Well I was only suggesting it as possible and that they went when quiet - hey maybe the keep everyone hostage while they launchOriginally Posted by crisis
I said club launch sites. We've about 10 of them in a 20 mile radius of mego to a number of clubs
And that's 5 miles from one of Britains Nuclear submarine refit and dock facilities
I'll accept over-simplifying but I've had to to try to shift opinion AWAY from the big weapon, complexity and control mind-set...not a simple as you make it sound.
I suggest you're thinking military drone - jsut as with the X aircraft already shown here.I think there is a difference between drones and model aircraft. Bear in mind most model aircraft are not designed to carry explosives and are designed to be as light as possible.
That's lots of smarts and expense.
I'm talking dumb, one objective, NOT guaranteed 100% accurate or return but so cheap enough are launched it doens't matter.
'Most' model aircraft are definately light weight and meant for duration and ease of flight.
BUT, some clubs have a few large models and the technology is easily scalable.
for example the auto-gyro controls for helos can work for a 1' r/c or a 10' r/c it doens't make a difference
Weight is not an issue, wing area provides lift and modern engines are powerful enough to counter the minimal additional drag.Again napalm is weighty. The amount you could deliver even in your scenario wold not cause that much of a problem.
Hence I'd suggested 1-2 gallons of liquid fuel.
oops, where DO nuclear carriers vent heat ??How are they actually going to home in on a funnel ( which nuclear carriers dont have)
I've assumed some form of simple final homing - magnetic or image are relatively easy.Given the ship is moving the targetting system would have to be far more sophisticated than a GPS.
I tihnk I've covered the point about fire-superssion systems.Im lucky to fing freaking fish with them. These ships are equiped with blast doors to control fuel fires and other forms of attack. I cant see where afew gallons (if that much could be delivered ) would do much harm.Fire fighting systems on carriers are designed to control devastating fires. You also assume every one of these drones nails its target, Its a big call.
And a carrier is a HUGE target, unlike single 'expensive' munitions hundreds of drones don't have to hit the 'soft' part. They only have to provide enough continous 'flame' to ultimately breach the soft part.
bolt wing to body ( or perhaps even flying wing ) and throguh or catapult. Not hard. i/c large sclae models are good for 80-100mph.Your drones would travel at what speed from what range ?
Latest jet engines are capable fo 250-300mph.
There's a sclae flying Vulcan with 4 jet engines all builsd in a guys shed. Seen video of it flyinf and it's impressive. A 'drone' wooulnd't be as well built ( doesn't need to be 'scale'
Video recognitio of a carriier is trivial.A carrier can travel at 40 knots. As I said the targetting of these thing would have to be at a GPS point. What other guidance method do you envisage a bunch of terrorists would be able to pack into their model aircraft given much of the payload will need to be set aside for the napalm or other low tech explosive.
It really is 2nd year computing course stuff. Books are written on edge and shape detection. We're trying to decide it's a carrier, not trying to decide if it's a Abrahms tank or a Citroen car - which is the type of thing the military get hung up on
Payload is not a problem, we've always ended up seeing that smaller and LOTS of with smallish loads was better than fewer, bigger. So 20 drones deliverying 2 gallons is better chance of success at one drone delivering 40. One hit makes no difference to former and lots to later. So the smaller, more drones the better.
Missed the point.Dont forget the Phalanx systems will be filling the air with lead at these relatively slow targets. Some will get through so the fire fighters will be busy I suppose.
The Phalanx fills the air for about 10 seconds and most of it in a straight line.
You can't just coundt bullets here
Here's a picture to conjure.
You walk near a beehive, 5,000 bees swarm to protect the hive.
Do you think you'll make it ?
Does it matter how many you can kill/stun with one swat ?
While you're focussed on the ones in your line of sight, what's happening behind you ?
Same probelm with current defensive solutions. They rely on a number of attacks from a limited numer of directions. More and they're swamped.
IIIR the max is 6 phalanx on a carrier. So assuming it can target small drones at low speed ( the phalanx fires AHEAD of the missile to let the target fly INTO the munition ) and it hits one, there are a few hundred/thousand more to go
Somalia was a clusterf# but the error was in not expecting a orchestrated response. Like Vietnam the US were restricted in what they could use. In the film they asked for an AC130 but were denied. I dont know how factual that was but they were unlikely to lay waste to the city where the people they were trying to defend lived. Hard call.[/QUOTE]