|
Is there one for PM cruise missiles if they want to attack in the other 12 hours of the day?
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 04:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
 Soviet cold war submarines came in 4 main flavours; attack (SS) attack deluxe (SSN) ultima ratio (SSB) and Safari (SSG) Elephant. They share the label but f.ex. US SSG's were built to a very different mission than soviet ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 05:19
|
|
|
Godholio posted:And as mentioned, it pushed the envelope on a whole bunch of tech and TTPs that carried into the Cold War. This could also be read as a very dark joke about Black Tuesday.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 05:43
|
|
|
24 400kt hypersonic radar-guided cruise missiles
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 05:54
|
|
|
Really if you think about Kusnezov as the product of a civilization that had kept its hatred of carriers pure it all makes sense
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 14:12
|
|
|
Wingnut Ninja posted:I can buy the argument that, in retrospect, the B-29 didn't provide a capability commensurate with its huge development cost, but "boondoggle" implies that it was not an effective combat aircraft, which doesn't seem to be supported. It was an effective combat aircraft against Japan because by the time it got into service the Japanese didn't have any high altitude fighters left to oppose it with. As bewbies points out, in Korea they had to relegate it to night bombing once the MiG-15 showed up. This is the perennial problem with USAF bombing doctrine - it assumes the US already has massive air superiority, or it won't work. The lessons learned in WW2 echo even today. So was it an effective combat aircraft? Yes, well, it could drop a lot of bombs from very far away, assuming there weren't too much resistance on the receiving end. Was it actually necessary to have that range and payload for anything other than Japan in WW2 though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 16:09
|
|
|
Before ICBM's did the US have any other option to drop bombs on the USSR?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 16:19
|
|
|
TheFluff posted:This is the perennial problem with USAF bombing doctrine - it assumes the US already has massive air superiority, or it won't work. The lessons learned in WW2 echo even today. Well, when it comes to actual bombers (not strike fighters), the lessons of WW2 echo today in the sense that strategic bombers without stealth don’t really bomb targets. They carry lots of standoff missiles and strike targets with them from some relative safety. Yes, they’ll bomb the hell out of ISIS or whatever, but otherwise, missile carriers, typically arriving from far over the horizon.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Before ICBM's did the US have any other option to drop bombs on the USSR? Comedy Project Pluto was in development for just this purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 17:18
|
|
|
Don't forget Snark and Regulus as comedy options.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Before ICBM's did the US have any other option to drop bombs on the USSR? Basically every bomber program since 1945 has been designed for that, as far as I can tell. If memory serves, up to the B-47, it would probably have been a one way trip unless you can find a friendly airfield or tanker on the other side of the target, but inflight refueling squadrons and the big fuel tanks of planes like the B-52 were put in for a reason. The expected casualties for the bomber crews were likely to be horrific pretty much as soon as SAMs became a thing, but because the USSR had so much perimeter to cover, the goal would've been to try to duck between sites as much as possible (though I'm sure some of the better-informed sorts here can add more details, to a point). The AGM-69 SRAM was designed to help clear a path through defenses via further nuclear annihilation, and standoff cruise missiles were also an option. The Navy even wanted in on the game, pretty much until SLBMs became a thing - this was the initial mission of the A-5 Vigilante, which would've pooped out nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 17:22
|
|
|
F-15EX "Eagle II" 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
What are your newest fighters? F-35 and Eagle Too
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 17:34
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Before ICBM's did the US have any other option to drop bombs on the USSR? First, just B-29s with 'silverplate' modifications. These would be replaced by the B-50, which was a refinement of the design: new engines, bigger tail to help stability in engine out situations, ability to aerial refuel, sometimes supplemental jets. Then, B-47s, which had to be staged like B-29s but were reckoned more survivable. Then, the B-36, which could be kept stateside but still had the range to hit most targets, and could carry the physically huge early H-bombs. The B-52 came online in numbers in the mid 1950s. There were two further nuclear bombers in development: the B-58, the supersonic supercruising nuclear bomber. The B-58 was deployed 1960-1970, when people realized High altitude cruising was really vulnerable to SAMs. Other nuclear bombers the US had: Lockheed P-2 Neptune (Which were rigged up to launch from carriers, 'hopefully' being able to return); Douglas A-3 Skywarrior (replaced the neptune in the Carrier role) North American A-5 Vigilante (replaces A-3) Possibly the North American B-45 Tornado, depending on how light a bomb can be made. Before ICBMs, you had shorter range ballistic missiles, but honestly the developments are so fast and close together - 1955 on - that I'm having some trouble on wikipedia picking apart what was deployed when. I can tell you that IRBMs caused the Cuban Missile Crisis; NATO IRBMs in Turkey caused the Soviets to start basing out of Cuba. e: useful graph:  BIG HEADLINE posted:Don't forget Snark and Regulus as comedy options. 
Nebakenezzer fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Apr 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
Ugh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 19:57
|
|
|
The initial carrier-borne nuclear capability of the Navy was  and  as gently caress: https://www.navalgazing.net/Nuclear-Weapons-at-Sea-Light-Attack-Part-1The Skyraider (and later the Banshee, which was only slightly less insane) was expected to - using a rocket-assisted bomb - toss the goddamned thing and somehow get out of the lethal envelope of the shockwave. The Skyraider was supposed to do a loop because the extra altitude from the toss was the only way it had a chance of getting fast enough with its tail to the blast to *maybe* survive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BOAR The Navy was *desperate* for ways to make carriers look vital to national defense in the "Nuclear Age." One of the most interesting and harrowing things about visiting the Growler in NYC is that pretty much every one of the interviews mentions that the crew knew they were on a suicide mission on Regulus patrols. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Apr 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 19:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The issue is that every basing scheme for land-based strategic weapons in the western Pacific is wildly implausible, ridiculous, or both. The General wasn't wrong. First: the western pacific isn't the only place we have strategic obligations. Second: it's not at all implausible that you would put missiles on trucks to defend Guam so that we don't need missiles to be on scarce ships instead. And third, the obvious place to put them is Taiwan. Them being on trucks means they can be flown in at the last minute if things look like they're about to get real. It was reported a while back that the Army is adopting the SM-6 and Tomahawk as-is for part of its LRPF program, and the hypersonic missile is shared with the Navy. So the cost to figure out how to shoot them off of trucks over just ships is probably pretty small. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 22:11 on Apr 7, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 22:09
|
|
|
What could go wrong if we based a bunch of new ballistic missiles in Taiwan? It’s not like that could start the war we are trying to head off or anything.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 22:26
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:What could go wrong if we based a bunch of new ballistic missiles in Taiwan? It’s not like that could start the war we are trying to head off or anything. That's the point of a mobile capability. You can put it anywhere, or not, on short notice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:What could go wrong if we based a bunch of new ballistic missiles in Taiwan? It’s not like that could start the war we are trying to head off or anything. I won't pretend to know, but the option to put them there is a good one to have. My understanding of how a war over Taiwan plays out comes almost entirely from Tanner Greer's blog and he claims that China would not be able to achieve strategic surprise, due to weather in the Taiwan Strait among other things, so that means we can have the launchers chilling out somewhere else until we need them. Maybe that's not true, I don't know. I looked up the components of LRPF. As follows:
I might have missed something here or there but all of this seems reasonable to me (except SLRC).
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 22:45
|
|
|
So just randomly thrashing around today I found two things of interest ITT: Harvard's Chemistry Dept Chairman arrested by FBI It involves a grey area Chinese recruitment initiative. Guess who's having a water crisis now? It's Taiwan
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 22:50
|
|
|
I am compelled to remind everyone that the Marines have fired HIMARS from the deck of a ship. Let’s put Army hypersonic field artillery batteries on ship decks. Could probably even time it so they fire while the F-35Bs are in maintenance/rearm cycle 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Okay, looking it up the F-35 program is around 400-500 billion for development and acquisition. So I guess it's only ten or fifteen times as expensive per airframe as the B-29 program Would a B-29 fulfill any of its operational requirements?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 00:01
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I am compelled to remind everyone that the Marines have fired HIMARS from the deck of a ship. That actually would solve some of the problems the Kiev and Kuznetsov had if you didn't have to sacrifice a ton of airplane operation related space for your bigass missile launchers. Just stow them below deck until you need them, then put them back after launching.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 00:08
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:I am compelled to remind everyone that the Marines have fired HIMARS from the deck of a ship. They've also tested firing SDBs the ground using from M26 MLRS motors.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 00:09
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Would a B-29 fulfill any of its operational requirements? ✓ 50-state job program ✓ bombing the poo poo out of brown people
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 00:15
|
|
|
Mazz posted:They've also tested firing SDBs the ground using from M26 MLRS motors. I read that as firing SBDs out of a mortar.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 00:18
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:✓ 50-state job program Even the most abjectly poor country in the world today could manage to fend off a B-29 raid.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
CarForumPoster posted:Would a B-29 fulfill any of its operational requirements? Range and loiter time, probably relatively comfortably
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 00:50
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Even the most abjectly poor country in the world today could manage to fend off a B-29 raid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_without_armed_forces
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 00:57
|
|
|
Even if you do have a military, you need something pretty fuckin' serious to fend off 4,000 B-29s. A couple of MiG-21s and Iglas aren't gonna do it
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 00:59
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:That actually would solve some of the problems the Kiev and Kuznetsov had if you didn't have to sacrifice a ton of airplane operation related space for your bigass missile launchers. Just stow them below deck until you need them, then put them back after launching. Just flood rear ballast tanks to elevate and fire your projectile with the carrier catapult
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 01:06
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Even the most abjectly poor country in the world today could manage to fend off a B-29 raid. I can't remember how many airworthy F-5s Mexico has (they have six in total so figure 1-2 at any given time are able to get aloft), but pretty sure a B-29 would gently caress Mexico up and they're hardly "abjectly poor."
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
EasilyConfused posted:I read that as firing SBDs out of a mortar. CATO?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 01:56
|
|
|
Vindolanda posted:Just flood rear ballast tanks to elevate and fire your projectile with the carrier catapult I was thinking more pull out some deck blast shields to channel exhaust off the edge of the deck, bring the TELs up the elevators, lob a few hypersonic SSMs, then roll them back down the elevators and stash them in some corner of the hangar. I mean it's still not the best way to lob a bunch of big long range SSMs, but you *could* without loving over the carrier's primary mission!
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:I won't pretend to know, but the option to put them there is a good one to have. There's a good chance this actually starts a loving war.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
Vindolanda posted:Just flood rear ballast tanks to elevate and fire your projectile with the carrier catapult Captain Torres is that you? I thought Trigger taught you your lesson about using the main railguns on your submarine against planes?
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 03:07
|
|
|
Godholio posted:There's a good chance this actually starts a loving war. And if the war is going to start anyway, that doesn't matter. And maybe your ability to do it prevents the war from happening without actually having to move anything there. That said I'm of the view that we would, if we already had troops there ahead of time, successfully fend off a Chinese attack against Taiwan. So that creates quite the conundrum for them, doesn't it? Forcing them into a confrontation they're guaranteed to lose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
Aegis Ashore has been a thing for a little while, but why historically has the Navy and Army (plus lol BOMARC) developed SAMs independently? Simple service parochialism? Seems like any special requirements to adapt to launching at sea don’t justify having completely differently systems. The Soviets/Russians certainly didn’t think so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2021 03:47
|
|
