Moonbox Posted February 18, 2015 Author Report Posted February 18, 2015 (edited) So you made a baseless assertion that you can not prove…….I’m shocked!!! Like I said, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove North Korean artillery that nobody's seen in action is inaccurate any more than I can prove aliens don't exist or that you didn't invent a hover-board. That ~25% of their shells were duds raises doubts that they could hit a large stationary city? Apples, meet oranges………. A little reading and comprehension, along with some intellectual integrity, would go a long way for you. If you strain yourself and read my last post again, you'll see I said: Fortunately for them Seoul is huge, so at least they should be able to hit things within the general area. Oops again Derek! At any rate, the fact that the North Korean manufacturing doesn't appear capable of reliably producing exploding ordnance raises significant doubts of their capabilities elsewhere.... Nice dodge……..does naval artillery require more or less calculated variables than artillery bombarding a fixed point from a fixed location? Your question is misleading, as usual. All other things being equal (range, visibility, weather etc), naval artillery calculations are going to be very slightly more complicated. It's too bad that none of these things are equal in the context of our debate. Calculating the relative distance and vectors of two moving objects is child's play compared to calculating the effects of weather on an artillery shell over a 50km flight. Check out what your friends at globalsecurity.org say about that, and maybe give us an idea on how advanced North Korea's weather science and satellites are... http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/34-81-1/appd.htm Like something from the DoD? Citing something isn't the same thing as actually proving your point or verifying your claim. You've listed a 20-page report to Congress and not pulled a single excerpt from it to explain how or where it supports what you're saying. Umm...great. Now pull a quote from it telling us how North Korean artillery could destroy we can safely conclude that this is yet another of your citation goof-ups. Edited February 18, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted February 18, 2015 Report Posted February 18, 2015 Like I said, I can't prove a negative. I can't prove North Korean artillery that nobody's seen in action is inaccurate any more than I can prove aliens don't exist or that you didn't invent a hover-board. I know, and that is why your claim that World War two area bombing is more accurate than artillery is baseless and devoid of fact. A little reading and comprehension, along with some intellectual integrity, would go a long way for you. If you strain yourself and read my last post again, you'll see I said: Then why did you point towards duds as an indication of overall accuracy? Why didn't you speak to actual accuracy of North Korean artillery in the example you cited of duds? Oops again Derek! At any rate, the fact that the North Korean manufacturing doesn't appear capable of reliably producing exploding ordnance raises significant doubts of their capabilities elsewhere.... Why is that? During the onset of hostilities in the Pacific in WW II, the USN had a run of dud torpedoes, that in no way is a detraction of their accuracy……likewise Winchester makes today cheap .22 bricks that are known far and wide for FTFs, yet no one questions if a Winchester rifle is accurate……. By all means explain your assertion. Your question is misleading, as usual. All other things being equal (range, visibility, weather etc), naval artillery calculations are going to be very slightly more complicated. It's too bad that none of these things are equal in the context of our debate. Calculating the relative distance and vectors of two moving objects is child's play compared to calculating the effects of weather on an artillery shell over a 50km flight. Check out what your friends at globalsecurity.org say about that, and maybe give us an idea on how advanced North Korea's weather science and satellites are... Perhaps you should reread your link and explain how, ~100 years ago, navies were able to contend with varying humidity and barometric pressure at sea? Likewise if calculating artillery vectors on moving targets was child's play, ~100 years ago, calculating vectors on stationary targets in the present day should be even easier........ None the less, your point is laughable because the environmental effects that you speak of far more influence the shell in its external ballistic phase (the point that the shell has attained its own muzzle velocity and is no longer effected by gases from the barrel) and not the terminal phase 35km+ km away from the artillery piece...........said environmental factors will only play into the terminal phase if the shell is either a proximity warhead, sub-munitions or Chemical/Biological round.....not a conventional HE warhead........ Citing something isn't the same thing as actually proving your point or verifying your claim. You've listed a 20-page report to Congress and not pulled a single excerpt from it to explain how or where it supports what you're saying. Umm...great. Now pull a quote from it telling us how North Korean artillery could destroy we can safely conclude that this is yet another of your citation goof-ups. Oh, like this: This large artillery force includes long-range 170-mm guns and 240-mm MRLs, many of which are deployed along the DMZ and pose a constant threat to northern parts of the ROK, including its capital city of Seoul. Odd that not once in this DoD report do they indicate the US military is no longer required in South Korea and that the South Koreans, as is, could defend themselves from the North.....So what were you basing that claim of yours on again? Quote
Moonbox Posted February 19, 2015 Author Report Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) I know, and that is why your claim that World War two area bombing is more accurate than artillery is baseless and devoid of fact. You calling my claim baseless is hilarious, since you have literally NOTHING to support your insistence on the accuracy of North Korean artillery. We saw the effectiveness of RAF bombing. It's in the books. We have nothing to show us how effective or accurate North Korean artillery would be. We have plenty of reasons to believe it wouldn't be, but obviously no definitive proof. Either way, your logic sucks. Then why did you point towards duds as an indication of overall accuracy? Why didn't you speak to actual accuracy of North Korean artillery in the example you cited of duds? Use your brain Derek. If North Korea lacks the technical/practical expertise to build reliably exploding ordnance (with WW1-WW2 dud rates), their expertise in more complicated areas is extremely doubtful. Why is that? During the onset of hostilities in the Pacific in WW II, the USN had a run of dud torpedoes, that in no way is a detraction of their accuracy…… Umm...no. The Mark 14 torpedo was faulty on both accounts. It had accuracy problems and high failure rates (duds or premature detonation). Perhaps you should reread your link and explain how, ~100 years ago, navies were able to contend with varying humidity and barometric pressure at sea? They contended with it largely by trial and error. They fired on a best guess, observed the splashes of their (expected) missed shots, and then adjusted aim accordingly. It was rinse and repeat until they finally acquired the proper solution. For long range battles, it could take 10+ minutes before a ship landed its first hit. Likewise if calculating artillery vectors on moving targets was child's play, ~100 years ago, calculating vectors on stationary targets in the present day should be even easier........ Yes. I'm sure even you could calculate the distance and vectors of two stationary targets. I highly doubt, however, that you could make the proper mathematical adjustments for pressure, humidity, wind etc over a 50km arcing flight. The North Koreans probably aren't good at it either. None the less, your point is laughable because the environmental effects that you speak of far more influence the shell in its external ballistic phase(the point that the shell has attained its own muzzle velocity and is no longer effected by gases from the barrel) and not the terminal phase 35km+ km away from the artillery piece Your understanding of terminology is what's laughable. The terminal phase is when the projectile hits the target, genius. The external phase starts almost immediately once the projectile leaves the barrel, and continues all the way through until it lands. So umm...yes. The weather effects are most significant while the shell is in flight. Thanks for clearing that up. Oh, like this: This large artillery force includes long-range 170-mm guns and 240-mm MRLs, many of which are deployed along the DMZ and pose a constant threat to northern parts of the ROK, including its capital city of Seoul. THAT'S what you think supports your argument!?! Holy crap Derek! I asked you specifically for some sort of citation testifying to the accuracy of North Korean artillery. Your proof is to show its range -- something that was never in question!? Odd that not once in this DoD report do they indicate the US military is no longer required in South Korea and that the South Koreans, as is, could defend themselves from the North.....So what were you basing that claim of yours on again? Aww...You got caught in another citation goof-up and now you're trying to change the subject!? Edited February 19, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Posted February 19, 2015 You calling my claim baseless is hilarious, since you have literally NOTHING to support your insistence on the accuracy of North Korean artillery. We saw the effectiveness of RAF bombing. It's in the books. We have nothing to show us how effective or accurate North Korean artillery would be. We have plenty of reasons to believe it wouldn't be, but obviously no definitive proof. Either way, your logic sucks. Your claim is baseless, the RAF based accuracy on being able to get bombs within 3 miles of the target......you stated North Korean artillery was less accurate, so prove it...... Use your brain Derek. If North Korea lacks the technical/practical expertise to build reliably exploding ordnance (with WW1-WW2 dud rates), their expertise in more complicated areas is extremely doubtful. Umm...no. The Mark 14 torpedo was faulty on both accounts. It had accuracy problems and high failure rates (duds or premature detonation). So because the Americans had the failed Mark 14, their expertise, in that time frame, in more technical areas was also extremely doubtful? Clearly Western munitions factories never get runs of bad powder....... They contended with it largely by trial and error. They fired on a best guess, observed the splashes of their (expected) missed shots, and then adjusted aim accordingly. It was rinse and repeat until they finally acquired the proper solution. For long range battles, it could take 10+ minutes before a ship landed its first hit. You're dodging the question..... Yes. I'm sure even you could calculate the distance and vectors of two stationary targets. I highly doubt, however, that you could make the proper mathematical adjustments for pressure, humidity, wind etc over a 50km arcing flight. The North Koreans probably aren't good at it either. They don't need to!!!! Your understanding of terminology is what's laughable. The terminal phase is when the projectile hits the target, genius. The external phase starts almost immediately once the projectile leaves the barrel, and continues all the way through until it lands.So umm...yes. The weather effects are most significant while the shell is in flight. Thanks for clearing that up. Reread my post in regards to the terminal phase(thanks again for attempting to teach me what I already know!!!)...........and no, once the projectile leaves the barrel, it enters the intermediate ballistic phase as the expanding pressure created by the gasses still plays effect on said projectile eventual (final) muzzle velocity......once said gases no longer effect the projectile, it then enters the external phase...... The same principles apply with a .22 rifle all the way up to 16" naval gun.......... Now since you have wikipedia fresh in your head, explain why my $2000 G7 rangefinder accounts for barometric pressure and temperature from the firing point and not the impact point!?!?!?!?! I must be pointing it backwards... THAT'S what you think supports your argument!?! Holy crap Derek! That's pathetic. I asked you specifically for some sort of citation testifying to the accuracy of North Korean artillery. Your proof is to show its range -- something that was never in question!? You have a contention with a DoD threat assessment that clearly states North Korean artillery poses a threat to Seoul.... Aww...You get caught in another citation goof-up and now you're trying to change the subject!? Change the subject? Didn't said subject appear with your claim that South Korea didn't need the Americans to fend off the North Koreans..........a claim that you've yet to support!!! Quote
Moonbox Posted February 21, 2015 Author Report Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) Your claim is baseless,the RAF based accuracy on being able to get bombs within 3 miles of the target My claim is still based on more than yours. Mine is based on the actual evidence of brutally effective RAF bombing raids. Your is based on nothing (as usual). ......you stated North Korean artillery was less accurate, so prove it...... This is just more of your rubbish and incompetent reasoning. YOU made the claim that North Korean artillery would be pinpoint accurate. I contested that claim. Your defense is to now demand evidence that it's NOT accurate!? That's a fundamental failure in logic. If you told me you could outrun a cheetah, and I said that you couldn't, it's up to you to prove that you can. There's no way for me to prove that you can't until we see you run. So because the Americans had the failed Mark 14, their expertise, in that time frame, in more technical areas was also extremely doubtful? It's hard to take you seriously when you don't seem capable of anything more than arguing by dumb question. You should try something else. In this case, failed torpedo designs (among other mistakes) certainly raised doubts of American design and manufacturing expertise. Fortunately, the number of effective designs they demonstrated erased any overall doubts. Not so with the North Koreans, with their third-world economy and history of technical embarrassments. Clearly Western munitions factories never get runs of bad powder....... Nobody said that. The problem is that there's not a lot of reliable information about the North Korean military. What little information we do have gives us every reason to believe their technical and manufacturing capabilities are suspect. You're dodging the question..... No, I specifically answered it. Read it again. They don't need to!!!! So North Korea has developed artillery that's not affected by weather!? WOW!! Reread my post in regards to the terminal phase(thanks again for attempting to teach me what I already know!!!)...........and no, once the projectile leaves the barrel, it enters the intermediate ballistic phase No, you're just having reading/comprehension problems again. You quoted (in bold) me saying the external phase starts almost immediately after the projectile leaves the barrel. I didn't say almost for no reason. as the expanding pressure created by the gasses still plays effect on said projectile eventual (final) muzzle velocity......once said gases no longer effect the projectile, it then enters the external phase...... Spare us the technical natter please. I know you like to puff your chest and act like an expert, but you goof up way too often to take it seriously. Why would you go on about the weather not affecting the accuracy of a projectile in the terminal phase? That makes absolutely no sense, since the projectile is no longer in flight at that point. Maybe you misspoke again? Now since you have wikipedia fresh in your head, explain why my $2000 G7 rangefinder accounts for barometric pressure and temperature from the firing point and not the impact point!?!?!?!?! I must be pointing it backwards... I'm stunned that you don't realize how stupid that question is. Unless I'm mistaken, you're not hunting with artillery guns or firing your shells into the sky trying to hit targets up to 50km away. Does your G7 rangefinder account for winds-aloft? Do your weather conditions vary a great deal over 1-2km (vs 30-50)? You have a contention with a DoD threat assessment that clearly states North Korean artillery poses a threat to Seoul.... Did I ever say it didn't? No? Okay then. My contention was always that you exaggerate the scale of the threat. I believe your words were "flatten Seoul" or "make it resemble the surface of the Moon". Change the subject? Didn't said subject appear with your claim that South Korea didn't need the Americans to fend off the North Koreans..........a claim that you've yet to support!!! Yes, you went back to a argument we were having about 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a change of subject. Edited February 21, 2015 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2015 Report Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) My claim is still based on more than yours. Mine is based on the actual evidence of brutally effective RAF bombing raids. Your is based on nothing (as usual). No, your claim is not based on anything........you stated World War two area bombing was more accurate than North Korean artillery........you haven't provided any facts to support your claim. This is just more of your rubbish and incompetent reasoning. YOU made the claim that North Korean artillery would be pinpoint accurate. I contested that claim. Your defense is to now demand evidence that it's NOT accurate!? That's a fundamental failure in logic. If you told me you could outrun a cheetah, and I said that you couldn't, it's up to you to prove that you can. There's no way for me to prove that you can't until we see you run. I never made such a claim, in fact, I stated North Korean artillery would be less accurate than Western Artillery.....not World War II area bombing...... It's hard to take you seriously when you don't seem capable of anything more than arguing by dumb question. You should try something else. In this case, failed torpedo designs (among other mistakes) certainly raised doubts of American design and manufacturing expertise. Fortunately, the number of effective designs they demonstrated erased any overall doubts. Not so with the North Koreans, with their third-world economy and history of technical embarrassments. No, you suggested a certain level of industrial ability applied against a whole nation based on one documented ~25% failure ratio example........rather simplistic. Nobody said that. The problem is that there's not a lot of reliable information about the North Korean military. What little information we do have gives us every reason to believe their technical and manufacturing capabilities are suspect. So, the North Koreans could have had an isolated case of bad explosives? No, I specifically answered it. Read it again. No you didn't. So North Korea has developed artillery that's not affected by weather!? WOW!! I never stated or implied that. Spare us the technical natter please. I know you like to puff your chest and act like an expert, but you goof up way too often to take it seriously. Why would you go on about the weather not affecting the accuracy of a projectile in the terminal phase? That makes absolutely no sense, since the projectile is no longer in flight at that point. Maybe you misspoke again? Because you stated the North Koreans ability to predict weather 50kms away (point of impact) is in doubt........... I'm stunned that you don't realize how stupid that question is. Unless I'm mistaken, you're not hunting with artillery guns or firing your shells into the sky trying to hit targets up to 50km away. Does your G7 rangefinder account for winds-aloft? Do your weather conditions vary a great deal over 1-2km (vs 30-50)? "Winds aloft"? It does better, it accounts for "winds-aloft" over the projected azimuth of the bullet from it's firing point.......likewise, there is no requirement to determine weather conditions 1-2 km (or 30-50kms) away, as the ballistic calculation is determined by an equation taken from a constant (known) firing table to that of the determined conditions of the firing point. Did I ever say it didn't? No? Okay then. My contention was always that you exaggerate the scale of the threat. I believe your words were "flatten Seoul" or "make it resemble the surface of the Moon". Good, so we're in agreement with the DoD that North Korean artillery poses a threat to Seoul.... Yes, you went back to a argument we were having about 2 months ago. I'm pretty sure that qualifies as a change of subject. An argument that is still ongoing.......could you have exaggerated the ability of the South Koreans to defend themselves against the North? Edited February 21, 2015 by Derek 2.0 Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 21, 2015 Report Posted February 21, 2015 How bout that F-35? How about it indeed.......projected ~30% costs reductions by the end of the decade that will see the various versions cheaper than the legacy aircraft that they replace........... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 21, 2015 Report Posted February 21, 2015 How about it indeed.......projected ~30% costs reductions by the end of the decade that will see the various versions cheaper than the legacy aircraft that they replace........... Great machine, just make sure you keep the fuel....cool. How are they coming with painting all those fuel trucks that might have to go out in the sun. And oh yeah, make sure you dont pull more than 2 Gs in a turn or the engine might eat itself. Otherwise, great machine. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Great machine, just make sure you keep the fuel....cool. How are they coming with painting all those fuel trucks that might have to go out in the sun. And oh yeah, make sure you dont pull more than 2 Gs in a turn or the engine might eat itself. Otherwise, great machine. Odd that you still speak to this, as the fuel heat sink "issue" was solved with a thermal paint job for bowsers used in extremely hot areas........as to the engine "eating itself", engine power restrictions have since been lifted (this month) as minor modifications to the entire F135 inventory has been complete.... Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Odd that you still speak to this, as the fuel heat sink "issue" was solved with a thermal paint job for bowsers used in extremely hot areas........as to the engine "eating itself", engine power restrictions have since been lifted (this month) as minor modifications to the entire F135 inventory has been complete.... Dont you think it a bit odd that they actually have to paint the fuel trucks to keep the fuel cool in a plane that may well operate out of desert conditions, especially after the huge fallback in schedule and huge increases in costs. A multi billion dollar plane that doesnt like hot, or cold weather. One of the dumbest mistakes they made was single sourcing the engine. But that was only one of many. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Dont you think it a bit odd that they actually have to paint the fuel trucks to keep the fuel cool in a plane that may well operate out of desert conditions, especially after the huge fallback in schedule and huge increases in costs. A multi billion dollar plane that doesnt like hot, or cold weather. One of the dumbest mistakes they made was single sourcing the engine. But that was only one of many. As already pointed out to you, unlike legacy aircraft, the fuel within the F-35 acts as a heat sink to reduce the aircraft's IR signature, as intended....hardly a mistake, and the USAF having to repaint the tanks on several dozen fuel bowsers is hardly an issue Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 As already pointed out to you, unlike legacy aircraft, the fuel within the F-35 acts as a heat sink to reduce the aircraft's IR signature, as intended....hardly a mistake, and the USAF having to repaint the tanks on several dozen fuel bowsers is hardly an issue Actually its an overheating problem with the engine which may cause a shutdown since the fuel is used as a heat sync. If you start off with hot fuel, you ay have that single engine go silent on you. Quote
Wilber Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Actually its an overheating problem with the engine which may cause a shutdown since the fuel is used as a heat sync. If you start off with hot fuel, you ay have that single engine go silent on you. Shouldn't be a problem that can't be overcome. This is not a new concept, Concord used fuel as a heat sink to control cabin temperature. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
On Guard for Thee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Shouldn't be a problem that can't be overcome. This is not a new concept, Concord used fuel as a heat sink to control cabin temperature. Apparently they have overcome it. Just keep the bowser in the shade somewhere. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Actually its an overheating problem with the engine which may cause a shutdown since the fuel is used as a heat sync. If you start off with hot fuel, you ay have that single engine go silent on you. Resolved by: The 56th LRS has been approved to paint four trucks and it takes about a week to complete, at a cost of $3,900 per truck. And of course, other US bases in warmer climates, typically that once based aircraft from SAC/MAC, like Eglin, have fuel hydrants like any modern airport Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Resolved by: And of course, other US bases in warmer climates, typically that once based aircraft from SAC/MAC, like Eglin, have fuel hydrants like any modern airport So as log as they keep it close to the hydrant or shady bowser and dont forward base it to anywhere like, oh lets see, Iraq, alls well. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Shouldn't be a problem that can't be overcome. This is not a new concept, Concord used fuel as a heat sink to control cabin temperature. Exactly, and doubly so with most USAF/USN/USMC air bases that either currently have fuel hydrants or are getting ones installed. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 So as log as they keep it close to the hydrant or shady bowser and dont forward base it to anywhere like, oh lets see, Iraq, alls well. Most modern overseas bases, namely in the Middle East, already have hydrants......those that don't, the Fighter Wing's logistic group that deploys with them, brings their thermally protected fuel bowsers Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Exactly, and doubly so with most USAF/USN/USMC air bases that either currently have fuel hydrants or are getting ones installed. You do know they have figured out why that engine blew up on take off in Florida and destroyed the whole airframe correct. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 You do know they have figured out why that engine blew up on take off in Florida and destroyed the whole airframe correct. Right, and as pointed out to you numerous times, said issues was resolved last year, and the entire F135 inventory has been retrofitted as of this month.....so what is your point? Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Right, and as pointed out to you numerous times, said issues was resolved last year, and the entire F135 inventory has been retrofitted as of this month.....so what is your point? Turbine rub ad heat syncing has been a constant with this engine. Its an act of faith I dont share to assume the latest fix will be the last required. Lets see what happens when they start to pull some serious Gs. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Turbine rub ad heat syncing has been a constant with this engine. Its an act of faith I dont share to assume the latest fix will be the last required. Lets see what happens when they start to pull some serious Gs. You might not have "faith", but the actual real world operators do.......and of course the aircraft has been performing "serious Gs" since it was the X-35.....and "problems" associated with the engine were found in less than 12 examples......none the less, the entire inventory and future engines have addressed this, a problem discovered and resolved within the aircraft testing trails, much like what happened during the development of the Super Hornet, but unlike the Super Hornet, the F-35's engine wasn't completely replaced with a new engine. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 You might not have "faith", but the actual real world operators do.......and of course the aircraft has been performing "serious Gs" since it was the X-35.....and "problems" associated with the engine were found in less than 12 examples......none the less, the entire inventory and future engines have addressed this, a problem discovered and resolved within the aircraft testing trails, much like what happened during the development of the Super Hornet, but unlike the Super Hornet, the F-35's engine wasn't completely replaced with a new engine. Which is certainly what has bee suggested for the bomb truck. Quote
Derek 2.0 Posted February 22, 2015 Report Posted February 22, 2015 Which is certainly what has bee suggested for the bomb truck. ......but was only done for the Super Hornet bomb truck. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.