Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by Hood on Today at 01:42:32 am »
Must be why everybody else is going mobile. Because they suck.

The picture you posted perhaps reveals another deeper motivation, all those countries have regular military parades and nothing looks more impressive than having a leader basking in glory as a convoy of multi-wheeled missile launchers rumbles past in plain sight of your population.
A few holes in the ground are much less easy to show off to your neighbours and tax-paying population. The question is which is more effective, a quiet deterrent that's there doing its job without fuss or something that you need to roll out in public to convince everyone how much power you have?

Also worth noting that of that list only Russia and China have the capability to build and field a full triad. India and North Korea have to rely on ground based missiles. Also, those nations build wheeled launchers for smaller IRBMs so the rationale and the technology base is already there.
2
Aerospace / Re: XCOR Lynx suborbital spaceplane
« Last post by retrofit1 on Yesterday at 11:10:16 pm »
Just for info. The mock-up of the Lynx is now preserved at the Nationaal Militair Museum of Soesterberg AF Park, in The Nertherlands.
3
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 09:23:12 pm »
"God No, America Does Not Need Mobile Nuclear Missile Launchers"
Robert Beckhusen
April 13, 2016

Source:
https://warisboring.com/god-no-america-does-not-need-mobile-nuclear-missile-launchers/

Quote
The New START treaty between the United States and Russia, which went into force in 2011, restricts deployed mobile launchers to ICBM bases
a nd nondeployed launchers to military production, repair and storage facilities. Which, in the event of a nuclear war, negates mobile
launchers’ mobility advantage. It would take hours to disperse the slow-moving vehicles away from their bases as the nukes begin flying.

This is not accurate.  From the Office of Treaty Compliance

https://www.acq.osd.mil/tc/treaties/NST/Art%20By%20Art/art_treaty%20text.htm

Quote
There are no restrictions on where deployed mobile launchers of ICBMs may be located. These launchers may leave their basing areas for field
deployments, similar to the deployments from their bases of ballistic missile submarines and heavy bombers. Because mobile ICBMs are
considered survivable when deployed in the field and therefore stabilizing, their unhampered operation while deployed in the field is permitted.
5
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by marauder2048 on Yesterday at 06:47:52 pm »
Say 300 launchers each with 5-10 harden launch hangars. Keep moving the launchers around. Now the Russians would require 1500-3000 warheads to take all of them out, all while being limited to 1550 under the treaty.

Under New START, the hardened launch hangers would each count towards the total number of ICBM launchers.
That and on-site inspections makes preserving the probability of location uncertainty doubtful.
6
The Bar / Re: Nuclear Weapons - Discussion.
« Last post by Desertfox on Yesterday at 05:41:59 pm »
You don't need a harden launcher with the much lower number of warheads currently. What needs to be done is go back to the old shell game idea. Say 300 launchers each with 5-10 harden launch hangars. Keep moving the launchers around. Now the Russians would require 1500-3000 warheads to take all of them out, all while being limited to 1550 under the treaty. Its cheaper than Midgetman, its mobile, its a warhead sponge, and the missiles would not be rolling around the highways, being limited to only transfers between hangars, which could be secured easier than a launcher on the road. 
9
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by sferrin on January 20, 2018, 07:12:25 pm »
10
Aerospace / Re: Lockheed Martin F-35: News ONLY topic
« Last post by bring_it_on on January 20, 2018, 05:12:35 pm »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10