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
Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006


Wait what

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

hobbesmaster
Jan 28, 2008



TCD posted:

Back on point - was there a celebrity cross-over pre-Reagan that went on to Governor/President?

Youíll need to define celebrity.

Mortabis
Jul 8, 2010


Remulak posted:

Really misogynist and probably not true, but goddamn sheís such a villain that it doesnít bother me. Although loving Sinatra in the White House, starting the conservative cucking frenzy, is probably her greatest legacy.

I think you need help.

TCD posted:

Back on point - was there a celebrity cross-over pre-Reagan that went on to Governor/President?

George Murphy was a senator, that's the closest I can think of off the top of my head. As for presidents, no, but then, remember that Hollywood hadn't been around all that long by the time Reagan was elected president.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Being well known definitely did get quite a few people into American politics/the presidency. Teddy Roosevelt's celebrity after the Spanish-American war, for instance, getting him the VP job. You also have people like (makes sure name is correct) Zachary Taylor becoming president, both as a famous general and as a political outsider. (No idea if this is true, but Taylor apparently was such a political outsider he had never *voted* before he voted for himself as president.) So while celebrity as we know it now is much different, you can find similar things going on.

PS> John Wilkes Booth assassinating President Lincoln is like if Tom Cruise assassinated a president, dude was known as a top-level actor

Gervasius
Nov 2, 2010




Grimey Drawer

Nebakenezzer posted:

PS> John Wilkes Booth assassinating President Lincoln is like if Tom Cruise assassinated a president, dude was known as a top-level actor

I think his brother was way more popular than him, so more like Liam Hemsworth assassinating a president.

Vindolanda
Feb 13, 2012

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


Nebakenezzer posted:


PS> John Wilkes Booth assassinating President Lincoln is like if Tom Cruise assassinated a president, dude was known as a top-level actor

Because the president would have to be sitting down?

poisonpill
Nov 8, 2009

The only way to get huge fast is to insult a passing witch and hope she curses you with Beast-strength.



Tom Cruise yells "sic semper vaccinitis" and jumps off the couch

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

https://twitter.com/davidlarter/status/1381626313560223746?s=21

Iíve heard some serious arguments that dollar for dollar the DDGs are a bargain vs capability, but holy cow I never wouldíve thought the LCS was so close in cost.

Kesper North
Nov 3, 2011

EMERGENCY POWER TO PARTY

Discount Deadly Destroyers > Literal Cost Ships

Mortabis
Jul 8, 2010


Kind of amazing how the LCS was meant to fill the role of minesweeping, anti-submarine warfare, and anti-surface patrol craft in one hull, and we're still getting three different ships to do those tasks anyway.

babyeatingpsychopath
Oct 28, 2000
Forum Veteran

mlmp08 posted:

https://twitter.com/davidlarter/status/1381626313560223746?s=21

Iíve heard some serious arguments that dollar for dollar the DDGs are a bargain vs capability, but holy cow I never wouldíve thought the LCS was so close in cost.

Who possibly could have predicted that running a military like a business and outsourcing as much as possible to vendors with fixed-price contracts would have an impact on cost?

I'm concerned that moving to a Sailor-centric maintenance model will have further impacts on overall manning, which is already pretty terrible and getting worse.

Nebakenezzer
Sep 13, 2005

The Mote in God's Eye



Parliment ends investigation into General Vance

Specifically this was an investigation into General Vance's misconduct, and while they established very very well it was a thing, now there's all this "well who knew in the top levels of the government", and we already know everybody did and yes, they didn't see any problem. So naturally the investigation was closed so they could get the report written before the summer recess and report on the *heard* testimony.

priznat
Jul 7, 2009

Let's get drunk and kiss each other all night.

Nebakenezzer posted:

Parliment ends investigation into General Vance

Specifically this was an investigation into General Vance's misconduct, and while they established very very well it was a thing, now there's all this "well who knew in the top levels of the government", and we already know everybody did and yes, they didn't see any problem. So naturally the investigation was closed so they could get the report written before the summer recess and report on the *heard* testimony.

Well it ainít 2018 anymore!

Seriously though what the actual hell

Dead Reckoning
Sep 13, 2011


Pikehead posted:

Snipping bits

Andersen Air Force Base plus any other random building or installation on Guam is already a "Use it or lose it" capability, so adding something extra isn't going to change the equation much. That said, road mobile hypersonic missiles you could conceivably (i.e. much easier than every installation on Guam) hide or move on a regular basis or if things warmed up.
An airbase has far more redundancy and potential for rapid repair than a missile system. Aircraft can be launched off of strip alert and recalled in the event of a false alarm. Once a missile is let off the chain, it's war. The two are not comparable.

mlmp08 posted:

The initial hypersonic experimental unit is four launchers and eight missiles being set up in 2023.
And the number should be zero, because there is no sensible case for deploying this system. Do you really think that, having declared it to be a priority, there is any chance the Army will look at the experimental system and say, "no thanks, actually. This was unnecessary."

mlmp08 posted:

One of the huge problems we see time and time again in public facing wargames is that as built, the air component can and will dismantle the IADS and then start trying to attrit enemy missiles forces. The problem: this almost always occurs so slowly based on MX, ordnance, and sortie generation in general that it puts the rest of the joint operation at severe risk. It also relies upon the enemy ground-based missile hunt being pretty successful. Historically, that has not been the case! The air component meticulously picking apart the enemy with little or no losses is cool, but itís not so cool if the rest of the joint force wither loses or has severe losses and setbacks in the meantime. I have it on good authority (air force targeteers) that even a couple dozen miles of mobility makes targeting mobile things hell.
The Army deploying a handful of strategic missiles to tiny islands in the Pacific does not change the calculus. The only way to put enough missile shooters in the western Pacific to even slightly approach parity with the Chinese is on boats. Your point about mobility shows why: not all of Guam is suitable terrain to disperse in, and the more missiles you put on the island, the smaller the usable area each one has for maneuver & dispersion.

bewbies
Sep 23, 2003



Fun Shoe

Dead Reckoning posted:

The Army deploying a handful of strategic missiles to tiny islands in the Pacific does not change the calculus. The only way to put enough missile shooters in the western Pacific to even slightly approach parity with the Chinese is on boats. Your point about mobility shows why: not all of Guam is suitable terrain to disperse in, and the more missiles you put on the island, the smaller the usable area each one has for maneuver & dispersion.

No one is looking for "parity" with the Chinese, or any potential competitor. It is part of a suite of capabilities; no one thinks it is a comprehensive replacement for every other thing in a given theater.

Also your assessment on the relative vulnerability of ships/airfields and mobile ground-based launchers is way, way off, as is the assumption about Guam being a main base of operations.

Stravag
Jun 7, 2009





I normally dont find the static displays that have tanks

aphid_licker
Jan 7, 2009

kiss kiss



Pillbug

That looks like a shitload of fuel relative to the size of the aircraft

Wingnut Ninja
Jan 11, 2003

Mostly Harmless


Pure turbojet engines are thirsty little fuckers.

BIG HEADLINE
Jun 13, 2006

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

Those do not look original to the airframe. My guess is someone thought the plane needed "bombs or something" and those were the cheapest/easiest thing to get that they could get to hold to the hardpoint.

Acebuckeye13
Nov 2, 2010

There's only one prescription for Nazism and it's 76mm HVAP





Ultra Carp

BIG HEADLINE posted:

Those do not look original to the airframe. My guess is someone thought the plane needed "bombs or something" and those were the cheapest/easiest thing to get that they could get to hold to the hardpoint.

Possibly, but the F-84F did carry gargantuan externals:





e: Bonus Thunderflash:

Mortabis
Jul 8, 2010


Dead Reckoning posted:

An airbase has far more redundancy and potential for rapid repair than a missile system. Aircraft can be launched off of strip alert and recalled in the event of a false alarm. Once a missile is let off the chain, it's war. The two are not comparable.
And the number should be zero, because there is no sensible case for deploying this system. Do you really think that, having declared it to be a priority, there is any chance the Army will look at the experimental system and say, "no thanks, actually. This was unnecessary."

The Army deploying a handful of strategic missiles to tiny islands in the Pacific does not change the calculus. The only way to put enough missile shooters in the western Pacific to even slightly approach parity with the Chinese is on boats. Your point about mobility shows why: not all of Guam is suitable terrain to disperse in, and the more missiles you put on the island, the smaller the usable area each one has for maneuver & dispersion.

Can you really not imagine the possibility of the army fighting an overland campaign where it has need to quickly strike targets far behind enemy lines? And seeing as components are shared with the navy, and the development program is shared with the navy, the cost of also being able to shoot the missiles off of trucks is most likely rather small.

If nothing else, think of this as a way for the army to share part of its budget for a program the navy badly needs.

Raenir Salazar
Nov 5, 2010

No way...


College Slice

Give the airforce control over land artillery.

Captain von Trapp
Jan 22, 2006

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

Dead Reckoning posted:

Do you really think that, having declared it to be a priority, there is any chance the Army will look at the experimental system and say, "no thanks, actually. This was unnecessary."

That's what happens to most experimental systems. The military budget is large, but it's also 1) finite, 2) largely spent on current concerns rather than future concerns, and 3) spent as decided by congress, not the military itself.

There's a fair bit to disagree with in your post as to this specific system itself, but this is really key to understanding how military development works in general. On a practically daily basis, some program will get a letter from OSD saying some bureaucratically polite version of "Excellent, important work. Now shut it down, we're broke."

Godholio
Aug 28, 2002

Does a bear split in the woods near Zheleznogorsk?


Captain von Trapp posted:

That's what happens to most experimental systems. The military budget is large, but it's also 1) finite, 2) largely spent on current concerns rather than future concerns, and 3) spent as decided by congress, not the military itself.

There's a fair bit to disagree with in your post as to this specific system itself, but this is really key to understanding how military development works in general. On a practically daily basis, some program will get a letter from OSD saying some bureaucratically polite version of "Excellent, important work. Now shut it down, we're broke."

KYOON GRIFFEY JR
Apr 12, 2010




Raenir Salazar posted:

Give the airforce control over land artillery.

do the Nazi thing and make it so if the system is shooting at a ground target it's controlled by the army, if it's shooting at a sea target it's controlled by the Navy, and if it's shooting at an air target it's controlled by the AF.

mlmp08
Jul 11, 2004


Nap Ghost

Also the air force general didnít even say land-based long range fires are a bad idea. He just said he didnít see it working great in a pacific campaign.

Murgos
Oct 21, 2010


Captain von Trapp posted:

That's what happens to most experimental systems. The military budget is large, but it's also 1) finite, 2) largely spent on current concerns rather than future concerns, and 3) spent as decided by congress, not the military itself.

There's a fair bit to disagree with in your post as to this specific system itself, but this is really key to understanding how military development works in general. On a practically daily basis, some program will get a letter from OSD saying some bureaucratically polite version of "Excellent, important work. Now shut it down, we're broke."

Yeah, the number of systems that have been fully developed to a functioning prototype thatís demonstrated performance is massive.

Including previous iterations of hypersonic missiles.

Edit: ďand not ordered into productionĒ should be appended in there.

Murgos fucked around with this message at 13:22 on Apr 13, 2021

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006


mlmp08 posted:

Also the air force general didn’t even say land-based long range fires are a bad idea. He just said he didn’t see it working great in a pacific campaign.

Your gun just isn't big enough

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

FuturePastNow
May 19, 2014




Suborbital railgun in Nebraska plinking away at weddings in the Middle East

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