User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:46:59 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The intellectual capital needed to design something as significantly complex as an ICBM or SLBM, and especially the warheads for same, is not something you can keep on the shelf and break out every 20 or 30 years. The interns working on the program today are going to be the project managers the next time around, with no one in between to provide the mid-level engineering and managerial expertise, continuity, and corporate knowledge necessary to do it smoothly, efficiently, or in some cases safely. Agreed. They guys we have retiring right now were young engineers when the D5 program started and every year I go to another retirement party or two. Heck I'll probably be retired before the new program is deployed, and I wasn't here for 'early days' and I've been working on the FBM program for over a decade. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:49:04 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So why was the MX taken offline and removed from service? Growing up I thought that was the uber missile, super accurate, etc? Obama said nukes are icky...and that was that |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:00:13 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obama said nukes are icky...and that was that Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So why was the MX taken offline and removed from service? Growing up I thought that was the uber missile, super accurate, etc? Obama said nukes are icky...and that was that you mis spelled clinton |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:01:24 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That kind of like saying we are working on a replacement for the M16; sure it is always happening but it like the D5 are stilling going to be here for a while I do have a draft requirements document on my desk for the 5.56mm family of ammuntion... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:02:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That kind of like saying we are working on a replacement for the M16; sure it is always happening but it like the D5 are stilling going to be here for a while Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Since it's the guys at SSP are the ones directing our activities I'll disagree with you. Yeah we're "modernizing" (i.e. life extension program), but we're already working on a replacement. That kind of like saying we are working on a replacement for the M16; sure it is always happening but it like the D5 are stilling going to be here for a while Not really the same. Till now it's been upgrades & modernizations to various parts of the FBM system. Now we're looking at a new missile to replace the D5, possibly using parts of the MM replacement to keep costs (both construction and testing) down; as well as a new sub to carry said missiles. Remember Poseidon's only served 21 years Trident C4s for 26 years (not counting the 8 years of development) D5's are now 25 years in service (even longer since production started 8 years from start of production to deployment), so it's due for a replacement program. The problem is the Govt has been dragging it's feet so we NEED that life extension program to keep the FBM viable until the replacement is available. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:06:29 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still aren't going to get the Ohios, so irrelevent. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Still aren't going to get the Ohios, so irrelevent. Nothing lasts forever Since the Cold War submarines, particularly quiet American ones, have been considered largely immune to adversary A2/AD capabilities. But the ability of submarines to hide through quieting alone will decrease as each successive decibel of noise reduction becomes more expensive and as new detection methods mature that rely on phenomena other than sounds emanating from a submarine. These techniques include lower frequency active sonar and non-acoustic methods that detect submarine wakes or (at short ranges) bounce laser or light-emitting diode (LED) light off a submarine hull. The physics behind most of these alternative techniques has been known for decades, but was not exploited because computer processors were too slow to run the detailed models needed to see small changes in the environment caused by a quiet submarine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:08:30 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Won't fit in the current launchers. Also, the cost to make MM LCCs and ground equipment to hablo Trident is...expensive. Still doesn't solve the real problem. Trident's damn near 40 years old itself. So now you're talking a 1980's Mustang. Unless you go to a new basing system. In which case you might as well start with a blank sheet of paper, instead of trying to get a fish to operate a bicycle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
scrap 'em all for more D5s. Won't fit in the current launchers. Also, the cost to make MM LCCs and ground equipment to hablo Trident is...expensive. Still doesn't solve the real problem. Trident's damn near 40 years old itself. So now you're talking a 1980's Mustang. Unless you go to a new basing system. In which case you might as well start with a blank sheet of paper, instead of trying to get a fish to operate a bicycle. What if we could put D5s (or D6s) underwater in submarines? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:18:39 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
but unlike a sub, everybody who cared, would know where the plane was. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
With a rotary launcher, you could get many small ICBM's on that thing. You have a half-million pound payload to play with. How much does a SSBN cost? A handful of these could do the same job. Midgetman weighed 30,000lbs. You could carry a half a subs worth of missiles on one plane. but unlike a sub, everybody who cared, would know where the plane was. How would you find a lone plane over the Pacific? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:19:56 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How would you find a lone plane over the Pacific? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a rotary launcher, you could get many small ICBM's on that thing. You have a half-million pound payload to play with. How much does a SSBN cost? A handful of these could do the same job. Midgetman weighed 30,000lbs. You could carry a half a subs worth of missiles on one plane. but unlike a sub, everybody who cared, would know where the plane was. How would you find a lone plane over the Pacific? How do you know where a B-2 is? You just know it was launched. And if you're in heightened tensions, and the B-2s go up, you have to treat it as a strike. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:22:32 PM EDT
[#10]
For my idea to work, you would have to several airborne at all times.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:23:40 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For my idea to work, you would have to several airborne at all times. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:25:12 PM EDT
[#12]
What does the Russkies REALLY have and the Chinks really have?
I see some base level numbers from SALT and other treaties but I have read many articles that those aren't the true numbers despite them coming here making sure we deactivate our shit and we going over there. I still find it hard to believe no matter that we haven't gone beyond ground based stuff yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:33:09 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For my idea to work, you would have to several airborne at all times. Then maybe we really will nuke some small town here. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:43:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Fuck a bunch of treaties.
Build a modernized Pershing and deploy to Poland, Ukraine, Korea, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:45:58 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fuck a bunch of treaties. Build a modernized Pershing and deploy to Poland, Ukraine, Korea, etc. this is, of course, the correct answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:59:14 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For my idea to work, you would have to several airborne at all times. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ He doesn't listen... and still hasn't figured out the Midgetman only had 1 warhead which means his airplanes only carry warhead equivalent of 1 D5 missile. Never-mind the aircraft could be outfitted with 3 MIRVed D5 sized missiles instead of the never-produced Midgetman. And even then we wouldn't want to. Because, hey, old ideas rehashed are the best? He can't reason why we stopped airborne alerts almost 50 years ago but now it should somehow be a better idea with larger, more expensive, more destabilizing systems. I guess what I'm saying is that perhaps we can get RickOShay in here to tell us how we should replace SSBNs with a ballistic missile armed battleship? It makes about as much sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:08:05 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I guess the point being our ICBM deterrent was designed for one mission. Its a much more complex environment now, obviously. Look at your avatar. You want A or B? Cause thats all you get (well, you get the point). I am not saying Russia has gone away, but it is arguably not even the primary threat in a limited exchange. Exactly. It's moved way past that since then--the upgrade to the Minuteman III in the mid-70s gave it a lot of flexibility, increasing the number of stored target sets from two to four per missile, improving retargeting times, and giving a much easier selective launch (i.e., only send two of the 50 missiles in the squadron), as well as improved the safety and security of the system. The upgrade in the mid-late 90s from the legacy consoles to the REACT system was all internal to the capsule--it improved communications and streamlined status monitoring and fire-control operations, but did nothing for the missile itself. The "upgrades" to the missile itself in the last 10 years have, as I said, been more of a refresh than true upgrades. As I said, the fact is it's still a capable system, but it's hindered by the legacy mission/design parameters. (like the fact that it HAS to take a northerly route to any target it flies to.) A 70-year old woman can hit the tanning bed, stay fit, and get botox and new boobs...but she's still a 70-year old woman. And I agree, even through Russia is still a threat, and we still have to have a system with the accuracy/reliability/survivability to go "toe to toe with the Rooskies", the probability is greater for a limited exchange. Minuteman has been stretched to fit those requirements, but a new system could address those needs directly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:09:30 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. It's moved way past that since then--the upgrade to the Minuteman III in the mid-70s gave it a lot of flexibility, increasing the number of stored target sets from two to four per missile, improving retargeting times, and giving a much easier selective launch (i.e., only send two of the 50 missiles in the squadron), as well as improved the safety and security of the system. The upgrade in the mid-late 90s from the legacy consoles to the REACT system was all internal to the capsule--it improved communications and streamlined status monitoring and fire-control operations, but did nothing for the missile itself. The "upgrades" to the missile itself in the last 10 years have, as I said, been more of a refresh than true upgrades. As I said, the fact is it's still a capable system, but it's hindered by the legacy mission/design parameters. (like the fact that it HAS to take a northerly route to any target it flies to.) A 70-year old woman can hit the tanning bed, stay fit, and get botox and new boobs...but she's still a 70-year old woman. And I agree, even through Russia is still a threat, and we still have to have a system with the accuracy/reliability/survivability to go "toe to toe with the Rooskies", the probability is greater for a limited exchange. Minuteman has been stretched to fit those requirements, but a new system could address those needs directly. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I guess the point being our ICBM deterrent was designed for one mission. Its a much more complex environment now, obviously. Look at your avatar. You want A or B? Cause thats all you get (well, you get the point). I am not saying Russia has gone away, but it is arguably not even the primary threat in a limited exchange. Exactly. It's moved way past that since then--the upgrade to the Minuteman III in the mid-70s gave it a lot of flexibility, increasing the number of stored target sets from two to four per missile, improving retargeting times, and giving a much easier selective launch (i.e., only send two of the 50 missiles in the squadron), as well as improved the safety and security of the system. The upgrade in the mid-late 90s from the legacy consoles to the REACT system was all internal to the capsule--it improved communications and streamlined status monitoring and fire-control operations, but did nothing for the missile itself. The "upgrades" to the missile itself in the last 10 years have, as I said, been more of a refresh than true upgrades. As I said, the fact is it's still a capable system, but it's hindered by the legacy mission/design parameters. (like the fact that it HAS to take a northerly route to any target it flies to.) A 70-year old woman can hit the tanning bed, stay fit, and get botox and new boobs...but she's still a 70-year old woman. And I agree, even through Russia is still a threat, and we still have to have a system with the accuracy/reliability/survivability to go "toe to toe with the Rooskies", the probability is greater for a limited exchange. Minuteman has been stretched to fit those requirements, but a new system could address those needs directly. Maybe a couple dozen road mobiles in Nevada? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:11:40 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
this is, of course, the correct answer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fuck a bunch of treaties. Build a modernized Pershing and deploy to Poland, Ukraine, Korea, etc. this is, of course, the correct answer. Especially since the Soviets Russians just gave us the finger on the INF treaty. Pershing might be too hard to reconstitute, but we still have a bunch of TLAMs around, and I know where there's a stash of W80s.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:17:05 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe a couple dozen road mobiles in Nevada? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I guess the point being our ICBM deterrent was designed for one mission. Its a much more complex environment now, obviously. Look at your avatar. You want A or B? Cause thats all you get (well, you get the point). I am not saying Russia has gone away, but it is arguably not even the primary threat in a limited exchange. Exactly. It's moved way past that since then--the upgrade to the Minuteman III in the mid-70s gave it a lot of flexibility, increasing the number of stored target sets from two to four per missile, improving retargeting times, and giving a much easier selective launch (i.e., only send two of the 50 missiles in the squadron), as well as improved the safety and security of the system. The upgrade in the mid-late 90s from the legacy consoles to the REACT system was all internal to the capsule--it improved communications and streamlined status monitoring and fire-control operations, but did nothing for the missile itself. The "upgrades" to the missile itself in the last 10 years have, as I said, been more of a refresh than true upgrades. As I said, the fact is it's still a capable system, but it's hindered by the legacy mission/design parameters. (like the fact that it HAS to take a northerly route to any target it flies to.) A 70-year old woman can hit the tanning bed, stay fit, and get botox and new boobs...but she's still a 70-year old woman. And I agree, even through Russia is still a threat, and we still have to have a system with the accuracy/reliability/survivability to go "toe to toe with the Rooskies", the probability is greater for a limited exchange. Minuteman has been stretched to fit those requirements, but a new system could address those needs directly. Maybe a couple dozen road mobiles in Nevada? Road and rail mobile has some nightmarish security, safety and survivability issues, plus the whole NIMBY/environmental issues. You think the Sierra Club is difficult to deal with now.... My bet: new missile designed from the ground up. Gut and feather job on the MM LFs and LCCs to support it. Potentially new comms system between the LCCs and LFs, though the old early-60s 12-baud cable system is pretty reliable. New software in the capsules. This way, the HUGE cost of real property infrastructure is avoided. Road-mobile requires new buildings, roads, vehicles, etc.; you can ignore all that by having as one of your design parameters "it has to fit in a Minuteman LF." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:20:16 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:Road and rail mobile has some nightmarish security, safety and survivability issues, plus the whole NIMBY/environmental issues. You think the Sierra Club is difficult to deal with now....
My bet: new missile designed from the ground up. Gut and feather job on the MM LFs and LCCs to support it. Potentially new comms system between the LCCs and LFs, though the old early-60s 12-baud cable system is pretty reliable. New software in the capsules. This way, the HUGE cost of real property infrastructure is avoided. Road-mobile requires new buildings, roads, vehicles, etc.; you can ignore all that by having as one of your design parameters "it has to fit in a Minuteman LF." I was thinking a relatively small footprint on federal land in Nevada. Nellis or Fallon area. a lot of those issues you mention go away. Survivability is kinda a non issue because it isn't the bedrock of your deterrence. Its simply a flexible niche capability. Anyone who could target it, wouldn't. security is an issue somewhat dealt with in the limited areas mentioned. I don't know enough about assurance/safety to argue the point. I wouldn't recommend them to replace the silo based ICBMs. merely a mechanism to break out of the limitaitons of our current northern based missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:41:31 PM EDT
[#22]
Why have any ICBMs? They serve no real purpose that air delivered cruise missiles or SLBMs couldn't fulfill.
ETA: I know, I fail to think strategically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 3:04:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why have any ICBMs? They serve no real purpose that air delivered cruise missiles or SLBMs couldn't fulfill. Except those that LX has repeatedly explained in threads on this topic. One may disagree with what he says, but "no purpose" isn't accurate. Things like prompt response, unambiguous evidence of attack, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 3:16:56 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So why was the MX taken offline and removed from service? Growing up I thought that was the uber missile, super accurate, etc? Because a treaty that never actually went into effect but the US decided to obey anyway dictated that we not have MIRVed ICBMs. The old Minuteman was originally designed for a single warhead, so it could be downgraded somewhat readily. The Peacekeeper was designed from the start for MIRV, so it would have taken more work to configure it for a single warhead. So they took the easy route at the time, with a balloon payment that's now coming due. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 3:22:13 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How would you find a lone plane over the Pacific? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a rotary launcher, you could get many small ICBM's on that thing. You have a half-million pound payload to play with. How much does a SSBN cost? A handful of these could do the same job. Midgetman weighed 30,000lbs. You could carry a half a subs worth of missiles on one plane. but unlike a sub, everybody who cared, would know where the plane was. How would you find a lone plane over the Pacific? OTH Radar. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 3:23:33 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For my idea to work, you would have to several airborne at all times. You're idea was looked at in the 50s and 60s then rejected. It's really not a viable idea as others have pointed out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 3:24:39 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
this is, of course, the correct answer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fuck a bunch of treaties. Build a modernized Pershing and deploy to Poland, Ukraine, Korea, etc. this is, of course, the correct answer. Don't forget the GLCMs! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 3:27:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really the same. Till now it's been upgrades & modernizations to various parts of the FBM system. Now we're looking at a new missile to replace the D5, possibly using parts of the MM replacement to keep costs (both construction and testing) down; as well as a new sub to carry said missiles. Remember Poseidon's only served 21 years Trident C4s for 26 years (not counting the 8 years of development) D5's are now 25 years in service (even longer since production started 8 years from start of production to deployment), so it's due for a replacement program. The problem is the Govt has been dragging it's feet so we NEED that life extension program to keep the FBM viable until the replacement is available. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Since it's the guys at SSP are the ones directing our activities I'll disagree with you. Yeah we're "modernizing" (i.e. life extension program), but we're already working on a replacement. That kind of like saying we are working on a replacement for the M16; sure it is always happening but it like the D5 are stilling going to be here for a while Not really the same. Till now it's been upgrades & modernizations to various parts of the FBM system. Now we're looking at a new missile to replace the D5, possibly using parts of the MM replacement to keep costs (both construction and testing) down; as well as a new sub to carry said missiles. Remember Poseidon's only served 21 years Trident C4s for 26 years (not counting the 8 years of development) D5's are now 25 years in service (even longer since production started 8 years from start of production to deployment), so it's due for a replacement program. The problem is the Govt has been dragging it's feet so we NEED that life extension program to keep the FBM viable until the replacement is available. When it goes milestone C than it will be different but at this point it is the same |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 3:33:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Resurrect project Pluto. Just build them. You would only launch them in the same event as you would any normal ICBM, so just sitting there they won't do the damage they would on their one and only flight.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 3:40:26 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're from the early 60s, so yeah. But that's one of the problems. I did the math around 2000, the cost of building a new launch facility adjusted for inflation was..... $1.6 billion. Each. We have 450 on alert now. The sites are actually doing pretty well for being over 50. The concrete is holding up okay, but it's the supporting and connecting infrastructure (12 baud comm system, for example) that needs a serious refresh. And nuclear-certified anything costs money. Lots of it. Then add the idiocy of (some)Congresscritters saying things like "If we buy you a better missile, you'll just want to use it, and that's destabilizing," and that's why we are in the corner we're in. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Seems like the ground facilities are overdue for an upgrade. They're from the early 60s, so yeah. But that's one of the problems. I did the math around 2000, the cost of building a new launch facility adjusted for inflation was..... $1.6 billion. Each. We have 450 on alert now. The sites are actually doing pretty well for being over 50. The concrete is holding up okay, but it's the supporting and connecting infrastructure (12 baud comm system, for example) that needs a serious refresh. And nuclear-certified anything costs money. Lots of it. Then add the idiocy of (some)Congresscritters saying things like "If we buy you a better missile, you'll just want to use it, and that's destabilizing," and that's why we are in the corner we're in. I can just hear someone like say....Schumer saying exactly that in his nasal voice..... Reminds me of being told that we couldnt use a piece of equipment "Because it's new..and if you assholes use it, it wont be New anymore" 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 3:45:54 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Resurrect project Pluto. Just build them. You would only launch them in the same event as you would any normal ICBM, so just sitting there they won't do the damage they would on their one and only flight. Testing would be controversial to put it lightly... a major reason it never came to be |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 5:10:41 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why have any ICBMs? They serve no real purpose that air delivered cruise missiles or SLBMs couldn't fulfill. ETA: I know, I fail to think strategically. And you failed to read page 2. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 5:28:08 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OTH Radar. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a rotary launcher, you could get many small ICBM's on that thing. You have a half-million pound payload to play with. How much does a SSBN cost? A handful of these could do the same job. Midgetman weighed 30,000lbs. You could carry a half a subs worth of missiles on one plane. but unlike a sub, everybody who cared, would know where the plane was. How would you find a lone plane over the Pacific? OTH Radar. That doesn't do any good when you are seven thousand miles away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 5:48:52 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. They guys we have retiring right now were young engineers when the D5 program started and every year I go to another retirement party or two. Heck I'll probably be retired before the new program is deployed, and I wasn't here for 'early days' and I've been working on the FBM program for over a decade. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The intellectual capital needed to design something as significantly complex as an ICBM or SLBM, and especially the warheads for same, is not something you can keep on the shelf and break out every 20 or 30 years. The interns working on the program today are going to be the project managers the next time around, with no one in between to provide the mid-level engineering and managerial expertise, continuity, and corporate knowledge necessary to do it smoothly, efficiently, or in some cases safely. Agreed. They guys we have retiring right now were young engineers when the D5 program started and every year I go to another retirement party or two. Heck I'll probably be retired before the new program is deployed, and I wasn't here for 'early days' and I've been working on the FBM program for over a decade. Do we have a functional SOP for warhead construction/maintenance? Nuclear hardened modern control systems (vs. analog or Apollo era computers)? When was our last nuclear test? I thought there were some new "very low radiation" devices that were theoretical, but couldn't be tested, unsure if that meant above or below ground. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 5:55:07 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 6:46:58 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That doesn't do any good when you are seven thousand miles away. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With a rotary launcher, you could get many small ICBM's on that thing. You have a half-million pound payload to play with. How much does a SSBN cost? A handful of these could do the same job. Midgetman weighed 30,000lbs. You could carry a half a subs worth of missiles on one plane. but unlike a sub, everybody who cared, would know where the plane was. How would you find a lone plane over the Pacific? OTH Radar. That doesn't do any good when you are seven thousand miles away. Uh huh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 6:56:18 PM EDT
[#37]
With the rapidly advancing technologies in ABM and laser weapon technology, I wonder how long the ICBM will still be effective. Certainly past our lifetimes but I would imagine eventually technology will render them ineffective. Maybe.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 6:58:17 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh huh. So tell us where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 6:59:34 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With the rapidly advancing technologies in ABM and laser weapon technology, I wonder how long the ICBM will still be effective. Certainly past our lifetimes but I would imagine eventually technology will render them ineffective. Maybe. Ultimately, the dominant power will be the one with the strongest A.I. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:01:33 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Uh huh. So, the Russians or Chinese detect the airplane orbiting over the Pacific. Let's assume that they can CID the aircraft (I wouldn't want to bet on their ability to do so, but let's assume). How do they use that info to complete a kill chain against that aircraft before it lainches? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:06:03 PM EDT
[#41]
there are ways to detect a B2 stealth is rapidly losing value.
Those that we would use nukes against will be spending money to defend against stealth. Stealth is fleeting as technology advances. Speed, as in hypersonic delivery systems, probably has far greater long term value than stealth. Quote HistoryQuoted:
How do you know where a B-2 is? You just know it was launched. And if you're in heightened tensions, and the B-2s go up, you have to treat it as a strike. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:10:24 PM EDT
[#42]
It is supposed to all be about honest threat analysis and then if needed, building the solution to counter the threat.
I am not in that business, personally. But the US has forgotten how to do HONEST threat analysis and our acquisition system is very broken. I can say that because I work in military acquisition. It is all about politics and rice bowls now. Bad ju ju...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:12:12 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So tell us where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Uh huh. So tell us where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went...... once you put a policy in place: i.e. aircraft in flight. The other guys then develop a strategy to counter it. This is the way it works. This is the way it always works. If they perceive the threat to be viable, then they will spend money to deal with it. since there was no strategy in place, there was no surveillance in place. had it been, we would know exactly where the flight went. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:15:39 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
once you put a policy in place: i.e. aircraft in flight. The other guys then develop a strategy to counter it. This is the way it works. This is the way it always works. If they perceive the threat to be viable, then they will spend money to deal with it. since there was no strategy in place, there was no surveillance in place. had it been, we would know exactly where the flight went. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh huh. So tell us where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went...... once you put a policy in place: i.e. aircraft in flight. The other guys then develop a strategy to counter it. This is the way it works. This is the way it always works. If they perceive the threat to be viable, then they will spend money to deal with it. since there was no strategy in place, there was no surveillance in place. had it been, we would know exactly where the flight went. Good luck with real-time aerial traffic surveillance and identification over the Pacific. Maybe in 50 years. There is just too much there there. Maybe with a huge, super-powerful orbital radarsat network but that would cost serious coinage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:17:08 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is supposed to all be about honest threat analysis and then if needed, building the solution to counter the threat.I am not in that business, personally. But the US has forgotten how to do HONEST threat analysis and our acquisition system is very broken. I can say that because I work in military acquisition. It is all about politics and rice bowls now. Bad ju ju... Disagree. I think that the threat analysis piece works reasonably well. While we consistently overestimated the Soviets and later the Iraqis, we've been consistently underestimating the PRC's ability to develop and field improved systems. What's broken is the political level of strategic guidance. Where will we plan on military intervention and what circumstances will trigger that action. Since the fall of the USSR, that strategic guidance and prioritization hasn't happened. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:17:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
there are ways to detect a B2 stealth is rapidly losing value. Those that we would use nukes against will be spending money to defend against stealth. Stealth is fleeting as technology advances. Speed, as in hypersonic delivery systems, probably has far greater long term value than stealth. Quote HistoryQuoted:
there are ways to detect a B2 stealth is rapidly losing value. Those that we would use nukes against will be spending money to defend against stealth. Stealth is fleeting as technology advances. Speed, as in hypersonic delivery systems, probably has far greater long term value than stealth. Quoted:
How do you know where a B-2 is? You just know it was launched. And if you're in heightened tensions, and the B-2s go up, you have to treat it as a strike. 30 minutes or less... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:20:09 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A related funny ( , not ) story--one of the refreshes they did was to wash out the old fuel (it was starting to crack after 30 years), and repour the downstages. One of the requirements was the fuel had to be environmentally friendly. http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/gwlek.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Relacement for the Minuteman III will be the Minuteman IV. Duh! Minuteman is a teabagger 1%er racist term, and must be deprecated. It paints an unfair picture of the United States as a bastion of individual rebellion against order. The new series will be Coexist I, and under the new international treaties will have a maximum operating range limited to the borders of the country. A related funny ( , not ) story--one of the refreshes they did was to wash out the old fuel (it was starting to crack after 30 years), and repour the downstages. One of the requirements was the fuel had to be environmentally friendly. http://www.hunt101.com/data/500/medium/gwlek.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:22:26 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So tell us where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went...... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Uh huh. So tell us where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went...... I'm sorry was Malaysia Air Lines attacking a country and/or carrying nukes? You're assuming a) that some country with OTH was monitoring that area b) that they were monitoring that area for an aircraft with that kind of flight profile. c) that they are willing to divulge to the world (and potential enemies) they are monitoring the area and have the range/resolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:22:47 PM EDT
[#49]
I assume by environmentally friendly they replaced the asbestos liner between the motor and the outer casing.
ATK just did that on the SRB's for the SLS, one of the changes from Shuttle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:25:12 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm sorry was Malaysia Air Lines attacking a country and/or carrying nukes? You're assuming a) that some country with OTH was monitoring that area b) that they were monitoring that area for an aircraft with that kind of flight profile. c) that they are willing to divulge to the world (and potential enemies) they are monitoring the area and have the range/resolution. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uh huh. So tell us where Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went...... I'm sorry was Malaysia Air Lines attacking a country and/or carrying nukes? You're assuming a) that some country with OTH was monitoring that area b) that they were monitoring that area for an aircraft with that kind of flight profile. c) that they are willing to divulge to the world (and potential enemies) they are monitoring the area and have the range/resolution. So you are claiming that there are OTH Radars that can track and ID an aircraft halfway over the Pacific? That isn't just OTH, that is way fucking OTH! You realize if such a thing existed, the emissions could be easily detected and the world would know about it? You can't keep something like that a secret. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
