|
priznat posted:Starfighters had terrible loss rates but a lot of that was using them improperly. They're pretty cool looking. Anyone using that thing as an attack aircraft is just baffling. It is like buying a Lamborghini and then using it to haul gravel and then wondering why the suspension is shot and there are scratches all over it.
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 22:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
Mortabis posted:What made the Starfighter's ground-attack mission different? Was it doing supersonic low level bombing as opposed to subsonic? In the days before things like GPS and terrain-following radar flying nap of the earth profiles was a pretty hazardous activity no matter what plane you were in. Couple that with the fact that the F-104 was extremely fast, had a very high stall speed, was generally really unforgiving in flight, and had extra weight added with bombs and whatnot and you had what amounted to an overloaded hot rod on a wet street at night with no windshield wipers. To that end, a huge percentage of the Luftwaffe losses in were controlled flight into terrain which doesn't really imply any particular problem with the aircraft but rather with training and general usage. But yeah someone in large part at the behest of Lockheed decided that the F-104 was just a great low level delivery system for tactical nukes which is ridiculous when you even look at the thing, let alone when you try and fly it. Also just for general information no MANPADS system could ever hope to hit a bomber flying at a high subsonic speed on a nap of the earth profile. That stuff is for helicopters and CAS platforms.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2013 05:14
|
|
|
Munnin The Crab posted:Hell we're already looking at '6th gen figthers' Actually we're already looking at 8th gen fighters. 6th Gen is projected as the final "one man one ship" design, net centric, better man-machine interface, etc; 7th Gen is projected as either the first true UCAVs and/or a mothership/babyship type concept, 8th Gen is where UCAVs are fully developed and fully replace manned aircraft.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
jaegerx posted:See I'm having a hard time with UCAVS and unmanned Aircraft. The first strike in a nextgen war will obviously be to gain the high ground, space. With the elimination of satellites how are we going to control our unmanned vehicles or are they planning them being completely autonomous skynet AI? Well, I'm not sure you can make the assumptions 1) that satellites will be a primary target, and 2) that satellites will be easily or assuredly eliminated (really, the far more effective counter is atmospheric RF jamming of satellite signals). That being said I'm not aware of any plans to make UCAVs satellite-only, atmospheric RF may wind up being the first choice anyway due to latency and bandwidth requirements.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:There's talk of turning the IFPC batteries into bateries with multi-mission launchers that can do rockets/artillery/mortars as well as short range ABTs and also maybe some ground attack capability. Who knows? That stuff's farther down the road. This is actually a ways past the "talk" phase, the IFPC increment 2 CONOPS was published last month. Right now it looks like the interceptor will be the AIM-9X.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:AIM-9X is infrared only, right? I know it's good, but do the smaller drones put out enough heat? The first increment's primary target set are class 2 and 3 UAS (ie, from roughly Raven through Reaper size), so IR signature shouldn't be an issue. For the micro/mini stuff we're probably looking at a "shoot your machine gun at it" approach until such time as the new RAM interceptor hits the streets (something like EAPS, or smaller), or alternatively if DE proves itself viable.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2013 00:36
|
|
|
My mom's dad flew C-47s and then B-24s over the hump. I haven't been able to verify it, but he is fairly sure that this was his aircraft: A few months ago my uncle was changing out as the superintendent of the USAFA and as a part of that whole thing one of the two surviving airworthy B-24's ("Witchcraft") came down to CO Springs. My uncle arranged a ride on it for my grandpa and my aunt dutifully hauled a 94 year old man down from Denver and with great difficulty got him on board the thing (they are not easy to get into). He had a great time. After the flight the pilot went with my people for a beer. He was sort of razzing my grandpa about his flying days and asked him "where's your short snorter?? Think you owe me a drink!" He explained to everyone what that was and a hearty laugh was had by all. Meanwhile, Gramps was fishing the 70 year old dollar bill out of his wallet where it had been since the war. Once the pilot recovered his wits he bought everyone a round. bewbies fucked around with this message at 21:36 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:Germany has pretty much the same Patriot/Stinger combination the US uses, no? I think the Rolands have been retired. So we could probably just latch onto whatever the US does to upgrade the Patriot. This is correct, plus the amusingly named Nächstbereichschutzsystem (the MANTIS) which is quite a nice system from what I understand. If anyone is interested, Patriot just got a pretty major upgrade programmed for the 2018 POM cycle. The current radar will get trashed in favor of 100% solid state system with an actively scanned (but still sectored) forward array coupled with some rear-facing passive arrays that will probably look a lot like Sentinel. In other words, it will put Patriot's radar into the 21st century instead of where it is currently which is maybe...the mid 1970s. Patriot's radar is getting seriously long in the tooth and it is way, way behind other top of the line sensors on other platforms in terms of performance so this upgrade is pretty important. The other big one will be the dissolution of the "firing battery" setup in favor of an echelon-free integrated and networked system, which is great, but old farts simply cannot wrap their heads around it. I'm not sure about the status of other Patriot operators with this stuff. Emirates and Qatar just paid big money for already-obsolete PAC-3 systems and Germany/Greece/Netherlands/ROK are all still mostly on PAC-2 stuff, so some serious upgrades could certainly be on the table if they want to shell out the money. From the US perspective we want to get as many people on the IAMD net as possible (WITHIN THE LIMITS OF FOREIGN DATA DISCLOSURE OF COURSE) so there will likely be some pushing from our end to upgrade the older stuff.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Surely there are upgrades to be made to patriot, but I think it's going too far to call it obsolete, particularly for a nation like the Emirates which has a very different needs from the US. Your options for a competitor that can accurately hit everything from uavs to ballistic missiles are very limited. Also no matter how badass or sensors and networks become, we'll still face the problem that it's way easier to lob a ton of cheap or moderately priced tbms than it is to shoot them down. Eh, I'm pretty comfortable calling anything that uses 60s-era FORTRAN, vacuum tubes, and a passive array obsolete. That doesn't mean it is useless but it does mean it is seriously past time to look at modernizing. Saint Celestine posted:Can you/someone, talk more about how modern SAM systems are setup? Patriot, Hawk, and the S-3/4/5 use "firing battery" setups, wherein the battery is the basic deployment element, the smallest element that constitutes a functional system. Generally speaking a battery consists of sensors (Patriot uses just one, the Russians and Hawk use multiple), launchers (both US and Russian systems use TELs), some sort of command/communication element, and then all of the sustainment and power stuff like generators and maintenance. Deployment tactics are pretty much the same for both systems, you pick out an asset that you want to defend from air and missile attack, you plop the battery down nearby, and the battery shoots at stuff that threatens the asset. Batteries tie in to one another and to some sort of higher echelon unit; Patriot uses the ADA battalion, the Russians an "air defense sector command" or something. You CAN "overlap" coverage and whatnot but real-world there are usually not enough batteries to cover all of the important assets, let alone to provide redundant coverage. Every interceptor that a battery fires is tied to the radar of the system that fired it. Patriot has some added flexibility in that it can send out launchers remotely (to a couple dozen KMs at the most), but those launchers and their interceptors are still tied to their mother radar; I am not sure of Russian capabilities in this respect. As I mentioned above, the "firing battery" construct is going away relatively soon for the US. Air defense forces will deploy as task forces that utilize a network for C2 rather than an echelon construct; in other words, each element on the network (radars and launchers) is its own entity, capable of acting independently of a single command element. I think the Russians are actually out ahead of us on this; one of Patriot's major limitations is its use of an obsolete, inefficient, and completely proprietary communications language that has essentially written the system out of joint fire control efforts until it is replaced. Long story short, Patriot's language requires "translation" to be a joint participant, and right now this translation can only occur at the battalion level, plus it is brutally inefficient and far too slow. The networked model should change quite a bit about how units are deployed, since you no longer have to deploy a radar in concert with launchers in order to defend a piece of ground, nor are you required to have a battalion element in order to converse with other platforms. Instead, you can deploy your radars wherever it is optimal, then rely on a fused data network to service the interceptor instead of an individual firing battery. In the long term, other services' sensors and interceptors will all be on the same network, the endstate being sensor-agnostic fire control from ship to shore to plane. The Russians and Chinese are moving in the same direction but those details are obviously not going to be open source. bewbies fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Jan 20, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 17:46
|
|
|
Drav posted:I'm honestly surprised the systems don't already work as an independent network like you describe, bewbies. Is this a case of something being obvious to the networked internet generation that the old guys at the top don't understand? Well, to be fair it was some extremely smart and forward-thing crusty old dudes who really put the idea into motion in the first place, and today the buy-in amongst the brass is pretty complete (especially in the air defense world), but you still have dudes who are concerned that battery commanders aren't going to get LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE and HOW WILL WE CONDUCT GROUND DEFENSE and so on. I'd say in general these guys who stand fast in the way of progress aren't the guys "at the top" though. Really the biggest limitation is the network itself. As you might imagine the latency, bandwidth, and reliability requirements for a network that handles in-flight ballistic missile interceptors are pretty extreme, and it is only very recently that a true OTA network has demonstrated that kind of capability. Plus, as with any modern DoD acquisition program, poo poo just takes forever because the system is so broken.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Some combat developer in China reads todays report, begins writing a concept for a new weapon system that involves rubbing ones head with a balloon and then touching the F-35.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:Fiscal policy is bullshit I normally wouldn't reply to this but can someone explain to me what the hell this even means
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:So are attack helicopters still a thing nowadays or has the proliferation of cheap air defenses kind of made them too vulnerable? This is getting pretty far in the out-years but we're predicting that helicopters are going to have a pretty big role as "tactical DCA" or something to that effect in the counter-UAS fight. Needless to say army aviators are extremely excited.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 15:02
|
|
|
evil_bunnY posted:I can't wait to see that idea literally go down in flames. What's the plan, snipe them with the chin gun? Yes, actually, though I wouldn't use the term "snipe". Counter-air proximity-fused shells for the Apache's 30mm gun are being tested right now with some relatively impressive results, and the Hellfire has been employed successfully against tactical UAS-sized targets already. The "counter-air package" for Apache (or its successor) will likely wind up being an enhanced software kit for the -78 (focused on detecting/tracking small aerial targets), enhanced Hellfire (or the JAGM, if it survives), the prox fused 30mm, and then possibly some sort of mothership arrangement where the helicopter controls or influences UAS of its own. An example might be a ground station launching something like a Switchblade, then the helicopter controlling it on a "patrol" until designating a target and engaging. Why exactly do you think this concept will "literally go down in flames"?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 17:03
|
|
|
grover posted:Is that using similar tech to the XM-25/XM-307, or is it a completely different? evil_bunnY posted:Why are they mounting all this poo poo on slow moving, high-RCS, short loiter manned airframes is more what I'm wondering. If you have some alternative suggestions I and every military on the planet are all ears.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Mazz posted:I always was curious as to why F-22 would need to do this if they could link this information back to F-15s. I always looked at the F-22 as just being an invisible spotter in this regard, especially since the F-15 can carry a shitload of AMRAAM in just a missile truck loadout. Without getting too classified-y that's pretty much exactly how they're being used in experiments right now. It has less to do with the F-22's performance or stealth and more to do with its unbelievable sensor suite. Basically, F-22's are on high altitude CAPs back behind the forward-most CAPs (which are -18s in this scenario); the F-22s contributed to detection and combat ID while the older fighters do the shooting. Longer term we should be looking at everybody being on some manner of integrated fire control which, at least in theory, should allow a ship like the F-22 to guide a big nasty surface-launched interceptor like the SM-6 onto either its organic sensor picture or onto an integrated air picture. This will require services to work together though which can always be dicey.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I kinda love the T-72, because it's the tank Wal-mart would have built if Wal-Mart wanted a MBT. I don't think the Chinese did much direct copying of any Soviet tanks after the split. They tried to build counters/competitors but I don't think they ripped off any designs.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
If the F-35 winds up...really failing, what is the fallback position, if any? Re-open the F-22 line and then build a bunch more teen fighters for the bomb truck role?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 00:00
|
|
|
I will say that the DoD acquisition process isn't usually hesitant to cut big money programs if they don't deliver, but the F-35 is...such a big program it might really be too big to fail. Even if it fails. But seriously if they make a plane that is quantitatively inferior to some combination of 22/18/15E, what then..
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
To reiterate the thing about the USAF (and the USN for that matter) and CAS, I have some visibility on some absolutely massive efforts to modernize that whole construct. It is a serious effort that goes all the way to the top of the organization. I have no idea how people got the impression that the mission wasn't a priority.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2014 16:01
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:The F35 program is getting so expensive that it will be soon cheaper to bomb with blackbeard era gold dobloons. Stealth CMs are more or less the toughest target set that there is to defend against outside of high-end longer ranged ballistic missiles. They're...extremely useful.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
This picture kind of pissed me off. A modernized (and maybe ruggedized) version of this thing would be so goddamn useful. It'd cost like five grand and would actually work. Instead, ladies and gentlemen I give you the severely hampered capabilities of army rotary wing and the F-35.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 00:31
|
|
|
Godholio posted:And it would have 1/10 the survivability of the A-10, which is already a pretty low mark. surely America's aeronautical engineers can come up with a reasonably survivable light attack aircraft design. Mortabis posted:How is Army rotary wing hampered? By the helicopters
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Slo-Tek posted:How? The best things for survivability are speed and altitude This is completely incorrect, at least against modern air defense systems. The easiest things to detect and engage are large, fast targets at altitude. Low, slow, small targets are far more difficult both to detect and defeat; this is why the US military is so concerned about tactical UAS right now.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Man people on the internet take arguing about planes that they know nothing about very, very seriously. (not referring to this thread)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Aside from the drains on resources (AA shells were the biggest single factor in my opinion) the fact that the Germans couldn't build a factory like Willow Run was a huge advantage for the Allies. The Germans did a respectable job outsourcing production to smaller facilities but the efficiencies gained from having massive single-source factories were enormous.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
The Japanese trying to figure out what the hell just happened at Hiroshima is pretty interesting (and macabre, and sad, too). They obviously knew nothing about the weapon, no major bombing raid had occurred, the US fleet was a thousand miles away, and an entire city was burning. They came up with some pretty crazy ideas: the US had initiated a tsunami, they'd tunnelled under the city somehow and set off some sort of volcanic explosion, they'd managed to "cloak" a bombing raid somehow...and so on. The military's final best guess was that the US had spent months covering the entire city with magnesium and had then detonated it with a single bomb; this kind of makes sense when you read about all of the eyewitness reports saying that the explosion was exactly like that of a magnesium flash going off.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
stealie72 posted:As for the German tanks, did they continue to be overengineered pieces of precision watchmaking after the end of WWII? I actually know very little about post nazi German armor, and most of what I know about WWII German armor was taught to me by Tamiya in 1/35th scale. The Leopard 1 was a pretty exceptional bit of engineering; it and the Chieftain are generally regarded as the best tanks of the era. The The US of course was rolling about in halfassed upgrades on WWII heavies for this entire period.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 23, 2014 14:53
|
|
|
hailthefish posted:Probably. All this future concept poo poo is basically like paying a bunch of third graders infinity-dollars for the doodles on the backs of their homework assignments. NO IT ISNT IT IS A VERY PRECISE AND DIFFICULT PROCESS Also I made this thing as a joke some months back and someone actually thought it was a serious thing (to include the text) and it wound up in relatively late drafts of a couple of CONOPS. I don't...think...it ever got traced back to me. ... 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Craptacular posted:Is there a realistic scenario where two nuclear powers (one of which is the USA) have an extended conventional war and neither side goes nuclear pretty quickly? The most probable is some sort of aggression in a small regional area that then draws in someone else. The Spratly Islands is a good example; if Sino-Vietnamese relations suddenly got even worse and the PRC went all expeditionary to the Spratlys then I could see the US deploying in support of Vietnam and that then developing into a shooting war. Whether or not it becomes "extended" is tough to predict, but in this scenario, for exapmle, if the RoC wound up getting involved it could potentially wind up being a pretty significant conflict.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 16:48
|
|
|
Well, production of giant expensive complicated things like planes or ships is not likely to matter much, but smaller stuff (particularly precision long range munitions and interceptors) certainly could.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 17:11
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Interceptors in this day and age have costs in the dozens, if not hundred, of millions. They're not exactly smaller stuff. I agree with you on munitions and stuff though, just look at how Libya turned out. Eh, that's...a bit high, especially if we're talking tactical/operation level stuff. That said, everybody involved is looking very hard at cost equations for these things and how cost can be reduced literally by orders of magnitude without impacting capability...much. Also, for the US at least, production lines for interceptors of all types are designed pretty specifically to be massively scalable. The money sink that would happen in the event of a long-range shooting contest between the US and the PRC would be absolutely insane.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 28, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Davin Valkri posted:So how come no one is calling for expanded PGM stockpiles/"making more of the weapons we've already got" or whatever if all signs point to "what we have reserved right now won't last us a week"? WE ARE But seriously though we're in bad shape with this stuff. It just got a whole lot worse now that our entire stockpile of MRLs is useless (this is a good thing, but it still sucks). Literally every experiment/wargame I've been a part of over the last few years basically turns on munition expenditure, and this goes for both sides. This is leading to all kinds of amusing sub-strategies like "opponent munition depletion" and so on where you do weird things like fly around on the edge of opponent's airspace and try to get them to shoot at you, or present juicy surface targets to try and get them to shoot BMs.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
Most new major systems are moving away from intermediate/depot level maintenance being performed on site by military personnel; the F-35 isn't unique in this regard. Systems are getting so much more complex that training and manning intermediate/depot level servicepeople is becoming cost prohibitive. The counterbalance is better prognostics/diagnostics, better and more expansive preventive/first line maintenance, and longer MTBFs in general. Who knows how this shift will play out, but it isn't really avoidable if you want to field the next generation of stuff. It kind of sucks that the days of fixing R-2800s with oil cans and gum are over, but on the plus side we'll never have to deal with finicky TWTs again.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 15:03
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:It's a question of design decisions, too. It's certainly in the financial interests of LockMart if only LockMart can maintain F-35s and the plane needs to be shipped back to mainland as soon as it loses a bolt, so simplifying maintenance was probably not a priority. I mean, I realize that this thread's favorite pasttime is ripping on the F-35 and Lockmart and I'm certainly not any great supporter of the program in general but when you're talking about a piece of equipment that is that complex there are huge cost savings to be had in paying dedicated civilian career engineers and mechanicst to do the intermediate/depot level stuff rather than recruiting and training a brand new airman/seaman Joe High School Graduate every 4 years. That was the military's conclusion, at least. In any case, it isn't nearly as dramatic as "plane needs to be shipped back to mainland as soon as it loses a bolt"; pretty major maintenance tasks, like engine replacement, for instance, are considered first line maintenance activities (see: the remodeling of the carriers to accomodate this task). On the other hand F-35 < * so
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
There really aren't very many people with any real knowledge or authority who think that a major war with China is a significant possibility any time soon. That being said, it makes sense that the "target" for both nations' long term acquisition strategies is the other. They are the two biggest kids on the block, so if you build objectives to beat up the biggest kids, you should have a force inherently capable of handling all of the smaller kids. There's also arguments to be made in terms of deterrence and the maintenance of the balance of power in the region. Basically my point is that developing capabilities to overmatch a specific potential opponent doesn't inherently imply that you're about to start a war with said opponent.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 14:31
|
|
|
duckmaster posted:1) Horses It is relatively primitive, but you can't necessarily say "lol horses" and leave it at that. China has lots of people and lots of land, and lots of...horses, probably. Fewer trucks, helicopters, and planes. Sounds to me like they're using their assets effectively. quote:2) Submarines Everything open-source I'm aware of thinks that Chinese submarines are decades behind USN subs and ASW platforms, which means more or less that they'd be easy meat in blue water without additional help. However, I don't think that the PLAN has any intention of sending them out to hunt in waters that the USN controls. Instead, they want to deny sea control to the USN through platforms like the DF-21 and their horde of ASCMs, then send the subs out to operate in that umbrella. quote:3) Stress levels in PLA soldiers. This is profoundly unscientific and should probably be ignored. Imagine a similar analysis of American soldiers yields a lot of cheap beer and Xbox. quote:4) Chinas aircraft carrier It will be a long, long time, if ever, before China could approach US/NATO control in blue water. Like with the subs, however, that probably isn't really their objective. What they want is a carrier that can project some power regionally and can operate effectively close to their shores, not a giant floating China that can go park in San Francisco Bay and cow America into signing the latest trade agreement. quote:5) The PLA are training for amphibious landings on beaches that are nothing like in Taiwan or anywhere else in the region. Contested landings aren't all that difficult in the grand scheme of things. China has a high end space program and the world's best ballistic missile force, they can certainly conduct amphibious operations effectively if they want to. That being said, this doesn't really imply that they have a serious ability to conduct major operations away from their own shores; the hard parts about that are sustainment and protection, not getting there and taking the territory initially.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Yes, it is. This. The US might have the most sheer destructive power available in a ballistic missile fleet but it certainly isn't the most operationally useful. Even with our advantages in science and engineering we're years behind the PRC when it comes to BMs, as is everyone else other that Russia.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Mazz posted:Related question, I remember something about Chinese S-300/400 and their indigenous versions being able to reach into Taiwanese airspace, even to the point of engaging aircraft well over the landmass. The latest generation of extremely long-legged interceptors (the 40N6 from Russia, Patriot MSE and SM-6 from the US) have some pretty interesting implications. No aircraft has ever been engaged at the distances that these things are capable of flying so it is all theoretical, but generally speaking they could potentially actively contribute to OCA missions and/or take the place of manned aircraft in DCA roles pretty effectively. The big issue is that despite the long legs they're still limited by the guidance/tracking capability of their ground-based radars, which goes to the evolving focus on truly integrated fire control. Once you figure out how, for instance, to launch a giant land-based interceptor and then pass off its guidance to terminal to, say, an airborne platform, you've got a massive increase in capability.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 16:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 19:13 |
|
|
The Geoff posted:I've been developing a free cold war era submarine simulator for a while now, and at the moment I'm working on the naval strategy side of things. Basically, I'm trying to create a system where the AI countries represented in the game will realistically but randomly deploy their warships (including your nuclear submarine) and give them orders. In the time frame you're talking about, Soviet naval strategy had three main goals, assuming that we're talking about a conventional full scale war in western Europe: 1) Deploy and protect the SSBNs 2) Disrupt/sink as much shipping as possible coming across the Atlantic 3) Control the waters outside of the two main naval bases (White/Barents sea, and Sea of Japan/Okhotsk) 4) Hunt hostile SSBNs NATO navies would charged with: 1) Deploy and protect the SSBNs 2) Protect the convoys in the Atlantic 3) Support ground operations with air/naval gunfire 4) Hunt hostile SSBNs To that end, you're really not going to see many "naval battles" in the Leyte Gulf or Trafalgar sense, more like lots and lots of subs hunting and being hunted. Remember also that both sides were very heavily reliant on land-based assets (ie, ASW/Anti shipping aircraft).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 15:41
|
|