| Author |
Topic:
The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
5/12 4:05pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Alpha-Red posted:
Mmm yeah, but wasn't U.S. naval doctrine in the Cold War centered around preventing SSBN's from getting into range of inland targets? If that's the case the carriers don't have to go anywhere near land and they'd still be useful for maintaining naval superiority over large swaths of ocean.
No, US naval strategy for surface forces in the Cold War was keeping the sea lanes of communication between the USA and Europe open so convoys could get across; basically a replay of WW2 in the Atlantic, just between convoys, submarines, and supersonic bombers.
It's not the tactics I'm referring too; it's the amount of damage an aircraft carrier can take-or frankly, any US Navy ship. Look at the Cole for reference-I'm not sure how much explosive was aboard the speedboat that hit it, but it wasn't sunk. And a destroyer is what, a few thousand tons at best? An aircraft carrier of the Nimitz variety weighs in at 97,000. You'd need a nuke aboard your speedboat to be guaranteed to sink that.
-----signature-----
Upstate NY: First-World Country,
Third-World Infrastructure.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
6/13 9:42pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Due to an accelerated schedule of successful testing, The US Air Force has announced that a new targeting system for the B1B Lancer bomber is going to be ready at the end of the summer.
The "Sniper" long range target system uses a diode-pumped laser/infrared system along with a CCD camera that allows the Lancer to attack targets from up to 40,000ft altitude. (That's 7 miles up in the air)
Although the exact specification hasn't been revealed, the system has the capability to target a postage stamp from that distance, and more importantly, based on lessons learned from Afghanistan and Iraq, the system feeds real time information to the controller who can then make friend or foe identification.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
6/13 9:55pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Oh yeah, also announced by the Polish Ministry of Defense this week is that Poland has started installing a coastal missile defense system along its Northern Baltic coast- in order to address concerns of a hypothetical Russian amphibious assault. The Polish system is comprised of a fixed series of emplacements and ground to sea anti-ship missile batteries. I wonder if the Polish MOD is aware of circumstances heating up with its neighbor to the East?
Along with the above defense system, Poland also entered into a mutual defense treaty with France, making the US and France Poland's main defense partners.
With all of the attention being paid to the Middle East and Iran, and such it would be interesting to have WWIII slip by and start in the Baltic region instead.....
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
6/16 9:21am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
With Russia acting towards its neighbors the way it does, I'm not surprised at all.
Hopefully we'll be out of Iraq by the time things get to the boiling point between Russia and it's former slave states-I mean, satellite countries :P
-----signature-----
Upstate NY: First-World Country,
Third-World Infrastructure.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
6/16 12:32pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
The actual discussion unfolded in the election thread, but if anyone happens to see it at a newsstand, the current issue of "Military History" details the massive tank battle that occurred between Israel and Syria back in 1973.
At one point 40 Israeli tanks (which were nothing but surplus Allied tanks from WWII ) outgunned 500 Syrian tanks that were supplied by the Soviet Union. (T-55 and T-62 models) The Syrian tanks were front line Soviet issue, but were plagued by poor quality, lack of training, and inefficient design. To the East, the IDF had a force of 15 armored vehicles, and still achieved a 17 to 1 kill ratio (destroying 260 Syrian tanks)
The one example that the Soviets supplied to the Syrians that changed the face of armored warfare was the Sagger anti-tank missile, but they couldn't be fielded in enough numbers to change the outcome.
The previous discussion didn't have anything to do with the 1973 battle itself, but its another example of how Soviet technology fares in actual combat.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
6/16 2:56pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
- Date Edited:
6/16 3:11pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
DarthBoba
|
You're talking about the battle between the Israeli Barak and 7th Brigades vs. the Syrians during the Yom Kippur war, right?
Superior training and a definite terrain advantage is why the 7th destroyed the Syrians that fell on them, is my understanding of it.
Argh. Got the units mixed up. Fixed.
-----signature-----
Upstate NY: First-World Country,
Third-World Infrastructure.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
6/16 8:43pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Yes to both. The issue was that the Syrians couldn't use their own equipment to develop their own advantages, or even to counter the ones developed by the IDF. For example, the Israelis had the "high ground," which isn't an uncommon situation in any battle (and of course, is familiar to SW fans)
As an example, what the Soviets didn't tell the Syrians, that in order to save weight, the newer T-62 tank actually had thinner top armor than the older T-55 model. A basic, lower velocity gun was able to penetrate the thin armor on top, which was frequently exploited from the high ground. Equipment limitations like that can be found on just about every model from the T-55, 62, 64 and 72.
The mismatch forces of the IDF were able to capitalize on every advantage they could, while the reverse wasn't true.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
SWBob
Registered:
Jun '03
|
Date Posted:
6/17 1:15am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Since you are talking about warfare, i figure this is the best place to ask this.
I was watching one of those discovery/history/military channel programs and it metion either a 1/4 million rounds/min weapon or a 1/2 million round/min weapon. I couldnt remember the name of it. Have you heard anything of the sort?
-----signature-----
"There will be pages. Lots and lots of pages. Most of them will have letters on them,
and a vast majority of those letters will be in the Roman alphabet"
-Aaron Allston
Minister of Internal Affairs and CoW Senator
Sith Governer of the NJO Fan Club
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
6/17 8:23am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Yeah, it's called Metal Storm. Nobody uses it to tbe best of my knowledge, at least not yet-it's more of an experimental device that might get scaled up in the future for things like anti-aircraft or anti-missile defense; it basically puts a cloud of bullets in front of the target.
To 44: Yeah, I went and read the entire wiki article on the 73 war last night. Interesting reading; apparently, Kissinger & Haig stood in for Nixon when talks about what to do with the Soviets were going on.
-----signature-----
Upstate NY: First-World Country,
Third-World Infrastructure.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
6/17 12:45pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
MetalStorm, that's a standard small arms weapon, right? I think no one uses the MetalStorm because it uses a unique bullet that isn't interchangeable with any other.
Bob, you also could be referring to the US Navy's AHEAD defense cannon, which is a 20mm gatling type weapon. It fires 1,000 rounds a minute, but each individual projectile releases 152 smaller pellets out in a cone, for a total of 152,000 subprojectiles. (or 2500 per second)
I guess the phrase "wall of lead" takes on a new meaning.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
DarthBoba
Registered:
Jun '00
|
Date Posted:
6/17 2:48pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
|
I'm pretty sure the million/second rate of fire makes what he's asking about Metal Storm. I haven't heard of anything else with a rate of fire like that.
-----signature-----
Upstate NY: First-World Country,
Third-World Infrastructure.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
7/10 12:14pm
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
For those who have been following the USAF tanker issue, the former bid process has been invalidated, and Robert Gates has authorized a new round of competition to begin with a goal of concluding by the end of the year.
For a recap, the US Air Force has been looking at replacing its entire fleet of in-flight refueling tankers. The bid came down to Boeing and Airbus/Northrop Grumman. The initial phase of the contract is worth up to 40 billion dollars, with a total worth of around $100 billion.
Early this year, the contract was awarded to Airbus/Northrop Grumman. Overall, the EADS refueler was a superior plane, but the main disadvantage that wasn't factored in was that the EADS refueler didn't fit into existing AF hangars, and couldn't use a number of older runways.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Jabbadabbado
Title: Senate Floor Moderator
Registered:
Mar '99
|
Date Posted:
7/11 6:48am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
- Date Edited:
7/11 6:49am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Jabbadabbado
|
|
Someone is going to make a mint writing the book of the tanker story in its entirety. If written properly, it would be very, very publishable. It could also be one of the more interesting books about the "military industrial complex" in a generation. Given your writing ability, your interest in military technology, your knowledge of the military and your proximity to Boeing headquarters, I nominate you, 44, to write it. PM me if you need a research assistant.
-----signature-----
Malthusian Doomsday Quack
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
JediSmuggler
Registered:
Jun '99
|
Date Posted:
7/11 9:08am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Mr44 posted:
For those who have been following the USAF tanker issue, the former bid process has been invalidated, and Robert Gates has authorized a new round of competition to begin with a goal of concluding by the end of the year.
For a recap, the US Air Force has been looking at replacing its entire fleet of in-flight refueling tankers. The bid came down to Boeing and Airbus/Northrop Grumman. The initial phase of the contract is worth up to 40 billion dollars, with a total worth of around $100 billion.
Early this year, the contract was awarded to Airbus/Northrop Grumman. Overall, the EADS refueler was a superior plane, but the main disadvantage that wasn't factored in was that the EADS refueler didn't fit into existing AF hangars, and couldn't use a number of older runways.
The problem is that there are two tankers so close to each other overall that even the slightest tweak in the specifications can tilt a competition one way or the other.
Any protest is likely to be upheld.
The DOD needs to buy both tankers.
-----signature-----
JediSmuggler/RogueJai collaboration: Shades of the Force
http://boards.theforce.net/message.asp?topic=1349946
--
Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood?
All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Mr44
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
7/11 10:54am
Subject:
RE: The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology
|
Given your writing ability, your interest in military technology, your knowledge of the military and your proximity to Boeing headquarters, I nominate you, 44, to write it. PM me if you need a research assistant.
I would have but, for some reason, Random House turned down my 1 million dollar advancement demand and request that they include M&M's-only the green ones mind you- with every piece of correspondence.
It is a fascinating story though, isn't it?
The problem is that there are two tankers so close to each other overall that even the slightest tweak in the specifications can tilt a competition one way or the other.
Any protest is likely to be upheld.
The DOD needs to buy both tankers.
From what I understand, it's actually quite rare to get a bid-award overturned.
Both are fine planes, but the top areas that the GAO mentioned as being the reasons that the bid was overturned were:
1)Airbus didn't demonstrate that the KC-45 was compatible with all US aircraft, a fact which wasn't included in their final cost analysis. The Airbus plane is used in limited numbers by Australia and the UK, and it appears that some specific performance tests were simply carried over. Now, it probably wouldn't be an issue, but it would suck if the US spent 30 billion dollars and then found out that the new refueler can't refuel the A-10 attack jet...
2)Not including what the GAO cited as "unreasonable construction costs" that would be required to use the Airbus jet. Since the Airbus plane is larger- new hangars and some runways would have to be built. This extra cost wasn't included at all in the bid.
3)There was no mention of allowing both companies to exceed the requirements of the contract. This seems to be the primary reason why the contract was overturned.
Basically, Boeing stayed within the specifications listed in the proposal, which is why they submitted the 767. Airbus submitted the A330, which outperformed the Boeing jet in just about every regard, except the A330 was larger and heavier than what was specified in the contract. In the protest, Boeing mentioned that if they knew that they were able to exceed the perimeters themselves, they would have submitted the 777.
All of these reasons are valid ones, and I think it's a good decision. I haven't seen any information in this regard, but I still have the feeling that there was some sort of behind the scenes diplomatic deal between the US and France that had the Airbus plane selected, in return for something else.
-----signature-----
Don’t confuse enthusiasm with capability.
..............................................................
Peter Shoomaker
|
|
|
Quote Reply |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
