Row 1587

Row ID: 1587 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 1587 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

So there not viable because of technology. Those guns simply cant reach inside the shoreline far enough and it requires close in quarters for ship to ship.

USAs whole concept is to strike you so far away you never see us. Much can be gained by looking at a aircrafts or ships design. Take the Chinese J20 cockpit the canopy is huge. China built a regional dogfighter. Take our F35 the pilot cant see behind him well he can with his special helmet but for USA were taking your ass out dozens of miles away like 80-90 with AMRAAM missles next gen is on the horizon even further.

Look at a ramp assist carrier vs catapult. Everything you need to know about a countries intent on a carrier is from that. Ramp assist means on average 30% less fuel. Less fuel less range. USA uses catapult systems for maximum loads and fuel. We have no interest in 21 century of you bringing the fight to us well hit you before you even know whats coming.

But to make them viable they would have to have a rail gun. Problem with rail guns is when there fired there is a immense plasma burst that happens. The cannon itself only lasts 4-5 shots. The problem is the coating inside we have not invented one that allows continious firing of a rail cannon. Makes that idea pretty unviable unless its ground based. You would be better off building a ship that can hold like 100 cruise missiles.

The other question is why would you want this? Sec of Defense Gates under Bush and Obama greatly questioned the Marine Corps future AAV plans. Chinas surface to sea missiles are greater then the launching range of the new AAVs. How would a amphibious assault over come that in a machine that is not up-armored going slow with no counter measures?

FieldValue
text So there not viable because of technology. Those guns simply cant reach inside the shoreline far enough and it requires close in quarters for ship to ship. USAs whole concept is to strike you so far away you never see us. Much can be gained by looking at a aircrafts or ships design. Take the Chinese J20 cockpit the canopy is huge. China built a regional dogfighter. Take our F35 the pilot cant see behind him well he can with his special helmet but for USA were taking your ass out dozens of mile…
label r/militarytechnology
dataType comment
communityName r/MilitaryTechnology
datetime 2022-12-29
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5LakwwVnNCRG1aSGJOeFJlQ2s3VDVnM3pGakY3eVJheENjTjI3azA3UWlMbnNBbUhlMVI0bnU1OGM0cEtfVWpSUnhNSEd2N2RXel9IbHNYS2pZSll4dW5kdUE9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9ESXc2WXpRLVpJdlZKM3NBZWJUVzhpZGw1by1Pa0MxTWJPWHl2WnotdFZpR0pBdE5SeElfNmlBcXpOQXY2RHR3NDYtZ0N6dkN4N0lFQUhVRTR6NkFVeVlXd3RYVktIWm5Xemw1UTZfSFE1MUdaaTB1R2ZORl90eXl2Mmh4X1o0UU9oTzRpR2gzMjFiTFVrMlhnc2oyNXBuTHd0NVNYUkRIQnBraXlGSDNacWIyeVhPdjRRQ19jZ25sMnpXSVNwZHl2QmswdEcxTFpfcWoycWVFVDA0bFNkZz09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "So there not viable because of technology. Those guns simply cant reach inside the shoreline far enough and it requires close in quarters for ship to ship. \n\nUSAs whole concept is to strike you so far away you never see us. Much can be gained by looking at a aircrafts or ships design. Take the Chinese J20 cockpit the canopy is huge. China built a regional dogfighter. Take our F35 the pilot cant see behind him well he can with his special helmet but for USA were taking your ass out dozens of miles away like 80-90 with AMRAAM missles next gen is on the horizon even further. \n\nLook at a ramp assist carrier vs catapult. Everything you need to know about a countries intent on a carrier is from that. Ramp assist means on average 30% less fuel. Less fuel less range. USA uses catapult systems for maximum loads and fuel. We have no interest in 21 century of you bringing the fight to us well hit you before you even know whats coming. \n\nBut to make them viable they would have to have a rail gun. Problem with rail guns is when there fired there is a immense plasma burst that happens. The cannon itself only lasts 4-5 shots. The problem is the coating inside we have not invented one that allows continious firing of a rail cannon. Makes that idea pretty unviable unless its ground based. You would be better off building a ship that can hold like 100 cruise missiles. \n\nThe other question is why would you want this? Sec of Defense Gates under Bush and Obama greatly questioned the Marine Corps future AAV plans. Chinas surface to sea missiles are greater then the launching range of the new AAVs. How would a amphibious assault over come that in a machine that is not up-armored going slow with no counter measures?",
  "label": "r/militarytechnology",
  "dataType": "comment",
  "communityName": "r/MilitaryTechnology",
  "datetime": "2022-12-29",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5LakwwVnNCRG1aSGJOeFJlQ2s3VDVnM3pGakY3eVJheENjTjI3azA3UWlMbnNBbUhlMVI0bnU1OGM0cEtfVWpSUnhNSEd2N2RXel9IbHNYS2pZSll4dW5kdUE9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9ESXc2WXpRLVpJdlZKM3NBZWJUVzhpZGw1by1Pa0MxTWJPWHl2WnotdFZpR0pBdE5SeElfNmlBcXpOQXY2RHR3NDYtZ0N6dkN4N0lFQUhVRTR6NkFVeVlXd3RYVktIWm5Xemw1UTZfSFE1MUdaaTB1R2ZORl90eXl2Mmh4X1o0UU9oTzRpR2gzMjFiTFVrMlhnc2oyNXBuTHd0NVNYUkRIQnBraXlGSDNacWIyeVhPdjRRQ19jZ25sMnpXSVNwZHl2QmswdEcxTFpfcWoycWVFVDA0bFNkZz09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information