|
Also of interest in the fixed wing vs attack helicopters argument: http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_183.shtml Cold war fixed wing gun kills on hinds.
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
If battlefield 3 has taught me anything it is that jets can just ram the gently caress out of helicopters and emerge unscathed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 21:57
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:Was there ever any real purpose to Rolling Thunder other than to destroy the morale of North Vietnam (hee hee just writing that makes me snicker). More or less no, other than the added benefit of (sometimes) destroying targets in the north and along the Ho Chi Minh trail. It was more or less applying WWII strategy to an insurgency, which is Really loving Dumb. What it boils down to is that North Vietnam simply didn't have much in the way of valuable strategic assets like factories and massive rail hubs that could be bombed, and the stuff the did have, like bridges, were rebuilt very quickly with manual labor. These weren't bridges and depots designed to handle mechanized convoys, it was dispersed assets set up to handle transportation with light trucks and bicycles. The rail hubs and POL sites that did exist were largely off limits during Rolling Thunder, and it wasn't until Operation Linebacker that strategic bombing was handled effectively. In the meantime there were a few effective one-time strikes against strategic assets, but not in any concerted effort that would have made a difference to the war effort. It all boils down to "you can't bomb an insurgency to peace". e- also it would have been impossible to bomb the supply chain coming in to the North from China and the Soviet Union without making a huge loving mess of things.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
As Iyaayas already said a LOT of the reason why strategic bombing in vietnam was so mega-hosed was that they were applying cold-war escalation theory. Basically "don't do this or we'll blow your poo poo up." Pulling punches to be able to threaten that if they don't cut that poo poo out right now you'll blow up whatever doesn't quite work when the government in question straight up gives no fucks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
I think that's why Linebacker was effective, too, because the North realized Nixon wasn't going to ratchet up pressure like Johnson. It was whole hog, round the clock heavy bombings that Nixon kept up, against targets previously off-limits. Hell, it even finally took down the Dragons Jaw. The North realized the war was over and that the US wanted out in a way that would allow them some amount of face saving, and I think they knew Nixon was going down the scorched earth road to achieve it, so they cut their losses in Paris to get the US out as quickly as possible. Couple that with Nixon's warming relations with China and souring relations with the Khmer Rouge and you get the end of the war in '73 so that the North could focus on what by then had become more pressing problems for them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2012 23:45
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Hell, it even finally took down the Dragons Jaw. My pop talked about that. Said that the world is a box, hinged somewhere in South America, and the Thanh Hoa bridge is the latch. Though I was under the impression that it wasn't a function of finally dumping enough hundreds of tons of dumb bombs on it, but one of the first operational deployments of laser guided bombs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 00:06
|
|
|
It was, Paveways to be specific. Dropped by A-7's IIRC. That picture basically sums up the American experience in Vietnam. e- to be fair, there's anecdotal evidence I've read in some of the books in my collection that state after the first few terrible sorties, pilots would get near it, chuck their bombs, and beat feet back to the South ASAP. Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 00:19 on Jan 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 00:12
|
|
|
Lots of posting in the thread today...few thoughts, in order...Smiling Jack posted:Was anyone big into SEAD once the Lufftwaffe was effectively wiped out? Look up "flak busting" or "AA hunts." Fighter bombers (usually P-47s or Typhoons, since they were the most ubiquitous ground attack aircraft) would basically act as early Wild Weasels, trolling over suspected German flak sites to get them to open up, at which point the Weasel's wingmen would attack the site with machine gun/cannon fire, rockets, and bombs. movax posted:One of the NatGeo specials on manufacturing should be required viewing for those guys. Spending time on the plant floor at my old job was some of the most useful time spent, in my opinion. Learned incredible amounts about modern manufacturing techniques. Bingo. Tooling is everything...this is why I always roll my eyes a bit whenever someone says "we should totally bring back/build more of the F-14/A-10/OV-10/B-2/B-52/whatever," because while you could technically do it since I'm sure the blueprints are still somewhere, that would literally be all you would have since the tooling has long since been destroyed, and tooling is about 85% of the battle, so good luck finding the funding for basically restarting from scratch a production line of a 20-50+ year old aircraft. Incidentally, this is why that even though I made light of it earlier in the thread the money spent by AF/L-M (not sure who is footing the bill, but I'm guessing it is shared) to store all the F-22 tooling is actually a pretty big deal, even more so since they went and filmed a shitload of video of the workers using said tooling on the production line while it was still active. Cyrano4747 posted:More importantly, North Vietnam didn't have much of an airforce, and certainly not one that was a credible full-time threat to USAF and USN tactical air. We operated for most of that war with the basic assumption of air superiority. Slight quibble...I would dispute that the US had air superiority over North Vietnam for most of the war. Granted, the North Vietnamese definitely did not have parity, so it was somewhere in between "parity" and "air superiority," and much of that lack of air superiority was due to U.S. restrictions in what/when they could bomb certain targets, as well as extremely poor tactical employment (Linebacker II/Christmas Bombings for example), but when North Vietnamese MiGs and SAMs regularly attack U.S. fighters causing losses and (more importantly) causing strike aircraft to drop their bombs short of the target, it's hard to say that it meets the technical definition of air superiority, which is "That degree of dominance in the air battle of one force over another that permits the conduct of operations by the former and its related land, sea, and air forces at a given time and place without prohibitive interference by opposing air forces." Like I said, it depends on how you define "prohibitive interference" but I would still say it is short of true "air superiority." This doesn't even get into the issue of U.S. strategic bombers being turned back from a target for the first (and so far only) time in history during Linebacker II. VikingSkull posted:I think that's why Linebacker was effective, too, because the North realized Nixon wasn't going to ratchet up pressure like Johnson. It was whole hog, round the clock heavy bombings that Nixon kept up, against targets previously off-limits. Hell, it even finally took down the Dragons Jaw. If you want a good comparison of the differences in opinion of a line pilot between Rolling Thunder and Linebacker, Ed Rasimus's books provide an excellent perspective. When Thunder Rolled is about his first tour flying Thuds during Rolling Thunder, and is chock full of frustration about hitting pointless targets, whereas Palace Cobra is about his second tour flying Phantoms during Linebacker, where they went downtown and took losses but were at least finally hitting targets that were real instead of a patch of jungle that was a "suspected truck park." As far as whole hog bombing/face saving/cutting losses in Paris, see also Linebacker II. Don't want to negotiate (never mind the fact that the South and U.S. changed their demands)? We'll bomb the poo poo out of Hanoi with a hundred B-52s per night. Of course, the tactical employment left much to be desired, and the end result was to get the U.S. to give up enough concessions to basically get back to agreeing to the original October agreement, but it got the North back to the negotiating table (even if Nixon had to explicitly threaten Thieu with the prospect of a separate peace to get the South back to the negotiating table). So, by Vietnam War standards, a resounding success.  VikingSkull posted:It was, Paveways to be specific. Dropped by A-7's IIRC. I was going to say that it was more than likely F-4s, since they were the first to carry LGBs and the Pave Spike targeting pod, but you are correct the Dragon's Jaw was first dropped by A-7s, with a follow-up attack by F-4s, and then one final attack by USN A-7s carrying Walleyes and Mk 84 GP bombs. The Paul Doumer Bridge was also dropped near the same time during Linebacker, also with LGBs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 04:29
|
|
|
You know, I kind of had a sneaking suspicion that Walleyes were used, too, but I wasn't sure. I knew they came around in the same time frame. e- also being a Thud pilot in Rolling Thunder was probably up there in terms of "this is really lovely and I hate my life" missions in the war Seizure Meat fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Jan 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 05:15
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:You know, I kind of had a sneaking suspicion that Walleyes were used, too, but I wasn't sure. I knew they came around in the same time frame. Walleyes were actually employed earlier in the war during Rolling Thunder, but these were only 1,100 lbs and the 250 lbs warhead wasn't enough to bring down the bridges (it was used to no effect). The weapon was upgraded and by Linebacker the Walleye II was in use, which was a 2,000 lbs class weapon with a warhead a shade under 1,000 lbs (comparable to a Mk 84). And I don't think you could have paid me enough to be a Thud pilot during Rolling Thunder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
 Remember that valley we used to enter the North yesterday? Yeah, where we got shot up by that AAA on top of the pass? Exactly. That's our entrance for today's mission. gently caress you, Captain. gently caress you running.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:You know, I kind of had a sneaking suspicion that Walleyes were used, too, but I wasn't sure. I knew they came around in the same time frame. Yeah, I remember walleyes being used, because my grandfather worked on designing Walleyes and had a picture of that bridge prominently displayed with a blurb about the various weapons used to destroy it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
I'm glad to see that other guys have read Ed's books. He and I swap lies on each others' Facebooks periodically and I like to think of us as friends (though in truth that's probably stretching things). He once referred being an F-105 pilot in Rolling Thunder as being told you have a terminal disease and you hope they find the cure before it kills you. I think the statistics boiled down to something stupid crazy like "each pilot could expect to be shot down five times and rescued three of those times." McNally fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Jan 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 06:50
|
|
|
So what's the state of the art on ballistic missile defence? Can they actually destroy ballistic missiles now or is it still just knock them off target?
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 08:38
|
|
|
McNally posted:I'm glad to see that other guys have read Ed's books. He and I swap lies on each others' Facebooks periodically and I like to think of us as friends (though in truth that's probably stretching things). Thanks for that, I knew (for sufficiently-loose values) Ed from rec.aviation.military years ago, but then Usenet basically shut down. quote:So what's the state of the art on ballistic missile defence? Can they actually destroy ballistic missiles now or is it still just knock them off target? Depends on what sort of ballistic missile you're talking about. Iron Dome's been shooting down Katyushas with pretty impressive regularity. Current Patriots are supposed to hit-to-kill on SRBMs. SM-3 supposedly has a real ICBM capability. The ground-based NMD component still seems to poo poo the bed in every test. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Jan 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 16:05
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:
It also depends on if by ABM you mean anti-ballistic missile or anti-ballistic missiles. If all you need is a few ICBMs or nerve-gas laden SRBMs to make it through to end several cities, then defending against a barrage attack becomes either factorially, exponentially, or power-law more difficult.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 18:23
|
|
|
Frozen Horse posted:It also depends on if by ABM you mean anti-ballistic missile or anti-ballistic missiles. If all you need is a few ICBMs or nerve-gas laden SRBMs to make it through to end several cities, then defending against a barrage attack becomes either factorially, exponentially, or power-law more difficult. Bring back the Sprint-Spartan system for major barrage attacks. I miss Missile Command IRL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
The Sprint missile will always have a separate room all to itself in the Museum of Literal Awesomeness.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 22:59
|
|
NosmoKing posted:Bring back the Sprint-Spartan system for major barrage attacks. I love how the original arcade Missile Command had poo poo like MIRVs, bombers and satellite launched missiles. It always ended in a nuclear holocaust.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 23:32
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:I love how the original arcade Missile Command had poo poo like MIRVs, bombers and satellite launched missiles. Legomancer posted:It's video games. Specifically, video games you can win or finish. That's ruined everything. When we were kids, there was one thing we all knew: The Space Invaders were coming. Yes, you could shoot at them, you could destroy them, and you might slow them down a little, but then they would resume their inexorable march. You couldn't stop them. You couldn't win against them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2012 23:47
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Bingo. Tooling is everything...this is why I always roll my eyes a bit whenever someone says "we should totally bring back/build more of the F-14/A-10/OV-10/B-2/B-52/whatever," because while you could technically do it since I'm sure the blueprints are still somewhere, that would literally be all you would have since the tooling has long since been destroyed, and tooling is about 85% of the battle, so good luck finding the funding for basically restarting from scratch a production line of a 20-50+ year old aircraft. Incidentally, this is why that even though I made light of it earlier in the thread the money spent by AF/L-M (not sure who is footing the bill, but I'm guessing it is shared) to store all the F-22 tooling is actually a pretty big deal, even more so since they went and filmed a shitload of video of the workers using said tooling on the production line while it was still active. Do you remember if the A-10 tooling was destroyed/mothballed somewhere?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
I have to imagine that it's still around as the plan to continue using the A-10 for several more decades.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 03:20
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:
I know that that tooling makes the work much easier, but it does not make the work impossible. You'll spend a lot more making the parts from scratch or building the tooling for the planes but I would rather spend time and money getting older planes (or redesigned with available materials) built than an air-superiority fighter with no guns, 4 missiles at most, and lacks the ability to land on an air craft carrier that costs anywhere from 92 to 157 million dollars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 03:50
|
|
|
Scratch Monkey posted:I have to imagine that it's still around as the plan to continue using the A-10 for several more decades. You don't need the tooling to continue operating an aircraft, only to manufacture new ones and replacement components. I believe the Air Force has a stock of spare parts adequate to last them (maybe), but lacks the tooling and capacity to build more air frames or large components not shared with other aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 03:54
|
|
|
LP97S posted:I know that that tooling makes the work much easier, but it does not make the work impossible. You'll spend a lot more making the parts from scratch or building the tooling for the planes but I would rather spend time and money getting older planes (or redesigned with available materials) built than an air-superiority fighter with no guns, 4 missiles at most, and lacks the ability to land on an air craft carrier that costs anywhere from 92 to 157 million dollars. The "Joint Strike Fighter" is not an air superiority fighter thats what the F22 is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
LP97S posted:I know that that tooling makes the work much easier, but it does not make the work impossible. What.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
kill me now posted:The "Joint Strike Fighter" is not an air superiority fighter thats what the F22 is. My mistake, I'm just assuming that it will be one if the plan to make a few thousand go through to replace the non- F-22 planes. Phanatic posted:What. It's possible to make a F-15 without the proper tooling. It would take a ton of time and money but it's possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
NosmoKing posted:Bring back the Sprint-Spartan system for major barrage attacks. Sprint-Spartan was pretty much the best thing ever. movax posted:Do you remember if the A-10 tooling was destroyed/mothballed somewhere? AFAIK it was destroyed a long time ago. Keeping tooling in storage for an extended period of time costs money, and most of the time there is no point in spending the money because Myoclonic Jerk posted:You don't need the tooling to continue operating an aircraft, only to manufacture new ones and replacement components. I believe the Air Force has a stock of spare parts adequate to last them (maybe), but lacks the tooling and capacity to build more air frames or large components not shared with other aircraft. of that. This is why something like the re-winging that is going on in conjunction with the A-10C Precision Engagement avionics upgrade requires an actual procurement program as opposed to something that could just be done at the AF's own depots, because it goes beyond the normal depot level maintenance, so the tooling and parts don't exist anymore...and these are all reasons why the storage of the F-22 tooling is actually a fairly big deal. At least someone in a position of power in the tacair community was thinking ahead even if everyone else has swallowed the JSF kool-aid. LP97S posted:I know that that tooling makes the work much easier, but it does not make the work impossible. You'll spend a lot more making the parts from scratch or building the tooling for the planes but I would rather spend time and money getting older planes (or redesigned with available materials) built than an air-superiority fighter with no guns, 4 missiles at most, and lacks the ability to land on an air craft carrier that costs anywhere from 92 to 157 million dollars. The older airplane is going to cost a large percentage of the cost of that new jet (due to the tooling spinup), and you are either going to have far less capability avionics and performance wise or (more likely) you are going to have to spend even more money to upgrade the older design to modern standards, at which point you probably haven't really saved any money and you are definitely getting less bang for your buck (which is pretty terrible when you consider the competition is the JSF). I share your dislike for the program, but that's why the realistic option is new build legacy fighters with an existing production line: Block 60 Vipers and some sort of new build Mud Hen for the USAF, since the production line is still open for both...incidentally that is one good thing about the recent Saudi buy; it ensures that the Strike Eagle production line will be open for a looong time to come (and maybe looking into the Silent Eagle project since it would be evolutionary from the Strike Eagle instead of revolutionary), more Super Bugs for the Navy, and Super Bugs for the Marines as well because gently caress STOVL, this isn't 1942 and you aren't fighting out of Henderson Field after the carriers "abandoned" (nice bit of USMC propaganda there, by the way) you. Hell, if you want really good short field performance, think outside the box and get the Marines some Gripens. IMHO that is the best bang for your buck fighter in the world today, and the Swiss were very wise to choose it over the other Euro-canards. Better a good performing jet that has a well managed development program with cheap lifecycle costs over an excellent performing jet that has a poorly managed development program with cost overruns galore. Of course, this will never happen, but I still think that the difficulties of integrating a Gripen into the US military would be far less than the challenge of somehow designing and operating a STOVL/CATOBAR/CTOL fighter capable of supersonic stealthy flight. kill me now posted:The "Joint Strike Fighter" is not an air superiority fighter thats what the F22 is. It even has "strike" right in the name! But yeah, the JSF is FAR from an air superiority/air supremacy fighter (as in, it literally does not meet any of the standard metrics for that type of aircraft), which is just one of the many reasons why OSD's genius master plan of cancelling the F-22 in favor of extending the JSF buy for the USAF was loving retarded. iyaayas01 fucked around with this message at 04:46 on Jan 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 04:43
|
|
|
LP97S posted:
Are you seriously envisioning a bunch of guys sitting there shaping sheet aluminum by hand? How are you even doing the layup of the boron composite without the proper tooling?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:Are you seriously envisioning a bunch of guys sitting there shaping sheet aluminum by hand? How are you even doing the layup of the boron composite without the proper tooling? I'm not saying it's that loving simple, but how the hell do you think the thing got built in the first place? But nevermind, I obviously don't know anything and should keep my mouth shut and keep paying for a plane that doesn't work either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
LP97S posted:I'm not saying it's that loving simple, but how the hell do you think the thing got built in the first place? Uh, you understand that when things are designed these days they generally aren't just thrown together on blueprints by an engineer and then some other engineer figures out how to put it together, right? Usually it's a whole process of basically designing the finished product and the industrial processes and tooling to build it simultaneously. If it's something fairly simple like a stamped and welded SMG this boils down to just designing the stamp forms and cutters and jigs etc and then using existing lines to crank it out. If it's something complex like a goddamned jet fighter using composite alloys and other crazy material science poo poo, then you have a much more complicated process to just design the build process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 05:18
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Uh, you understand that when things are designed these days they generally aren't just thrown together on blueprints by an engineer and then some other engineer figures out how to put it together, right? Usually it's a whole process of basically designing the finished product and the industrial processes and tooling to build it simultaneously. Yes, I understand. I guess I'm just a touch cynical because of the failings of the F-22 and the F-35 seem like more a waste than this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 05:21
|
|
|
LP97S posted:Yes, I understand. I guess I'm just a touch cynical because of the failings of the F-22 and the F-35 seem like more a waste than this. Remember though, that production of those jets were split up amongst hundreds of sub-vendors in all states to make lots of senators/congressmen very happy by providing jobs in their districts. This not only includes parts for the jet proper, but the manufacturing for the jets, test equipment for sub-components of the jet, etc. It's not even surprising to see a tiny little business in your local light industrial complex have a few posters up saying they worked on the F-22/F-35 because they built a test harness/tester for a miniscule widget on the jet. I'm sure the LO-coating alone had 3 or 4 stages in the manufacturing / testing process, likely split up between 2-3 universities' research and seven states. Then add in all the Project Managers/etc overhead bodies over the engineers and it's just all a giant clusterfuck. Subcontracting out is good and all, but not when it's done on purpose and adds so much overhead...but it gained political favours, and I guess that's all that matters in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:So what's the state of the art on ballistic missile defence? Can they actually destroy ballistic missiles now or is it still just knock them off target? State of the art missile systems right now are a mixture of GMD, Aegis, and Patriot as far as shooters the US possesses, plus a large number of US sensors that can provide early warning for missiles, but can't shoot. In the near future that will include THAAD, an Army system. THAAD has done numerous successful flight tests and trains and certifies crews presently, but the equipment is still not officially owned by the Army, and interceptor manufacturing is quite slow. The days of "knock off target" for patriot have been over since before OIF 1 kicked off. In OIF 1, US Patriot successfully destroyed (not knocked off target) every TBM it engaged. There were also 2 fratricides where patriot engaged friendly aircraft and one instance of a USAF F-16 firing a HARM into patriot from behind without being attacked. The issues on both sides have since been almost entirely resolved, but Patriot remains on a tighter leash now. Patriot is primarily an SRBM killer with some MRBM capability and piles and piles of air breathing threat capability, compared to other SAMs and air-to-air missiles which we haven't had to use. THAAD is geared toward MRBMs and high altitude intercepts to counter early release submunitions. Both Patriot and THAAD are terminal air defense systems. Aegis and GMD, on the other hand, are midcourse interceptors. A boost interceptor would be cool, but... that poo poo is hard. If you have specific questions, ask. Way back when in this thread I did some writeups on the Army missile systems with a bit of info on other joint systems as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 06:42
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:So what's the state of the art on ballistic missile defence? Can they actually destroy ballistic missiles now or is it still just knock them off target? actually, just go here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3373768&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=6
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 06:49
|
|
|
I read that the first time you posted but missed the part about 7 warhead kills in Iraq. What makes an incoming missile harder to intercept? Speed? Radar signature?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 08:22
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:A boost interceptor would be cool, but... that poo poo is hard. What makes it so hard? It seems like the missile would be most vulnerable during the boost phase - less total energy while it's still burning its fuel, less chance to deploy decoys, and so forth. Is the main issue the problem of detecting, tracking, and getting to the missile before it's out of reach?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 08:33
|
|
|
F-35s with combat lasers will be capable of boost-phase missile interception. The 747/chemical-laser -based ABM was cancelled largely because a compact solid-state laser was anticipated to reach maturity virtually the same time and will be far superior in virtually every respect. The F-35A and F-35C are ideal platforms for the laser in part due to the giant cavity designed in the aircraft for the F-35B, and also that engine is designed to transfer the shaft horsepower of a destroyer to an auxiliary, which could easily be a generator powering the laser. The main hurdle to development is not power or miniaturization (prototype solid-state lasers are already compact and powerful and shooting poo poo down all over the place in tests), but effective cooling. Here's Northrop-Grumman's SSLTE press release, but no video yet like we had from JHPSSL tests. grover fucked around with this message at 11:59 on Jan 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 11:54
|
|
|
I'll do another semi-effort post when I get back from work, but I am pretty damned late right now
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 14:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 19:25 |
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:I read that the first time you posted but missed the part about 7 warhead kills in Iraq. Speed. An ICBM is coming down at 7kps. You're going up at some other big velocity. You're not killing it with a proximity warhead; by the time the fuse does its thing, the warhead explodes, and the fragments travel whatever the intervening distance is, warhead's already gone past you. Sprint/Spartan didn't even pretend to try to attempt a blast/frag kill. Idea there was that you'd use a nuclear warhead, and the neutrons coming off of your bomb would smack into the plutonium core of the inbound, and make it predetonate, spoiling its nuclear yield. If you're not going to use a nuclear bomb in your interceptor missile, you pretty much need hit-to-kill.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2012 16:14
|
|