|
mlmp08 posted:To avoid false impressions “near” is often used in military parlance. Surely it’s some combination of the detection, tracking, and interception that’s “near simultaneous”, not the threatening vehicles.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 05:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
Mazz posted:F-35 doing something actually pretty neat Does this mean that F-35s can be used to direct SAMs? If so, I'd hate to be a pilot in the air flying by the network, would take a lot of nerves
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 06:34
|
|
|
The F-35 has achieved a capability not seen since like 8 years ago with JLENS regarding sending remote fire control quality data to Patriot. Don’t @ me, I’m being deliberately simplistic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 06:40
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Does this mean that F-35s can be used to direct SAMs? If so, I'd hate to be a pilot in the air flying by the network, would take a lot of nerves The F-35 can datalink with an SM-6 to gently caress up anything from ground level up to low-earth orbit. It's pretty neat, and gives an LHA strike group a pretty decent trick to pull. Too bad the trick costs ~$5m every time (not counting the cost per flight hour of the -35B doing the datalinking). >.> https://news.usni.org/2016/09/13/video-successful-f-35-sm-6-live-fire-test-points-expansion-networked-naval-warfare
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 06:44
|
|
|
Cheaper than a city block or aircraft carrier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 07:25
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's the air breathing part I don’t understand, like jet engine intake?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 11:39
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Cheaper than a city block or aircraft carrier. Depends on the city, really 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 12:32
|
|
|
Suicide Watch posted:Does this mean that F-35s can be used to direct SAMs? If so, I'd hate to be a pilot in the air flying by the network, would take a lot of nerves The big thing going forward is cooperative engagement capability I.e. multiple sensors, multiple shooters. As mentioned with SM-6 you could feed it data from other sources, in this case an F-35, outside the LoS of the SPY-1D on the Burke that actually fired it. As mlmp said it’s not super novel but for the F-35 to have the capability shouldn’t really be discounted because of it, especially as we transition to longer range SAMs or even big fuckoff AAMs should we go that route. It also leads into things like the AIM-120D or 120E being launched by weapons truck variant F-15s (or even B-1/21s) aimed by F-35s (or UCAVs) that aren’t actually shooting or transmitting themselves other than AESA pencil beams. You might not know an F-35 is tracking you if the AESA beam is frequency dancing/under the noise floor; via CEC the F-35 doesn’t have to give away its position with its own launch now either. Between aircraft has been a thing for a bit, fighter to ship or SAM less so AFAIK. Mazz fucked around with this message at 14:41 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Eh, it's actually pretty novel in broadening the scope of platforms capable of doing it. JLENS, for example, isn't necessarily going to be able to operate in the same conditions as an F-35. It's also a big deal with regards to stuff like supersonic and hypersonic cruise missiles. If your escorts can start engaging the bigass Mach 5 cruise missiles a hundred nm over the horizon it's going to negate a lot of the advantages those systems have traditionally held.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 14:57
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:I haven't seen this video about the Sprint missile yet, and given the thread's hard-on for it, it's definitely pro-click as it shows *failed* launches: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk9mvLFNqMQ Its worth it just for the musak.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 15:37
|
|
|
Hedenius posted:Very cold war feeling news from Sweden. SÄPO (Swedish Security Service) found a network of about ten people who where collecting information about swedish military facilities. Taking pictures and making lists of installations. So of course they were Russian spies right? Or Chinese perhaps? Mortabis posted:TheFluff, check in please lol I've had my run-ins with the security service in the past, but I'll have you know it's never been related to anything that was actually my fault 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 16:57
|
|
|
If we're posting missile videos with great soundtracks, this is a perennial fave: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDL_pIPScSI Includes actual footage of (dummy) warhead impacts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/wellerstein/status/1080159632239276033?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:25
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:Eh, it's actually pretty novel in broadening the scope of platforms capable of doing it. JLENS, for example, isn't necessarily going to be able to operate in the same conditions as an F-35. For example, a “fiscally constrained environment,”
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:27
|
|
|
I was just a kid at the end of the Cold War but there was so much media, so much news centered around the thread of a full on nuclear exchange between NATO and WP that there was a constant tension. In 1991 we had just moved outside of Wichita KS, home of McConnell AFB and presumably a first-strike counterforce target because it hosted nuclear-armed Bones. I was 11 or so during the Yeltsin coup and I was so afraid some salty Soviet general would go madman and fire nukes at the US that my mom banned me from watching the news. I cannot imagine going through the '62 crisis as a scared 11 year old It was cool to see B-1s and F-16s fly over my house every day though
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:33
|
|
|
If you want to know what the navy is up to with regard to cooperative engagement/datalinking they tend to publish that under the header of "NIFC-CA". We all know to take NI with a grain of salt but here's a recent thing from them: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/navy-has-plan-stop-ship-killer-missiles-115496 quote:NIFC-CA technology, which has used both an F-35 and E2-D Hawkeye as an airborne sensor to track and relay threat information, connects to a ship-based fire-control system able to launch an SM-6 to intercept store threats at further distances the ship defenses were previously able to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:36
|
|
|
That's a bold surmise on his part. I would love to see what percentage of people could answer even the most basic questions about nukes. How about whether China has any? Or whether we could shoot down Russian nukes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:That's a bold surmise on his part. I would love to see what percentage of people could answer even the most basic questions about nukes. How about whether China has any? Or whether we could shoot down Russian nukes? Everyone "knows" that the US/Russian can destroy the world X times over from countless media reports and USA Today frontpage infographics, you don't need to know about CEPs or the triad to be afraid of global nuclear annihilation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:42
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:That's a bold surmise on his part. I would love to see what percentage of people could answer even the most basic questions about nukes. How about whether China has any? Or whether we could shoot down Russian nukes? hm, very interesting, but imagine for a moment we're in the Cold War thread talking about a book published in 1987 wherein the author discusses public perception of nuclear weapons in the mid-1980's
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:44
|
|
|
I used to sit tight knowing that no one gave two shits about deep SW Portland Oregon suburbs when they decided where canned sunshine went. Then NK got their Kerbal-assed ICBM and I'm not so sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:45
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:hm, very interesting, but imagine for a moment we're in the Cold War thread talking about a book published in 1987 talking about public perception of nuclear weapons in the mid-1980's Oh sure. I'm just thinking it hasn't held up well in the years since, despite the threat still existing to a considerable and worsening degree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:47
|
|
|
Something I've always kind of wondered but also recognize that it's an extremely difficult question to answer, and politically loaded as well, is: did MAD work? The Cold War was full of bad poo poo of course- and I don't want to minimize the millions of people who died or otherwise suffered as a result of the various proxy wars and actions taken between the USSR and US - but without the threat of global annihilation, do you think that a full-on conventional World War III between NATO and Warsaw Pact is more likely than not? My perception is likely colored by growing up in a world where it seemed we were always on the brink of war with the Soviets, so maybe tensions weren't as high as we were told, but I image that WW3 scenario has at least the potential for death and destruction that would surpass the second World War, if not dwarf it. Or do y'all think that threat of conventional destruction would've been enough?
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 18:02
|
|
|
I’m not eating long pork on the fury road so I’d say yes, yes it did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 18:29
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:I’m not eating long pork on the fury road so I’d say yes, yes it did.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 18:39
|
|
|
I guess I phrased my question poorly, obviously MAD worked to prevent a nuclear war during the Cold War, I should've said: Did nuclear weapons end up saving lives by preventing a full-scale conventional conflict between the US and USSR
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 18:47
|
|
|
zoux posted:It's the air breathing part I don’t understand, like jet engine intake? Right, this means a drone that is (probably) subsonic. So, slower target, possibly _much_ slower target.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 19:52
|
|
|
zoux posted:I guess I phrased my question poorly, obviously MAD worked to prevent a nuclear war during the Cold War, I should've said: Did nuclear weapons end up saving lives by preventing a full-scale conventional conflict between the US and USSR Well we only had proxy wars and vaguely low scale wars compared to WW2 and nobody cares about browns or poor people so yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
LingcodKilla posted:Well we only had proxy wars and vaguely low scale wars compared to WW2 and nobody cares about browns or poor people so yes. Thats like saying that DUI Policing is the reason DUI deaths have gone down. Maybe it is... ...or maybe its the Uber is convenient ...or maybe that cars are safer ...or maybe its a change in the opinion of drinking and driving in the eyes of the public Maybe MAD prevented a full scale war... ...or maybe it was the ability to do intel at a much greater scale leading to communication about discoveries between leaders ...or maybe it was the widespread adoption of instant communication channels between govt leader ...or maybe its the UN
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Thats like saying that DUI Policing is the reason DUI deaths have gone down. Yeah this is basically the meat of my question. "Everyone was afraid of nukes so they didn't want to risk war" is an obvious answer, but in history things are rarely (entirely) the obvious thing. I'm just curious if there's evidence we can see that suggests why two extremely belligerent rival powers didn't end up going to war when before WWII it happened all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
It's probably impossible to prove it one way or the other
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:25
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah this is basically the meat of my question. "Everyone was afraid of nukes so they didn't want to risk war" is an obvious answer, but in history things are rarely (entirely) the obvious thing. I'm just curious if there's evidence we can see that suggests why two extremely belligerent rival powers didn't end up going to war when before WWII it happened all the time. No, there isn't. There are suggestions and hypotheses, and there are scenarios and discussions. But no evidence, that equivocaly proves that a war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO was avoided solely because of the 40.000(?) nuclear warheads produced by the USSR and the USA, or because of the cold realities of MAD doctrine. It's a bit tricky to prove anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:35
|
|
|
Suggestions and hypotheses from those more knowledgeable than me is all I'm after
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
In that case: the guy with the nuclear history blog (Alex Wellerstein) suggested one that is interesting. It's that once the leaders of a nation got or developed nuclear weapons, they where obviously briefed on what their military could do with the bombs. From documentation it seems at least Chinese leaders got told something like "we could obliterate this % of enemy cities, which is equivalent to [names of the 50 biggest cities in China or something] and by the way, the enemy could do that to us too". Whish is the MAD doctrine in practical terms, delivered sort of bluntly. Hypothesis goes, Mao became a lot less provocative after that since everything got more "real". tl/dr If it's a physical reality that you can obliterate and get obliterated in return, right here right now, if you clown around - then leaders seem to stop clowning around. Bonus point: it's HardTM to live a life of luxury after a nuclear apocalypse as well, and leaders of nations arguably has more to loose than most Fake e: I'll see if I can find one of Wellersteins blog posts, he's better at writing than me E: this post maybe? Its about a 1945 report from Hap Arnold, chief of U.S. Army Air Forces in WWII, called “Third Report of the Commanding General of the Army Air Forces to the Secretary of War” that was turned into an article in Life magazine. The ending is the relevant part http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2013/04/05/the-36-hour-war-life-magazine-1945/ and it makes a good link to this famous map, the strategic bombing of Japan and the equivalent American cities https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-drdy8jlN...ng-of-Japan.jpg  (linked from a certain other blog, Daydream Notes. Thanks Neb!) ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jan 23, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:10
|
|
|
Funny how kings and presidents stopped waging war as soon as the bombs could reach their palaces. Probably a coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:23
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Funny how kings and presidents stopped waging war as soon as the bombs could reach their palaces. The have been wars after the Middle Ages.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:32
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Funny how kings and presidents stopped waging war as soon as the bombs could reach their palaces. Bombs were able to reach palaces in World War 1, with the zeppelin bombings. Didn’t stop WW2.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
zoux posted:you don't need to know about CEPs or the triad to have the authority to order a first strike.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
a patagonian cavy posted:Bombs were able to reach palaces in World War 1, with the zeppelin bombings. Didn’t stop WW2. To be fair, everyone thought WW1 was going to be over in ~two weeks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 03:30
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:To be fair, everyone thought WW1 was going to be over in ~two weeks. You mean they weren't home by Christmas?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 12:02 |
|
|
They were, people just forgot to specify WHICH xmas
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 04:16
|
|
