Name of Old thread

No, but there was one about proximity fuses.

--
You can't fix stupid. You can't even put a band-aid on it, because it's
Teflon coated.

Google Groups is good for searching for stuff like that.

Here are some prox schematics:

ftp://jjlarkin.lmi.net/Prox.zip

The book mentioned was Baldwin, The Deadly Fuze.

John

A missile system I worked on in another life, the missile designers said they did not need a proximity fuse because the guidance was so good it would hit the target and you don't need a warhead if you hit an aircraft with a 2 ton (surface to air) missile.

--
John G

Found it thanks.

Yeah. Scud missiles hit so hard they don't need warheads. There's plenty of kinetic energy in just the mass.

John

Ditto Exocet. The one that sunk the Sheffield during the Falklands war did not detonate. The damage was caused by KE and unburned fuel.

--
Dirk

http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology

The energy density of explosives is probably lower than the energy density of rocket fuel. So it may be better to build a rocket with all fuel and no explosives, and put the effort into KE. Especially for hard targets. Of course, if you hit a tin can, it may go right through.

There are engineers who specialize in designing optimal weapons. Some of that can get grim. I knew a guy whose group worked on flechettes.

John

The best anti-shipping missile is IIRC the Russian Sunburn. Supersonic, sea skimming with terminal evasion to dodge US Phalanx guns. Iran has a load of them.

--
Dirk

http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology

The best defense against that would be to first take out all their ships, planes, and bases.

John

On a sunny day (Wed, 16 Feb 2011 10:03:39 -0800) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

The US does not fight wars to win, only to keep an industry running. So they will use the most stupid inefficient way possible. The longer the war, the more weapons are sold. The soldiers, thinking they fight for 'freedom' are just a pawn in that game.

Very difficult to take out mobile Sunburn launchers. The Straits of Hormuz would be closed indefinitely if there was a war.

--
Dirk

http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology

A cynical view perhaps, but I still don't know why uk forces are in Afghanistan. There again, modern warfare would be far too unacceptable between western nations. The population would never stand for it, so they go and fight their dirty little wars in third world countries, who are usually weaker, even if very determined. After all, they are only wogs and a few hundred thousand either way doesn't really matter. They are not like us, after all, old chap.

Some wars are justified, but the middle east adventures of the last couple of decades seem to be more about posturing, keeping defense industries and troops at peak level, maintaining the status quo with unsavoury regimes that we would never otherwise talk to and natural resources. The omens are not good for the future either, as China and India etc start to exert more influence. We in the west will be a lot poorer as a result...

Regards,

Chris

Like the Kuwait war? That took, what, 20 hours?

Can you say that in German?

John

On a sunny day (Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:47:17 -0800) it happened John Larkin wrote in :

Bull CIA told Saddam to invade Kuweit. The whole thing is about arms sales.

What you got against Germany?

Now we have the CIA causing unrest in all of Arab land. For what?

The people are the victims. But, according to some, it is all over soon:

Not that I agree or disagree with any of that. But in my view you cannot keep printing money without creating inflation. Maybe US will HAVE to win the next world war, and its chances are not good. These day most rare metal are imported, no chips for you :-)

That may be taking conspiracy theory too far. There seems to be a natural order and timeline to all this stuff. Empires rise and fall, populations rise up against tyranny because humanity individually and collectively has a sense of natural justice and will only put up with so much. Better education, awareness and global communication only compress timescales compared to the old days, when governments had more control over information flow.

The question you always have to ask is: Who has the most to gain and why ?. In the present case, not the us or the west in general imho...

Regards,

Chris

On a sunny day (Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:22:38 +0000) it happened ChrisQ wrote in :

Sure it is all easily dismissed as 'conspiracy'. I prefer to call it imperialism and money making. One thing caught my attention some month ago, I think it was the Jordan king that stated: "If the peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians fails, then their will be war in the area within a year." Now that had that rare sound of absolute truth about it, but if you think about it then it makes no sense. Even if all Muslims or Arabs were severely pissed by those negotiations failing, the status quo has been like that for more then 30 years, so why the sudden acceleration? The one who made that statement MUST have inside information. If you look at the sequence of events in Egypt, you will see that even though CNN was screaming 'revolution happens', hardly anybody was gathered there on the streets in the first few days. It was all accelerated by western news media, and using technology like twitter to trigger things further. When twitter was pushed to the masses a few years? ago, I also subscribed, so I have a twitter account, but really twitter is just about 'followers', and that means usually some ego freaks or politicians or other celebrities REPLACING common sense with 'followers', and followers is what governments desperately need to [take] control [of] the masses, so twitter was brought on the masses as the best thing ever. Now with that control, a few simple CIA operatives in those countries can light the matches needed to change a country at peace for 30 years into a war zone. But indeed, even now we know the 'how', the question is _why_ and _why_ _there_.

Of course the more unrest the more weapons are sold, good of the US. Israel will get under a lot more pressure, we now see likely permission for Iranian warships going through the Suez canal, entering the mediteranian sea. Now an Iranian warship is a lot less easier to stop then a ship full of peace activist trying to go to Palestine. More pressure on Israel. US sells weapons to Israel too... now they supply both [all well the Russians supply Iran] sides, good business decisions. But why the other parts of the middle east? Is it all to support the idea of a regime change in Iran? Sure if Iran starts fighting with Israel then US could perhaps get political support for a direct attack on Iran, grab their oil fields, as they did with Iraq. Of course many Muslims will die in these wars, these unrests, but it is far away from the US citizen's beds, so those will still sleep well. More fuel, more weapons sales, more money for the military, grabbing foreign goods, and maybe after almost everybody is dead, Israel, if it still exists, will make peace with the Palestinians, who, by then have a new land with strong support from what is left of the Arab world. The MISCALCULATION would be that somebody (China Russia come to mind, but perhaps even japan too) would object, and world war 3 would ignite. Combine that with the inflation hitting the US, millions getting drafted into the army now needed to protect what is left from the no longer united states, and there you are.

The USA learned its lesson. The next time they invaded on false pretenses and then began a decade long occupation and guerrilla war.

Can you say "We the Americans did not volunteer for WW2"

--
Dirk

http://www.neopax.com/technomage/ - My new book - Magick and Technology

Late at night, by candle light, ChrisQ penned this immortal opus:

It's kind of curious that all this terrorism and middle east bally-hoo took wind in the sails right after the Soviet empire fell.

It's an even better enemy than the old one, nebulous and diffuse, so can keep all the security and surveillance people "finding" new threats and selling countermeasures.

- YD.

--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.

guns.

game.

How is that different than any other country?