Taiwan fails to sink ship by F16
-
That ought to be the most effective option. As Heng said, there's probably a large air pocket keeping the ship afloat... a carefully-placed explosion at the top of the ship ought to release that air pocket, causing it to sink.Originally posted by SpecOps87:I belief the Naval diver option would be the most ideal.
However, it's also the most dangerous since it involves humans going up close and personal with a ship full of hazardous cargo in probably not-so-ideal sea conditions.
I guess perhaps they're apprehensive about risking a couple of their divers' lives. -
I think the most cost effective way is to the get Navy's DDs or FFs to close in and use their 76mm or 5-inch guns... shells are more cost effective then LGBs and missles.
-
You know, ships are actually quite armoured. Mainly to prevent oil leaks. And also they have compartments that are suppose to help keep the ship afloat in case of emergancy. I think the best option is to take out the boat with charges.
-
Thats why I believe that to sink ships, U punch holes that let water in, not holes to let AIR in.
-
couldn't they just have made low altitude runs with the Mk-84s...would have been more accurate and cost effective
-
Mebbe to salvage the problem,they can actually land ppl on top of the overturned ship and drop charges on it before detonating it.But to effectively sink a ship...mebbe they should consider Limpet mines.
-
Hellfire for anti ship????
Helfire is a HEAT weapons with practically no explosive after penetration, it is using shaped charge, it is designed to kill the crew and equipment within a AFV, not for ship!!!!
As for the TW's LGB, what was it designed for in the first place????
All missiles is design for certain target and purpose, that is why there are so many type!!! -
Low alt mk 84s too high risk. If the thing blasts, the jet might kena collateral damage. Even if u do a toss delivery, the F-16's bombin computer isnt that accurate and might miss.
Why the LGB's didn sink the ship... I'm guessing that the bomb ploughed thru without exploding. Or did not explode when intended.
The hellfire... I'm not surprisd. U dont sink ships by punching holes to let air in. If the ship was carrying munitions, i think the hellfire would have done something spectacular.
Perhaps the best way was simply to plant charges via a helicopter and then blow it up. -
Taiwan is going to use Abeking & Rasmussen "MWW50" mine hunter to search sunken ship.
PB 3 searcher
Are there 3 tyres ?For what ? -
my guess is that the bombs totally missed their markOriginally posted by Shotgun:Low alt mk 84s too high risk. If the thing blasts, the jet might kena collateral damage. Even if u do a toss delivery, the F-16's bombin computer isnt that accurate and might miss.
Why the LGB's didn sink the ship... I'm guessing that the bomb ploughed thru without exploding. Or did not explode when intended.
The hellfire... I'm not surprisd. U dont sink ships by punching holes to let air in. If the ship was carrying munitions, i think the hellfire would have done something spectacular.
Perhaps the best way was simply to plant charges via a helicopter and then blow it up.
one of the articles said that they blamed cloudy weather
they could always use a retarded version of the Mk-84...the high drag ones, so that the jets can clear the bombs' frag radius -
they just want people to boost their 15 bn defense budget
if never fail pple will be unconvinced -
Should have used a Harpoon..
-
$$$Originally posted by SpecOps87:Should have used a Harpoon..
ka-ching