Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Army Projects / Re: Ground X-Vehicle Technology (GXV-T) Program
« Last post by Avimimus on Today at 06:42:49 pm »
So I take it - no forested terrain, no marshland and no Canadian Shield rugged beaver-pond country? But really good in desert terrain?
2
From the SDASM archives.
3

The operative phrase here is "...USN wants...".   Maybe it's not what USN "wants" as much as what they were told to take (it's happened before).  When the dumbing down of UCLASS was announced it clearly caught a lot of people in NAVAIR  by surprise and was quite controversial.  With truly humble mien I wold like to refer to my opining on this subject here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16346.msg214463.html#msg214463

Oh man... the USN is in a whole world of hurt if its a three way furball. The F-35 lobby should be mega happy that there will be a second strike element with them that can take off some of the heat. I know, naÔve I know, but seriously? I'd want to pack the deck with enough power to take on any threat, not just little brown men running round in the sand.
 

Personally, I don't give much credence to theory 1, just reporting it.  Theory 2 is always in play and you can't discount  3.  It's one thing to have non-survivable drones flying around potting individuals or small groups, it's a whole 'nother thing with a real deep strike capability.  I note the quietly announced direction to the Navy to terminate Tomahawk production after this FY. 
4
The Bar / Re: A Facebook question
« Last post by Orionblamblam on Today at 04:19:17 pm »

Then you may indeed be blocked.

That's neat.

Quote
Like you said, if you've never been on there, how could you get banned in the first place?

My guess: I'm so annoying that the effects of it stretch *backwards* in time.


5

The operative phrase here is "...USN wants...".   Maybe it's not what USN "wants" as much as what they were told to take (it's happened before).  When the dumbing down of UCLASS was announced it clearly caught a lot of people in NAVAIR  by surprise and was quite controversial.  With truly humble mien I wold like to refer to my opining on this subject here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16346.msg214463.html#msg214463

Oh man... the USN is in a whole world of hurt if its a three way furball. The F-35 lobby should be mega happy that there will be a second strike element with them that can take off some of the heat. I know, naÔve I know, but seriously? I'd want to pack the deck with enough power to take on any threat, not just little brown men running round in the sand.
 
6

If the USN wants only a permissive environment UAV, why the whole effort of the J-UCAS (Yeah I know it split so the USAF could go their own way) but really? nothing better than launching a Reaper off a carrier? That's not progress or a value for money exercise in my humble opinion.

The operative phrase here is "...USN wants...".   Maybe it's not what USN "wants" as much as what they were told to take (it's happened before).  When the dumbing down of UCLASS was announced it clearly caught a lot of people in NAVAIR  by surprise and was quite controversial.  With truly humble mien I wold like to refer to my opining on this subject here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,16346.msg214463.html#msg214463
7
The Bar / Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says
« Last post by F-14D on Today at 03:46:58 pm »
Combined ICBM, SLBM and Air-dropped strategic warheads by year...

I should have been more specific with the concern with Soviet ICBM's growing numbers and accuracies (USSR surpassed the US in ICBM's in 1968) and the growing first strike threat, because the type of strategic warhead and its basing for warfighting is relevant. How many US air dropped weapons would never leave CONUS, how many SLBM warheads would be destroyed at the dock? There was real concern the SS-18 alone could wipe out most of the ICBM's, B-52's at air bases and SSBN's in port leaving the US with only 'counter value' targets but leaving the Soviet's a mssive force for follow on strikes at US cities.
 
Would the US go 'counter value' with SLBM's if Russia took out their ICBM's? ICBM's have always been the greatest concern for both sides as, until the D5, they were the only forces capable of a counter force first strike.

The subject of  SLBMs destroyed at the dock keeps popping up in various forums, and there seems to be some misunderstanding about them.   The number of SLBMs in the strike calculus is based on the number of subs at sea.   It is assumed that any subs at the docks, undergoing maintenance, etc. will most likely be lost, or at best not available for any kind of "early" action.   At least in the past, that was one of the factors that sized the boomer fleet:   if you want x number of available warheads at any given time you must have y number of submarines, sufficient so that the deployed  percentage gives you your planning number.  The rest are "offline", even if they're in perfect working order, either at the dock or in storage (I'm ignoring for the moment missile subs in transit that are not in the patrol area).   For treaty purposes, the total number of warheads/launchers are counted, but what's actually expected to be available is less.   This is already factored in, or at least it was in the past. 

Of course, this is true for the other two legs of the triad to a certain extent.  While arguably the most vulnerable, the land based ICBM fleet probably has the largest percentage of warhead availability.  Bombers are somewhat problematic.  The B-1 allegedly no longer has any nuclear capability.    B-52s have been continuously updated, but how survivable they are against a peer threat is an open question.  The B-2, of course, is stealthy, but apparently hasn't been updated that much since delivery.  More importantly, the  availability of full capability units is reportedly appalling. 
8
The Bar / Re: Don't mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says
« Last post by Avimimus on Today at 03:40:53 pm »
I by no means would suggest that high throw weight ICBMs are not troubling, nor would I suggest that the rapid build up of Soviet ICBM forces in the 1970s was not something to fear.

Anyway, here is some more detail... which should help put the missile gap into perspective (especially when you realise how threatening SLBMs are).


According to this data it would appear that the U.S. had more strategic warheads to throw at Russia except for a small period at the end of the Cold War (1989-1993), with the Soviet superiority being about 117%.


There are also other factors left out - for instance the accuracy of weapons, or the number of delivery vehicles (an issue for bomber dropped weapons in particular). Furthermore, tactical weapons are not shown on that graph.

In reality the SLBMs and ICBMs are more important weapons than the bomber delivered warheads - so the graphs are misleading. But it is interesting to imagine what it'd be like to be a Soviet citizen looking at these numbers... how it would feel to not know the future...
9
Does anyone have any backround info on the Skua target drone?
 
It has been mentioned in a book that the Skua was originally designed as a long range cruise missile, and was redeveloped into a target drone once the cold war ended.
Looking at the size and design, that makes a lot of sense.
 
Any history on the Skua would be most appreciated.
10
The Bar / Re: A Facebook question
« Last post by XP67_Moonbat on Today at 03:09:31 pm »
I'm the blocked one.  :D  Seems some people get touchy at the mere mention of the F-35. Found out the hard way by getting blocked.
What Scott describes is a block. Don't know how. But it is.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10