|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On February 25 2014 03:34 zlefin wrote:
I agree on the A10; from what I've heard we don't have any close air support that's near as survivable.
Admittedly tank-killing isn't something we really need these days.
Sounds like a good plan overall; after all, wars don't need to be won instantly; if the unfortunate should happen and war with china occurs, a naval blockade and embargo is the best plan anyways; as a land war in china would be really hard.
Moreover, in the event of a real war, a small number of active personnel isn't a problem for long. Conscription happens as it did in WW2, when over a couple years the active duty roster shot from less than 400K to over 6M.
With regard to the A10 -- operators on the ground love it and no one wants to see it go, perhaps motivated by a bit of nostalgia, but the F35 is supposed to fill that role along with other roles going forward. The F35 itself is another issue entirely, though... While plagued with disastrous functionality problems and seemingly nowhere near full operational capacity, the F35 or something in its place will step to the plate for those particular ground attack needs. Additionally it is worth noting that the A10 today sees more of its action acquiring targets that may be engaged by unmanned drones, which of course are expanding vastly in number and capability, rather than targets for which they are truly suited to kill. While drone technology increases it continues to diminish the dedicated anti-armor ground attack role of the A10.
|
On February 25 2014 02:45 FallDownMarigold wrote:Jamie Dimon stunt-double, Chuck Hegel, to announce plans for pre-WW2 sized military: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/us/politics/pentagon-plans-to-shrink-army-to-pre-world-war-ii-level.html- Spending cap for US military lowered from around ~$600B to just under $500B. - Special Operations and Cyber Warfare will go untouched, and will likely see expansion moving forward given the nature of today's military intervention. - 11 aircraft carriers will remain operational, at least for now. - A10 attack jet will be removed from service entirely -- while very effective against ground targets such as Soviet armored columns, it is very unnecessary in the current reality. - National Guard units will transfer Apache gunship helicopters to the Army, and will receive Black Hawk transports in exchange. This will reduce operating costs for the Guard and will expand its domestic utility (e.g. Disaster relief). - U2 spy planes will retire. Behold the advent of the drone. - Personnel will be reduced to lowest level since 1940 to 440,000 active duty. - Some cuts will be made to tax and insurance benefits for military personnel. And at the end of the day, the force will still maintain the capacity to vanquish any adversary in the world.
A navy to choke China from its oil and grain imports, special operations guys to train one set of brown guy to hunt another set of brown guys for the US and drones and nerds of war. Pretty intelligent changes. Will there be further reductions in the armor component? or is that in the 2024 changes when US Robotics, I mean Google, introduces an all robot self sufficient army of unstoppable doom.
|
Haha. If I was going out on a limb, yes, I'd expect less emphasis on armor components in the future. The only major armored project I can think of is essentially Fighting Vehicle 2.0. But what about main battle tanks for example? Well, those may well go the same route as the A10. What good are tanks when the enemy does not field tanks? Or when tanks themselves are so vulnerable to all the threats that exist from the ground and sky -- perhaps dozens of miles away? Tanks and heavy armor sounded nice in the Cold War times, back when the fear was that USSR might literally roll over W. Europe with armor. Completely agree with Sub40APM that these are very intelligent changes for today's purposes.
|
They should shitcan the Zumwalt before they touch any carriers.
Zumwalt's long range guns don't work, and won't work.
Zumwalt can't field area anti aircraft.
Zumwalt's radar is not better than a Burke flight IIA.
Zumwalt has less missiles than an SSGN.
Zumwalt costs as much as an SSGN.
Zumwalt can be hit by missiles, unlike SSGN's.
When do we ever expect a surface ship to close within 50 miles of land to perform land attack? In light of ever proliferating anti ship missiles, this is simply insane. "Land attack destroyer", what a bunch of crap. They couldn't even spring to give it a proper cruiser sized hull. My prediction, that top heavy beast rolls over in a storm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer
Compare this to the USS Florida, which launched 93 missiles in an hour during the Libya intervention. No one saw it coming, and it put 90 missiles on target with zero risk. It has a magazine of 160 cruise missiles! 160!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Florida_(SSGN-728)
|
On February 25 2014 07:49 CannonsNCarriers wrote:They should shitcan the Zumwalt before they touch any carriers. Zumwalt's long range guns don't work, and won't work. Zumwalt can't field area anti aircraft. Zumwalt's radar is not better than a Burke flight IIA. Zumwalt has less missiles than an SSGN. Zumwalt costs as much as an SSGN. Zumwalt can be hit by missiles, unlike SSGN's. When do we ever expect a surface ship to close within 50 miles of land to perform land attack? In light of ever proliferating anti ship missiles, this is simply insane. "Land attack destroyer", what a bunch of crap. They couldn't even spring to give it a proper cruiser sized hull. My prediction, that top heavy beast rolls over in a storm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyerCompare this to the USS Florida, which launched 93 missiles in an hour during the Libya intervention. No one saw it coming, and it put 90 missiles on target with zero risk. It has a magazine of 160 cruise missiles! 160! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Florida_(SSGN-728)
Like all navies always, the fetish of big surface combatants over superior submarines continues. Cant wait for some DoD contractor to tap into this and offer an entire Battleship sized hull to serve as a mount for a bunch of lasers. And an accompanying drone-carrier to protect it from missiles and aircraft.
|
On February 25 2014 07:56 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 07:49 CannonsNCarriers wrote:They should shitcan the Zumwalt before they touch any carriers. Zumwalt's long range guns don't work, and won't work. Zumwalt can't field area anti aircraft. Zumwalt's radar is not better than a Burke flight IIA. Zumwalt has less missiles than an SSGN. Zumwalt costs as much as an SSGN. Zumwalt can be hit by missiles, unlike SSGN's. When do we ever expect a surface ship to close within 50 miles of land to perform land attack? In light of ever proliferating anti ship missiles, this is simply insane. "Land attack destroyer", what a bunch of crap. They couldn't even spring to give it a proper cruiser sized hull. My prediction, that top heavy beast rolls over in a storm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyerCompare this to the USS Florida, which launched 93 missiles in an hour during the Libya intervention. No one saw it coming, and it put 90 missiles on target with zero risk. It has a magazine of 160 cruise missiles! 160! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Florida_(SSGN-728) Like all navies always, the fetish of big surface combatants over superior submarines continues. Cant wait for some DoD contractor to tap into this and offer an entire Battleship sized hull to serve as a mount for a bunch of lasers. And an accompanying drone-carrier to protect it from missiles and aircraft.
If the Zumwalt was battleship sized, and had a nuclear reactor, it could at least accomplish the goals they set for the program. At 30,000 tons, it could actually have enough power on board to work a railgun. Right now, it is 55 feet wide (whereas the battleships were 95 feet wide). There is no way they miniaturize a railgun onto that boat. Let alone get enough juice out of gas turbines to fire the thing.
|
On February 25 2014 08:08 CannonsNCarriers wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 07:56 Sub40APM wrote:On February 25 2014 07:49 CannonsNCarriers wrote:They should shitcan the Zumwalt before they touch any carriers. Zumwalt's long range guns don't work, and won't work. Zumwalt can't field area anti aircraft. Zumwalt's radar is not better than a Burke flight IIA. Zumwalt has less missiles than an SSGN. Zumwalt costs as much as an SSGN. Zumwalt can be hit by missiles, unlike SSGN's. When do we ever expect a surface ship to close within 50 miles of land to perform land attack? In light of ever proliferating anti ship missiles, this is simply insane. "Land attack destroyer", what a bunch of crap. They couldn't even spring to give it a proper cruiser sized hull. My prediction, that top heavy beast rolls over in a storm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyerCompare this to the USS Florida, which launched 93 missiles in an hour during the Libya intervention. No one saw it coming, and it put 90 missiles on target with zero risk. It has a magazine of 160 cruise missiles! 160! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Florida_(SSGN-728) Like all navies always, the fetish of big surface combatants over superior submarines continues. Cant wait for some DoD contractor to tap into this and offer an entire Battleship sized hull to serve as a mount for a bunch of lasers. And an accompanying drone-carrier to protect it from missiles and aircraft. If the Zumwalt was battleship sized, and had a nuclear reactor, it could at least accomplish the goals they set for the program. At 30,000 tons, it could actually have enough power on board to work a railgun. Right now, it is 55 feet wide (whereas the battleships were 95 feet wide). There is no way they miniaturize a railgun onto that boat. Let alone get enough juice out of gas turbines to fire the thing.
The costs ballooned as R&D continued hitting blocks. It looks as if the original design would have been a great shoe-in for a modern Navy, but ballooning costs forced them to salvage what they could. It just happens to be shit.
|
Has there ever been a modern military project that hasnt had massive cost overruns? Bradley, Osprey, F-35, Zumwalt, Crusader. They all seem to suck up a ton of money.
|
I'm not sure; but there should certainly be some severe consequences for the people who keep misestimating costs so badly; and I don't think there are enough of those.
|
On February 25 2014 08:55 Sub40APM wrote:
Has there ever been a modern military project that hasnt had massive cost overruns? Bradley, Osprey, F-35, Zumwalt, Crusader. They all seem to suck up a ton of money.
I get the sense that projects were run fairly tightly and fairly well up until the 1980s. Just look at the development history of the SR-71 as an example. I'm not really sure what changed.
|
On February 25 2014 09:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 08:55 Sub40APM wrote:
Has there ever been a modern military project that hasnt had massive cost overruns? Bradley, Osprey, F-35, Zumwalt, Crusader. They all seem to suck up a ton of money. I get the sense that projects were run fairly tightly and fairly well up until the 1980s. Just look at the development history of the SR-71 as an example. I'm not really sure what changed.
It's probably increased oversight and increased reliance on government contracts, which encourages underbidding and over-promising projects. I'd put my money on the latter playing a larger role.
|
The thing I keep looking out for is any new information about China's anti-ship ballistic missiles.
If they can get those to work, they push the surface navy waaaaay back.
|
On February 25 2014 09:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 09:05 xDaunt wrote:On February 25 2014 08:55 Sub40APM wrote:
Has there ever been a modern military project that hasnt had massive cost overruns? Bradley, Osprey, F-35, Zumwalt, Crusader. They all seem to suck up a ton of money. I get the sense that projects were run fairly tightly and fairly well up until the 1980s. Just look at the development history of the SR-71 as an example. I'm not really sure what changed. It's probably increased oversight and increased reliance on government contracts, which encourages underbidding and over-promising projects. I'd put my money on the latter playing a larger role.
Privatization in action. Thank you Reagan.
|
On February 25 2014 09:52 RCMDVA wrote:
The thing I keep looking out for is any new information about China's anti-ship ballistic missiles.
If they can get those to work, they push the surface navy waaaaay back.
I was reading about that missiles the other day but it just left me wondering -- how is China going to keep the American nuclear forces from confusing a anti-ship missile with a nuke? Seems like its a huge risk to take. "Harro Americans, we are about to sink a carrier and kill thousands of your paper tiger running dog troops. Dont mistake this for nuclear war and nuke is in return though. This is just a regular ballistic missile not a nuclear one"
|
On February 25 2014 11:07 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On February 25 2014 09:52 RCMDVA wrote:
The thing I keep looking out for is any new information about China's anti-ship ballistic missiles.
If they can get those to work, they push the surface navy waaaaay back. I was reading about that missiles the other day but it just left me wondering -- how is China going to keep the American nuclear forces from confusing a anti-ship missile with a nuke? Seems like its a huge risk to take. "Harro Americans, we are about to sink a carrier and kill thousands of your paper tiger running dog troops. Dont mistake this for nuclear war and nuke is in return though. This is just a regular ballistic missile not a nuclear one"
Trajectory? Unless there firing them at ships inside the harbor it shouldn't be to hard to see the difference.
Plus the chance of them ever actually shooting each other is less then a billion to one.
|
You can't really tell the difference between 500lbs of tungsten coming in at Mach 15 or 500lbs of plutonium. (ballistic, going way way up into orbit and then coming down, not a cruise missile)
Basically. If they launch 20 of them at once...they are kinetic.
If they launch 1-2, they are probably nukes.
edit...ok I understand... you should be able to tell the target quickly. Missile going for a carrier instead of Los Angles. yeah. But you don't know the warhead.
|
Calling 1940 army size a pre-WW2 level seems somewhat disingenuous to me. America by the end of 1940 was already well along on growing it's army for the inevitable participation in a massive world war...
|
|
|
On February 22 2014 11:38 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2014 11:35 Roe wrote:On February 22 2014 11:29 Introvert wrote:
We have Joe Biden as VP. So whether we care or not, he's there. There isn't anything more stupid than that. There's Sarah Palin. So, there's easily something more stupid than that. Sarah Palin isn't a representative of the US to foreign dignitaries when meeting with them, she sets no policy, and you are not forced to listen to her. Besides, I legitimately think that Joe Biden is more of an idiot. (If we accept that Palin is an idiot at all) Show nested quote +In completely unrelated news: The partisan bickering is going into the next round! I want an excuse to post stupid Joe Biden clips.
What are the worst Biden clips? How does Paul Ryan fuck up a debate with Joe if he's as dumb as you say he is?
|
On February 25 2014 11:25 RCMDVA wrote:
You can't really tell the difference between 500lbs of tungsten coming in at Mach 15 or 500lbs of plutonium. (ballistic, going way way up into orbit and then coming down, not a cruise missile)
Basically. If they launch 20 of them at once...they are kinetic.
If they launch 1-2, they are probably nukes.
edit...ok I understand... you should be able to tell the target quickly. Missile going for a carrier instead of Los Angles. yeah. But you don't know the warhead.
Yeah, but if it is a nuke aimed at the middle of the ocean or a normal missile shouldn't really matter at that point of decision-making. Neither requires an immediate nuclear counterstrike. And if you are at the point where chinese missiles fire at american carriers, you are probably beyond the point of no return anyways.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
