|
I'm pretty sure that Russia doesn't actually intend to build most of the poo poo they announce. Mostly they are just trying to goad the US into spending more and more money on fewer and fewer items.
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
Sperglord posted:A Mach 3 non-afterburning engine with 1,000 nm and a stealthy airframe becomes a hugely appealing first strike weapon. Against a modern IADS, I'm not so sure. A monolithic airbreather at mach 3 is nothing to sneeze at, but it's also been within the bailiwick of SAMs for a long time. It's no mach 20 warhead hiding in a forest of penaids.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:Against a modern IADS, I'm not so sure. A monolithic airbreather at mach 3 is nothing to sneeze at, but it's also been within the bailiwick of SAMs for a long time. It's no mach 20 warhead hiding in a forest of penaids. You can make a Mach 3 cruise missile low-observable. A Mach 20 warhead isn't and the launch platform definitely is not low observable. Mach 3 will get you through the defended zone quick enough to only absorb a few missiles, unlike the JASSM which will have to slow-boat through the period of vulnerability. Of course, a hypersonic glider flies at relatively low altitudes, so that becomes a first strike weapon too. But it'll cost more than a Mach 3 cruise missile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 03:42
|
|
|
Murgos posted:I'm pretty sure that Russia doesn't actually intend to build most of the poo poo they announce. Mostly they are just trying to goad the US into spending more and more money on fewer and fewer items. It's like the 1980s, but the reverse.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:Only the ones that matter (the boats) Isn't like 80% of the Russian sub fleet just rusting in port at this point? Hell, look at the Kursk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
I've never gotten the sense that anyone other than video game developers takes Russian wunderwaffe announcements seriously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
I think the issue with the increased proliferation of such cruise missiles isn't that the technology doesn't exist to detect and destroy them, it just isn't deployed in anything like sufficient quantities around any powers respective heartland, and would probably be cost prohibitive to do so. Providing close in anti high speed, low altitude cruise missile defense for an airbase or a tank battalion in the field is totally a done thing. Providing such coverage for, say, the eastern seaboard is not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
TsarZiedonis posted:I think the issue with the increased proliferation of such cruise missiles isn't that the technology doesn't exist to detect and destroy them, it just isn't deployed in anything like sufficient quantities around any powers respective heartland, and would probably be cost prohibitive to do so. This is exactly the problem, at least for the US. IIRC, Russia has some anti-cruise missile defense around Moscow. But, those defense would give the Russians 2 - 5 minutes warning, before a Mach 3 missile detonates overhead. Lastly, this is not at all a case of a Russian wunderwaffe, Russians can build submarines, albeit in limited numbers, and Russians have demonstrated their land attack cruise missiles in combat. Both of those give a nice first strike capability for an attack sub operating off the US East / West coast. For Russia, the US can have Mach 3 stealthy missiles fired from a stealthy bomber. The bomber can get within launch range of Russian missile fields undetected and then first-strike land-based TELs. All in all, this is properly speaking a large jump in strike capability on both sides.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
TsarZiedonis posted:I think the issue with the increased proliferation of such cruise missiles isn't that the technology doesn't exist to detect and destroy them, it just isn't deployed in anything like sufficient quantities around any powers respective heartland, and would probably be cost prohibitive to do so. As you state though its a totally doable thing if the need arises. Its very very unlikely it would though. If, 10 years from now, we had an imminent threat and a few years warning we could probably cobble together a JLENS-like program that actually protects the coast. Like if "your dirty commie country here" relations went south and they really truly were going to bomb us within the next 180 days and they had managed to cobble together a bomber/cruise missile force that wasn't a one way trip for them...Each coast is ~2000 miles and the radar horizon is ~160 miles at 10kft (Wikipedia J-Lens height) so you'd need about 13 of them. It'd be hilariously expensive but doable if there was a real threat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:37
|
|
|
The explosion of precision low observable vehicles has made area defense unworkable. You can't deploy enough missile interceptors. At the same time doctrine has no need to target population centers. High accuracy MIRVs made that irrelevant. In the 70s we aimed for big targets. In the Information Age the targets are thousands of scattered military assets the closest of those to population centers would be heavy manufacturing. The offense/defense balance is almost 100% in favor of offense and retaliation via MAD is the only defense. Moscow doesn't need missile defense because nuking the kremlin would just be teabagging a dead opponent, since everything they could possibly use would have been made crispy. Decaptitation is also not really a useful strategy because while you may have "removed" true command structure the retaliatory assets are still in place. So you would somehow have to invest in ABM and cruise missile interception at all your nuclear sites, which is a huge investment that is likely to have only partial reliability at best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
For me, the worry isn't so much about strategic nuclear exchanges with the Russians. So long as the Ohio class boats exist, deterrence exists. It's about how this technology is becoming obtainable by smaller and smaller powers, many of whom seem interested in challenging us dominance of their region in New and exciting ways.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
No small power can challenge the US rationally. What they can do is threaten the US be a far as foreign policy goes even a single nuclear strike on US soil is unnacceptable. The North Koreians and the Iranians would be the ones to attempt to put their handful of weapons into a metro area like NYC. In a modern strategic war nuking NYC would be counter productive. Tiny countries don't have the resources to do anything but threaten the tactical decision of striking a population center. While that ability would allow small countries leverage to be aggressive in their local area threatening the US like that is liable to be fatal. Which leaves what North Korea is doing, threatening their neighbors South Korea and Japan. While the US isn't directly threatened a nuclear strike on Seoul or Tokyo would also be a global nightmare. US 'dominance' of the region is still only contested by china, but the DPRK is in a position to do their own thing with nothing but a slap on the wrist. DPRK is like a honey badger; Unable to truly harm you, but scratches and bites hurt, and it don't give a gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
You don't need to attack the USA to challenge their dominance of your region, you just need to make them think attacking you would be too costly to be worth it. Having a strong IADS capable of shooting down stealth aircraft and cruise missiles with enough range to deter carrier battle groups from moving close enough to be practical against you is what you need; the ability to incinerate New York City in nuclear fire isn't. The nuclear fire option is if you want to challenge the US dominance of the whole world.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 11:10
|
|
|
Sperglord posted:Lastly, this is not at all a case of a Russian wunderwaffe, Russians can build submarines, albeit in limited numbers, and Russians have demonstrated their land attack cruise missiles in combat. Both of those give a nice first strike capability for an attack sub operating off the US East / West coast. The second one is absolutely a concern for Russia, particularly with their missile subs mostly confined to dry dock (or shadowed by US SSNs the moment they get out). What exacerbates the issue in Russia's PoV is the US's demonstrated ABM capability because that means our first strike doesn't need to be 100%, it can be moderately porous and still limit US loses to 'acceptable' levels (acceptable in a McNamara/LeMay sense, probably still 10's of millions of casualties). Oddly, the thing that gets people all jumpy lately, Conventional Prompt Global Strike, is pretty much worthless as a first strike weapon as it relies on relatively easily detected ICBM/SLBM launches and easily tracked sub orbital trajectories for 3/4ths of it's flight. I guess the fear there would be that we would disguise a nuclear first strike as a conventional strike against some lovely target in Afghanistan? Eh, I don't see it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Oddly, the thing that gets people all jumpy lately, Conventional Prompt Global Strike, is pretty much worthless as a first strike weapon as it relies on relatively easily detected ICBM/SLBM launches and easily tracked sub orbital trajectories for 3/4ths of it's flight. I guess the fear there would be that we would disguise a nuclear first strike as a conventional strike against some lovely target in Afghanistan? Eh, I don't see it. There's a question of volume. If you tell the UN "don't worry, we're just gonna blow up a Taliban Toyota that's moving towards Kabul" and then launch a couple hundred ICBMs, nobody's going to check their trajectory before going in WW3 mode. And inversely, if you launch only one missile to make a believable Taliban disguise, then you're not going to make enough damage to hope to cripple anyone with that first strike. No, not even for a first strike against North Korea. Also, here are some exclusive pictures of the Japanese two-seater F-35 variant, undergoing taxi trials.         Cat Mattress fucked around with this message at 15:09 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
Still better looking and more functional than that Iranian abortion
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
The Enlarged wing area is going to be a real benefit to its performance.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
As a plus it now appears to work in wet weather.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Oddly, the thing that gets people all jumpy lately, Conventional Prompt Global Strike, is pretty much worthless as a first strike weapon as it relies on relatively easily detected ICBM/SLBM launches and easily tracked sub orbital trajectories for 3/4ths of it's flight. I guess the fear there would be that we would disguise a nuclear first strike as a conventional strike against some lovely target in Afghanistan? Eh, I don't see it. Very true on the old SSBN patrols off eastern Seaboard. For the hypersonic glider, if you look at the article below, the discuss it's advantage. Basically, as long as you don't have space-based early warning, the glider will stay below the radar horizon until ~7 minutes before impact. A ballistic missile will rise above the radar horizon ~20 minutes before impact. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08929882.2015.1087242
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
Murgos posted:What exacerbates the issue in Russia's PoV is the US's demonstrated ABM capability huh? Anyway the biggest reason US/NATO are pursuing high speed LO cruise missiles isn't for some nuclear decapitation strike, it is to give us a viable means of suppressing or destroying 4th generation ground based air defenses. Right now we're relying on 70's-era anti radiation missiles and short range subsonic LO air launched standoff weapons, neither of which would do well against a platform like an S-400. The idea is coupling a high speed atmospheric/aerodynamic penetrator with a fancy new ballistic system and perhaps at that point we'll have caught up to the Russians and Chinese when it comes to SEAD.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
bewbies posted:huh? If we have the ability to defend against a Russian retaliatory strike, we have an advantage that tips the balance upon which MAD relies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 17:58
|
|
|
bewbies posted:huh? Boost glide and/or ramjets gives you all the SEAD you'll need. A Mach 3 turbojet is built for long range strategic strike.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
bewbies posted:huh? Maybe you shouldn't have cancelled Tacit Rainbow back in the day, i'm sure we can sell you a few ALARMs  
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
MikeCrotch posted:we can sell you a few ALARMs You can't since you don't have them anymore
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If we have the ability to defend against a Russian retaliatory strike, we have an advantage that tips the balance upon which MAD relies. Well yeah, but we have no such capability was my point
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
We have demonstrated the capability. Whether we have the ability to actually defend against a real attack of any size is besides the point when it comes to political maneuvering.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Do you have a van in need of some spraypainting? Here come Alice Bruderer's "aerosaurs" to your rescue.           
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
We have not demonstrated the capability to intercept a single ICBM that has even a primitive penetration aid, let alone a modern Russian or Chinese missile. And the ability to intercept a pure ballistic unitary missile is at best...sketchy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:03
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Here come Alice Bruderer's "aerosaurs" to your rescue. I don't think I should be getting boat estrus flashbacks. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
The Gepard-lizard is my fav
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
bewbies posted:We have not demonstrated the capability to intercept a single ICBM that has even a primitive penetration aid, let alone a modern Russian or Chinese missile. And the ability to intercept a pure ballistic unitary missile is at best...sketchy. Never mind. Sperglord fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
RCAF CF-18 crashed near Cold Lake, no word on pilot yet. Update: pilot killed priznat fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
bewbies posted:We have not demonstrated the capability to intercept a single ICBM that has even a primitive penetration aid, let alone a modern Russian or Chinese missile. And the ability to intercept a pure ballistic unitary missile is at best...sketchy. So, you're saying we've demonstrated an ABM capability? e: What I am saying is that even with the limited demos we've been able to pull off over the last 10-15 years Russia is having panic attacks and throwing hissie fits at arms reduction talks. Reasonably so because a real ABM capability is an end to MAD. Murgos fucked around with this message at 21:00 on Nov 28, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Murgos posted:So, you're saying we've demonstrated an ABM capability? "an ABM capability" is about as useful an assessment as "an airplane". we can shoot down old SCUDS all day long but pretty much anything built by a peer competitor after about 2005, or anything that shoots more than about 2000 km, outmatches anything we have on the ground today or in the foreseeable future. Your point about Russias posturing well taken, but it is only posturing, and not based on any realistic assessment of our capability. neither we nor they are within several decades of producing a system that is capable of defeating intercontinental structured attacks by missiles with penetration aids. That is what it would take to end MAD, and not much less.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:You don't need to attack the USA to challenge their dominance of your region, you just need to make them think attacking you would be too costly to be worth it. Having a strong IADS capable of shooting down stealth aircraft and cruise missiles with enough range to deter carrier battle groups from moving close enough to be practical against you is what you need; the ability to incinerate New York City in nuclear fire isn't. No minor player is close to having IADS of that caliber unless they buy it wholesale. This requires effort on the order of buying whole S-400 systems or equivalent, and in meaningful numbers to actually deter. Anti-US deterrence is currently based on the effective DoD doctrine that even single losses are PR nightmares and must be avoided. Even then, our older anti-radiation missiles can overcome and destroy the system in volume before we have to send any manned aircraft into the area. Sperglord posted:Basically, as long as you don't have space-based early warning, So everyone that matters? bewbies posted:"an ABM capability" is about as useful an assessment as "an airplane". we can shoot down old SCUDS all day long but pretty much anything built by a peer competitor after about 2005, or anything that shoots more than about 2000 km, outmatches anything we have on the ground today or in the foreseeable future. However Russia's strategic capabilities are outdated and continue to be so. Our visible progress on ABM, however slight, further puts their aging nuclear deterrent to shame. Even the RS-28 is an incremental improvement and still years away from full deployment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
Aren't there interceptors in Alaska capable of hitting a handful of ICBMs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
bewbies posted:"an ABM capability" is about as useful an assessment as "an airplane". we can shoot down old SCUDS all day long but pretty much anything built by a peer competitor after about 2005, or anything that shoots more than about 2000 km, outmatches anything we have on the ground today or in the foreseeable future. Are Israel's Arrow 3 missiles capable of this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:However Russia's strategic capabilities are outdated and continue to be so. Our visible progress on ABM, however slight, further puts their aging nuclear deterrent to shame. Even the RS-28 is an incremental improvement and still years away from full deployment. Huh? How advanced and modern does an ICBM need to be for it to not be put to shame by what is at best a marginal anti-ICBM capability? If Russia scrapped the RS-28 and just continued to rely on decades-old SS-18s, SS-25s, how does that make their arsenal even the slightest bit less threatening?
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 13:14 |
|
|
Gervasius posted:You can't since you don't have them anymore lol hoist by my own petard I guess. Maybe we can bum a few off the Saudis if we really need them again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 28, 2016 22:29
|
|