|
I assume everybody here knows that the guy they put in charge of the strategic hamlets was a spy but just because it's such a great detail: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phạm_Ng&%237885;c_Th&%237843;o e: wow that gets garbled. Just put Pham Ngoc Thao into Google, hope that works.
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 15:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Why does it seem so difficult to equip a plane with a new missile, is the LRASM too large for P-8s or does it require extensive testing how the missile behaves when dropped? I would think the hardpoints were standard, is the problem with data interfaces with the plane or does P-8 require new equipment to be able to provide required data for the missile?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 15:50
|
|
Space Gopher posted:What are the parts you're thinking could have gone well with good execution? im pretty sure mlmp thinks that it works because of the kenyan emergency and malayasian emergency. combined action platoons mightve worked. it would have been difficult to scale the concept up with a draft army, would have taken a division+ of infantry away from sweeps or patrolling the dmz, would have been risky(defeat in detail), and wouldnt have generated bodycounts(relative to what they would have generated in the field). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_Action_Program
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 16:00
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Why does it seem so difficult to equip a plane with a new missile, is the LRASM too large for P-8s or does it require extensive testing how the missile behaves when dropped? I would think the hardpoints were standard, is the problem with data interfaces with the plane or does P-8 require new equipment to be able to provide required data for the missile? Someone else here can answer better than me from experience alone but it’s generally all of the above: Pylons have to be safe to support weapons on takeoff, in-flight and landing, interfaces to the weapon need to be wired/installed, avionics need to support the weapon in both target data and release, weapon release needs to to be safe/consistent (I.e. not slamming back into the aircraft). You can slap dumb bombs on a lot of things with less effort but the more complicated the weapon the more back-end work there is to do. LRASM is pretty fuckin’ complicated comparatively; they are $3M each. Mazz fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Feb 8, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:What are the parts you're thinking could have gone well with good execution? When I say pitched well, I mean I can imagine military and vietnamese leadership buying this if it were pitched at a presentation. But then when they try it, they do it the worst ways possible. Not that with tweaks it would’ve been a big success. As for the forced resettlement, that wasn’t inherently part of the original plan. Fortifying existing hamlets or small moves (you keep your ancestral villages and fields, but we’re moving houses a hundred meters here and there) was an option but they went whole hog on moving as many people as possible as quickly as possible and then didn’t have the forces or will to defend these forcibly relocated people. One of the South Vietnamese guys working implementation found out it was pissing off locals and causing them to tolerate VC incursion, so he ramped it up as hard as possible because he was secretly a VC sympathizer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 16:19
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I never realized that the future was going to be crude powerpoints about rockets pasted into a difficult to read multi-page twitter post. I wanted to attribute the source properly, but you could have just opened up the permalink in the first one and read the whole thing
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2020 23:36
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:Why does it seem so difficult to equip a plane with a new missile, is the LRASM too large for P-8s or does it require extensive testing how the missile behaves when dropped? I would think the hardpoints were standard, is the problem with data interfaces with the plane or does P-8 require new equipment to be able to provide required data for the missile? Mazz posted:Pylons have to be safe to support weapons on takeoff, in-flight and landing What Mazz said. Imagine launching a Toyota Prius sized airplane at a range of speeds the new aircraft may fly at that needs to navigate in a huge variety of environments with, without and with falsified targeting data sent in flight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 00:48
|
|
|
YouTube keeps recommending me this video and it's highly relevant to this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVZmFISzqwY
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
I love it. The first thing you have to do to launch the missiles is complete paperwork. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:YouTube keeps recommending me this video and it's highly relevant to this thread: Quite enjoyed this actually
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 03:09
|
|
|
A podless hustler
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 03:53
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:A podless hustler Oh yes. Love those planes with the coke bottle figure.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 04:00
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:A podless hustler Is this an artwork or a photograph, holy poo poo that is an impressive picture.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 05:07
|
|
|
I'm reading Command and Control right now and the US Gov. projected casualty figures for a nuclear exchange with the Russians are wild. 60% of the population dead or injured on day one. No thanks!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
Dwight D. Eisenhower posted:You can’t have this kind of war. There just aren’t enough bulldozers to scrape the bodies off the streets!
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
NightGyr posted:A podless hustler I don't think I've actually been more erect about a plane before jesus Edit: man the transport variant would have been hilarious Stravag fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Feb 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 06:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm reading Command and Control right now and the US Gov. projected casualty figures for a nuclear exchange with the Russians are wild. 60% of the population dead or injured on day one. No thanks! But what about a counterforce-only exchange?!?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 07:52
|
|
|
Talk about this high-tech high-dollar poo poo has me wondering... for $3M you could get that, or you could also buy a poo poo ton of cheap rear end little boats with a giant unguided rocket on all of em. Has the US (or western powers in general) toyed around with low-tech Iranian-style swarm tactics at all?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 08:00
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Talk about this high-tech high-dollar poo poo has me wondering... for $3M you could get that, or you could also buy a poo poo ton of cheap rear end little boats with a giant unguided rocket on all of em. Has the US (or western powers in general) toyed around with low-tech Iranian-style swarm tactics at all? Small cheap boats don't have a reliable range of 200+ miles, certainly not at any kind of intercept speed and with any reliability. Swarm style tactics are potentially viable when you're talking about shore defense - it doesn't work as well when you're a blue water navy fighting another blue water navy, and right now your positioning is "we're in the middle of this featureless area with an enemy 200+ miles away also with no features"
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 08:08
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Talk about this high-tech high-dollar poo poo has me wondering... for $3M you could get that, or you could also buy a poo poo ton of cheap rear end little boats with a giant unguided rocket on all of em. Has the US (or western powers in general) toyed around with low-tech Iranian-style swarm tactics at all? How are you going to charge the US Government billions of dollars without a 30+ year R&D debacle and 20 million individual components spread over all 50 states and key allied nations?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 08:31
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Talk about this high-tech high-dollar poo poo has me wondering... for $3M you could get that, or you could also buy a poo poo ton of cheap rear end little boats with a giant unguided rocket on all of em. Has the US (or western powers in general) toyed around with low-tech Iranian-style swarm tactics at all? Cheap rear end little boats still require crew, who are expensive to train well, and generally don't like the near-kamikaze missions necessary to get a giant unguided rocket close enough to effectively hit anything.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 09:00
|
|
|
The US also tries to trade lives for an objective as little as possible and little speedboats with unguided rockets is the exact opposite of that
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 09:03
|
|
|
Drones?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 09:29
|
|
|
Saint Celestine posted:Drones? I propose a jet-powered suicide drone with a 200 mile range for a QUARTER of the price of an MQ9.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 09:39
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Cheap rear end little boats still require crew, who are expensive to train well, and generally don't like the near-kamikaze missions necessary to get a giant unguided rocket close enough to effectively hit anything. Why couldn't they be drones?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 10:31
|
|
|
This is... an interesting Cold War incident. The PLF hijacking of a cruise ship leads to, among many other things, F-14's intercepting an Egyptian airliner and a standoff between JSOC and the Italian military. All because of Oliver North. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpoKpNI29kg
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 11:43
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Why couldn't they be drones? And why not make them rocket-powered and launch them off planes to extend their range 
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 11:50
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Talk about this high-tech high-dollar poo poo has me wondering... for $3M you could get that, or you could also buy a poo poo ton of cheap rear end little boats with a giant unguided rocket on all of em. Has the US (or western powers in general) toyed around with low-tech Iranian-style swarm tactics at all? Wasn’t this basically Van Riper’s strategy in Millennium Challenge 2002?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 12:23
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:And why not make them rocket-powered and launch them off planes to extend their range Do you work for LockMart?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 13:35
|
|
|
USN is adding another way to have unfortunate schmelting accidents to their nuclear subs: https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/02/09/the-navy-will-arm-attack-submarines-with-high-energy-lasers/ Shooting Blanks posted:Do you work for LockMart? It's a state of mind
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 14:04
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:And why not make them rocket-powered and launch them off planes to extend their range Well if cost is no obstacle, then just make them orbital space stations so that they get global range.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 14:24
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:USN is adding another way to have unfortunate schmelting accidents to their nuclear subs: Whats the problem? Not like it's a chemical laser.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 15:09
|
|
|
goatsestretchgoals posted:But what about a counterforce-only exchange?!? You kid, but honestly I'd like to hope that's what would happen. It would be a little awkward explaining to God "Well, yes, technically I guess I deliberately killed a hundred million civilian hostages." At least try to shoot only military targets. But yeah it wouldn't make too much difference I bet. Military bases, ports, airports, C2 infrastructure, etc pretty much all have cities around them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
What good is a laser on a submarine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
Friar Zucchini posted:Talk about this high-tech high-dollar poo poo has me wondering... for $3M you could get that, or you could also buy a poo poo ton of cheap rear end little boats with a giant unguided rocket on all of em. Has the US (or western powers in general) toyed around with low-tech Iranian-style swarm tactics at all? The high cost of LRASM AFAIK is because it's actually pretty fuckin' complicated, as mentioned. It flies out 300 nmi, can autonomously identify, organize and track targets from onboard databases, can fly randomized patterns to its target location on terminal, conduct dynamic terrain and obstacle avoidance, has a passive radio frequency sensor and countermeasures suite, and does all of the target detection/tracking via IIR so it gives off no radar return. It is a drone; we just still call them missiles when they crash into poo poo. You could build speed boats or whatever to do that same thing but it's definitely not going to be that much cheaper because you still have get them to the target, which is A. likely moving, B. not very large and C. hundreds of miles away. I'd also argue a bunch of speedboats at 40 knots is a hell of a lot easier to deal with than a maneuverable missile at 700. I would prefer it was 1700 like the supersonic terminal stages of the Kalibr but hey, LockMart can always upcharge for that later . Speedboats work for Iran because it's the Strait of Hormuz. Speed boats don't work that well in the middle of the South China Sea or Pacific Ocean. Also the drone swarm idea is not lost on the DoD: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjUdVxJH6yI Mazz fucked around with this message at 15:35 on Feb 9, 2020 |
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What good is a laser on a submarine? It makes sense on the photonics mast, assuming it works in an air-defense capacity. That's no trivial assumption.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:What Mazz [and Saukkis] said. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPTnmZ_HPAs
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 19:00
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:USN is adding another way to have unfortunate schmelting accidents to their nuclear subs: When lasers break they quit being lasers in nanoseconds. With a laser it's very difficult to seriously damage something that's not an eyeball unless you're trying pretty hard.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 19:17
|
|
|
Defense watch watch So the Canadian Navy is getting four Arctic and offshore patrol ships. These are being made by Irving. Two additional ships are being built for the Coast Guard. Those are the facts. Then I can't tell if this is picking at nits for a story or something else: despite the fact "minimal changes" are being made for the coast guard ships, Irving is still getting $58 million on top of everything else for these (vauge) changes. I reminded of when Irving was getting an extra ship to build for the surface combatant project, and despite it being an ad-on to by then a bog standard production line, it was costing *more* money to build that last one, in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars. initially the Coast guard didn't want these ships the government flat out says the rationale behind the extra order is to "prevent layoffs" at Irving shipbuilding in the time between finishing the patrol ships and starting the frigates The Senate defense subcommittee, actually let me block quote this: quote:The AOPS program was launched by the Conservative government with a minimum of five ships for the navy. The Liberal government approved the construction of a sixth AOPS for the navy and two for the coast guard Make your own global warming joke, but "operations in ice" seems to me to be important for any vessel in the arctic
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 19:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 08:06 |
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:Small cheap boats don't have a reliable range of 200+ miles, certainly not at any kind of intercept speed and with any reliability. Swarm style tactics are potentially viable when you're talking about shore defense - it doesn't work as well when you're a blue water navy fighting another blue water navy, and right now your positioning is "we're in the middle of this featureless area with an enemy 200+ miles away also with no features" Forget 200 miles, if you find a small boat that can reliably get out of the marina under its own power without me spending every other weekend working on it let me know.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2020 19:25
|
|
