|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Why do the Marines always get the old equipment? The USMC does things on the cheap; this is because they are afraid that if they buy a lot of new stuff and thus take up a larger percentage of the Defense budget someone will realize that everything they do is already done by the other armed forces and consolidate them out of existence. This probably isn't a realistic fear - the last time a unification of the armed forces was seriously proposed was immediately after WWII. Truman was in favor, but there was a lot of political opposition. When unification failed Truman famously said the Marines had "a propaganda machine almost equal to Stalin’s."
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
Third tanks is no longer around. As far as Marines getting old equipment, I don’t think the argument of potential for dissolution is relevant much these days (personal opinion). Marines just have the smallest budget, by nature of being the smallest branch. Doesn’t mean they always get the oldest stuff; they have plenty of their own stuff like LAVs, AAVs, and AH-1s. Which are um... old.... I think a lot of the hand me down stuff is just being smart with money: the Marine Corps will gladly wait on the army to pass something down because it saves money for things they won’t get from the army, like amphibious vehicles. See the discussion from a few weeks ago on MARPAT; originally designed, tested, and discarded as part of a multi million dollar new uniform initiative by the army. Later picked up by the Marines, tested for a few thousand and then implemented. Not everything is hand me down or old; we got new howitzers same time as the army and some of the follow-on upgrades occurred jointly or even for marines before army.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 06:07
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:As far as Marines getting old equipment, I don’t think the argument of potential for dissolution is relevant much these days (personal opinion). I agree; like I said, I don't think it is a realistic fear today. But was at one time, and established a way of doing things (let someone else buy it first if you can) that continues today.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 06:19
|
|
|
Pedantic but the AH-1s aren’t too old, they’re rebuilding the vast majority as 1Zs (or new builds entirely, can't remember) . The 64Ds were arguably less capable but now they’re rebuilding some of those as 64Es so I have no god drat idea. The 1Y and 1Z being as common as they are always seemed neat to me. Hopefully FVL has some actual commonality in the end, and doesn’t pull a 35. Mazz fucked around with this message at 09:37 on Nov 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 09:34
|
|
|
Possiblty a bit too off-topic and if so I'm sorry, but one of the most decent new hex WW2 games Panzer Corps is on sale for just 2€, and I'm looking for people to play against. Anyone down? For those who've ever enjoyed the Panzer or Pacific General games, this is the newest incarnation, and it's a lot of fun! Thanks in advance and sorry for nerding up the wargame thread 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 10:51
|
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:
Old? Hell us Chair Force folks still have UH-1's (since 1965, won't be replaced until the MH-139 introduction in 2021-2022), B-52's (introduced in 1955, and will be flying until the MID 2050s!), KC-135s (introduced in 1957 and will be flying until 2040)... The big missiles? LGM-30G Minuteman III's? In service in 1970, using a design from 1962. Using warheads that can be over 40 years old. Yeah we get some new stuff, but we have a shitload of old stuff that the other parts of the Government think we don't need to upgrade or replace. Meanwhile the rest of the world keeps on introducing newer and newer stuff...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 14:40
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Old? Hell us Chair Force folks still have UH-1's (since 1965, won't be replaced until the MH-139 introduction in 2021-2022), B-52's (introduced in 1955, and will be flying until the MID 2050s!), KC-135s (introduced in 1957 and will be flying until 2040)... The UH-1 is the only chopper that doesn't crash in a stiff breeze and the B-52 remains as efficient as newer planes. Also, you don't really need a new missile to MIRV nuke a peer force, Russia and China are in no rush to create 5th gen LRBMs either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 14:49
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Hell us Chair Force folks When I was stationed on Camp Schwab, Okinawa we would get on a bus and ride for over an hour and a half just to admire your living conditions. It is hard to be too sympathetic to your plight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 15:19
|
|
|
Tias posted:The UH-1 is the only chopper that doesn't crash in a stiff breeze and the B-52 remains as efficient as newer planes. Didn't both Russia and China just field brand new ICBMs this year?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 15:27
|
|
|
Curse my big mouth  China's seem to be vaporware, but the Russian one is legit. Kinda tasteless that Putin wags this poo poo around while his people goes poor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 15:37
|
|
|
Tias posted:The UH-1 is the only chopper that doesn't crash in a stiff breeze and the B-52 remains as efficient as newer planes. The B-52 is not near as efficient as the B-1. The Bone is faster Mach 1.25/Mach .92 vs. 650mph), the Bone has a larger combat load, 125k lbs vs. 70k (including external stores on both), a higher ceiling (60k vs. 50k feet), the BOne can fly lower, the BOne has a better avionics package (until the B-52's get updated again), the BOne also is a much smaller radar target... But it will go away (the B-1 and B-2 for that matter) when the B-21 arrives. Why? Because the B-52 is so old, maintenance is easy and there are more B-52's flying than B-1s. And Russia and China have already developed newer LRBM's... Since the 1970's, Russia has developed and deployed the Topol, all of which will soon be Topol-M's. There have been many versions of the Topol system developed. All of which are LRBM/ICBMs. They also have the, RT-23 (1987) RS-26 (2011), the RS-28 (2009), newer versions of the R-36, the RS-18... there are more too. Yep, some were decommissioned (like the RT-23), but they WERE developed and deployed. As for the Chinese... lets see, the DF-4, DF-5, DF-41... Mind you this doesn't cover SLBM's... So um, yeah, the Russians and Chinese have been QUITE active with newer and more modern LRBMs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 15:41
|
|
|
glynnenstein posted:Didn't both Russia and China just field brand new ICBMs this year? And that's JUST this year... Both counties have fielded at least 10 new ICBM's since the 1970s. The US? One. And that one was decomissioned due to START II. The Peacekeeper was a better missile overall, could carry 11 (but usually only 10) MIRVs, had a CEP of less than 50m, a range of 8700 miles... The Minuteman III? 3 MIRVs (of course only one now), CEP of 200m (yeah I know talking CEP with a 475 or 335-350kt party popper is kinda dumb), and a range of 8100 miles. OH and that doesn't even get into warheads. Both the Russians and Chinese have developed at least 5 new warheads in the past 15 years...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
Cessna posted:When I was stationed on Camp Schwab, Okinawa we would get on a bus and ride for over an hour and a half just to admire your living conditions. It is hard to be too sympathetic to your plight. Not sure where you have been but trust me when I say not all barracks, DFAC's and such are always good...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
Tias posted:Curse my big mouth Why do you say it is vaporware? OSINT sources indicate it has been fielded.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
We’re still rocking UH-1s as well. And like Cessna, I’ve seen how the Air Force lives. Y’all are smart with money, just in a different way
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 15:52
|
|
|
So what's the point of developing new ICBM models? Isn't it that when those fly it's pretty much all done anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 15:55
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Why do you say it is vaporware? OSINT sources indicate it has been fielded. Oh, allright. All I've heard is "we're going to deploy it later this year for realsies" but I'll admit to not having looked very much. Tevery Best posted:So what's the point of developing new ICBM models? Isn't it that when those fly it's pretty much all done anyway? Putin says the point of the new one is to defeat ABM countermeasures, thus (in theory) making it a better deterrent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 15:57
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:So what's the point of developing new ICBM models? Isn't it that when those fly it's pretty much all done anyway? Solid fuel goes bad. Electronics break down, missiles are designed to fly, not sit in a silo or on a truck. So wear and tear on them is significant. Also earlier Russian ICBMs were... to put it lightly, bad. They were not reliable (which is why they had a lot of them). Also to defeat newer anti-missile tech (as stated earlier).
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 16:00
|
|
|
I imagine this might not be a very declassified question, but how do you "defeat anti-missile tech"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 16:05
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I imagine this might not be a very declassified question, but how do you "defeat anti-missile tech"? Dummy warheads. Hypersonic warheads. Electronic countermeasures to throw off radar guidance systems Lasers... There is a lot more too. EvilMerlin fucked around with this message at 16:10 on Nov 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 16:08
|
|
|
Tevery Best posted:So what's the point of developing new ICBM models? Isn't it that when those fly it's pretty much all done anyway? With big-ticket items that have a shelf life, you basically have two options: build a new one, or spend a lot of money to extend the service life of the old ones. The US generally prefers the latter, Russia and China have historically preferred the former. Any noise about being more advanced to defeat ABM systems or whatever is just noise, there isn't an ABM system that has a prayer of stopping any sort of structured ICBM attack, and there won't be for the foreseeable future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 16:09
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Any noise about being more advanced to defeat ABM systems or whatever is just noise, there isn't an ABM system that has a prayer of stopping any sort of structured ICBM attack, and there won't be for the foreseeable future. Right now it takes four US GMD systems to have a 97% chance of killing a missile system (during its mid-course flight cruise). THAAD only does up to IRBM's and against them has a good success rate so far... ABM is still Star Wars tech...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 16:15
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Not sure where you have been but trust me when I say not all barracks, DFAC's and such are always good... Okay, let's just compare Camp Schwab to Kadena AFB. Both are on Okinawa. Camp Schwab is on the isolated and muddy north end of the island. Kadena is in the south, near the cities. Here’s Camp Schwab. It is deceptively pretty:  Looks nice, right? Well, the water is full of poisonous sea snakes.  Here’s the barracks, with all the charm of a jail:  It was used as a dumping ground for Agent Orange during Vietnam, and there’s still plenty of it in the groundwater:  But at least every weekend you’ll be confined to the base because of protests:  And because the base is nothing but infantry, recon, tankers, and amtrackers there are no women:  But there are frequent mass-casualty drills:  And typhoons:  Pretty much the only good things are cheap peanut butter sandwiches at the USO and chili cheese dogs from the hotdog stand – but the hotdog stand was torn down recently. - - - In contrast, on the other end of the island there’s Kadena. Which has real housing:  A nearby town (note the lack of protesters):  On-base food (where no one is screaming and throwing trays at them):  Frequent festivals:  But, sure, tell me about how rough you had it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 16:17
|
|
|
Talking about all the new missiles China made since 1970 is a kinda dubious comparison, China barely had an arsenal in 1970. The longest ranged Chinese ICBMs are also their oldest, so...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
Fangz posted:Talking about all the new missiles China made since 1970 is a kinda dubious comparison, China barely had an arsenal in 1970. The longest ranged Chinese ICBMs are also their oldest, so... Uh no. The DF-41 went into service in 2017. It's range is between 8700 and 9300 miles. Which is the same range as the DF-5 which entered service in 1981. The DF-4, which was Chinese first true native ICBM had a range of around 4500 miles. And it's replacement, the DF-31 entered service in 2006 has a range of 7000 miles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Uh no. The DF-41 went into service in 2017. It's range is between 8700 and 9300 miles. Which is the same range as the DF-5 which entered service in 1981. I mean the longest ranged missile they have in service is also the oldest missile they have in service, which is the DF5, yes. The Chinese was slow to deploy the DF5, possibly because of the Cultural Revolution thing. The problem with the DF5 was that it was liquid fueled and requires an hour to prepare for launch. The DF41 upgrade is about eliminating that issue by using solid boosters, which makes it essentially equivalent to the Minuteman. EDIT: Going at the Minuteman III for being obselete because of range is really a weird concern:  Tevery Best posted:So what's the point of developing new ICBM models? Isn't it that when those fly it's pretty much all done anyway? From the Chinese POV the reason for these new ICBMs is pretty simple. You have the DF5(or DF5A) which can hit the US but needs preparation and so is vulnerable to a first strike. You have the DF31 which can be launched quickly... but can't hit the US. You have the DF31A which can be launched quickly and can hit the US (if you launch from the right places, anyway), but has a pretty pathetic throw weight, which is important because the Chinese have only a few missiles. And finally you have the DF41 which on paper at least solves those issues. Probably has a worst CEP than the Minuteman but who cares about that :P At least on the China side of things this really isn't about China running forward with a new generation of ICBMs, it's about Chinese belatedly running to get to the starting line. Fangz fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Nov 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 16:43
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I mean the longest ranged missile they have in service is also the oldest missile they have in service, which is the DF5, yes. The Chinese was slow to deploy the DF5, possibly because of the Cultural Revolution thing. Well this just furthers my original point. The Chinese have the DF-31. It couldn't hit the US, so they made it better and introduced the DF-31A. And lets not forget the Chinese are topping the 31A/B with a 1MT warhead so pathetic throw weight or not... its a 1MT boom. If fitted with MIRV's that's 5 of them... and its a select-a-yield nuke up to 150kt. And the fact its mobile. Unlike an US weapon. ALL US missile bases are well documented and well targeted... While they may be late to the line, what they are introducing now is better than what the US currently has in its silos.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Tias posted:Kinda tasteless that Putin wags this poo poo around while his people goes poor. This can be said for any massive military spending.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
EvilMerlin posted:Well this just furthers my original point. The Chinese have the DF-31. It couldn't hit the US, so they made it better and introduced the DF-31A. They have ten of those. The US has 450. Recent Chinese developments are trying to close the strategic gap, but they are still way behind. And the things they are choosing to innovate on are based on specifically their strategic situation that the US doesn't have to worry about. (For example, mobile launchers to counter the potential for a stealthy air attack that eliminates all the launchers. China does not have any airbases in Canada, so putting launchers on mobile launchers on public roads really makes no sense for the US, and would if anything reduce US nuclear security.) The Minuteman essentially satisfies all of the US's strategic requirements. Any advancement would probably be stuff like "cheaper and easier to maintain", unless the Chinese start devising ABM or something. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Nov 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
lenoon posted:This can be said for any massive military spending.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Fangz posted:EDIT: Going at the Minuteman III for being obselete because of range is really a weird concern: clear words of a shill for the Sri Lanka-Madagascar-Sumatra Triad 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:I imagine this might not be a very declassified question, but how do you "defeat anti-missile tech"? Check out this cool and good wiki article on Chevaline, a now retired British modification to the Polaris sub-launched missile. It contained stuff like penaids ( ) and decoys, and reading up on it is a nice primer on public knowledge wrt ballistic missile re-entry gizmos.EvilMerlin posted:The B-52 is not near as efficient as the B-1. [...] I thought it was by the most important post-Cold War metric: cost per flight hour. OTOH the B-1 is a more versatile platform for Operation Wedding Re-arranger. Also re: ballistic missiles. The US developed stellar submarine-launched capabilities during the 50s/60s and that never went away. Au contraire, a while ago there was a lot of hubbub about the Trident missile getting a massive accuracy upgrade. In a budget environment where nuclear isn't the top priority anymore, in a country where there's not (yet) been a big push towards Cold War 2.0, letting one or even two legs of the strategic triad wither on the vine doesn't seem like the stupidst choice ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:29
|
|
|
If you need to put lots of bombs on a single target in an environment where air defenses aren't a consideration (which is basically the last two decades of US military ops), the B-52 is still the best value for money out there, especially since you don't need any pesky forward basing besides those that already exist for tankers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:49
|
|
|
Fangz posted:They have ten of those. The US has 450. US has less than 400 of them currently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:54
|
|
|
Koesj posted:
Yep, exactly. Its cheap to fly and maintain. Which is why the loving things will be nearly 100 years old when finally retired...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
Vincent Van Goatse posted:If you need to put lots of bombs on a single target in an environment where air defenses aren't a consideration (which is basically the last two decades of US military ops), the B-52 is still the best value for money out there, especially since you don't need any pesky forward basing besides those that already exist for tankers. The BOne can do refueling too...
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:56
|
|
|
I dunno why you are praising the Soviet strategy of developing lots and lots of new expensive strategic weapons given it's kiiinda part of why they lost the Cold War......?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Fangz posted:They have ten of those. The US has 450. The PLA isn't really trying to compete with the US -- or any other major nuclear power -- when it comes to their nuclear missile force. Their force is maintained strictly as a countervalue strike capability. That's it. The reason they've stuck with road-mobile systems was 1) because all of their systems prior to the 90s were liquid fueled, which means that silos were extremely difficult to use, which in turn heavily influenced their current strategy and doctrine and 2) they're unconcerned with having a first strike capability, or a rapid counterforce capability. If you want those things, you have to have hair-trigger systems, like silo-based sold fuel missiles and SLBMs. If you don't need them, a non-ready-to-fire solution (ie, road mobile missiles in bunkers) works just as well, and is much cheaper. The PLARF also wants to be able to continue to develop and operate longer range conventional missiles, which they would not be able to do if they maintained a ready nuclear force. All the PLARF needs to be able to do with its ICBMs is shoot them after the PRC is attacked. They're pretty unconcerned with counterforce efforts, and rightly so - the missiles and warheads are stored in more or less impenetrable facilities, and no air or missile strike is going to shut down a TEL before it gets its shot off, especially if it is a solid fuel missile.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 18:58
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I dunno why you are praising the Soviet strategy of developing lots and lots of new expensive strategic weapons given it's kiiinda part of why they lost the Cold War......? I'm not praising. The US HAD the tech already. The Midgetman, the Peacekeeper... they were probably until very recently two of the best delivery systems developed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 12, 2024 20:18 |
|
|
They were dumb and expensive
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2018 19:07
|
|