Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
It should be noted that a great deal of the US military is in a similar situation today. I can't think of a single weapons system in service today that was not in service fifteen years ago, and only a handful that are younger than 20-25 years.Stormbringer wrote:DIVAD and Patriot Missle: As Seaskimmer noted, necessarily to replace frighteningly dated equipment.
And recently he's said that he doesn't have to listen to criticism of his defense voting record because he went to Vietnam. If Edwards doesn't win the primary I'm definitly voting third party.Stormbringer wrote:Heaven for-fucking-bid some one call into question a SENATOR's voting record, particularly with national defense being such an issue. This isn't bring up a photo from thirty years ago nor is it dragging his personal life into it. This is asking about his stance on issues!Montcalm wrote:The Republicans will dig up everything to win the 2004 election.
What's next blaming the Republicans for challenging him to a debate?
The S-300 and S-400 variants are better systems in all performance parameters. It comes from knowing that the majority of the Red Air Force is probably going to get cleared from the skies in the first hours/days of WW3- Soviet air defenses have almost always been more comprehensive and formidable (1950s probably not, just to fight off phongn and skimmer coming in whoring Nike Hercules or some such archaic system that they pine forStormbringer wrote:
The PATRIOT is still a hell of a missle, it's not perfect but I doubt there's a SAM that is better.
).Here, I believe is where 'pro-American' people would cite the 'invisible parameters' - you know, electronics and stuff.Vympel wrote:The S-300 and S-400 variants are better systems in all performance parameters. It comes from knowing that the majority of the Red Air Force is probably going to get cleared from the skies in the first hours/days of WW3- Soviet air defenses have almost always been more comprehensive and formidable (1950s probably not, just to fight off phongn and skimmer coming in whoring Nike Hercules or some such archaic system that they pine for
You sure? You really want to be in your F-14, fighting off a massed attack by 50+ Mach 3+ Kh-22 missiles (a favorite Cold War scenario) with a SARH Sparrow that requires continuous radar illumination? Or are there killer problems with Phoenix I should learn about?Phoenix: agree
Sparrow: disagree
That's the cliche; however in terms of PAC-3 it seems a case of making things more likely to break if anything.Kazuaki Shimazaki wrote:
Here, I believe is where 'pro-American' people would cite the 'invisible parameters' - you know, electronics and stuff.
Well, the problem with that is it wasn't going to happen; the Tu-22M3s were tasked with nuclear strikes on land based targets with nuclear armed Kh-22s- the Tu-22M3 threat to CVNs was always vastly overstated. AIM-7 Sparrows combined with an AIM-120 upgrade later on the line would be adequate.You sure? You really want to be in your F-14, fighting off a massed attack by 50+ Mach 3+ Kh-22 missiles (a favorite Cold War scenario) with a SARH Sparrow that requires continuous radar illumination? Or are there killer problems with Phoenix I should learn about?
but the F-14A+ was definately worth the money and it must have been the precursor to the newly built D since it was basically just a reengined A (finally getting the engines the aircraft should have had from day one). In hindsite even those probably worn't worth it since the Navy decided to go with the Hornet.Which is it Vympel, are pilots worth saving or not? Sure as hell the TF-30s killed more F-14 crews than enemy action ever did.Vympel wrote: AV-8B: oh right, because we all know what a huge contribution this aircraft has made to the arsenal of the US- how many Marines have died in this thing again?
...
F-14D: agree, the F-14A was adequate
PVO had the advantage of not having their government screw over US air-defense as well; things may have gone much differently if Nixon and not Kennedy was elected in 1960. SAM-D was intended to replace Nike Hercules but was never deployed in that fashion.Vympel wrote:The S-300 and S-400 variants are better systems in all performance parameters. It comes from knowing that the majority of the Red Air Force is probably going to get cleared from the skies in the first hours/days of WW3- Soviet air defenses have almost always been more comprehensive and formidable (1950s probably not, just to fight off phongn and skimmer coming in whoring Nike Hercules or some such archaic system that they pine for
MX was intended to be more survivable and could cold-launch, so in any nuclear war you could reuse the silos. Minuteman was adequate, but MX was so much better, and gave the USSR fits to bootMX missile: aka Peacekeeper. A waste of taxpayers money. Minuteman III was and still is adequate.
Well, for the proposed "destroy the USSR mission" the BUFF was getting dangerously old and less survivable for that mission, even with them using SRAMs on PVO and launching ALCMs. SAC had expected a replacement for them in the 1960s.B1 bomber: well-known as nothing but a glorified jobs program and an aircraft that still doesn't work as it was originally designed. A completely unecessary addition to the bomber force. The B-52 can do everything worth doing, and for much cheaper. It's expensive and it's crap compared to its ageing ancestor. Period.
It worked, but IIRC, politics killed it.Anti-satellite system: we know what became of this.
Probably, though AFAIK it was more a bluff against the USSR (mirror-imaging works both ways!) than a deployable system.Star Wars: another good call
But a whole 50%?Tomahawk: I disagree with this one, but he was voting for a reduction only.
Well, at the time was DIVADS such a disaster? I can't recall when the programme was finally killed.DIVADS: fucking LOL. Which idiot would pull this out as somethign to use against Kerry? 20 years after the Soviets produce the ZSU-23, America comes out with DIVADS and manages to fuck up such a simple concept so completely it gets canned.
Wait, how bad was the original Patriot at its air-defense role? As deployed, it would have been used to attrit Frontal Aviation and maybe cruise missiles, not try and shoot down TABMs. There probably would have been blue-on-blue problems, but that's an issue for every air-defense system ever built.Patriot: it performed like shit in the Gulf War (admittedly against targets it wasn't designed to go against, but that didn't stop them from lying about it) and PAC-3 is killing friendly pilots and is fraught with bugs. Only worthwhile air defense system the US has or no, this system is a poor performer and an embarassment; and is one of the more recent examples of problems endemic in US military procurement practice.
IIRC, they were hulls that could readily be used for SAGs and thus were reactivated. As TLAM-N shooters they represented a major threat to the USSR; they would have had to hunt down not only the carriers but the BB groups.Battleships: who the fuck would be crazy enough to waste money on such a transparent, colossal waste of taxpayer money and navy resources?
As opposed to giving them no organic air support off the Gator carriers? How many soldiers have died in UH-60 crashes?AV-8B: oh right, because we all know what a huge contribution this aircraft has made to the arsenal of the US- how many Marines have died in this thing again?
Not with TF30s and their 1970s AWG-9 was getting a bit old.F-14D: agree, the F-14A was adequate
Against the perceived Soviet threat, it wouldn't seem like a good idea; in hindsight it was the correct decision.Phoenix: agree
WTF? The USSR was certainly doomed economically, but Reagan's massive spending programs accelerated the Soviet Union's downfall when they attempted to match it with a much smaller GDP and inferior technical base to work with.I also think that Kerry wasn't too far off in pointing out that the Soviet threat was vastly overestimated. Not to mention that the US 'spending' the USSR to death is nothing but GOP bullshit unsupported by historical fact, and more related to fellatio about that moronic flake the Gipper. (expects rabid flames from Reagan fanboys, doesn't give a shit, the man was a complete moron).
The Patriot has never, ever been used in it's intended role and PAC-3 is an attempt to turn it into something it wasn't supposed to be: an anti TBM missile. Besides, why not lye about it? Given public ignorance of military matters, do you think people are just going to accept the explanation "well, it wasn't doing it's intended job anyway, so it shouldn't have been expected to perform too well"Vympel wrote:Patriot: it performed like shit in the Gulf War (admittedly against targets it wasn't designed to go against, but that didn't stop them from lying about it) and PAC-3 is killing friendly pilots and is fraught with bugs. Only worthwhile air defense system the US has or no, this system is a poor performer and an embarassment; and is one of the more recent examples of problems endemic in US military procurement practice.
. Patriot would have been more than adequate against Soviet frontal avation units...
Because the guns are much shorter range than Tomahawk missiles and they're oil fired and decidedly not fuel efficient. That's the reasoning, anyway. They excel at shore bombardments and they'd be the most heavily armored thing on the water if reactivated. They didn't want them for ship to ship combat. Nothing quite ruins a shore emplacement's day quite like a broadside of 16 inch shells.BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Vympel, not being a military expect, I have to ask: why is reactivating 4 Battleships a waste of military reasources and money? It certainly did not seem to cost much to rennovate them, at least in comparison to the cost of a Carrier.
I recall the effect during Vietnam (I think it was the New Jersey): The 16in shells were so effective at defoliation that one could clear an effective helicopter LZ. The guns also reaped a huge number of NVA casualties. In fact, the New Jersey was one ship North Vietnam demanded the US remove from the theater before the Paris peace talks could begin, even though the USN also had 4 carriers there as well.Rogue 9 wrote:Because the guns are much shorter range than Tomahawk missiles and they're oil fired and decidedly not fuel efficient. That's the reasoning, anyway. They excel at shore bombardments and they'd be the most heavily armored thing on the water if reactivated. They didn't want them for ship to ship combat. Nothing quite ruins a shore emplacement's day quite like a broadside of 16 inch shells.BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:Vympel, not being a military expect, I have to ask: why is reactivating 4 Battleships a waste of military reasources and money? It certainly did not seem to cost much to rennovate them, at least in comparison to the cost of a Carrier.
Umm, yes. Why do you think every modern army still uses land-based artillery? Cruise missiles are not a good choice for sustaned bombardment, due to their low speed (compared to shells), low rate of fire, and high cost. They should only be used against specific, high value targets behind enemy lines.Lazy Raptor wrote:On the shore bombardments: Are ballistics good enough to keep using in the cruise missile age?
The uber-battleship of doom that so many techno-wankers favor is an idle fantasy, but shore bombardment is still viable with conventional munitions.Lazy Raptor wrote:On the shore bombardments: Are ballistics good enough to keep using in the cruise missile age? The only thing I can think of is that they can't be intercepted by anything short of a laser. Is their really a need for it? Or is that tripple-hulled, railgun equiped nuclear battleship just an idle fantasy?
If it's in range of their guns, yes definitely. A 2700 ton shell is actually a better choice than a cruise missle: bigger warhead and all. In a situation like Vietnam or WW2 they would be fairly useful. Look at New Jersey's war record from Vietnam; the Vietnamese hated her because if it was in range, it would die.Lazy Raptor wrote:On the shore bombardments: Are ballistics good enough to keep using in the cruise missile age? The only thing I can think of is that they can't be intercepted by anything short of a laser. Is their really a need for it?
Idle fantasy, and a pretty dumb one. The EMP from a railgun is going to mean you can only use inert slugs (as opposed to fun stuff like HE) and nuclear power for a ship meant to get hit is likewise a nightmare.Lazy Raptor wrote:Or is that tripple-hulled, railgun equiped nuclear battleship just an idle fantasy?
Well, yes and no. They're more expensive. They deliver more punch in a shorter time, but the battleship can project power for longer and is better for destroying coastal defenses and such requiring a mixture of pinpoint strikes and all out carnage.Lazy Raptor wrote:For the "leveling of everything" strikes aren't bombers better?
It depends on who you talk to. Certainly many of the Iowa's functions can now be handled by smaller ships, but a lot of people still think an Iowa or two is an economically prudent way to spend defense dollars. I happen to disagree, but that's just me.Is shore bombardment sufficient reason to maintain an Iowa?
That depends on a number of variables: the bomber, the air defenses, and the local basing situation. Generally you need to have all of those being favorable in order for a bomber to be the safest, most expendient solution. Tight air defenses and long flights/quick sortie turn around quickly diminish the usefulness of a bombers.For the "leveling of everything" strikes aren't bombers better?
Not with the current budget and likely target nation. They would be useful but the Navy could spend the money in better places.Is shore bombardment sufficient reason to maintain an Iowa?
Would this be before or after the DPRK nukes Tokyo and Seoul and turns a lot of US soldiers to vapour?Rogue 9 wrote:The likely target nations I see are Iran, Syria, and possibly North Korea if that gets really out of hand. Shore bombardment would do wonders for Korea, be of some help in Iran, and be almost useless in Syria because it doesn't exactly have a shitload of fortified shoreline. So, which target nation are we talking about here?
