Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Bar / Re: UK independant Trident launch.
« Last post by Foo Fighter on Today at 01:23:30 am »
Actually, all I ever claimed was that the UK would never independently launch nuclear weapons.  Nato, apart from the US and the UK has what in the way of nuclear weapons?  The French are not members, remember.

I asked YOU to come up with a realistic scenario where the UK would launch independently and you came back with, nothing.  Sad that you are still banging on a empty drum.
2
The Bar / Re: Dr. Strangelove ?
« Last post by galgot on Today at 12:02:31 am »
Thank you Michel Van :)
3
The Bar / Re: UK independant Trident launch.
« Last post by Kadija_Man on Yesterday at 10:50:18 pm »
I have yet to claim Washington controls the radio link to UK strategic submarines.  The UK will never launch nuclear weapons independently.  When did I claim Washington intervenes?  The independent use of nuclear weapons by anyone in NATO is not going to happen.  The US is the one sticking point in the mix but that is the nature of the beast.  The rest are just too small.

You are making the mistake that the issues which concern individual NATO members and the UK in particular are identical to those that concern the US in Europe.   They are not, as the Falklands/Malvinas and numerous other minor conflicts have confirmed.   Europe consists of 51 independent states. NATO consists of 29 nation states.  The UK is the only member of NATO with an independent nuclear force.   The UK and France are the only two members of Europe with an independent nuclear force.   Many of the concerns of NATO are identical with the UK and France, however, many of the UK's and France's concerns have absolutely nothing to do with NATO.   There is no official agreement that I am aware of that states the UK and France cannot use their nuclear forces independently if they believe it is necessary.   Rationally, that would suggest that the UK and France retain national control over their strategic nuclear forces.   All you have claimed, without any factual proof is that no NATO member will ever launch it's nuclear forces independently.   Until you produce proof, I will not believe you.
4
The Bar / Re: A bit of robot fun
« Last post by Jemiba on Yesterday at 10:10:49 pm »
Hopefully not something like that ?

(Sorry, I spoiled a Mark Anderson cartonn [via https://cdn.andertoons.com/img/toons/cartoon6198.png]
and a picture from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/coming-soon-slow-heavy-shrieking-autonomous-robot-rent-a-cops/
for that)
5
The Bar / Re: Dr. Strangelove ?
« Last post by Michel Van on Yesterday at 08:31:04 pm »
The Man behind JKF could be Ernst Stuhlinger (and Right behind him is Werner Von Braun)

He developed first V2 guidance systems
At NASA he was key figure in development of the ion engine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Stuhlinger
6
Military / Re: Standard SM-3 News & Dev.
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 07:40:08 pm »
Looking at the 2018 MDA budget, there are multiple lines for testing which sum up to about $750Million/year for GMD, $100Million/year for AEGIS and roughly $50Million/year for THAAD.

I canít find any specific cost breakout detailing hardware, operations, and support for a specific test.  However, a simplistic approach would be to just divide the annual cost by the number of tests/year.

For AEGIS, that would be around $50Million/test.  This cost would include such things as test planning, coordination of all involved personnel and facilities, development and procurement of special hardware and sensors to observe and record data, plus the interceptor and target.  I would not be surprised if the interceptor/target costs amounted to no more than 50% of the total test cost.

But I think all tests (ground, test target only, interceptor only, and intercept) get lumped into that sum so it's very tricky to tease out.
And the number of intercept tests does fluctuate: there are three US tests planned for  FY18 vs. five planned for FY17.
An even more extreme example: five intercept tests accomplished in FY13 vs. one in FY14.  So perhaps three is a better average
which would bring you more in line to the quoted (by MDA) cost for FTM-21. 

Given that SM-3 Block IIA in LRIP is estimated to be about 2x the unit cost of SM-3 Block IB and that they are testing
against more expensive MRBM targets the budget numbers sort of make sense to me.
 


7
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by sferrin on Yesterday at 07:11:19 pm »
Latest Dept. of State New Start numbers

https://www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/272337.htm

IIRC these are roughly the opposite from when the treaty was signed. We are down about 400 warheads and Russia is up around 400 warheads.

Russian strategic modernization is for a post New START world. All their new systems large MIRV potential combined with nuclear enterprise still capable of build 1000+ warheads/annum compared to our 15.

Nothing to worry about.  What could possibly go wrong?

8
Aerospace / Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Last post by bobbymike on Yesterday at 06:59:11 pm »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10