Perpetual Defense Thread (Defense & non-commercial Space Nerds ITT)

[KD5MDK]

The problem is we have a tendency to want to have carriers in various locations, but it takes 3 carriers for one to be conducting operations I understand. So if we want say capability to cover East Asia, South Asia and anywhere else, that's 9. As far as the task force model, I don't think there are any better ideas at the moment.


Where is the Soap Box discussion of the South Korean warship sinking?
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6460FC20100507

 

[KD5MDK]

I'm waiting to hear that both Boeing and EADS have decided not to bid and it ends up going to a revamped L-1011.

 

[KD5MDK]

The thing is, I don't think many US ground forces would be useful in Korea unless there was plenty of time to actually ship heavy equipment. South Korea has plenty of Army. Certainly there's nothing wrong with having a US Armored Division around or two, but it would take a long time to get equipment in theatre. I don't know how much we have prepositioned there, but I'm sure it's not comparable to what we had in Germany. We'd have a lot more on contribute with air and naval power.

 

[KD5MDK]

I just saw this as an ad on FlyerTalk:
http://www.realamericantankers.com/

 

[KD5MDK]

It's particularly frustrating when Afghanistan is a place where many helicopters that have been sent over there have been shown to be wholly inadequate or at least problematic, such as the NH90 and the Canadian CH-146.

Anywhere I could read up on this?

 

[KD5MDK]

I caught a little bit of a show on the Military channel last night about the AC-130. Really all it made me think of was how much fun you could have with an AC-5.

 

[KD5MDK]

Can it carry my 203mm howitzer? 155mm is just so cute

 

[KD5MDK]

I think the US is concerned that it will find itself surprised and undermanned in a future conflict in an insufficiently anticipated theatre and need a battalion to go up against a division, so they want as much teeth on whatever that battalion will have as possible.

 

[KD5MDK]

I thought the point of loader Snuffy was that having a 4th guy around for field repairs and sentry duty was handy, so he might as well do something while riding along.

 

[KD5MDK]

RE: Sharing carriers.

If this goes through and everything is signed, I fully expect the Brits to rename their Carrier the HMS Nelson and the Frenchs to rename their Carrier the R Jeanne D'Arc

R William the Conqueror.

 

[KD5MDK]

Now I fully understand the desire for the Saudis to load up on jets, in the same way that I imagine they buy up Ferraris; They're the ultimate badass military gear. They're also useful for defending your airspace. Same with the talk of ballistic missile defense, since we know they're a bit wary of Iran. The interesting part of the deal, to me at least, is the helicopters. Particularly the Apache's and Little Birds.

I would imagine Apaches are pretty good at working the Persian Gulf. They'd be great at chasing down Boghammers and the like.

 

[KD5MDK]

Their ability to shell the Seoul metro region back to the stone age is a greater concern than an invasion.

I thought there was a site that analyzed Google Earth to determine that NK artillery generally can't reach central Seoul from over the border.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/sh ... %282009%29

 

[KD5MDK]

How good are the Chinese at ASW? Between the Taiwanese and Japanese SSKs and US SSNs, I'd think that's be the easiest way to take their carriers out.

 

[KD5MDK]

I didn't realize we were planning to own 2443 planes.

 

[KD5MDK]

Entertaining, although that doesn't meant it should have been.

The second engine for the JSF keeps coming up as a way to save defense money. I have to ask why we didn't make the source of the engine to be Lockheed's problem and they could pick whoever they wanted and sell us finished units, rather than the US funding all this.

 

[KD5MDK]

How the hell did we not already have standardized NATO pylons?

The obvious answer is: order enough spare parts stock from the manufacturer...

From the description of UK batch buying, the possible risk is that if you order what looks like sufficient stock and then start to run low, the lead time on a new purchase may be too long. On the other hand, I don't know if the US sticks to low rate constant production or if it just buys bigger batches.

 

[KD5MDK]

Well, his answer is still somewhat valid - buy enough munitions to meet your needs, instead of cheap out and hope you never need to use them.


EDIT:
I wonder if countries like the UK can just accept they're going to be dropping bombs on somebody every 5-10 years and prepare for it.
1982 - Falklands
1990 - Iraq
1993-95 - Bosnia
2001-2 - Afghanistan
2003-4 - Iraq
2011 - Libya

etc. Bombs will be dropped and need to be replaced.

 

[KD5MDK]

It does make me wonder. I understand the Paveway and JDAM designs are bolt on to existing bombs, so either their kits are incompatible with ours, they can't buy them fast enough, or they have a general shortage of dumb bombs. Which makes me wonder what they were planning to defeat the Russians with in 1989. (or have all those munitions expired by now?)

 

[KD5MDK]

The Euros haven't built a C-17/C-5/C-141 type, an SSGN type, a B-2 type or a CH-47 type. Sometimes the role is just too specialized for people who don't approach procurement as "You have an idea? I'll take 2"

 

[KD5MDK]

The Euros haven't built a C-17/C-5/C-141 type, an SSGN type, a B-2 type or a CH-47 type. Sometimes the role is just too specialized for people who don't approach procurement as "You have an idea? I'll take 2"

Uh, the Russians have the Il-76 (somewhat smaller than C-17) and the An-124 (bigger than C-5). Russians have also been building SSGNs since the 60s. They've played with tandem rotor helicopters (Yak-24), but eventually discarded them, and Mi-26 can (and has been shown to) lift a CH-47.

I wasn't counting Russia as part of the European defense industry. I think they're still doing their own thing.

The UK buying CH-47s instead of developing their own reinforces my point. Some things are just too expensive to duplicate for a niche need.

France still has the Triomphant class SSBNs, btw. But they are not SSGNs.

 

[KD5MDK]

Again, is this man hours or calendar hours? To me, man hours sounds relatively reasonable.

 

[KD5MDK]

Air bases in the region you're certain won't be taken away seems more useful, and aircraft to put in them. But a carrier means never having to ask permission.

 

[KD5MDK]

So you're planning on buying about 6 of the new planes?

 

[KD5MDK]

Swiss fighter jets are flown by the army? Or do you perhaps mean Military in general?

 

[KD5MDK]

It's the skis.

 

[KD5MDK]

It seems like the one problem I can see with unmanned aircraft is that stealthy will get difficult if you need to broadcast and uplink and downlink all the time. I'm sure "just aim up, hit the Sat" will work somewhat, but when you combine an enemy who has some EW skill and it sounds like something that could take some dealing with.

 

[KD5MDK]

How much easier is it to suppress MANPADS than RPGs? I mean, aren't they reasonably easy to aim from moderate cover?

 

[KD5MDK]

What else would you do out there besides drive around and shoot things?

 

[KD5MDK]

Hookers and blow?

I'm not proposing they spend all their time training, but in a world where lots of kinds of work are probably below the dignity of Saudis (witness the massive numbers of foreign laborers), shooting things/military service is 100% tradition approved.

 

[KD5MDK]

Think of how quickly we went through the F-86, F-84, F-4, F-100, F-101, F-102, F-105... etc. It used to be somebody thought of a plane role, several different models were built to try and fill it. Now we try to do everything with one design, rather than build a compromised one and make a new design to replace it after 5 years.

 

[KD5MDK]

Canon offer the valuable feature of being able to shoot semi-affordably without needing to hit something.

 

[KD5MDK]

If this was a novel, the F-35 would have been leaked to the Chinese so that they would try to copy it.

 

[KD5MDK]

Take a look at the AR21 - pretty basic project. Take a DC9 fuselage that you were already building under license. Add modern off the shelf engines and avionics. It's like 8+ years behind schedule. Planned entry into service in 2005, but is still not certified.

 

[KD5MDK]

If they're both vulnerable to a single failure cause (EMP) then the redundancy isn't very important is it?

EDIT: For the purpose of calculating resistance to EMP.

 

[KD5MDK]

Where do you count the T-34 or M4 in that ranking?

 

[KD5MDK]

How many countries could afford it where we weren't paying for it for them?

 

[KD5MDK]

Almost all combat over the past decade has involved infantry, machine-gun teams, AT teams, and light vehicles.

Are we counting the actual invasion of Iraq in this?

 

[KD5MDK]

Didn't the Sheridan have terrible problems when it fired its gun?

How about an up-armored Ontos

 

[KD5MDK]

I was thinking of the recoil.

 

[KD5MDK]

Surely the CF-35D Cargo Lightning will be an even more difficult conversion.