|
B4Ctom1 posted:You seem to be confused. You think that detonating an EMP wouldn't be treated as a nuclear attack?
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
Someone post an airplane.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:You think that detonating an EMP wouldn't be treated as a nuclear attack? There are lots of things that could be treated like an attack. But we wouldn't silly start nuking everyone until we figured out who was doing it or how. If that were the case, we would have bombed Tokyo 4 hours after pearl harbor, not 4 months. See that is how attacks happen, you have to have it, before you can be surprised by it.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Oh I get it, you're loving with me.holocaust bloopers posted:Someone post an airplane.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Oh I get it, you're loving with me. Not just with you. With everyone. The billions we spend on defense often make no sense, because anyone who isn't afraid of MAD, and decides our threat outweighs our usefulness would attack. The smart game here is just to wait it out, which is what the Chinese are doing. We will simply decline as they rise. A couple of Clintons and a Bernie and we will be like kittens anyways. Obama set the groundwork for that not long after he got into office by killing a lot of projects like the F-22, and other aerospace related to NASA.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
make america great again
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
I love it when I get a chance to see a ton of C-17's in a row sometimes when flying into CHS. Going to airshows at Charleston AFB was one of the things I always looked forward to growing up. IT'S AN AIRPLANE!!! 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:21
|
|
|
Mr Crustacean posted:That particular ancient Soviet era AShBM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_Zyb#R-27K, was made over 40 years ago. It achieved a rough 400 metre CEP with vacuum tubes and analogue circuits. Technology has advanced immensely in the last 40 years, allowing a conventional version to be credible. No, you don't get to go, "Shows SRBM, shows US system, "hand waves* see it's totally credible" Non-US 1000 nmi range or greater with <= 10m demonstrated. I'm waiting. It's harder than you think. quote:Precision strike ballistic missile capabilities are real, they are credible. The physics behind them is credible and other nations are also capable of doing the same math as we can. If you think it's the math holding the capability up then you are further off base than I thought.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Airplane!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
Someone post the F-16 variant that does shrugs 3x a week.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
So why do F-16s now carry the AMRAAMs on the wing tips and the sidewinders on the pylons?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I'm honestly not sure what you're asking with either of these questions, could you rephrase? You stated that the US shooting a satellite out of the sky would be tantamount to a nuclear use level political decision. The portion of my text you quoted implied that you thought the idea of such use was not credible under any circumstances. I retorted that if the US / China situation had degraded to the level that an Anti-ship BM strike against a US Carrier Battle Group was on-the-table then we were almost certainly already in a shooting war with China and in that case I could easily see the US exercising it's anti-sat capabilities. Knocking out some spy-sats during an ongoing peer level confrontation isn't going to make too many people uncomfortable and neither is actively engaging Chinese ISR assets in the area around the fleet. So, if that's the case, then an Anti-ship BM really is only credible as a first strike weapon before any shooting has started. I just can't give credence to the idea that China is going to first strike a US fleet in the open Pacific as the opening move in a political ploy, even one as drastic as an invasion of Taiwan. It's equivalent to Pearl Harbor and would immediately unite most of the world against them. My, poorly phrased, question to you was that if you disagree with that premise then explain what scenario you see developing where China would be credible in using this weapon that doesn't allow the US the opportunity to disrupt the kill chain beforehand?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:55
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:There are lots of things that could be treated like an attack. But we wouldn't silly start nuking everyone until we figured out who was doing it or how. If only there was some sort of system of observation satellites and radar sites that could tell us such things.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 20:59
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:But we wouldn't silly start nuking everyone until we figured out who was doing it or how. If that were the case, we would have bombed Tokyo 4 hours after pearl harbor, not 4 months. What the actual gently caress.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Someone post an airplane. 'k 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So a good solid six months ago I referenced a SEAD modernization concept paper, the version for public release was finally published today. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:It depends on how you define "win" - assuming non-nuclear (in which case we all lose), China lacks the naval power to keep us out of the Pacific, and the US lacks the manpower to occupy China. Nobody really wins, it just stalemates. This is ultimately what was getting at. Until you define what a "win" looks like, the whole debate is completely pointless. And posts like this: Fojar38 posted:The US hasn't had to operate without air and naval supremacy for some time but that doesn't mean that they can't do it. Denying freedom of action isn't the same as denying action period and I highly doubt that US and allied forces would be passive in this scenario. really make it clear that you have no idea what you're talking about. TCD posted:So why do F-16s now carry the AMRAAMs on the wing tips and the sidewinders on the pylons? It's not always like that. They can carry either, and there are loadouts that simply don't include AIM-9s at all, or only have one. Godholio fucked around with this message at 22:40 on May 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Godholio posted:And posts like this: Okay then. A win for China would be forcing the US to scale its operations back sufficiently that China becomes the dominant military power in East Asia. This can be done either via passive deterrence or via a shooting war if China thinks that it can defeat the US Navy in the Western Pacific. Since you obviously know what you're talking about, how useful do you think that China's ASBM arsenal, hypersonic or not, would be to achieving that goal?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
I like Constellations more than these geopolitical diarrhea posts.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Someone post an airplane. http://imgur.com/UH6nltE due to table breakage
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:Since you obviously know what you're talking about, how useful do you think that China's ASBM arsenal, hypersonic or not, would be to achieving that goal? As one major weapons system used alongside dozens of others, it could be very important to pushing the USN's power projection capabilities back a bit.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Neither China nor Russia are dependent on satellites for ISR over blue water. You wouldn't need to destroy them only jam/spoof.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:I like Constellations more than these geopolitical diarrhea posts. Okay.   
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
TCD posted:So why do F-16s now carry the AMRAAMs on the wing tips and the sidewinders on the pylons? http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20308
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Phone posting So on the Thunderbirds, do they have inert missiles on stations 1-9 or are they bare tipped?
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Okay. Thanks. I enjoyed looking at this blight upon the sky more than what China might do with scram jet islands or whatever
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So a good solid six months ago I referenced a SEAD modernization concept paper, the version for public release was finally published today. Thanks for this! edit: Plane  Planes  Video Plane  Vidya Plane 
mlmp08 fucked around with this message at 00:32 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Let's all talk about how sad it is the Flying Pancake never went beyond the prototype stage. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfpTDOAfj7Y
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 00:52
|
|
|
Syrian Lannister posted:Phone posting Empty railzzz
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 01:45
|
|
|
Back Hack posted:Let's all talk about how sad it is the Flying Pancake never went beyond the prototype stage. Awesome!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
TCD posted:So why do F-16s now carry the AMRAAMs on the wing tips and the sidewinders on the pylons? I was waiting for somebody to say, "Because Poland". But you guys are being too serious. The internet after all.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:Someone post the F-16 variant that does shrugs 3x a week. nope, I only post good looking F-16s thank you https://zippy.gfycat.com/NaturalSarcasticHanumanmonkey.webm https://zippy.gfycat.com/CompetentFaithfulArcticduck.webm Psion fucked around with this message at 02:17 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:In my EMP fantasy I see them as passive aggressors and saviors. Pretty sure this was the plot of a TV show called Jericho.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 02:27
|
|
|
_firehawk posted:Perhaps, but we can rebuild him. Stronger faster cheaper! Also Boeing now owns the a10s through some weird series of mergers?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
Psion posted:nope, I only post good looking F-16s thank you I mean yea sleek falcons are pretty hot
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:06
|
|
|
Psion posted:nope, I only post good looking F-16s thank you  Health at any
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
wargames posted:Stronger faster cheaper! Also Boeing now owns the a10s through some weird series of mergers? I don't think so, but there's nothing recognizable from the old Fairchild-Republic. Boeing won the contract on the AF's second effort to replace the wings. The first was considered a maintenance issue which is treated/funded differently than acquisitions, and I think NG was running it. Their product was not good, and the AF realized the wings in use were worse than expected, so they rebooted the whole thing and laid it out as a new acquisitions contract.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:40
|
|
|
1970 propaganda film for the AH-56. Watch a wargame in Germany where the Air Cav defends the Fulda Gap from the Red Horde. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-kKlHF-Chc
|
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I don't think so, but there's nothing recognizable from the old Fairchild-Republic. Boeing won the contract on the AF's second effort to replace the wings. The first was considered a maintenance issue which is treated/funded differently than acquisitions, and I think NG was running it. Their product was not good, and the AF realized the wings in use were worse than expected, so they rebooted the whole thing and laid it out as a new acquisitions contract. I think the Fairchild trademarks and such ended up with M7 Aerospace which is now Israeli-owned (Elbit) because apparently that is OK.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:56 |
|
|
B4Ctom1 posted:In my EMP fantasy I see them as passive aggressors and saviors. Are you actually Jay Hoc USMC(R)? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kxl7xWQI_lw e: sorry, didn't mean to bring it up again, here have a plane  simplefish fucked around with this message at 06:04 on May 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2016 05:06
|
|
