derivatives of the Styx, the Jalalats carry the improved C802 which are improved from teh C801 derived from the exocets.

Here is a google translated page

<a href="http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.netmarine.net/armes/missiles/chine.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3DHY2%2Bmissile%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DU TF-8%">Link</a> 26sa%3DG

Badar
BRFite
Posts: 410
Joined: 23 Jun 1999 11:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Badar » 13 Aug 2002 11:15

Hi,

I think it should be possible to use PGM against some of them due to radar range limitations

Harry.V, what was that again?

The Klub and similar missiles will not necessarily hit that close to the waterline

Quite right vick. Most AShM's aim for the superstructure - trying to destroy comm and sensors. They are forced to do this because most missiles lack the 'omph' to sink a vessel with a single hit.

Current brands of AShM (except the largest Russian ones) are not effective at sinking warships, let alone the mechant marine, by main force and explosive power. Usually the explosive is there simply to punch holes in the bulkheads so that any fires started will spread easily. Navies of the world have come a full circle - they are back to firing fire-arrows at each other and praying that fire will consume the enemy. :)

Does the Brahmos have sea-skimming capability all the way from launch till terminal phase?

rahul, For full range, Brahmos has a high lofted trajectory - as high as 15,000 meters. At terminal stages it drops down to 5-10 meters. For shorter ranges it might be possible to fire the Brahmos on more stealthy depressed trajectories.

PN has no vessels with radar capable enough of spotting KA-31 250 km away

ESM.

Harry Van
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 14 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Harry Van » 13 Aug 2002 13:38

George J do you know some believe the Aleigh Burke class ship was attacked by the popeye turbo by Israeli AF to drag the USA into the war against Islamic fundamentalists.Of course it is the group that sees Israeli conspiracy in everything.It appears that during an earlier war Israel had attacked the cargo ship USS Liberty , acc to this group.Anyway the damage was caused not by a rubber dingy but atleast 100 kg explosives inside it.

durvasa
BRFite
Posts: 170
Joined: 11 Dec 2000 12:31

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby durvasa » 13 Aug 2002 16:05

Originally posted by harryvandeusan:
do you know some believe the Aleigh Burke class ship was attacked by the popeye turbo by Israeli AF to drag the USA into the war against Islamic fundamentalists.Anyway the damage was caused not by a rubber dingy but atleast 100 kg explosives inside it.
Does that 'some' include 'YOU' too!! Anyway thanks for clarification. We were really thinking that Burke was damaged by the impact of the Dinghy's super-elastic polyamide outer surface, embedded with radial high density polypropylene sharp air-nozzles on Burkes' delicate tungsten-core graphite-carbon steel hull. :roll:

Harry Van
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 73
Joined: 14 Jun 2002 11:31
Location: Bangalore

Re: Klub ASCM and Kilo Upgrades

Postby Harry Van » 13 Aug 2002 16:56

I debated long over making the last post , and also decided not to give the link which gives details of damage and how the pattern clearly shows the use of CM and military explosives , as it might harm Hindu - Jewish relations.They give reasons for suspecting the Popeye Turbo.Its a bit too convincing.At least a lot will be taken in.By not giving the link I have proved ...i am not one of them.


Return to “Military Issues Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests