shovelbum posted:

Good thing Russia is our friend now and would never do anything stupid or evil!

iyaayas01 posted:

Before I really get cracking on the nuclear war strategies/tactics post, does anyone have any specific requests for stuff under that umbrella that they'd like to see covered?

Ridgewell posted:

Now I'm confused. In your OP, you write

Since the F-86 and F-100 are one-seaters (save for some training versions), this would mean that the two-man concept was abandoned with them, too (and possibly, depending on the exact versions, the F-16, F/A-18, A-7 as well).
What's the deal with that?

Ygolonac posted:

Parasite aircraft have a long history.

iyaayas01 posted:

Yeah, this thread, that thread, the Ringo thread over here, and the Air Force thread over there are pretty much the only ones I'm actively following while I'm TDY. I kind of gave up on my crusade in that thread to rid the Marines of STOVL because I've only got a limited amount of time each day to post (to be clear, that was my only contention...I have no problem with them operating fixed wing jets for CAS, I just don't agree with the need for STOVL capability.)

priznat posted:

Those nuclear ABMs would have kind of sucked for Canada because they'd probably be detonated overtop of us

daskrolator posted:

“Now no helicopter will be able to escape after entering into Pakistani territory,” the official [Pakistani] sources said.

http://arabnews.com/world/article154005.ece

LavistaSays posted:

Also it becomes problematic to get a DNA sample and positive confirmation that he was there. We would have still needed to send a team on the ground to recover some sort of Osama-bits for proof to the rest of the world.

Ygolonac posted:

A B2 full of SEALs.

ming-the-mazdaless posted:

I got buzzed by an entire squadron of CSH-2 Rooivalks recently. That's 12 of them. By time I had pulled my iphone out, unlocked it and tried to focus for a picture, I was looking at the last one disappearing from site.
Which theoretically may indicate I'd get a shot at one with a MANPADS, but I'd have been a sitting duck for ages if they were hunting with the Mokopa missile. There is no way you'd hear them.

iyaayas01 posted:

My sarcasm/joke detector has failed me once again.

Flanker posted:

The Americans can't even contemplate conducting an operation without total air supremacy so mounting AAA and SAMs on Humvees starts to look crazy.

The Russians on the other hand, never assume supremacy in a given theater so they roll with those badass self propelled SAM/AAA combo things like the Tunguska aka SA19 Grison and shitloads of MANPADS.

Both of these mentalities were developed in WW2

Armyman25 posted:

Our quarters were next to the flight line at Al Assad. Sometimes it seemed like the Marines were trying to burn up the month's fuel budget at night with the constant F-18 traffic at 3 AM.

The Gloaming posted:

Smiling Jack posted:

Eh, ever since India and Pakistan went nuclear, the convential arms race really isn't that much to get worked up about.

On the other hand, if India deployed a viable ABM system, Pakistan would freak.

Smiling Jack posted:

So could a Gremlin hatchback but I don't see anyone getting too worried about the pinnacle of 1970's AMC technology.

iyaayas01 posted:

This is still possible today...an F-15 driver I worked with graduated from West Point. It definitely isn't very common, though.

It was more common at that point in history, since the USAF was a new separate service in 1947 but didn't graduate its first class from the Academy until 1959, so there was a decade+ where officers had to come from somewhere else (as far as Academy dudes...obviously stuff like ROTC and OTS/Air Cadets was still an option).

VikingSkull posted:

South Africa and China are mentioned by name, and parts of that were written shortly after Tiananmen Square and before Nelson Mandela was freed.

When you shut off the largest food exporter and irradiate the large industrial sectors of the world, the least you can expect is massive food riots in parts of the third world. Look at how quickly Libya devolved from unarmed protest to armed civil war.


Both sides of the nuclear debate usually color the discussion with exaggerations either way. Nuclear winter probably doesn't mean the extinction of the human race, or even the end of civilization as we know it. It most likely would set our development back a few hundred years, though.

movax posted:

This is one time I'll borrow from Tom Clancy: I have a gun pointed at your head with a full 13 bullets. I dump out 7, still feel safe bro?

Also good to know the Soviets considered Detroit worthy of destruction, go Michigan!

(insert comment about how Detroit already looks like a nuke hit it here)

Smiling Jack posted:

PS- Avenge Yorktown!

daskrolator posted:

Speaking of the nuclear triad, rumors are about that under the most austere budget cuts the nuclear triad may go to a diad. Which leg gets eliminated? Land-based ICBMs, nuclear bombers, or da boomers?

thesurlyspringKAA posted:

Though I do think that subs are the most expensive, they are also the most survivable by far. Worth it in my opinion.

Cyrano4747 posted:

I'm not 100% on this, but I'm pretty sure that as far as today's arsenals go the same bombers which are capable of deploying nuclear weapons are the exact same ones that currently deploy our conventional munitions.

In other words, what you are arguing for is scrapping large bombers, period, and I think there's still a need for B2s and B52s in our conventional arsenal.

Insert name here posted:

Seconding the Let's Read.

Also since this thread resurfaced I figured I would ask these 2 questions:
1) How does the B-2 yaw? It obviously doesn't have a rudder.
2) Prior to the introduction of the Harpoon, what weapons were going to be used on navy planes against ships? Did they even have anything or did they just plan on using their own ships to shoot it out?

Smiling Jack posted:

You left out the inspiration for Pearl Harbor: the british attack on the Italian Navy at anchor.

Smiling Jack posted:

So did I.

BadgerMan45 posted:

I can't go into great detail but I do remember it was Taranto. I believe the Brits attacked with 21 Fairey Swordfish off the HMS Illustrious and thrashed the Italians.

Fake Edit: Found the wikipedia article, I don't have any more information than it does but here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Taranto

priznat posted:

It was definitely pretty close one. Also interesting that the Sea Harriers managed a 24-0 K:L against the variety of Argentinean planes (Super Etendards, Mirages, A-4s etc). Most likely because the AIM-9L was the poo poo.

Vincent Van Goatse posted:

Jeremy Clarkson didn't write that, it was Rowland White.

DrPop posted:

I figure this is as good a place as any to ask this, so here goes. In anticipation of BF3, I've been playing a bunch of SPMBT lately, playing some US and Russia vs Iran games. Keep in mind going forward that when it comes to MBT and MBT technology, I know very very little, and that which I do know is gleaned from wikipedia and other random poo poo.

My question is this: Why have so many countries adapted their MBTs (and other AFV/IFVs) to be capable of launching ATGMs, while as far as I know, the US hasn't?

Wikipedia posted:

The M551 Sheridan was a light tank developed by the United States and named after Civil War General Philip Sheridan. It was designed to be landed by parachute and to swim across rivers. It was armed with the technically advanced but troublesome M81/M81E1 152mm gun/launcher which fired conventional ammunition and the MGM-51 Shillelagh guided anti-tank missile.
It entered U.S. Army service in 1967. Under the urging of General Creighton Abrams, the US Commander of Military Forces in Vietnam at the time, the M551 was rushed into combat service in Vietnam in January 1969. In April and August 1969, M551s were deployed to units in Europe and Korea, respectively.[2] Now retired from service, it saw extensive combat in Vietnam, and limited service in Operation Just Cause (Panama), and the Gulf War (Kuwait).[2]
At the time of the M551's acceptance into service production in 1966,[2] the United States Army no longer used the heavy, medium, and light tank classifications. In 1960, with the deactivation of its last (M103) heavy tank battalion, and the fielding of the new M60 series tank, the U.S. Army had adopted a main battle tank (MBT) doctrine; a single tank filling all combat roles.[3][4] The U.S. Army still retained the M41 Walker Bulldog light tank in the Army National Guard, but other than the units undergoing the transitional process, the regular army consisted of MBTs. Partly because of this policy, the new M551 could not be classified as a light tank, and was officially classified as an "Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle".
The Sheridan was retired without replacement by an airborne tank that could swim. While missiles fired out of guns would prove a disappointment, the wire-guided BGM-71 TOW would give infantry fighting vehicles like the M2 Bradley the firepower to destroy armored targets along with the ability to carry troops. Though other light tanks were evaluated, the wheeled M1128 Mobile Gun System currently provides an armored 105mm gun platform that is lighter than a battle tank for fire support.

thesurlyspringKAA posted:

I think you're misremembering... The things went supersonic, carried enough missiles and bombs to fight their way to and from a target, and I honestly dont remember the soviets countering them. They were a deus ex machina

SyHopeful posted:

Short answer, not really.

The intentions of this thread are to cover the post-WW2 through glasnost period. Y'know, the Cold War. Certain posters have decided that it isn't enough having massive WW2 derails in every other thread and that this thread needed them too, but that's not an endorsement for WW2 stuff.

Honestly I love WW2 stuff, so if you have some good writeups or pics I suggest you make a WW2 Air Power thread or something similar

Trench_Rat posted:

what sort of airplanes did the french airforce/navy use between 1946 and ca 1962 (DeGaulle going gently caress you american swine we are going our own way)

sanchez posted:

I think the fact that it happened during soviet times means it's easier for them to admit now. The B29 thing is hilarious.

Phanatic posted:

When would those times be?

Phanatic posted:

And did they need fixed-wing VSTOL to do it?

mlmp08 posted:

Harriers are pretty piss-poor for air-to-air combat. IIRC, much of their success in the Falklands was due to training and the AIM-9L.

edit: I'm pretty sure there was a Harrier pilot in here or ask/tell saying that about the only plane they could wax with any sort of regularity was the A-10 when they were swapping in and out of the gunnery range.