|
TBQH I personally think the US sucks at hypersonics simply because they don't have the expertise. The development of Chinese and Russian hypersonics weapons fundamentally trace back to the work of the USSR's design bureaus in charge of missile development, which invested a bucketload of resources and research into supersonic weaponry. Granit (Shipwreck), Moskit (Sunburn), Malakhit (Siren) were all designed and developed to have Mach 1+ speeds. When the USSR fell, while most industries got cannibalized for some reason the old missile bureaus simply reorganized and kept their expertise onboard throughout the entire process, hence the development of modern Russian supersonic cruise missiles such as Oniks and Kalibr being relatively smooth processes as compared to the boondoggles of the Su-57 and T-14, which thus laid the foundation for the Zircon and Kinzhal (the latter of which has been seen operational in Ukraine) or the absolute deranged madness that's the Burevestnik. The Chinese piggybacked off this process, either through tech transfer agreements or reverse engineering (YJ-12/93 is a variant of the Kh-31 air launched ARM, and the YJ-18 being a variant of the Kalibr), but they also extensively did a lot of development of this area through their attempts to build various flavours of the DF-series ballistic missiles, to the point they could simply modify the DF-21 somewhat and then chuck it into a ship (as the YJ-21). Meanwhile, aside from various failed or cancelled programs, or one-off research prototypes like the X-51 Waverider, the US simply hasn't invested the same amount of research into supersonics or hypersonics post 1970. (SM-6 theoretically has anti-ship capability but I'll believe it when I see it; besides, no sane USN commander is going to waste their precious ABMs willy nilly on surface targets) Most of them are mainly subsonic, with focuses on stealth cruise missiles being the focus of development, such as in the LRASM, JASSM, and others. So its no surprise that, outside of the usual neolib shenanigans, the US is having a hard time getting new hypersonic weapons to work. Iriscoral has issued a correction as of 04:13 on Apr 29, 2023 |
#
¿
Apr 29, 2023 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:I am not a military nerd. As far as I know, detecting where the CSG is still the hardest part when war starts. Quick note here: the PLAAF/PLANAF drones are pretty advanced. There's so many on the market and most of the info around them is rather obscure, but in general from announced specs they are comparable to the West. The TB-001 is their MALE (medium altitude long endurance) variant for surveillance, which usually are more for closer missions such as around Taiwan, but their HALE UAVs such as the WZ-7 Soaring Dragon and WZ-10 is pretty much comparable to the Global Hawk. Those are the ones likely to be deployed to the Philippine Sea for observation (we've seen them flying through the Miyako Straits recently), and used in support for PLAN battlegroups and picking out USN CSGs, but in a real world situation they are likely to be accompanied by standard AWACS aircraft such as the KJ-2000. Detection of USN CSGs is definitely still a problem; because as much as we can talk about how much they've improved in all search and tracking capabilities, as well as in satellite constellations its still really up in the air how many sensors they can deploy into the region and whether it will be enough (I've tried finding hard numbers in the past and its difficult; so I'll have to wait until I have more time in the future). At the same time, if we isolate things to Taiwan (seeing that most of poo poo that might start comes from there), the USN doesn't have an easy job either, as Liaoning and Shandong's CSGs will likely be deployed as a blocking force against them and any relief force towards Taiwan (given the recent dances between Shandong and the Nimitz between Guam and Taiwan), which makes the problem of finding the USN CSGs easier. At least if there's one thing the PLA has, is that they will have an abundance of platforms to launch ordnance from, from land/carrier based aircraft to ballistic missiles on TELs. In this scenario, the USN center of gravity is much more severe as they will have to keep their carriers afloat to actually be able to do anything around Taiwan, given that none of the bases in Japan or the Philippines are close enough for F-35As/F-15s (unless they do refueling, but that's still a tall order), but that's still approximately 120-160 F-35Cs/F/A-18s, plus some more F-35Bs curtsey of the USMC, alongside multiple Burkes and Ticonderogas plus the Virginia/Seawolves, so its still a toss up on who would win in the fight. But it gets more and more gnarly for the Americans if you start stretching the timeframe, because more Type 055s and 052DLs get into service, coupled with Fujian and the Type 076s, which are the rumoured drone carriers, as well as newer PLAN submarines. Of course, its unlikely Korea or Japan's naval forces wouldn't be drawn into this as well, but like I said I haven't had the time to draft a full OOB of the East and South Sea Fleets vs the whole of the ROKN/JMSDF expeditionary forces and the USN 7th Fleet, or the possible spoiler of the Russian Pacific Fleet/VKS from the Eastern Military District. I'll figure that poo poo out another time. Cuttlefush posted:us was also pretty busy with this through the cold war and there are an absurd number of ramjet/scramjet projects going through the 50s/60s/70s. From https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/Content/techdigest/pdf/V11-N3-4/11-03-Gilreath.pdf and https://secwww.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/content/techdigest/pdf/V18-N02/18-02-Waltrup.pdf it sounds like they were busy. Iriscoral has issued a correction as of 09:33 on Apr 29, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2023 09:18
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:also it was supposed to have a rail gun but they scrapped it after the ammo cost like $10 million a shot The gun developed for the Zumwalts was the 155mm Advanced Gun System, which for the record not a railgun, but supposed to be the end-all to all shore bombardment missions, having a blooming 150km range, autocannon rate of fire (10 rounds per minute), and accuracy to rival guided missile systems. This was because the key reasons for the development of the Zumwalts was due to various post 9/11 conflicts giving the USN the desire to provide shore bombardment that wouldn't be close enough to shore for someone to try to whack with short range missiles, while having the precision of actual land attack missiles. Well, AGS worked; but here's the kicker - it relied on the LRLAP, a guided shell specially designed for it, because for various other reasons it couldn't use Excalibur or other 155mm ammo (systems/targeting integration, dimensions, grift, I have yet to check, gimme a while). And LRLAP was shockingly expensive - 800k to 1mil per loving shell! BAE systems claimed that with mass production of the Zumwalts and the AGS, they would be able to set up specialized lines for the LDAP that would massively reduce cost (and to this day is the same excuse used by certain nerds who insist the US MIC isn't an overbloated, inefficient capitalist system) but USN procurement wasn't having none of that. And here is the other silly thing. You see, the thing about the Zumwalts was that they were built and designed for when everyone was buying into the End of History, when the only form of resistance was not the Soviet naval forces wielding gently caress-your-poo poo heavyweight AShMs around their naval bastions, but simply supporting any amphibious forces you are landing to suppress the 'terrorists' that got uppity. And then, would you know it, the PLAN started building itself up, and the USN quickly realized that building an entire destroyer class with a mission focused on shore bombardment was a silly rear end idea, because uh, good luck trying to land Marines on Shanghai, lmao Anyways the still un-functional AGS is still present on the three Zumwalts, because they haven't yet figured out what to replace them with. They say they will put hypersonics on them, but yeah uh, good luck (looks at the recent double failure) (Also naval railgun development for the USN and PLAN have stalled, but its not necessarily technological problems, simply just that both have realized that railguns don't really offer any big leaps in capabilities in modern naval warfare) Iriscoral has issued a correction as of 04:12 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2023 01:57
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, going back to the point about the carriers as well, the question is just how many aircraft are actually going to be combat available for an large engagement, and it may only be a relatively more modest portion of the flight wing than expected, especially regarding the F-35Cs, but also the aging nature of the F-18s as well. So you may, on paper, be able to get 3 carriers to the region if you really push things, but it may mean there isn't nearly as many fighters as expected. Also, they may not only be tangling with PLAN aircraft but PLAAF aircraft as well. Also, yeah I was being a bit dismissive of the T-14/Su-57 - compared to most other troubled programs the Russians had good reasons for why development took so long and the finished products, contrary to most western propaganda are still operational and decent machines, which is honestly pretty good in the scope of today Iriscoral has issued a correction as of 02:14 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2023 02:05
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Credit where credit is due, the US has been using 6 inch rifled guns since what, 1870? And they figured out a way to sell the Navy a new one that couldn’t use any other 6” ammo in existence. Six inch naval shells cost about $300 and these were going for a thousand times that, minimum? To be somewhat fair to BAE Systems (fake edit: turns out the main designer of the shell was everyone's fav, Lockheed Martin, not BAE), a guided shell with 150km range that was supposed to be coupled to an autoloader system allowing for 10 RPM was certainly a tall order, and I wouldn't be surprised that to get sensors, tracking, fins and ammo feed integration going for such ludicrous requirements demanded a fair bit of research investment and what not. However, instead of being a simply technological hurdle I think it speaks to the impracticality of the project as a whole, particularly when it was to fill a specific niche of relatively dubious need that only came out because someone wanted a fancier way to fight neo-colonial wars, so all parties are clowns in that endeavor. That said, the failures of LRLAP and Excalibur are funnier in light of the fact that the PLA successfully made the WS-35, another 155mm guided RAP shell in similar line to the LRLAP with BeiDou guidance and a range of 100km, deployed on the PLZ-05. Iriscoral has issued a correction as of 04:07 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2023 03:48
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:I always imagined a rail gun would be really useful for shooting down missiles. There's also the argument that the biggest block against increased interception rates isn't actually medium of interception, but target acquisition and tracking coupled with the short reaction times. If you want anything more though you will have to actually ask an expert instead of this poor amateur. Iriscoral has issued a correction as of 04:10 on May 9, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2023 04:05
|
|
|
Danann posted:https://twitter.com/60Minutes/status/1660423908091211776 Turtle Sandbox posted:Chinese cheap poo poo military hardware can't compete with artisan bespoke high end elite military hardware. Oh boy, just for fun lemme show some comparisons Type 055 vs DDG(X) - 888 million vs 3.4 billion USD (est, expected to go higher) Type 052DL vs Arleigh Burke Flight II/III - 537 million vs 1.8 billion++ USD (technically unfair because Burkes have 2000 tons more mass and the Flight IIIs get the Ticoderogas' BMD capabilities but still) J-20 vs F-35A - 120 million vs 110 million - direct buying costs, does not include maintainance I can't find hard numbers for the Type 003, the future Type 095/6 submarines, or any of the missiles shot off by the PLAN, but I'd like to note that new Flight II Harpoons cost 1.2mil each (an extended range version of an old rear end missile), the SSN(X) (Seawolf/Virginia-Class replacement) costs 7.2 billion USD and the new Columbia-Class costs a whopping 9 billion per boat. Its important to note that none of these are in anyway so much more advanced from any of their Chinese counterparts. https://news.usni.org/2022/11/10/ddgx-destroyer-could-cost-up-to-3-4b-a-hull-ssnx-attack-boat-up-to-7-2b-says-cbo-report Edit: Also Zumwalts cost 8 bil per ship, though at least that could be blamed on early cancellation, somewhat. But go figure, lol Iriscoral has issued a correction as of 05:46 on May 23, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 23, 2023 05:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The SSN(X) Meanwhile, the PLAN names its surface combatants after provinces (carriers) and cities (destroyers) respectively. Fun fact; if the city name gets chosen by the PLAN, the city government actually has to do some public outreach program for the PLAN wrt to the ship itself.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2023 07:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 03:40 |
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:American liberal elites like FDR and Keynes I think had a genuine belief that western would could peacefully transition from capitalist social democracy to communism and given how friendly FDR and Stalin were and how subordinated capital in the US was briefly to the war effort it was a totally reasonable and comforting/self-serving belief at that time. nah, Keynes hated Communism, and believed the capitalist mode of production was the beall and end all of things. Keynes was fundamentally an intellectual working for capitalist coin and a lot of his writings in the tailend of the Great Depression was trying to get people not to kick out the economists that helped bring it forth. quote:And it’s just over 100 years since the great 20th century economist John Maynard Keynes wrote about Marx’s contribution. Keynes wrote then: “how can I accept the (Communist) doctrine which sets up as its bible above and beyond criticism, an obsolete textbook which I know not only to be scientifically erroneous but without interest or application to modern world.” [2] I think we can see that Keynes had a low opinion of Marx’s ideas. https://redsails.org/marx-and-keynes-in-berlin/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 04:27
|
|