|
I know about War Plan Red and that stuff, I mean specifically for development of matériel. When an allied country like France or GB is designing a new fighter, are they thinking “ok this has to compete with the F 22” or do they not even bother
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
zoux posted:I know about War Plan Red and that stuff, I mean specifically for development of matériel. When an allied country like France or GB is designing a new fighter, are they thinking “ok this has to compete with the F 22” or do they not even bother
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 19:29
|
|
|
Cessna posted:And sometimes it's not really a serious plan - Staff Officers are sometimes assigned to make plans so as to practice making plans, if that makes sense. So you'll see assignments like "Maj. Smith, come up with a plan to conduct an amphibious assault on Newfoundland." No one is really thinking that they're going to invade for real, it's just a chance to practice planning, and maybe Newfoundland was picked because it has difficult tides so it makes Maj. Smith think of how to account for this. But then someone finds the declassified plans decades later and thinks, "holy hell, they were actually planning to invade Newfoundland!" zoux posted:I know about War Plan Red and that stuff, I mean specifically for development of matériel. When an allied country like France or GB is designing a new fighter, are they thinking “ok this has to compete with the F 22” or do they not even bother So a US ally would tend to think more in terms of if their aircraft would be able to deal with whatever Russia or China does to counter the F-22, and/or whether reaching for F-22 performance is worthwhile for their own military needs. And even if they decide they're set on those factors, they'd also consider whether they should make changes to their aircraft, doctrine, and support systems so they can benefit more from new allied capabilities. Comrade Gorbash fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Dec 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 19:32
|
|
|
zoux posted:I know about War Plan Red and that stuff, I mean specifically for development of matériel. When an allied country like France or GB is designing a new fighter, are they thinking “ok this has to compete with the F 22” or do they not even bother Not in the way I think you're decribing. All of the NATO countries use roughly the same process for capability development: 1) establish strategic/political objectives, 2) develop military requirements to meet those objectives, 3) compare requirements to existing capabilities, 4) develop new or repurposed capabilities to ensure as many requirements are met as possible. Since no NATO country has a strategic or political objective of "maintain air superiority versus our ally", capabilities aren't developed to meet that requirement. That said, a lot of times capabilities are developed with allied systems in mind - the US army's new SHORAD system, for instance, is being developed with a view to Skyshield/SysFla. It isn't necessarily designed to "compete" as such, but you stand a much better chance of getting funded if your system is competitive with allied systems that you could just purchase. So, in that sense they sort of compete. Also the whole "war plans versus allies" thing hasn't been done for decades and I don't really know why people think it is still a thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 19:33
|
|
|
Does anyone know where I could find official documentation of Lyudmila Pavlichenko's service record or recommendations for awards? A friend is looking for originals to use as a source. I have a bunch of newspaper scans, but original documents would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 19:47
|
|
|
Cessna posted:And sometimes it's not really a serious plan - Staff Officers are sometimes assigned to make plans so as to practice making plans, if that makes sense. So you'll see assignments like "Maj. Smith, come up with a plan to conduct an amphibious assault on Newfoundland." No one is really thinking that they're going to invade for real, it's just a chance to practice planning, and maybe Newfoundland was picked because it has difficult tides so it makes Maj. Smith think of how to account for this. But then someone finds the declassified plans decades later and thinks, "holy hell, they were actually planning to invade Newfoundland!" Another example of the less-serious sort is the contingency plan for a zombie outbreak drawn up by Nicholas Moran (The Chieftain of World of Tanks fame) and his fellow officers to kill time in Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 19:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:I would assume the modern War Plan Red is to blow up the British container ports, destroy the chunnel entrance, and just sit around til the island falls to starvation. I mean, except for the "blow up ports and the chunnel" parts we're pretty much already seeing that? Why bother going to war?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 20:02
|
|
|
Yeah, modern war plan red is just "give money to Brexiteers".
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 20:05
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
I though it was 'hack our dumb new aircraft carrier and beach it'.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 20:06
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:I think it was probably the usual RN (and more general military) problem of being very practical-minded and letting your technology stagnate when you're in a position of dominance. The success of copper plate as an anti-fouling measure was known in general for centuries, was specifically proposed to the RN in 1708 and the solution to electrolytic corrosion was well understood by 1765. But it wasn't until it became a pressing matter in a time of war, 20 years later, that the technology was implemented. Once it was, all ships were copper-plated, all existing ones were progressively rebuilt with copper bolts and all new-builds were constructed that way, the problem was solved and that method was standardised across the navy. The sacrificial anode was of no practical benefit to the RN and had 'failed' in the task for which it was invented. So there was no need to adopt the anode. I suspect that with Prince Consort they were concerned with making the copper too inert which, as with the original anode trials, actually made it redundant as an antifouling method. Muntz brass was a compromise - less effective in antifouling (but better than copper neutralised with an anode) but also much less electrolytically active. It's all good  It's just I've never seen you post before and then you pop out of nowhere with a  effortpost <3
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:I think it was probably the usual RN (and more general military) problem of being very practical-minded and letting your technology stagnate when you're in a position of dominance. The success of copper plate as an anti-fouling measure was known in general for centuries, was specifically proposed to the RN in 1708 and the solution to electrolytic corrosion was well understood by 1765. But it wasn't until it became a pressing matter in a time of war, 20 years later, that the technology was implemented. Once it was, all ships were copper-plated, all existing ones were progressively rebuilt with copper bolts and all new-builds were constructed that way, the problem was solved and that method was standardised across the navy. The sacrificial anode was of no practical benefit to the RN and had 'failed' in the task for which it was invented. So there was no need to adopt the anode. I suspect that with Prince Consort they were concerned with making the copper too inert which, as with the original anode trials, actually made it redundant as an antifouling method. Muntz brass was a compromise - less effective in antifouling (but better than copper neutralised with an anode) but also much less electrolytically active. I don't entirely agree that the RN let its technology stagnate in the 19th Century. They were at the leading edge of a lot of naval development, particularly in terms of shipbuilding and design. The argument that they were more interested in keeping anti-fouling properties over electrolytic ones is more convincing, though. zoux posted:At what point did the British stop considering us as potential foes in their planning While the Royal Navy has always had plans for war with the US, I'd argue that the point where it stops considering the US as a likely foe comes in the 1930s. In the late 1910s and 1920s, there were quite a few RN officers who considered the US as the most likely enemy in Britain's next war. After all, Germany had been defeated, Japan, Italy and France were allies, and the Soviet Union had been crippled by the Russian Civil War. The US, in comparison, had shown themselves to be very interested in preventing people carrying out commerce warfare. The RN felt that commerce warfare was a key part of its playbook, especially in a war with a European nation. There were few fears that the US would declare war on Britain for no reason; instead, the two nations would come to blows over Britain's actions during a war with a third partner. For much of the 1920s, RN planning was focused on Japan, with the US coming a close second. War with the USA was generally understood to be a difficult affair, one that neither would come off well from. In the 1930s, however, the rise of Germany and Italy as threats to the UK forced a reorientation towards European threats, and the likelihood of war with the US dropped off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 20:07
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:I don't entirely agree that the RN let its technology stagnate in the 19th Century. They were at the leading edge of a lot of naval development, particularly in terms of shipbuilding and design. The argument that they were more interested in keeping anti-fouling properties over electrolytic ones is more convincing, though. *steeples fingers* And would you describe them today as complacent in that regard But yeah I guess the crux of my question was "when did an Anglo-American war become unthinkable" thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 20:17
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:
There were a couple of Canadians tasked with road tripping along the border in the 1920s and collecting maps from highway rest stops. This was because their plan in the event of war was to rapidly attack as deep as they could into the United States, then fight a delaying action while waiting for the British relief army. No one actually checked with Britain, which had no plans to send relief. On the other hand, thanks to Prohibition the Canadians would no doubt have been treated as liberators.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
zoux posted:I know about War Plan Red and that stuff, I mean specifically for development of matériel. When an allied country like France or GB is designing a new fighter, are they thinking “ok this has to compete with the F 22” or do they not even bother "Compete" doesn't necessarily even mean "shoot down in combat." "Compete" may well mean "make more sales to other countries," in which case you're drat right they know they have to compete.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
What capabilities does an unrivaled military hegemon plan for? Just, let's make it the best we can? For example, what threat was the F-22 supposed to answer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 21:09
|
|
|
zoux posted:For example, what threat was the F-22 supposed to answer? Next-generation Soviet air superiority fighters, the F-22 was intended to preemptively counter anything the Soviets might come up with and ensure American dominance of the skies. Then the Soviet Union went poof and the Air Force realized it had a hilariously expensive plane on its hands with no clear purpose for it. Kinda like the F-117, except the Air Force still had a job for that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 21:30
|
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:I don't entirely agree that the RN let its technology stagnate in the 19th Century. They were at the leading edge of a lot of naval development, particularly in terms of shipbuilding and design. The argument that they were more interested in keeping anti-fouling properties over electrolytic ones is more convincing, though. I definitely could have worded that better: I was thinking mostly of the 1815-1850 period where, largely free of outright war or continental competition, the RN trucked along with ship technology largely unchanged since the start of the century. The last pure sailing ship-of-the-line was HMS Queen, launched in 1839 and essentially little different from the first-rates which fought at Trafalgar. The RN only embraced coppering under the pressures of war and felt little need to experiment with technology that was entirely effective for its purpose, be that ship design as a whole or new anti-fouling ideas. After the Crimea, and particularly once France commissions the Gloire, the RN feels technological pressure once again and you get the rapid development of ironclads and turret ships through Warrior, the Bulwark-class, Prince Albert, Monarch, the unfortunate Captain and through to the Devestations and the Inflexible. How the RN's doctrinal development kept pace with this technological progress is quite another matter! Tias posted:It's all good I lurk my way through each Mk of this thread but am always in awe of the expertise and ability to do real, actual history of the regulars. I'm an industrial archaeologist by education (if not profession, hah!) as well as a lifelong sea/ship/sailing enthusiast so my credentials as a naval historian are those of an enthusiastic amateur. I did some posts in Thread Mk.III, mostly about aero-engines of the world wars, IIRC. I feel on home ground spewing about ships, aircraft, railways, engines and factories, which I hope we can agree are
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
zoux posted:What capabilities does an unrivaled military hegemon plan for? This probably isn't exactly what you were asking but this has been America's existential crisis for about the last 30 years. This is the most recent National Security Strategy. It is pretty much the same as the previous NSS, except it put in "Jihadi Terrorists" in a face palmingly stupid political edit. Basically: freedom of navigation and trade, suppress terrorism, deter conflict. The first one is largely on the State Dept and Navy, the second largely law enforcement. The third is the DoD's bread and butter. So, in a macro sense, the F-22, and the Abrams, and the Ford class are there to deter conflict. They do this, in theory, by being so imposing that no one will even think about getting out of line (with America's strategic interests). In practice this is obviously way more complicated, and we make it harder on ourselves by being stupid. The previous generation's NSS's were largely influenced by the cakewalk that was GW1, and the presumption that American wunderwaffe and technowar would simply awe any opponent to death, and we'd lose like 30 guys, 20 of them in one tragic accident, then wave tiny American flags and welcome Our Boys back home. This was further underpinned by the collapse of the USSR, and the dissolution of America's number one best good enemy. This left us without a clear idea of what exactly deterrence in the future would look like, and how we were to do it. Then...GWOT happened. In addition to being a tactical gong show and low-grade bloodbath, GWOT was a resource-suck of absolutely epic proportions. It drained so much of the DoD's (and America's) budgets that it essentially cost generation's worth of modernization, which is one of the big reasons why all of America's current frontline weapons systems were either born or conceived in the 80s. At the same time, a bunch of competitors watched the cakewalk in GW1 and got real smart real quick (relatively speaking) when it came to how to fight an expeditionary military like America's. So now, the US is coming out of the GWOT mindset and trying to transition back to a position of dominance in a more traditional military campaign, all in the name of deterrence. But, we're out of money, our allies have hollowed out their militaries, and potential opponents have developed a bunch of pretty well thought out systems and tactics designed to offset a lot of America's military advantages. That's where we are now...trying to figure out how to firmly re-establish our credentials as a first class military deterrent. We are taking any and all ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 21:48
|
|
|
bewbies posted:We are taking any and all ideas. Zeppelin. Bombers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 21:53
|
|
|
Bears that can load ammunition onto trains.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 21:54
|
|
|
bewbies posted:We are taking any and all ideas. I am afraid the answer might be yes but has someone proposed mecha? I mean if they're desperate, someone might just propose it seriously.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 21:55
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:I am afraid the answer might be yes but has someone proposed mecha? I mean if they're desperate, someone might just propose it seriously. Legged vehicles have been seriously studied by the US military, yes indeed - you might be familiar with the Big Dog legged robots built for DARPA. However, there's a lot of reasons why battlemechs are strictly a thing of science fiction, and they're not on anyone's radar. zoux posted:Zeppelin. Bombers. In all seriousness, modern zeppelins do have a lot to recommend them in the modern world. They have very glaring problems, but also very significant benefits. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Spacewolf posted:I am afraid the answer might be yes but has someone proposed mecha? I mean if they're desperate, someone might just propose it seriously. I mean, the trouble is at that size it could function for like 10 minutes before running out of battery. And plugging your war machines into the wall all the time really doesn't work very well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:06
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I mean, the trouble is at that size it could function for like 10 minutes before running out of battery. And plugging your war machines into the wall all the time really doesn't work very well. Also, metal is heavy. Gypsy Danger realistically would have sunk into the ground and probably collapsed under its own weight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:07
|
|
|
bewbies posted:We are taking any and all ideas. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:18
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Legged vehicles have been seriously studied by the US military, yes indeed - you might be familiar with the Big Dog legged robots built for DARPA. First you attach a carrier group to defend each zeppelin...
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:27
|
|
Siivola posted:Found a trading company, take over a small country on the other side of the globe by playing various factions against each other, go broke, get nationalized and become the administration of a brand new colony full of resources and cheap labour. The Netherlands? India, even modern India is huge.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:29
|
|
|
Comrade Gorbash posted:The US probably dropped off their list of "keep these updated and ready to hand at all times" list after the Suez Crisis, though. I mean, given how Britain and France got bitchslapped just by economic threats? Given how Suez made it extremely clear to the whole world that the prewar wold order was stone dead and it was the US and the USSR in the driving seat now, I doubt they were too worried. Edit: oh I had that the wrong way round. Tbh I would imagine by 1945 that was already recognised to be a Very Bad Idea. Especially before we had the Bomb... feedmegin fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Dec 4, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:31
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I mean, the trouble is at that size it could function for like 10 minutes before running out of battery. And plugging your war machines into the wall all the time really doesn't work very well. Yep, they've built Iron Man style exoskeletons which worked pretty well except for needing a giant power cord. There are a lot of far out sci fi technologies, military and civilian, that become possible overnight given a much, much better battery.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:34
|
|
|
GotLag posted:Another example of the less-serious sort is the contingency plan for a zombie outbreak drawn up by Nicholas Moran (The Chieftain of World of Tanks fame) and his fellow officers to kill time in Afghanistan. It hits the sweet spot of getting enthusiastic participation and buy in, particularly from the public, while minimizing the possibility of someone mistaking it for the real thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:35
|
|
|
fishmech posted:First you attach a carrier group to defend each zeppelin... Not in that sense. Zeppelins have a lot of application for battlefield surveillance and similar roles where they can stay on station just about forever, can haul a surprising amount of weight with them, and provide an extremely stable aerial platform. The main disadvantage of dirigibles, that they fall out of the sky when someone coughs at them, is somewhat mitigated by the lethality of modern battlefields across the board to aircraft. They're another aircraft that can't exist in contested airspace, but that's true of a lot of modern aircraft, and their signature draw is that once you stick a dirigible in the sky, it's probably going to stay there until it decides to come down or is forced down. I legit wouldn't be surprised if someone's tried or is actively looking at turning a dirigible into a baby AWACS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:39
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I legit wouldn't be surprised if someone's tried or is actively looking at turning a dirigible into a baby AWACS. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
I meant modern, but point taken. I've read that a few countries have also been experimenting with lighter than air drones, due to the pesky "has functionally zero ability to withstand incoming damage" problem with dirigibles, and I've seen one article about some US company toying with the idea of a dirigible as a floating missile platform for on-call strikes from ground troops. Load up a dirigible with a bunch of air-to-ground missile launchers set to link up with infantry gear, and loiter time? What's that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 23:02
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:I legit wouldn't be surprised if someone's tried or is actively looking at turning a dirigible into a baby AWACS. they tried, it went about as badly as it could have
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 23:06
|
|
|
Black Stuff, White Stuff, Soft Stuff 
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 00:45
|
|
|
BalloonFish posted:
Do you have any good resources about pre jet aero engines I can check out? I came across the youtube channel Greg's Aircraft in the Aeronautical Insanity thread recently and now I want to know more. I'm looking for something fairly technical, gotta put that mechanical engineering degree to use somehow!
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 01:25
|
|
|
next post is up https://forums.sufficientvelocity.com/threads/fallout-britain.51618/page-3#post-11726086
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 01:30
|
|
|
oXDemosthenesXo posted:Do you have any good resources about pre jet aero engines I can check out? I came across the youtube channel Greg's Aircraft in the Aeronautical Insanity thread recently and now I want to know more. I'm looking for something fairly technical, gotta put that mechanical engineering degree to use somehow! Take a look at https://oldmachinepress.com
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
Isn't the problem with lighter-than-air craft that are affected by weather much more than fixed-/rotary-wing, while also not being fast enough to easily avoid it, and being a pain in the arse to secure on the ground?Comrade Gorbash posted:It hits the sweet spot of getting enthusiastic participation and buy in, particularly from the public, while minimizing the possibility of someone mistaking it for the real thing. Speaking of mistaking it for the real thing, did anyone in the US actually take the War of the Worlds broadcast for an actual event or did that story grow out of retelling/Nazi propaganda?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 20:06 |
|
|
GotLag posted:Speaking of mistaking it for the real thing, did anyone in the US actually take the War of the Worlds broadcast for an actual event or did that story grow out of retelling/Nazi propaganda? Yes, they did. People really took it as actual, because (remember) it happened in October 1938. People were on edge like we've only seen in living memory after 9/11. (The Wikipedia article includes a number of citations as to this.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 04:56
|
|