• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1294 months ago

    Because they could use a trampoline to fling them back and we’d end up the the biggest game of tennis

    • ✺roguetrick✺
      link
      fedilink
      English
      204 months ago

      And most important of all - and most tragically ironic - our Nation could have afforded, and can afford now, the steps necessary to close the trampoline gap. But our task now is not to fix the blame for the past, but to fix a course for the future.

      -JFK

    • SSTF
      link
      fedilink
      English
      174 months ago

      That’s why we have to start flinging them now. Before the Zs close the trampoline gap. Sure they’d fling a few warships back now. I’m not saying we wouldn’t get our hair mussed, but it would be minimal casualties. 30 or 40 million tops. Depending on the breaks.

    • Tar_Alcaran
      link
      fedilink
      English
      434 months ago

      Is it? I feel like the ship would basically pancake in on itself at first impact.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        584 months ago

        Yea the first impact is not pancakey enough. And the second impact is too stone crumbly.

        Also the chain is uncanny.

        But this is still amazing and way better than anything I could do in 100 lifetimes.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

          They likely took some liberties to have the back half crush the second building. That chain really does stand out though

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    364 months ago

    I wonder how much energy it would require to fling a warship from, say, NATO lake to Moscow.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      35
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Oh I’m going to do the math on this:

      assuming the warship is being fired from a naval gun of truly massive proportions based on the AGS Mark 5, firing a saboted warship based on the LRLAP ( since they were made for the Zumwalt class and cost a million a round, making them the obvious best choice.)

      And why not, let’s also make the warship a Zumwaltz class, for flavor synergy.

      The LRLAP weighd 225lbs and had an effective range of 150km, so thats ~ 100kg at 150km, and it would travel at 825 mps, let’s say ours needs to go 800, were in no rush.

      Projectile Mass: A Zumwalt weighs, rounded down, 15,000 long tons, which is 15,240,704 kg Let’s say 15,000,000 kilograms. They emptied it, unloaded the ammunition, decommissioned the AGS, so it weighs a little less. Zumwalts are 610 feet long, let’s make that 1000 total to account for an aerodynamic sabot and charge, so 300m. The bore length was 378" and the shell 88", so that gives us a ratio of 4.29:1

      Our barrel is 1287m long, let’s just say 1200m.

      Saboted Zumwalt: 15,000,000Kg

      Barrel length of gun: 1200m

      Distance: We’re gonna park this gun on Gotland, middle of lake NATO. Well need some space, and that’s right in the middle. It’s 1,168.31 km as the crow flies, so we’ll round up to 1200 km.

      So, our 1.2Km long nuclear cannon would send our saboted 15,000,000 ton Zumwalt 1200km @ 800 mps, requiring 1200 Kilotons of energy, rounded up. The boat would be in flight for about 25 minutes.

      My math is quite accurate, please do not double check it.

    • Skua
      link
      fedilink
      9
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      For these purposes I am, of course, assuming that air resistance doesn’t exist. Which would probably increase this answer by a lot.

      Narva bay to Moscow = 713 km Fully loaded Arleigh Burke destroyer displacement = 8,432,800 kg

      v = launch velocity d = horizontal distance = 713000 m θ = angle we’re launching the ship at = 45 degrees g = acceleration (from gravity) = 9.81 ms^-1

      Range of a projectile equation:

      d = (v^2 sin(2θ)) / g

      Rearrange to find v:

      dg = v^2 sin(2θ) dg / sin(2θ) = v^2 v = (dg / sin(2θ))^0.5

      Plug our numbers in:

      v = (713000*9.81 / sin(2*45))^0.5 v = (6994530 / 1)^0.5 v = 2644.72 ms^-1

      So we need to launch at 2,645 metres per second (9,522 kph, 5,917 mph). To get the energy, we use the kinetic energy equation:

      e = 0.5 m v^2 e = 0.5*8432800*2644.72^2 e = 29,491,794,808,885.76 joules e = 29.5 terajoules

      For comparison, the nuclear bomb dropped on Hiroshima exploded with about 60 terajoules of energy. So once you account for air resistance you’re probably looking at a nuke of energy.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        104 months ago

        Honestly that sounds pretty good actually. We get to nuke something AND we get to throw a fucking ship to Moscow

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      94 months ago

      So let’s you want to yeet this over 1000km from a NATO country to Moscow.

      You’d need at least 3000 m/s of velocity to do this (a ton more since this without air resistance).

      A fletcher class destroyer is around 2000 tons.

      So you’d need more than 8 terajoules or 2 kilotons of TNT.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        24 months ago

        You’d need at least 3000 m/s of velocity to do this (a ton more since this without air resistance).

        Sounds pretty doable with enough boosters and struts. Pretty sure I’ve flung worse in KSP

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      94 months ago

      Probably depends entirely on the aerodynamics involved, if we’re assuming it’s approaching as an aircraft. This is kind of an intermediate range, and it has shitty ballistics, so the energy to just get it off the ground will be dwarfed.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        104 months ago

        This is NCD, ignoring air resistance or at very minimum using wildly incorrect values is expected

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          64 months ago

          Shit. So I should have gone with the “oversized hyperloop” idea and just said zero. My bad.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            124 months ago

            So I did some math, and I’m assuming we need about 1/3 of LEO velocity, it would take 707 SpaceX Starship launches to throw USS Abraham Lincoln to Kremlin.

            This is of course ignoring air resistance, other physics and common sense + we’re assuming spherical aircraft carrier

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              74 months ago

              Okay this might get little bit too credible, but if we were to disassemble the aircraft carrier in 150t pieces and launch to low earth orbit, assemble it again there and then use 1 more starship to slow it’s velocity to deorbit and drop it to target, we would need little over 2100 starship launches. Little bit more if we cover the ship with heat tiles to protect during re-entry.

              Honestly this seems well worth it considering how much cooler it would be than the usual designs for kinetic orbital strike.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              6
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              Did you get the 1/3 number somewhere? St. Petersburg is on the Baltic, and Moscow is only like 600 km away.

              I’m sorry, I’m sorry. I can’t stop.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                6
                edit-2
                4 months ago

                Yeah I did some research and calculations, and pulled that number out of my ass

                Edit:

                Based on this guys math which I trust as much as anything in this community, you’d need 9522km/h velocity, which is pretty damn close to 1/3 LEO velocity (28000km/h).

                This makes my ass scientifically proven

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          7
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          If you throw it, and it doesn’t go into space, a rock is an aircraft.

          Source: Am an airforce geologist. /s

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    264 months ago

    Go play red alert 3 and you can do exactly that. Even better, you can throw the enemies warships at them!

  • qaz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    244 months ago

    This is the comically stupid shit I come here for

  • @[email protected]M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    124 months ago

    Constitution weighs 1,900 tons at present day. That’s 13.2 more ugga duggas than I calculated. It’s frasible. We’ll need all the Honest John missiles and 3,000 kg of homegrown tomatoes.

  • @[email protected]M
    link
    fedilink
    English
    114 months ago

    USS Constitution is a warship and still listed on the Naval Register. Fling her and the math gets much easier, nerds, get to crunching. She weighs around, what, 400 tons fully ballasted? Imagine the impact of the mainmast, smashing through the roof of that "civilian administration* building we memed about in March 2022, the one with anti aircraft on the roof. ANTI-AIRCRAFT. They’re fooked!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    104 months ago

    Ship propellers are outrageously big and heavy.

    Just get them spinning and drop them in like beyblades!