Russia and India work together on a new fighter. I hadn't heard of this before; was kind of surprised as I thought India was moving away from Russia.
Quote
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/08/17/new-fighter-jet-to-bolster-russian-air-force/?hpt=hp_c2
New fighter jet to bolster Russian air force
Russia's new stealth fighter jet made its public debut Tuesday, according to state-run news source RIA Novosti.
The Sukhoi T-50, developed collaboratively by Russia and India, appeared at the MAKS 2011 air show in Zhukovsky, outside Moscow.
Gen. Alexander Zelin, head of the Russian air force, told RIA Novosti he expects the T-50 prototype to be ready in 2013, with "mass-produced aircraft" arriving in 2014 or 2015.
The aircraft is expected to become a staple of airborne defense for both Russia and India, Mikhail Pogosyan, head of Russia's United Aircraft Corp., told RIA Novosti.
"The T-50 will be the newest main plane both for the Russian and the Indian air force," Pogosyan said.
The article from the state-run media source says the Sukhoi T-50 cost the two governments about $6 billion to develop, with India shouldering about 35% of the cost. It is intended to match the U.S. F-22 raptor.
Really, $6 billion? That wouldn't develop the tire on the landing gear of the F-22. :rolleyes:
Just when the Americans have basically realized that the F-22 is a massive piece of overkill capability wise, the Russians go out of their way to make it relevant.
The Russians can't make anything relevant. We've beaten them already solely by dint of providing food to our servicepeople.
Seeing how India might just be the only one of China's enemies left, maybe Taiwan should join in.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 12:48:16 PM
Just when the Americans have basically realized that the F-22 is a massive piece of overkill capability wise, the Russians go out of their way to make it relevant.
I was under the impression that the F-35 was a better plane overall, because of it's versatility compared to the F-22?
EDIT: ah, it's better than the F-16 as A2A, the F-22 is king of A2A but lacks payload for ground attacks.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 17, 2011, 02:40:28 PM
Seeing how India might just be the only one of China's enemies left, maybe Taiwan should join in.
I find it a little bizarre that those two giant countries have so much bad blood about such tiny and worthless border disputes.
Quote from: viper37 on August 17, 2011, 02:58:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 12:48:16 PM
Just when the Americans have basically realized that the F-22 is a massive piece of overkill capability wise, the Russians go out of their way to make it relevant.
I was under the impression that the F-35 was a better plane overall, because of it's versatility compared to the F-22?
I am under the impression that the F-35 was the better multi-role plane, but the F-22 was the better air superiority fighter. I am also under the impression that the F-35 is a better or as good a air superiority fighter than any expected rival for the next generation or two.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 03:03:41 PM
I am under the impression that the F-35 was the better multi-role plane, but the F-22 was the better air superiority fighter. I am also under the impression that the F-35 is a better or as good a air superiority fighter than any expected rival for the next generation or two.
Yes, I got my info wrong, you are correct.
F-35 is supposed to be second only to the F-22 in air superiority.
It's because of the 3 variants of the F-35, I tought the one made for the Air Force was equivalent to the F-22, but it's not.
If it's a real plane the Russians will just make five or six for their forces then export a crap version to other countries. If it's just an existing plane with cosmetic changes then they adopt it wholeheartedly.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 17, 2011, 02:40:28 PM
Seeing how India might just be the only one of China's enemies left, maybe Taiwan should join in.
Where did Japan and Vietnam go?
I didn't know the Vietnamese built modern fighters. As for the Japanese, are they legally allowed to export military tech? And seeing how so much of their stuff is derived from US designs, aren't there restrictions on transfer?
Quote from: Iormlund on August 17, 2011, 06:03:34 PM
And seeing how so much of their stuff is derived from US designs, aren't there restrictions on transfer?
Doesn't stop the Israelis.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 17, 2011, 06:03:34 PM
I didn't know the Vietnamese built modern fighters.
I thought we were talking about enemies in general or neighbors who are potential enemies. Might as well throw in the Phillipines.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 17, 2011, 06:03:34 PM
I didn't know the Vietnamese built modern fighters.
Why wouldn't they be able to build components, and/or buy the aircraft? I didn't know the Vietnamese were allergic to modern fighters.
Quote from: citizen k on August 17, 2011, 06:54:33 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 17, 2011, 06:03:34 PM
And seeing how so much of their stuff is derived from US designs, aren't there restrictions on transfer?
Doesn't stop the Israelis.
Shut your lying trap, bitch.
Quote from: KRonn on August 17, 2011, 12:30:03 PM
Russia and India work together on a new fighter. I hadn't heard of this before; was kind of surprised as I thought India was moving away from Russia.
Doesn't look too stealthy in that pic.
Also, why are we so cozy with India when they do these kind of deals with the russians?
Quote from: Siege on August 17, 2011, 08:41:37 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 17, 2011, 12:30:03 PM
Russia and India work together on a new fighter. I hadn't heard of this before; was kind of surprised as I thought India was moving away from Russia.
Doesn't look too stealthy in that pic.
Also, why are we so cozy with India when they do these kind of deals with the russians?
Stop supporting the People's Republic.
Quote from: Siege on August 17, 2011, 08:41:37 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 17, 2011, 12:30:03 PM
Russia and India work together on a new fighter. I hadn't heard of this before; was kind of surprised as I thought India was moving away from Russia.
Doesn't look too stealthy in that pic.
Also, why are we so cozy with India when they do these kind of deals with the russians?
Probably because you do these kinds of deals with Pakistan.
Quote from: PRC on August 17, 2011, 09:13:44 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 17, 2011, 08:41:37 PM
Quote from: KRonn on August 17, 2011, 12:30:03 PM
Russia and India work together on a new fighter. I hadn't heard of this before; was kind of surprised as I thought India was moving away from Russia.
Doesn't look too stealthy in that pic.
Also, why are we so cozy with India when they do these kind of deals with the russians?
Probably because you do these kinds of deals with Pakistan.
Wait that didn't make any sense...
If only we had a solid ally who would do these kinds of deals with us.
Quote from: Berkut on August 17, 2011, 09:17:57 PM
If only we had a solid ally who would do these kinds of deals with us.
:secret:
http://www.jsf.mil/program/prog_intl.htm
Quote(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsf.mil%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fflag_thumb_uk.gif&hash=f42ba6d9bb446577379807c4a8be9d1a8d6add4e): United Kingdom United Kingdom (signed 17 Jan 2001 for $2B)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsf.mil%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fflag_thumb_italy.gif&hash=951174bd03b3493db9a80a8600f009b3cffb93a0): Italy Italy (signed 24 Jun 2002 for $1B)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsf.mil%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fflag_thumb_netherlands.gif&hash=41c4a0a13d87b787b004c96ac4e659da5963cc76): Netherlands Netherlands (signed 17 Jun 2002 for $800M)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsf.mil%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fflag_thumb_turkey.gif&hash=36a8f44683388cb5600e7e59fa0c788ef85cb557): Turkey Turkey (signed 11 Jun 2002 for $175M)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsf.mil%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fflag_thumb_canada.gif&hash=945be95553580b063466ce54c979e6bc84d96f55): Canada Canada (signed 7 Feb 2002 for $150M)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsf.mil%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fflag_thumb_australia.gif&hash=cb1cc6caf3e701c8dac8e5e97438d2d6b90d4a7b): Australia Australia* (signed 31 Oct 2002 for $150M)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsf.mil%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fflag_thumb_denmark.gif&hash=704c4ed06164fe2cf290de0d94a570e7619300c4): Denmark Denmark (signed 28 May 2002 for $125M)
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsf.mil%2Fimages%2Fmisc%2Fflag_thumb_norway.gif&hash=9320ce50c31a70e8aa68433f1561b234dd4438c3): Norway Norway* (signed 20 Jun 2002 for $125M)
4,525 Billion dollars from your allies to pay for JSF development. These costs are in proportion to expected purchase of planes.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:26:01 PM
4,525 Billion dollars from your allies to pay for JSF development.
With firmware hacked by the PLA. Awesomeness.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 17, 2011, 05:16:20 PM
If it's a real plane the Russians will just make five or six for their forces then export a crap version to other countries. If it's just an existing plane with cosmetic changes then they adopt it wholeheartedly.
And if it's something that scares the shit out of us, we'll later find that it's a flying turd, a la MiG-25.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2011, 10:18:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:26:01 PM
4,525 Billion dollars from your allies to pay for JSF development.
With firmware hacked by the PLA. Awesomeness.
No, we pay you to develop a plane from us. Norway's technical contribution is an anti-ship missile designed specifically for the JSF.
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 10:28:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2011, 10:18:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:26:01 PM
4,525 Billion dollars from your allies to pay for JSF development.
With firmware hacked by the PLA. Awesomeness.
No, we pay you to develop a plane from us. Norway's technical contribution is an anti-ship missile designed specifically for the JSF.
You just want to use the JSF to hunt whales. :mad:
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 10:28:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2011, 10:18:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:26:01 PM
4,525 Billion dollars from your allies to pay for JSF development.
With firmware hacked by the PLA. Awesomeness.
No, we pay you to develop a plane from us. Norway's technical contribution is an anti-ship missile designed specifically for the JSF.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oceanfishequipment.com%2Famministrazione%2Fimmaginiup%2F600%2FART.113-114-arpioni-volanti.jpg&hash=fd45a0da5636574030fff5213c269e3b7fc5c211)
"While the effectiveness of the Harpoon II against warships is somewhat limited, the missile has been found to be extremely effective against marine mammals and Somali pirates in inflatable boats."
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2011, 08:09:07 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 10:28:23 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 17, 2011, 10:18:34 PM
Quote from: Viking on August 17, 2011, 09:26:01 PM
4,525 Billion dollars from your allies to pay for JSF development.
With firmware hacked by the PLA. Awesomeness.
No, we pay you to develop a plane from us. Norway's technical contribution is an anti-ship missile designed specifically for the JSF.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oceanfishequipment.com%2Famministrazione%2Fimmaginiup%2F600%2FART.113-114-arpioni-volanti.jpg&hash=fd45a0da5636574030fff5213c269e3b7fc5c211)
"While the effectiveness of the Harpoon II against warships is somewhat limited, the missile has been found to be extremely effective against marine mammals and Somali pirates in inflatable boats."
The Harpoon Block II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_%28missile%29) is a very good missile. Missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X) have always been good at killing Dreadnaughts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Roma_%281940%29). I suppose the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile) would be able to sink any refloated Dreadnaughts out there.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 09:12:31 AM
Naval Strike Missile (NSM)[/url] would be able to sink any refloated Dreadnaughts out there.
Nope. The response of a refloated dreadnought to being hit by an NSM would be to announce "sweepers, sweepers, man you brooms!" on the general announcing system.
Frag/blast warheads might shred some topside sheet metal, but dreadnoughts are armored and frag/blast warheads don't do armor.
Oh, and if you'd bother to read your cites, Fritz-X was a bomb, not a missile.
Quote from: grumbler on August 18, 2011, 11:15:02 AM
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 09:12:31 AM
Naval Strike Missile (NSM)[/url] would be able to sink any refloated Dreadnaughts out there.
Nope. The response of a refloated dreadnought to being hit by an NSM would be to announce "sweepers, sweepers, man you brooms!" on the general announcing system.
Frag/blast warheads might shred some topside sheet metal, but dreadnoughts are armored and frag/blast warheads don't do armor.
Oh, and if you'd bother to read your cites, Fritz-X was a bomb, not a missile.
Fritz-X was a bomb, not a rocket. A missile is anything that is thrown or launched. The Fritz-X was propelled by the Dornier's engines that launched it.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 11:43:05 AM
Fritz-X was a bomb, not a rocket. A missile is anything that is thrown or launched. The Fritz-X was propelled by the Dornier's engines that launched it.
In military terms (which we are using here) an unpowered bomb is not a missile, as your preferred source (Wikipedia) even notes:
QuoteThe designation of the Walleye as an "air-to-ground missile" is a misnomer, as it is an unpowered bomb with guide avionics, similar to the more modern GBU-15. The Walleye was superseded by the AGM-65 Maverick.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-62_Walleye
But, in any case, my point about dreadnoughts and frag/blast warheads still stands.
The NSM isn't able to defeat dreadnoughts.
Yeah, it's hard for missiles to find dreadnoughts before subs sink them.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 18, 2011, 04:46:17 PM
Yeah, it's hard for missiles to find dreadnoughts before subs sink them.
The biggest problem is that missiles and bombs don't really exist in the same time period as dreadnoughts. It's like saying that there never has been a case where a torpedo sank a Viking Longboat.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 04:57:24 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 18, 2011, 04:46:17 PM
Yeah, it's hard for missiles to find dreadnoughts before subs sink them.
The biggest problem is that missiles and bombs don't really exist in the same time period as dreadnoughts. It's like saying that there never has been a case where a torpedo sank a Viking Longboat.
The ASW package on Viking longships was ahead of its time.
Quote from: Iormlund on August 18, 2011, 04:46:17 PM
Yeah, it's hard for missiles to find dreadnoughts before subs sink them.
A submarine wouldn't stand a chance against a fully-armed and operational dreadnought.
Quote from: citizen k on August 18, 2011, 04:59:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 04:57:24 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 18, 2011, 04:46:17 PM
Yeah, it's hard for missiles to find dreadnoughts before subs sink them.
The biggest problem is that missiles and bombs don't really exist in the same time period as dreadnoughts. It's like saying that there never has been a case where a torpedo sank a Viking Longboat.
The ASW package on Viking longships was ahead of its time.
Our magnetic detonators are useless against the Viking menace. :(
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2011, 05:00:19 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 18, 2011, 04:46:17 PM
Yeah, it's hard for missiles to find dreadnoughts before subs sink them.
A submarine wouldn't stand a chance against a fully-armed and operational dreadnought.
:unsure:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternatehistory.com%2Fdiscussion%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D88499%26amp%3Bd%3D1260800493&hash=313f5aab5433e5c49539d959223224745394558c)
What is that?
Dreadnaught.
That's the most wasteful thing I've ever seen.
Is that a diesel sub with a BB battery there? :lol:
Looks like it would break in half if it went to sea. Did you take this from some Alt-history website?
Quote from: Iormlund on August 18, 2011, 06:50:34 PM
Is that a diesel sub with a BB battery there? :lol:
It looks to me like a USN 8" triple mount, which would be mounted on a heavy cruiser. It's possible that the battleship is using it as a sidecar for some reason.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 18, 2011, 05:57:35 PM
Quote from: citizen k on August 18, 2011, 04:59:55 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 04:57:24 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on August 18, 2011, 04:46:17 PM
Yeah, it's hard for missiles to find dreadnoughts before subs sink them.
The biggest problem is that missiles and bombs don't really exist in the same time period as dreadnoughts. It's like saying that there never has been a case where a torpedo sank a Viking Longboat.
The ASW package on Viking longships was ahead of its time.
Our magnetic detonators are useless against the Viking menace. :(
Needs more proximity fuses.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alternatehistory.com%2Fdiscussion%2Fattachment.php%3Fattachmentid%3D88500%26amp%3Bstc%3D1%26amp%3Bd%3D1260800640&hash=d6addacedc9d0764758a03ae47a14fa388a47734)
"Constructionbegan in 1936, during rearmament, and was a combined effort of German and Japanese collaboration. Germany has the better version of the ship (designed specifically to kill ships) while the Japanese use it for Shore Bombardment and has a secondary role as Flagship/Carrier Defense.
its also a coal burner. while the 1955 refit is a n/reactor.
Also, its from a TL where Hitler was less of an Anti-Semite, and more "Anti British Navy"
and the POD is in like 1350 AD. gun technology is stifled until around 1720, but there it explodes up to 1775 levels by... 1775...
and yes, it does float. every 20 meters of Hull is a completely self-contained unit sealed off by bulkheads that are capable of staying afloat independently. they are all held together by high-strength riveting, welding, and every other type of metal joining there possibly could be holding the damn thing together. "
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 06:53:35 PM
Looks like it would break in half if it went to sea. Did you take this from some Alt-history website?
I think it would capsize before it broke in half. There are a lot of superimposed and turrets up there, which means tall barbettes and heavy armour. The armour belt is much too long because of the laughable turret placement, and the belt seems awfully low above the waterline. The casemates are useless, and the exposed turret on the back is practically a self-destruct button.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fdb%2FAnimated_gun_turret.gif&hash=c86a686be009ad7aa35b43fe5e111128622193c8)
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2011, 07:01:40 PM
every 20 meters of Hull is a completely self-contained unit sealed off by bulkheads that are capable of staying afloat independently. they are all held together by high-strength riveting, welding, and every other type of metal joining there possibly could be holding the damn thing together. "
So the parts
could float independently, but would be dragged down because they are "all held together by high-strength riveting, welding, and every other type of metal joining there possibly could be holding the damn thing together?" Sounds like a Polish design. Does it have screen doors on the bottom, to see where it is going? That would be the giveaway.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F0%2F0b%2FIowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg%2F800px-Iowa_16_inch_Gun-EN.svg.png&hash=ac656bc96ace3008e4ccc575ba61946eb12b596f)
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2011, 07:01:40 PM
and yes, it does float. every 20 meters of Hull is a completely self-contained unit sealed off by bulkheads that are capable of staying afloat independently. they are all held together by high-strength riveting, welding, and every other type of metal joining there possibly could be holding the damn thing together. "
Do you have any idea how much something like that would weigh?
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2011, 07:01:40 PM
"Constructionbegan in 1936, during rearmament, and was a combined effort of German and Japanese collaboration. Germany has the better version of the ship (designed specifically to kill ships) while the Japanese use it for Shore Bombardment and has a secondary role as Flagship/Carrier Defense.
its also a coal burner. while the 1955 refit is a n/reactor.
Also, its from a TL where Hitler was less of an Anti-Semite, and more "Anti British Navy"
and the POD is in like 1350 AD. gun technology is stifled until around 1720, but there it explodes up to 1775 levels by... 1775...
and yes, it does float. every 20 meters of Hull is a completely self-contained unit sealed off by bulkheads that are capable of staying afloat independently. they are all held together by high-strength riveting, welding, and every other type of metal joining there possibly could be holding the damn thing together. "
This did not make me think of it as any less stupid. This would be stupid even for Tim. I'm trying to figure out how a retardation of gun technology leads to a less anti-Semitic Hitler who wants to build a ship destined to fail. I'm not a navy guy like Grumbler, or a Dreadnought expert like Neil, but even I can see that this ship is doomed to failure.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc00.deviantart.net%2Ffs50%2Ff%2F2009%2F308%2F3%2Ff%2FCVX_100_USS_America_by_bagera3005.png&hash=5c856d2fd328e50ef4caf7c85a82f0640aed2ac0)
CVX-100 USS America
Super carrier
Keel Laid: June 22, 2024
Launched: July 4, 2030
Commissioned: July 4, 2030
Propulsion system: four nuclear fusion power plants
Main Engines: 8
Speed: 34+ Knots
Propellers: 0
Caterpillar Drive: 6
Blades on each Propeller:0
Aircraft elevators: 20
Catapults: 8
Arresting gear cables: 8
Overall length: 3,092 feet
Overall width:650 feet
Beam at waterline: 150 feet
Area of flight deck: About 12.0 acres
Full load displacement: About 10.000 tons
Accommodations: About 12,000 persons
Oh for fuck's sake, why would you build that when you could just build three and it would be simpler and actually conceivably seaworthy?
That's the not the USS America. There was a USS America super carrier but it's been out of service for decades.
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2011, 07:26:46 PM
Full load displacement: About 10.000 tons
It's really, really light.
What the fuck.
That thing draws 50 metres. Is there a harbour in the world that it could dock at?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 07:33:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2011, 07:26:46 PM
Full load displacement: About 10.000 tons
It's really, really light.
In an effort to avoid relying on Chinese steel and rare earths, all parts of the ship that aren't directly related to the fusion plant are made out of styrofoam and balsa wood.
Quote from: Ed Anger on August 18, 2011, 07:35:47 PM
What the fuck.
Siege has gone full retard on us and seems to be trolling Alt-history boards and posting drawings.
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2011, 07:41:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 07:33:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2011, 07:26:46 PM
Full load displacement: About 10.000 tons
It's really, really light.
In an effort to avoid relying on Chinese steel and rare earths, all parts of the ship that aren't directly related to the fusion plant are made out of styrofoam and balsa wood.
Including the crew, the munitions and the airplanes.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 07:42:43 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2011, 07:41:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 07:33:51 PM
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2011, 07:26:46 PM
Full load displacement: About 10.000 tons
It's really, really light.
In an effort to avoid relying on Chinese steel and rare earths, all parts of the ship that aren't directly related to the fusion plant are made out of styrofoam and balsa wood.
Including the crew, the munitions and the airplanes.
The missiles on those things are actually these:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.squidoocdn.com%2Fresize%2Fsquidoo_images%2F-1%2Flens12025541_1278621416stomp_rocket.jpg&hash=ffef19dcc751bdb659b9c060c57b264e61b770a8)
:lol:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcraphound.com%2Fimages%2F001bigcz7.jpg&hash=5ca8da00cc63ef4aa279727b3a106469bbfa5e65)
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 06:53:35 PM
Looks like it would break in half if it went to sea. Did you take this from some Alt-history website?
I think it's from a website where you can design warships. Obviously some one went a little overboard.
Quote from: DGuller on August 17, 2011, 12:34:41 PM
Really, $6 billion? That wouldn't develop the tire on the landing gear of the F-22. :rolleyes:
Two possible answers arise here.
1: Repeating the untrue story everyone knows about the American space pen and the Russian pencils.
2: You can get 10 Indian engineers for the price of an American. :p
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2011, 07:26:46 PM
Propellers: 0
Caterpillar Drive: 6
Blades on each Propeller:0
:rolleyes: Even the Red October had a couple propellers.
Quote from: derspiess on August 19, 2011, 10:12:59 AM
Quote from: Siege on August 18, 2011, 07:26:46 PM
Propellers: 0
Caterpillar Drive: 6
Blades on each Propeller:0
:rolleyes: Even the Red October had a couple propellers.
We will pass through the American patrols, past their sonar nets, and lay off their largest city, and listen to their rock and roll... while we conduct missile drills.
Quote from: Viking on August 18, 2011, 09:12:31 AM
The Harpoon Block II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpoon_%28missile%29) is a very good missile. Missiles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_X) have always been good at killing Dreadnaughts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Roma_%281940%29). I suppose the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile) would be able to sink any refloated Dreadnaughts out there.
How about an RPG with a proximity fuse?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 18, 2011, 07:41:43 PM
Siege has gone full retard on us and seems to be trolling Alt-history boards and posting drawings.
Disagree. I think he is trying to show us how good he has come at coloring withing the lines.
Good job, Siegy! Show those to mommy and she will put them on the refrigerator door.
Quote from: Neil on August 18, 2011, 07:37:56 PM
That thing draws 50 metres. Is there a harbour in the world that it could dock at?
Nor a drydock to service it. Or can it hover.... :huh:
I see that after building our retarded gigantic must-stay-at-sea-until-it-rusts-out-and-sinks triple flight deck ICBM carrying catamaran supercarrier we'll still be using F-18s, what appear to be Harriers, and Sea Kings. Awesome.
Why does it have non-ciws guns that will be shooting across the catamaran flight decks? Why does it have non-ciws guns at all? Shit, why does it have ciws guns?
Goddammit, who made this?
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 21, 2011, 02:15:12 PM
I see that after building our retarded gigantic must-stay-at-sea-until-it-rusts-out-and-sinks triple flight deck ICBM carrying catamaran supercarrier we'll still be using F-18s, what appear to be Harriers, and Sea Kings. Awesome.
Why does it have non-ciws guns that will be shooting across the catamaran flight decks? Why does it have non-ciws guns at all? Shit, why does it have ciws guns?
Goddammit, who made this?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thelostogle.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F10%2Fcomputer-nerd.jpeg&hash=e8bcedc8c21b1c8d5af58acd38981bd47a7f7ff8)
Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on August 21, 2011, 02:15:12 PM
I see that after building our retarded gigantic must-stay-at-sea-until-it-rusts-out-and-sinks triple flight deck ICBM carrying catamaran supercarrier we'll still be using F-18s, what appear to be Harriers, and Sea Kings. Awesome.
Why does it have non-ciws guns that will be shooting across the catamaran flight decks? Why does it have non-ciws guns at all? Shit, why does it have ciws guns?
Goddammit, who made this?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffc07.deviantart.net%2Ffs70%2Ff%2F2011%2F147%2F6%2F0%2Fproject_xf70a_lockheed_martin_by_bagera3005-d3hefhm.jpg&hash=178ca250c8aa86541469b4426612b0cdb5a21b5e)
You know, in places like Afghanistan and Iraq I don't think cutting edge stealth bombers and really necessary. You could probably make do with just using old Skyraiders.
Not only that, but it seems to me that the old 'as fast as possible' warplane paradigm doesn't really hold up anymore. Mach 6.4? What's the point?
So the pilots can get back to the Officer's club faster. CHAIR FORCE!
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2011, 06:49:01 PM
Not only that, but it seems to me that the old 'as fast as possible' warplane paradigm doesn't really hold up anymore. Mach 6.4? Why?
Because MOAR.
It's the reason why the mainstay of United States Air Force Tactical Air Command is the F-12.
:hmm:
:lol:
Mind you, it's sort of surprising that it wasn't. The USAF loves having useless aircraft. That way, they can't be called upon to do any work for the useful armed services.
In fairness, the USAF was hamstrung by America's growing unwillingness to any longer destroy cities and civilizations. It was the entire point of the service, and I don't blame them for feeling put out.
I mean, if I were a B-52D pilot tasked with making Vietnam unsafe for trees, knowing my aircraft alone could end the war in a day, I'd be kind of vindictive, too.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2011, 07:17:54 PM
In fairness, the USAF was hamstrung by America's growing unwillingness to any longer destroy cities and civilizations. It was the entire point of the service, and I don't blame them for feeling put out.
I mean, if I were a B-52D pilot tasked with making Vietnam unsafe for trees, knowing my aircraft alone could end the war in a day, I'd be kind of vindictive, too.
When did the USAF ever end a war or a civilization?
Quote from: Neil on August 21, 2011, 07:54:13 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2011, 07:17:54 PM
In fairness, the USAF was hamstrung by America's growing unwillingness to any longer destroy cities and civilizations. It was the entire point of the service, and I don't blame them for feeling put out.
I mean, if I were a B-52D pilot tasked with making Vietnam unsafe for trees, knowing my aircraft alone could end the war in a day, I'd be kind of vindictive, too.
When did the USAF ever end a war or a civilization?
Well, arguably North Korea's. But, yeah, never, that's my point. They were never permitted to do the job they were made for, and the job their precursor organization succeeded at so well. The USAF could have ended the wars with PRChina and Vietnam, but were not allowed to. The way we fought those wars was retarded--the point of air war is to extend the combat zone across the length and breadth of the enemy's holdings, never permitting any safe place, for neither military nor civilian. But the PRC had a safe place as big as, well, China. Linebacker aside, North Viet Nam was relatively secure in the knowledge that the USAF was unlikely to escalate to a sustained terror bombing campaign. What was the USAF supposed to do with those kind of strictures? Fuck around, mainly.
Presumably they would have been allowed to actually carry out their role in the event of a major war with Russia. But they were never allowed to fight a war that it was possible to claim a meaningful victory in.
Even the USAAF's record is questionable though. Air power isn't a world-beater. Even in a war where the US enjoyed a decisive air advantage like Afghanistan, the US and their allies were still decisively beaten.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thepirateking.com%2Fimages%2Fships_quinquireme.jpg&hash=7ae4fc2db59c6984ff4bee5c10a3bd106dce2f55)
This drawing must be wrong.
I thought quinqerremes had 3 banks of oars with two rowers for the 2 higher banks and one single rower per oar in the lower bank.
Oops
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/08/21/Advanced-Russian-fighter-aborts-takeoff/UPI-80631313936868/
I guess it could still function a little against ground targets . . .
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2011, 07:17:54 PM
In fairness, the USAF was hamstrung by America's growing unwillingness to any longer destroy cities and civilizations. It was the entire point of the service, and I don't blame them for feeling put out.
I mean, if I were a B-52D pilot tasked with making Vietnam unsafe for trees, knowing my aircraft alone could end the war in a day, I'd be kind of vindictive, too.
It would seem to me the proper course would be change the mission to suit the needs the US rather then focus on a mission that will never come.
The US needed nuclear combat with the Russians.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 11:40:49 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 21, 2011, 07:17:54 PM
In fairness, the USAF was hamstrung by America's growing unwillingness to any longer destroy cities and civilizations. It was the entire point of the service, and I don't blame them for feeling put out.
I mean, if I were a B-52D pilot tasked with making Vietnam unsafe for trees, knowing my aircraft alone could end the war in a day, I'd be kind of vindictive, too.
It would seem to me the proper course would be change the mission to suit the needs the US rather then focus on a mission that will never come.
You don't understand deterrence, my friend.
I do, it's spelled I-C-B-M.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 01:22:00 PM
I do, it's spelled I-C-B-M.
Second strike capability. Especially prior to the advent of accurate and MIRVed SLBMs.
Besides, I never said we should nuke Vietnam. I mean, I implied that. But I was arguing mostly that the USAF was bound by political decisions. There are levels of destruction between Khe Sanh and Hiroshima that could have been employed. Nixon knew the score.
I say we should have nuked Hanoi. Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em all. Nuke the moon.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 01:18:33 PM
You don't understand deterrence, my friend.
Nor do you, my friend.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 01:25:44 PM
Besides, I never said we should nuke Vietnam. I mean, I implied that. But I was arguing mostly that the USAF was bound by political decisions. There are levels of destruction between Khe Sanh and Hiroshima that could have been employed.
Such as destructive bombing offensives against targets in North Vietnam. Which was done, several times.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2011, 05:04:30 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 01:25:44 PM
Besides, I never said we should nuke Vietnam. I mean, I implied that. But I was arguing mostly that the USAF was bound by political decisions. There are levels of destruction between Khe Sanh and Hiroshima that could have been employed.
Such as destructive bombing offensives against targets in North Vietnam. Which was done, several times.
When? My understanding is that it was not until 1966 that Hanoi and Haiphong could even be attacked by tactical aircraft, and that Johnson refused to "escalate" by sending B-52s very far north. Thus, it was not until the closing days of the war, specifically the Linebacker operations, and even more specifically Linebacker II, that Hanoi and Haiphong were attacked by massed B-52 formations. Which had a great deal of military impact.
However, even then, at no point was terror bombing ever contemplated. Moreover, there was never a systematic plan designed to destroy North Vietnam's ability and will to support operations in South Vietnam through airpower--only impulsive and desultory raids, beginning with Arc Light anti-tree operations, and which regrettably includes even the otherwise successful Linebacker II. Of course, this is a charge you can level at the U.S. involvement in Vietnam more generally. Personally, I think U.S. involvement was a mistake, but that's not germane here.
In any event, you certainly cannot compare the strategic air war over Vietnam to those over German, Japan, or--more relevantly--North Korea. (Ever seen photos of Pyongyang in 1948? Looks like
Slaughterhouse Five.)
So, to clarify my question, when did the USAF engage in a destructive bombing offensive as sustained as the ones over Germany, Japan, or even North Korea?
P.S.But at least we did a better job bombing Vietnam than we did China, which is to say "at all." <_<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX_d_vMKswE
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2011, 05:03:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 01:18:33 PM
You don't understand deterrence, my friend.
Nor do you, my friend.
In what manner? Fixed ICBMs are more vulnerable to a first strike than airborne or seaborne (or land mobile) launch platforms, reducing their deterrent value.
But still not especially, thanks to early warning tech.
I don't want to hear any of you fucks trumpeting "second strike" capabilities, since none of you gave two shits about Jimmy Carter or Gary Hart when they were the biggest supporters of it.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2011, 07:50:38 PM
I don't want to hear any of you fucks trumpeting "second strike" capabilities, since none of you gave two shits about Jimmy Carter or Gary Hart when they were the biggest supporters of it.
1) Yes, I'm well known as an implacable critic of Carter in specific and the Democratic Party in general and 2) my voting rights as an oocyte were rather limited. :P
Quote from: NeilBut still not especially, thanks to early warning tech.
True. The bomber still had a role in the case of that system's failure or disruption. They also had the advantage of being recallable, permitting some ongoing control of the situation and greater flexibility in targeting, escalation, etc.
But like I said, SSBNs also had those advantages, with greater survivability.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2011, 07:50:38 PM
I don't want to hear any of you fucks trumpeting "second strike" capabilities, since none of you gave two shits about Jimmy Carter or Gary Hart when they were the biggest supporters of it.
My mom was a delegate for Hart back '84. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 07:23:02 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2011, 05:03:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 01:18:33 PM
You don't understand deterrence, my friend.
Nor do you, my friend.
In what manner? Fixed ICBMs are more vulnerable to a first strike than airborne or seaborne (or land mobile) launch platforms, reducing their deterrent value.
The hell they are. ICBMs are in harden bunkers. They are thought to be hard to kill. Besides, by the time an enemy nuke hits one of them the ICBM will be long gone.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2011, 07:50:38 PM
I don't want to hear any of you fucks trumpeting "second strike" capabilities, since none of you gave two shits about Jimmy Carter or Gary Hart when they were the biggest supporters of it.
My mom was a delegate for Hart back '84. :)
Did she fuck him? Be honest.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 08:02:04 PM
But like I said, SSBNs also had those advantages, with greater survivability.
Not at all. An SSBN can sink. A silo can also sink, but it's pretty unlikely.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 08:12:09 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 07:23:02 PM
Quote from: grumbler on August 22, 2011, 05:03:26 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 01:18:33 PM
You don't understand deterrence, my friend.
Nor do you, my friend.
In what manner? Fixed ICBMs are more vulnerable to a first strike than airborne or seaborne (or land mobile) launch platforms, reducing their deterrent value.
The hell they are. ICBMs are in harden bunkers. They are thought to be hard to kill. Besides, by the time an enemy nuke hits one of them the ICBM will be long gone.
1)ICBM bunkers are difficult to destroy or render inoperable, not impossible. They were less difficult to destroy earlier in the Cold War, but at the same time ICBMs were also less accurate. In any event, a sufficient combination of numbers, power, and accuracy can defeat ICBM site hardening. Especially earlier modes of hardening.
2)They would not necessarily be gone, especially earlier in the Cold War. Iirc, Atlases (and R-7s) could not be kept fueled and ready for launch.
3)The "partially successful first strike" is a valid concept. I'm hardly claiming every ICBM would be destroyed in a first strike, but enough may have been destroyed or rendered inoperable to render a second strike less severe. In this case, bombers and later SSBNs have a very important role to play in deterring a first strike.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2011, 08:16:26 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 22, 2011, 08:09:42 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on August 22, 2011, 07:50:38 PM
I don't want to hear any of you fucks trumpeting "second strike" capabilities, since none of you gave two shits about Jimmy Carter or Gary Hart when they were the biggest supporters of it.
My mom was a delegate for Hart back '84. :)
Did she fuck him? Be honest.
Don't know. Probably not. She had to drag me along everywhere, and I was probably as much of a turn off at 3 as I am at 30.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 08:47:26 PM
1)ICBM bunkers are difficult to destroy or render inoperable, not impossible. They were less difficult to destroy earlier in the Cold War, but at the same time ICBMs were also less accurate. In any event, a sufficient combination of numbers, power, and accuracy can defeat ICBM site hardening. Especially earlier modes of hardening.
2)They would not necessarily be gone, especially earlier in the Cold War. Iirc, Atlases (and R-7s) could not be kept fueled and ready for launch.
3)The "partially successful first strike" is a valid concept. I'm hardly claiming every ICBM would be destroyed in a first strike, but enough may have been destroyed or rendered inoperable to render a second strike less severe. In this case, bombers and later SSBNs have a very important role to play in deterring a first strike.
I thought that by the Vietnam war they had shifted to solid rockets. Anyway, I'm not sure how well the B-52s would have done by that late a date. The Soviets had built a lot of defenses, and probably knew (or at least make a good guess) the routes the planes would take. The KGB was very keen to find things like that out. They invested a lot of money in interceptors and SAMs
Well, the Vietnam thing is a whole separate issue (i.e., non-nuclear missions for which ICBMs and SLBMs are unsuited in a great many ways). I was speaking on the narrow grounds of ICBM hardening and early warning nets making bombers completely obsolete. Instead, I think significant SLBM deployment vastly reduced the bomber's importance to the triad, and indeed reduced the importance of a "triad" entirely. And that came a little later, but prior to Vietnam (although developments and improvements of course continued throughout the Cold War)
This doesn't entirely conform with my service prejudices, but oh well. :P
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 22, 2011, 11:01:08 AM
Oops
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2011/08/21/Advanced-Russian-fighter-aborts-takeoff/UPI-80631313936868/
I guess it could still function a little against ground targets . . .
Between their fighter that can't take off and our new fighter that can't communicate with anything (and our other fighter that will bankrupt us before seeing service), the next air war will certainly be interesting. :lol:
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 07:23:02 PM
In what manner? Fixed ICBMs are more vulnerable to a first strike than airborne or seaborne (or land mobile) launch platforms, reducing their deterrent value.
Fixed ICBMs, in the era you note (pre-MIRV and pre-accurate-SLBMs) were not overly vulnerable to first strikes because it cost more than a missile's worth of warheads to knock out a missile.
Plus, the very use of the term "terror-bombing" by you says that you don't understand deterrence. Deterrence exists in the mind of the person you wish to deter. It is that person's fear that, should he or she take an action, they will lose something more valuable to them than the value he/she gets from taking the action.
The contribution of the manned bomber to deterrence was always slim; there was little the manned bomber could do that couldn't be done better by the ICBM or SLBM. Manned bombers were retained as a hedge against technological uncertainty; given the stakes, even systems as inefficient as manned bombers could be justified. The bombers never played a key role in strategic planning once the Polaris A3 was deployed in numbers, though.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 08:47:26 PM
3)The "partially successful first strike" is a valid concept. I'm hardly claiming every ICBM would be destroyed in a first strike, but enough may have been destroyed or rendered inoperable to render a second strike less severe. In this case, bombers and later SSBNs have a very important role to play in deterring a first strike.
The "partially successful first strike" is not a valid concept. Even ten thermonuclear warheads hitting the ten most valuable targets in a country would be devastating to that country and cause it to drop dramatically in relative power. And ten warheads could come from just a single surviving missile (though such targeting wouldn't occur IRL).
A successful first strike could only come with the elimination of all the command nodes that had the capacity/authority to order a retaliatory launch, before they could do so. Ironically, the US adoption of PAL on its SSBNs robbed them of their ability to make such a first strike completely impossible.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 09:58:30 PM
Well, the Vietnam thing is a whole separate issue (i.e., non-nuclear missions for which ICBMs and SLBMs are unsuited in a great many ways). I was speaking on the narrow grounds of ICBM hardening and early warning nets making bombers completely obsolete. Instead, I think significant SLBM deployment vastly reduced the bomber's importance to the triad, and indeed reduced the importance of a "triad" entirely. And that came a little later, but prior to Vietnam (although developments and improvements of course continued throughout the Cold War)
This doesn't entirely conform with my service prejudices, but oh well. :P
Okay, so you do seem to understand something about deterrence. I withdraw my claim.
Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2011, 07:09:50 AM
Ironically, the US adoption of PAL on its SSBNs robbed them of their ability to make such a first strike completely impossible.
Don't worry. The RN has your back.
Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2011, 07:10:57 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 09:58:30 PM
Well, the Vietnam thing is a whole separate issue (i.e., non-nuclear missions for which ICBMs and SLBMs are unsuited in a great many ways). I was speaking on the narrow grounds of ICBM hardening and early warning nets making bombers completely obsolete. Instead, I think significant SLBM deployment vastly reduced the bomber's importance to the triad, and indeed reduced the importance of a "triad" entirely. And that came a little later, but prior to Vietnam (although developments and improvements of course continued throughout the Cold War)
This doesn't entirely conform with my service prejudices, but oh well. :P
Okay, so you do seem to understand something about deterrence. I withdraw my claim.
Yeah, I don't know why you guys were conflating those two issues, but I guess I could've been clearer.
QuoteThe "partially successful first strike" is not a valid concept. Even ten thermonuclear warheads hitting the ten most valuable targets in a country would be devastating to that country and cause it to drop dramatically in relative power. And ten warheads could come from just a single surviving missile (though such targeting wouldn't occur IRL).
Alright, a "partially successful first strike" is a valid concept for defensive planning purposes, given rationality (and the accuracy of information on which the enemy may be basing a decision to launch) cannot be assumed.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 02:09:33 PM
Alright, a "partially successful first strike" is a valid concept for defensive planning purposes, given rationality (and the accuracy of information on which the enemy may be basing a decision to launch) cannot be assumed.
The concept of a suppressive strike makes some sense in a counter-force environment, but that's merely a theoretical concept because you have no idea what targeting strategy your opponent is pursuing, and a suppressive strike might even induce your opponent to switch to counter-value targeting, which is the opposite outcome to what you would desire. Pretty much every scenario that doesn't assume perfect communications and perfect rationality devolves into massive counter-value strikes and the end of complex life on earth.
"End of complex life on Earth" is overselling it. Unless you mean it will be more difficult to go to poetry slams in the post-war environment.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 03:47:18 PM
"End of complex life on Earth" is overselling it. Unless you mean it will be more difficult to go to poetry slams in the post-war environment.
You can go with the studies you have read, and I will go with the ones I have read. They don't seem to lead to the same place, but since we are talking hypotheticals, that doesn't matter.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 22, 2011, 06:01:25 PM
When? My understanding is that it was not until 1966 that Hanoi and Haiphong could even be attacked by tactical aircraft, and that Johnson refused to "escalate" by sending B-52s very far north. Thus, it was not until the closing days of the war, specifically the Linebacker operations, and even more specifically Linebacker II, that Hanoi and Haiphong were attacked by massed B-52 formations. Which had a great deal of military impact.
However, even then, at no point was terror bombing ever contemplated. Moreover, there was never a systematic plan designed to destroy North Vietnam's ability and will to support operations in South Vietnam through airpower--only impulsive and desultory raids, beginning with Arc Light anti-tree operations, and which regrettably includes even the otherwise successful Linebacker II. . . .In any event, you certainly cannot compare the strategic air war over Vietnam to those over German, Japan, or--more relevantly--North Korea. (Ever seen photos of Pyongyang in 1948? Looks like Slaughterhouse Five.)
This analysis doesn't make a lot of sense to me. When Rolling Thunder commenced in early `65, the war was still basically a counter-insurgency campaign, which ARVN was losing. Bombing the crap out of Hanoi would not fix this problem. It would not have changed the contours of the insurgency in the South. It might have made supply and reinforcement from the North more difficult, but not impossible. And of course it might have prompted stronger intervention from the USSR and/or China, the risks of which was another lesson of Korea.
Seems to me the better argument is that the US shouldn't have gotten into the bombing business in the first place, not that they didn't do enough. Rolling Thunder was supposedly retaliation for a guerilla attack on a helicopter base. It is hard to see the military and political logic that escalates from such an incident to a full-scale WW2-style terror bombing campaign. Another problem was the even the more limited campaign forced a general escalation because the US had to deploy thousands of ground troops to secure the USAF bases. If Johnson had followed your advice of a massive, unrestricted bombing campaign, the level of commitment would have been even greater, and probably beyond what was politically feasible in 1965 (a busy year domestically).
As for Linebacker II, whatever its "military impact", its strategic effectiveness was dubious. Linebacker II was a recognition of failure; it was designed to force the North to the table to give Nixon a paper agreement that would save face for him over the US abandoning the South to inevitable total defeat. It succeeded in that regard, but achieved no actual useful purpose.
Well, you said that destructive bombing campaigns were attempted, and had little effect. I'm only pointing out that a truly destructive bombing campaigns were not attempted, until, and even then only arguably, the very end of the war. And, as you note, by this point Nixon had already basically resigned himself to ending American involvement, and the SRVN was less of an obstacle to its termination than Thieu. Fwiw, given the actual goals of Linebacker II, I'm not sure it's entirely justifiable. However, it does make for a good case of what a serious bombing effort might have eventually accomplished if undertaken with different goals in mind.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2011, 04:19:18 PM
This analysis doesn't make a lot of sense to me. When Rolling Thunder commenced in early `65, the war was still basically a counter-insurgency campaign, which ARVN was losing. Bombing the crap out of Hanoi would not fix this problem. It would not have changed the contours of the insurgency in the South. It might have made supply and reinforcement from the North more difficult, but not impossible.
But the insurgency was overtly supported by the SRVN, and relied on PAVN soldiers and materiel, which in turn relied in some part on foreign assistance.
My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it
was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 05:29:07 PM
My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.
Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation. It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war. Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south. The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.
The "friendly government" didn't go extinct because the US failed to back it up by dropping enough ordinance, it went extinct for the same reason most organisms usually go extinct -- it was not properly adapted to its environment. Blowing up the dodo's predators en masse with grenades might save a few dodos for a little bit of time, but at the end of the day, you are still stuck with a bunch of dodos.
Quote from: grumbler on August 23, 2011, 04:04:33 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 03:47:18 PM
"End of complex life on Earth" is overselling it. Unless you mean it will be more difficult to go to poetry slams in the post-war environment.
You can go with the studies you have read, and I will go with the ones I have read. They don't seem to lead to the same place, but since we are talking hypotheticals, that doesn't matter.
Are these studies classified?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 05:29:07 PM
My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.
Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation. It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war. Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south. The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.
The "friendly government" didn't go extinct because the US failed to back it up by dropping enough ordinance, it went extinct for the same reason most organisms usually go extinct -- it was not properly adapted to its environment. Blowing up the dodo's predators en masse with grenades might save a few dodos for a little bit of time, but at the end of the day, you are still stuck with a bunch of dodos.
Well, that's an argument for never getting involved to begin with, with which I concur.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 07:39:00 PM
Well, that's an argument for never getting involved to begin with, with which I concur.
Do you? Shouldn't you support the decapitation of North Vietnam and the destruction of their warmaking capability with atomics against their cities?
Quote from: Neil on August 23, 2011, 08:18:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 07:39:00 PM
Well, that's an argument for never getting involved to begin with, with which I concur.
Do you? Shouldn't you support the decapitation of North Vietnam and the destruction of their warmaking capability with atomics against their cities?
I don't support the atomic destruction of
every country. Only those whose causes are irrefutably unjust, and who have no means to retaliate in kind. In other words, the PRC. During the Korean War, certainly, but whenever.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 05:29:07 PM
My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.
Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation. It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war. Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south. The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.
The "friendly government" didn't go extinct because the US failed to back it up by dropping enough ordinance, it went extinct for the same reason most organisms usually go extinct -- it was not properly adapted to its environment. Blowing up the dodo's predators en masse with grenades might save a few dodos for a little bit of time, but at the end of the day, you are still stuck with a bunch of dodos.
I thought Ike did back up the French. I seem to recall reading that the US helped funded the ill fated Dien Bien Phu thingy. Other then that, I agree with you. Vietnam turned out not to be particularly important. The US already had bases in the area and it's economic interests in the country were never that great. Communism didn't spread across all of South East Asia, and the Communists ended up just fighting each other. Hell, the North winning the war has actually ended up benefiting the US. We do lots of trade with them, and it's not inconceivable that we may end up allied to them in the near future.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 05:29:07 PM
My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.
Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation. It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war. Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south. The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.
South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development. Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.
South Korea was defensible. South Vietnam's huge border with the enemy made it not so.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2011, 09:45:53 PM
South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development. Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.
US forces were already being attacked in South Korea. South Korea was a more homogenous country then Vietnam, (which had all sorts of mountain tribes). I think Thailand, Burma, and Malaysia or better comparisons to get an idea of what Southern Vietnam might look like.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2011, 09:45:53 PM
South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development. Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.
South Vietnam's political leadership was composed of catholic refugees from the North imposing their military rule over a Buddhist nation. There is no reason why Vietnam, now that that government is gone, cannot, as you say, follow South Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development. The south dominates Vietnam culturally, and the south's political power is on the rise. The survival of a Catholic dictatorship in a still-divided country is the only means by which the US and Vietnam could have lost that war.
Just a couple of points about the original article. Remember that? T-50 is just its prototype name, the aircraft is called the PAK FA. Catchy.
Its demonstration flight at the MAKS airshow was aborted during takeoff after an engine malfunction, with the pilot deploying the brake parachute at 100kph. Eyewitnesses saw a flash of light, so it sounds like it exploded.
India and Russia have a number of defence partnerships, with the number increasing as they're both increasing defence spending while most of the West is implementing massive defence cuts.
Unlike most other airshows, MAKS is mainly Russian companies selling to Russia. Foreign contractors pretty much need to set up a Russia-based subsidiary to get work.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2011, 09:45:53 PM
South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development. Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.
The logical comparison is not South Korea but Thailand. Thailand did experience some development despite corrupt governments, and was a useful ally of the US. But to put it crassly - it not really essential to US security or geopolitical strategy. The US strategic interest in east Asia was to underwrite the security of its key allies and trading partners -- Japan, Australia, and the Phillipines, and to secure the free flow of goods through the Pacific. Later during this period the opportunity to triangulate with China came to the fore. The precise orientation of governments in the relatively small mainland southeast Asian states just was not of great strategic import. In fact, the rise of Marxist-oriented regimes in southeast Asia arguably redounded to the strategic interest of the US by stoking Sino-Soviet frictions and competition.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2011, 09:45:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 05:29:07 PM
My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.
Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation. It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war. Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south. The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.
South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development. Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.
Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development? Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:11:30 PM
Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development? Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?
That's part of my point as well - with the added caveat that having to maintain a bigger military presence both economically and politically would have retarded the growth of both hypothetical Vietnams.
If South Vietnam still existed, then the diaspora might not have brought us the delightful rap stylings of Chuckie Akenz, like 'You Got Beef?'.
Such a world would be unpleasant, to say the least.
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2011, 09:45:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 05:29:07 PM
My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.
Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation. It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war. Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south. The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.
South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development. Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.
Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development? Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?
No.
Vietnam nominal GDP per capita $1168
South Korea nominal GDP per capita $20,590
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 26, 2011, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2011, 09:45:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 05:29:07 PM
My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.
Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation. It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war. Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south. The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.
South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development. Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.
Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development? Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?
No.
Vietnam nominal GDP $1168
South Korea nominal GDP $20,590
Still, South Korea is pretty poor if a guy working at McDonald's makes more than the whole country.
Quote from: Neil on August 26, 2011, 07:42:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 26, 2011, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2011, 09:45:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 05:29:07 PM
My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.
Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation. It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war. Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south. The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.
South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development. Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.
Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development? Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?
No.
Vietnam nominal GDP $1168
South Korea nominal GDP $20,590
Still, South Korea is pretty poor if a guy working at McDonald's makes more than the whole country.
Forgot to put in 'per capita' :face:
How is Vietnam compared to Thailand or Myanmar?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2011, 07:50:17 PM
How is Vietnam compared to Thailand or Myanmar?
Thailand nominal GDP per capita $4,992
Malaysia nominal GDP per capita $8,624
Myanmar nominal GDP per capita $702
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 26, 2011, 07:48:21 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 26, 2011, 07:42:17 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 26, 2011, 07:37:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 26, 2011, 03:11:30 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 25, 2011, 09:45:53 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on August 23, 2011, 05:43:48 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 23, 2011, 05:29:07 PM
My point is that in all aspects, we never treated the Vietnam conflict as a total war, when it was--it ended in the extinction of a friendly government.
Vietnam was a counter-insurgency effort in a geopolitically peripheral nation. It would have been utterly insane to treat it as a total war. Ike - who whatever his faults knew a little something about total wars -- understood that, which was why he didn't back the French and kept US commitment limited in the south. The argument that still gets made by some that "we could have won" had the US fought a Clausewitzian war of annihilation is flawed in multiple respects: it assumes (falsely) that such an effort would be politically feasible, it assumes (falsely) that the effort would have been worth the cost, and it assumes (fasely) that such a "victory" would be of significant practical value once achieved.
South Korea's initial government was a rather incompetent and corrupt dictatorship. If "victory" had assured an independent S. Vietnam I don't see why it's weak government would have prevented it from following S. Korea's path of economic (and likely political) development. Surely a S. Vietnam even half as developed as S. Korea would be of significant practical value.
Except isn't Vietnam as it stands now doing a pretty good job at economic development? Wouldn't a Vietnam half as developed as S Kora kind of look like, well, Vietnam?
No.
Vietnam nominal GDP $1168
South Korea nominal GDP $20,590
Still, South Korea is pretty poor if a guy working at McDonald's makes more than the whole country.
Forgot to put in 'per capita' :face:
Still not a useful stat. China has a lower per capita GDP, and yet is no worse a place to live than South Korea.
Quote from: Neil on August 26, 2011, 07:57:20 PM
Still not a useful stat. China has a lower per capita GDP, and yet is no worse a place to live than South Korea.
Even if one disregards the political differences between the two, that's a laughable statement. S. Korea is a first world country, from top to bottom, even in the backwoods. One can't say the same about China.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 26, 2011, 07:55:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2011, 07:50:17 PM
How is Vietnam compared to Thailand or Myanmar?
Thailand nominal GDP per capita $4,992
Expect that figure to jump to $5,992 if I ever win the lottery.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 26, 2011, 08:04:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 26, 2011, 07:57:20 PM
Still not a useful stat. China has a lower per capita GDP, and yet is no worse a place to live than South Korea.
Even if one disregards the political differences between the two, that's a laughable statement. S. Korea is a first world country, from top to bottom, even in the backwoods. One can't say the same about China.
They're both chinky as hell though. Also, South Korea has the disadvantage of being helpless before North Korea.
As long as the U.S. is willing to defend South Korea to the last Korean, it'll all be fine.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 26, 2011, 07:55:27 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 26, 2011, 07:50:17 PM
How is Vietnam compared to Thailand or Myanmar?
Thailand nominal GDP per capita $4,992
Malaysia nominal GDP per capita $8,624
Myanmar nominal GDP per capita $702
So yeah, closer to Thailand then South Korea.