Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Wingnut Ninja
Jan 11, 2003

Mostly Harmless


Is there one for PM cruise missiles if they want to attack in the other 12 hours of the day?

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

ThisIsJohnWayne
Feb 23, 2007
Ooo! Look at me! NO DON'T LOOK AT ME!




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.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

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.

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006


24 400kt hypersonic radar-guided cruise missiles

aphid_licker
Jan 7, 2009

kiss kiss



Pillbug

Really if you think about Kusnezov as the product of a civilization that had kept its hatred of carriers pure it all makes sense

TheFluff
Dec 13, 2006

FRIENDS, LISTEN TO ME
I AM A SEAGULL
OF WEALTH AND TASTE


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?

Raenir Salazar
Nov 5, 2010

No way...


College Slice

Before ICBM's did the US have any other option to drop bombs on the USSR?

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

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 donít really bomb targets. They carry lots of standoff missiles and strike targets with them from some relative safety.

Yes, theyíll bomb the hell out of ISIS or whatever, but otherwise, missile carriers, typically arriving from far over the horizon.

Saint Celestine
Dec 17, 2008

Lay a fire within your soul and another between your hands, and let both be your weapons.
For one is faith and the other is victory and neither may ever be put out.

- Saint Sabbat, Lessons

Grimey Drawer

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.

BIG HEADLINE
Jun 13, 2006

Make your move...'cause mine's gonna be ugly.

Don't forget Snark and Regulus as comedy options.

Timmy Age 6
Jul 23, 2011

Lobster says "mrow?"



Ramrod XTreme

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.

Gervasius
Nov 2, 2010




Grimey Drawer

F-15EX "Eagle II"

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

What are your newest fighters?

F-35 and Eagle Too

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



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 18:52 on Apr 7, 2021

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012


"Why does that Subaru break down every time you look at it, Travis", Punchy said. I nearly fell out of the jump seat in my Brat, aghast. "That thing a princess?" I coughed and gulped. "Hahahaha, nice one, Punchy", I said


Ugh.

BIG HEADLINE
Jun 13, 2006

Make your move...'cause mine's gonna be ugly.

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-1

The 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 19:18 on Apr 7, 2021

FuturePastNow
May 19, 2014





Mortabis
Jul 8, 2010


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 21:11 on Apr 7, 2021

standard.deviant
May 16, 2012

Globally Indigent

What could go wrong if we based a bunch of new ballistic missiles in Taiwan? Itís not like that could start the war we are trying to head off or anything.

Captain von Trapp
Jan 22, 2006

I don't like it, and I'm sorry I ever had anything to do with it.

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.

Mortabis
Jul 8, 2010


standard.deviant posted:

What could go wrong if we based a bunch of new ballistic missiles in Taiwan? Itís 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:
  • Extended Range Cannon Artillery. An upgrade to the existing self-propelled howitzers. However you feel about the army's contribution to a naval battle in the western pacific, the war in Ukraine has impressed upon us that we need to have modern artillery. Dead Reckoning himself has whined at length in this very thread about how the army relies too much on USAF bombers for fires, which is kind of inconsistent with the idea that the army shouldn't be improving its artillery.
  • Precision Strike Missile. A replacement for ATACMS, see above.
  • Strategic Long-Range Cannon. This looks stupid but also looks like it was cancelled?
  • Long Range Hypersonic Weapon. Shares missile with the navy so one way to look at this is the Army is already funneling part of its budget toward the navy's.
  • Mid-Range Capability. This is just sticking tomahawks and SM-6 on trucks. The missiles already exist. This just adds flexibility. I don't see why anyone would have a problem with this.

I might have missed something here or there but all of this seems reasonable to me (except SLRC).

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



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

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

I am compelled to remind everyone that the Marines have fired HIMARS from the deck of a ship.

Letís 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

CarForumPoster
Jun 26, 2013
I have a high school diploma AND a hobby coin project

Now that you're sufficiently in awe, you motherfuckers shut up and let me tell you how human safety in your self driving car works in the REAL WORLD


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?

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


mlmp08 posted:

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

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.

Mazz
Dec 12, 2012

Orion, this is Sperglord Actual.
Come on home.


mlmp08 posted:

I am compelled to remind everyone that the Marines have fired HIMARS from the deck of a ship.

Letís 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

They've also tested firing SDBs the ground using from M26 MLRS motors.

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012


"Why does that Subaru break down every time you look at it, Travis", Punchy said. I nearly fell out of the jump seat in my Brat, aghast. "That thing a princess?" I coughed and gulped. "Hahahaha, nice one, Punchy", I said

CarForumPoster posted:

Would a B-29 fulfill any of its operational requirements?

✓ 50-state job program
✓ bombing the poo poo out of brown people

EasilyConfused
Nov 21, 2009


one strong toad

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.

Murgos
Oct 21, 2010


Sagebrush posted:

✓ 50-state job program
✓ bombing the poo poo out of brown people

Even the most abjectly poor country in the world today could manage to fend off a B-29 raid.

aphid_licker
Jan 7, 2009

kiss kiss



Pillbug

CarForumPoster posted:

Would a B-29 fulfill any of its operational requirements?

Range and loiter time, probably relatively comfortably

EasilyConfused
Nov 21, 2009


one strong toad

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

Sagebrush
Feb 26, 2012


"Why does that Subaru break down every time you look at it, Travis", Punchy said. I nearly fell out of the jump seat in my Brat, aghast. "That thing a princess?" I coughed and gulped. "Hahahaha, nice one, Punchy", I said

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

Vindolanda
Feb 13, 2012

It's just like him too, y'know?


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

BIG HEADLINE
Jun 13, 2006

Make your move...'cause mine's gonna be ugly.

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."

goatsestretchgoals
Jun 4, 2011

in soviet russia, you shove robot

EasilyConfused posted:

I read that as firing SBDs out of a mortar.

CATO?

Warbadger
Jun 17, 2006


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!

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?


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.

Stravag
Jun 7, 2009



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?

Mortabis
Jul 8, 2010


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.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

BlueFootedBoobie
Feb 14, 2005



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 donít justify having completely differently systems. The Soviets/Russians certainly didnít think so.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply