Was that Gary Larson?
Posted on 01/26/2010 3:08:55 AM PST by TigerLikesRooster
/begin my translation
China: SLBM Test Launch Failed
(the missile) fell back on the submarine and almost sank it.
A few months ago in Yellow Sea, China conducted a secret test launch of Julang-2 SLBM, but failed, according to Jan. 25 report by Liberty Times of Taiwan.
The missile with the range of 8,000 km, which can strike U.S. mainland, was mounted on a Golf-class submarine, and launched from underwater. However, after breaking out of water, its booster failed to fire up, and fell back down on the submarine.
The submarine with 83 crews and displacement of 2,880 tons was hit by the missile weighing 10 tons, and was almost sunk. Still it managed to limp back to its base.
Ten years ago, PLAN developed Julang-2 by modifying Dongfeng-31 ICBM, and successfully conducted the surface launch, but a few attempt of underwater launch all failed.
As a result, Type 094(Jin-class) submarine, China's newest model, is so far unable to be equip itself with its own SLBM's, leaving a big hole in China's offensive nuclear capability, according to the newspaper.
They succeeded in the test launch of Julang-1 from Type 092(Xia-class) submarine, hitting a target in Taklamakan Desert, but its range is only 2,000 km and this class of submarine mostly moves within coastal waters, which is why they decided to develop Julang-2.
/end my translation
missile in the air, falling down, crashing into water, keep going down, hitting the sub. Isn’t that obvious?
They just have to ask Comrad O for the plans for one that does work, he will give them to them in the spirit of being a sap.
No!
To use an analogy: while walking down street fire a gun straight up. Bullet leaves gun at point X and as you continue to walk you are no longer at point X where bullet will come back down.
About your second question, we don't know if sub was stationary or moving, and if the launch angle is vertical or slightly forward. They just said falling missile ended up hitting the sub, upon failing to fire up its rocket.
” To use an analogy: while walking down street fire a gun straight up. Bullet leaves gun at point X and as you continue to walk you are no longer at point X where bullet will come back down.”
False. As long as the vehicle maintains the same speed and direction it had at the point of separation, that momentum is imparted to the trajectory of the projectile, and it will meet up with the vehicle at point Y. Counterintuitive, perhaps, but proven over and over for children all over the world with a model train that launches a ping pong ball a few inches in the air from its smokestack, and catches it down the track, even going over / under a bridge in the process. (The angle of launch is not modified from vertical, as the train also catches the ball from a stationary position.) I’m not a physicist, but I’m sure there are limitations based on friction and other decay of momentum factors, but the basic principle is there.
Thanks in large part to our friends in Taiwan most are their secrets are somewhat less then secret.
Could you point out to me where or when I mentioned angle of launch?
No wonder this story is screwed up.
Lousy reporting, bad translation or BOTH!
Mr. Larson, is that you? (Mr. Larson was the only teacher I had in high school that made class fun to attend. And it was physics...)
So why are we talking about this when the initial question is about water cushion?
Yep, I’m with “njslim” on this...The fuse keeps getting wet...
And (as for) the veil of secrecy...Well, I feel pretty good to know that the South Korean, Japanese and American subs that were out there (monitoring) very close to the launch platform got away without incident or detection...
I accept your point.
However, momentum imparted to the missile by the forward movement of the sub will result in a greater distance traveled by the missile than the sub because of the variant resistance to forward motion by air versus water. No?
The Chinese have lots of people to expend to get to where they are going with their military.
They are genius at reverse engineering. Now they have the money to build out a high tech military.
...our carriers have no defense for the new anti ship missilles they are deploying from Russia, both supersonic and combo subsonic/supersonic with terminal evasive maneuvers.
Also, they are bringing aircraft online that can challenge our Naval Air.
The days of a Taiwan Strait Turkeyshoot are over. We would still win but we expend a number of the 6 carriers that would be involved...a huge blow.
Was that Gary Larson?
LOL! I don't think so, my Mr. Larson's experiments worked......
So why are we talking about this when the initial question is about water cushion?
The logic (or is it illogic) of your argument escapes me!
So is this one:
I'm not a submariner, just an engineer but... It would seem to me you'd want the sub almost stationary for a submerged launch. As the missile is pushed out of the hull you don't want hydrodynamic forces (water drag) pushing on the missile body, binding it against the launch rails. Nor would you want any turbulence from water flow around the sub's hull tossing the missile out of alignment - you really want that beast nearly vertical as it breaks the surface and ignites.
You continued to walk - the sub was stationary.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.