|
RattiRatto posted:It always amuses me how countries and politicians always find money for a few 400bil airplanes, but then are always short in money and need to cut a few billions a year to healthcares and education. I have a 1000 page course book on accounting I could lend you/bash you on the head with until you understand why that makes sense.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:13 |
|
|
Russia built extensive underground facilities to keep building nuclear bombs and rockets to make sure nobody goes unpunished.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Xoidanor posted:I have a 1000 page course book on accounting I could lend you/bash you on the head with until you understand why that makes sense. You have a book on Accounting that dedicates chapter space defending military spending over social programs? Now this I have to see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:41
|
|
|
Riso posted:Russia built extensive underground facilities to keep building nuclear bombs and rockets to make sure nobody goes unpunished. Interestingly, the Soviets preferably targeted the military forces of Nato with their nukes, while Nato preferably targeted Soviet cities. In WW3, this may have resulted in the Red army still existing, but the Soviet Union being destroyed, while the western nations also still existed but had no army left to protect them from the Reds.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Interestingly, the Soviets preferably targeted the military forces of Nato with their nukes, while Nato preferably targeted Soviet cities. No.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Interestingly, the Soviets preferably targeted the military forces of Nato with their nukes, while Nato preferably targeted Soviet cities. Counterforce and countervalue are two different missions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Interestingly, the Soviets preferably targeted the military forces of Nato with their nukes, while Nato preferably targeted Soviet cities. lol no.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:Interestingly, the Soviets preferably targeted the military forces of Nato with their nukes, while Nato preferably targeted Soviet cities. Name a city over say 100k that does not have a military target within thermonuclear blast range.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Moscow by the way has an anti-nuclear air defense system. It's basically a bunch of rockets to blow up nukes safely out of city range.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Riso posted:Moscow by the way has an anti-nuclear air defense system. That should tell you something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Riso posted:Moscow by the way has an anti-nuclear air defense system. It probably wouldn't actually work. Hopefully, we'll never see it tested.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It probably wouldn't actually work. It works for what it was designed to, i.e. to force the US to lob a hell of a lot more nukes at Moscow than they otherwise would. Rent-A-Cop posted:It's a bunch of nukes to blow up nukes. An idea that the Cold War era US Air Force discarded as too crazy. When the people who toyed with the idea of nuking the moon think something is too crazy, you know you've got a winner right there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It's a bunch of nukes to blow up nukes. An idea that the Cold War era US Air Force discarded as too crazy. Uh, well, about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
AlexanderCA posted:We do? I remember the original plan to buy tomahawks for the air defence frigates got canceled after budget cuts to the navy throwing the "marinestudie" in the trash can. Oh I was sure I remembered reading 12 were bought.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
Slightly less crazy because the plan was to nuke the sky over Canada (Sorry Canada!) instead of Washington DC. But also more crazy because it was launched from an F-89 Scorpion. An interceptor designed to be armed with 104 70mm aerial rockets (or 2 nuclear rockets).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Slightly less crazy because the plan was to nuke the sky over Canada (Sorry Canada!) instead of Washington DC. We need a :canadasmith: where he's wearing a red and white toque.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Were nuclear nike-hercules deployed in the lower 48?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:It's a bunch of nukes to blow up nukes. An idea that the Cold War era US Air Force discarded as too crazy. I keep seeing this posted but I thought the nuclear ABM was discarded because it was expensive (and McNamara hated ABM) and not because "lolllll exploding a nuke over your territory is totes mad stupid, yo!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I keep seeing this posted but I thought the nuclear ABM was discarded because it was expensive (and McNamara hated ABM) and not because "lolllll exploding a nuke over your territory is totes mad stupid, yo!" That and turning the sky over your own country into an incandescent atomic hell is a tough sell to the public. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:It works for what it was designed to, i.e. to force the US to lob a hell of a lot more nukes at Moscow than they otherwise would. Splendedly, the entirety of the Soviet Union was entirely protected by the Moscow ABM from a British nuclear first strike because of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Were nuclear nike-hercules deployed in the lower 48? Absolutely. Here's a map that shows the locations of all of them within the United States: http://goo.gl/maps/E14zi
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:Counterforce and countervalue are two different missions. And the Soviets were very likely a quite a bit more into counterforce then the USA. For an overview on their planning: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv//nukevault/ebb285/
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Mightypeon posted:And the Soviets were very likely a quite a bit more into counterforce then the USA. It would be difficult to achieve that, especially for the Soviets. The negative impacts of the nuclear strikes on the force targets would inevitably blow over and consume value targets as well. There's no real reason to think that a strategic nuclear war would have stayed counterforce, it would probably have gone lovely real fast. e: eh, I re-read what you posted, I'm arguing something different. Disregard, I accept your point. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Dusty Baker 2 posted:Absolutely. Here's a map that shows the locations of all of them within the United States: Ahahaha, none in the Midwest. Expendable flyover country 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:31
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
blowfish posted:Ahahaha, none in the Midwest. I actually got to play around in the silo for one of those in eastern Virginia.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Ahahaha, none in the Midwest. America's crush zone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:The main problem with a lot of combat aircraft acquisitions programs are that they're frequently associated with very high technical risks (that is, using completely new and untried technology for the first time). Especially in the US with its long history of spectacular aircraft there seems to be a conviction that you have to have it all and that all problems can be solved just by more engineering (and surprisingly often they can, if you just throw enough money at it). One exception to this is the F-16, where there seems to have been some actual restraint involved. The F-16 suppose to be the low cost alternative to the F-15 after NATO caught wind of the MIG-25 interceptor which was designed to go after the SR-71, thought it was a high speed high altitude dog-fighter and took the F-15 design which was already better than the MIG 21 & 23 at their roles and pushed aviation design as far as their slide rules allowed. What they got was a plane that could out-dogfight a MIG-21, out shootdown/lookdown a MIG 23, and almost out intercept a MIG 25 which is really loving impressive but for the time was really loving expensive. Luckily the people that threw together the initial design of the F-16 designed the F-15 as a low cost alternative incase the F-16 didn't get picked up that was still on par with the MIG 21 and MIG 23 at their roles. Really, the problem is that instead of looking at what the latest and greatest fighter that Russia and China was doing and then top that (because what they were doing was still trying to catch up to the F-15) they designed an F-15 with a bunch of gold plated poo poo in the F-22 and the F-35 was trying to be the F-16, F-18, Harrier, and A-10 which is monumentally dumb as discussed at length here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Ahahaha, none in the Midwest. Unless you like food. Also I guess they didn't care about Phoenix.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:15
|
|
computer parts posted:Unless you like food. MIGF post needed: 
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:18
|
|
|
So is the LRS-B program looking like it'll be a poo poo show comparable to the F35? I don't know much about it, but on the face of things it looks kind of reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:So is the LRS-B program looking like it'll be a poo poo show comparable to the F35? I don't know much about it, but on the face of things it looks kind of reasonable. Well, the Navy and Marines don't need their own version, so that's already a boost to the likelihood that it won't be a complete shitshow.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:45
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:So is the LRS-B program looking like it'll be a poo poo show comparable to the F35? I don't know much about it, but on the face of things it looks kind of reasonable. We'll know more when the proposals are released and the design selected in April-June of this year. As things stand, the goals seem somewhat worrisome given the limited airframe production of 175 with both C4ISTAR and strategic bombing missions- that's just enough to replace the B-52 as a strategic bomber if we assume even division between them, but the LRSB is supposed to not only replace the B-52 but also some B-1s. There's also some worrisome possibilities in the demand for unescorted daylight raids in highly-defended territory, but that's ironically a consequence of the F-35 and F-22.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Unless you like fixed
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
A Winner is Jew posted:Really, the problem is that instead of looking at what the latest and greatest fighter that Russia and China was doing and then top that (because what they were doing was still trying to catch up to the F-15) they designed an F-15 with a bunch of gold plated poo poo in the F-22 lol if you actually think this. Also this gets back to a point I made earlier in the thread which is comparing individual systems in a vacuum is really stupid and really pointless if we're going to have a discussion about necessary capabilities (hint: proliferation of double digit SAMs has quite a bit more to do with why the USAF was so hell-bent on 381 Raptors than any notional Russian or Chinese fighter) Effectronica posted:There's also some worrisome possibilities in the demand for unescorted daylight raids in highly-defended territory, but that's ironically a consequence of the F-35 and F-22. Well the possibility of being unescorted (in the air to air sense anyway) is more due to our limited number of Raptors than anything else, and that can really be laid at the doorstep of one guy. Also the unescorted daylight raids in heavily defended territory thing isn't ever happening, I don't know where you got that idea...there's a reason we talk about night zero kick in the door forces, not day zero, and no one goes downtown completely alone, not even B-2s. This is a pretty decent piece containing some suggestions on what LRS-B should and shouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 06:23
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Unless you like food. The rockies don't really grow anything. But man, it's weird that Buffalo got all these batteries around it. Was it the falls? Grondoth fucked around with this message at 09:05 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 08:59
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Well the possibility of being unescorted (in the air to air sense anyway) is more due to our limited number of Raptors than anything else, and that can really be laid at the doorstep of one guy. That's what I meant- the F-35 can't escort effectively, and the F-22 is too low in numbers to do it either. That capability is one of the official design goals, at least so far as anyone outside of procurement knows. It's not going to happen but the demands placed on the aircraft may compromise the effectiveness of the LRS-B as a bomber.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 13:11
|
|
|
Not even B-2s go in alone... Right. So which USAF platform is used for EW these days?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:24
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:That's what I meant- the F-35 can't escort effectively, and the F-22 is too low in numbers to do it either. Just go full retard and make the you know, like this, but with more nuclear tipped anti air missiles~ 
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 14:27
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Not even B-2s go in alone... Right. The F-35.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 21:13 |
|
|
I thought the F-35 was taking over the wild weasel role from the F-16 and the USAF was still planning on relying on the Navy's growlers and any remaining EA-6s for EW (EF-111was retired in 1998)
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 16:36
|
|