Off Topic discussion initiated in LRS-Bomber to look at...

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mcraptor

Banned

  • Posts: 202
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 16:22

Unread post15 Dec 2012, 19:53

::This is a thread which was split from http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopi ... -lrs.html::

XanderCrews wrote:Getting caught sucks doesn't it?

You keep saying that but nobody has a clue what you're talking about except yourself. You honestly sound like a loony. I suggest you explain yourself.
XanderCrews wrote:I couldn't agree more, but a hypersonic missile is a waste of time and money when you can have something like an LRS Bomber, which believe it or not is what this thread WAS about.

Well no it isn't a waste of time and as already discussed the use of one does not preclude the use of the other, in fact they could augment each other in many situations. I believe we started with the possibility of having a stealth LRSB but with supersonic capability for when speed was more important than stealth in order to accomplish the mission.

XanderCrews wrote:not to mention the stealthy payload carrying UCAVs the US Navy is working on as we speak.

No good against a target with a strong local ADS. Payloads don't have EW aircraft following them either and omit some of the technology carried by planes, in case it falls into the wrong hands, so the stealth achieved is probably less than you think. It has applications, but it's not a one size fits all.

XanderCrews wrote:Never!! Asking the AFRL to stop pissing money away on pointless crap would be like asking the sun not to rise. I'd hate to have that money going to something feasible, or even helpful.

Mere arrogance.


XanderCrews wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
Except that you probably needed a drone there in the first place to locate the target. I'm not sure how much use a hypersonic weapon is going to be in a denied area -- they only seem to be useful for a circumstance where you forgot to arm your ISR asset, and the target is going to be moving beyond your ISR's reach in an hour (before a subsonic cruise missile can get there) but not in half and our (before a hypersonic weapon can).


^buy that man a beer. 8)

Well if we're dealing with an enemy such that we can fly a drone over them without them noticing, modern weapons are surplus to requirements anyway. Anything capable of flight and the transport of bombs should probably do the trick.
Last edited by mcraptor on 15 Dec 2012, 20:25, edited 3 times in total.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Dec 2012, 20:16

You keep saying that but nobody has a clue what you're talking about except yourself. You honestly sound like a loony. I suggest you explain yourself.


No. Basically there are people on here who already know you don't know what you are talking about and have said as much. I'm not going to give you any information that might help alleviate your ignorance of basic concepts.Those in the know, know you are wrong. That's enough for me.

The fact that you continue to dwell on it shows you know you messed up and now look to find out how so you won't make the same mistake again later on. I must be a loony, because I noticed you are speaking about things you have no knowledge of.

I believe we started with the possibility of having a stealth LRSB but with supersonic capability for when speed was more important than stealth in order to accomplish the mission.


Which you naturally interpreted as "hypersonic super missile"


Well if we're dealing with an enemy such that we can fly a drone over them without them noticing, modern weapons are surplus to requirements anyway. Anything capable of flight and the transport of bombs should probably do the trick.


Hey! look who finally gets it!
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Dec 2012, 20:21

mcraptor wrote:
Sometimes people have a very child-like perception of how a nuclear war will run and I have to put them in their place.



Pot, meet kettle :lol:
Offline

mcraptor

Banned

  • Posts: 202
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 16:22

Unread post15 Dec 2012, 20:36

XanderCrews wrote:
No. Basically there are people on here who already know you don't know what you are talking about and have said as much. I'm not going to give you any information that might help alleviate your ignorance of basic concepts.Those in the know, know you are wrong. That's enough for me.

Here I'll post it again with added explanation in case you forgot:

Ballistic missiles with maneuvering MIRVs *(Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles)* are all that makes sense for the nuclear deterrent and when you say 'triad' I take it that's what you mean.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_triad*

A plane with a cruise missile just isn't fast enough. The game will be over before it gets anywhere near, unless you're planning a pre-emptive strike which is super-stupid and the missiles will still get intercepted before they reach defended targets and you'll be forever known as the dickhead nation that started WWIII.

*Plus you'll get flattened as soon as the enemy sees all your bombers have left their base.*


This part of the presentation is now reserved for questions. No need to raise your hand, just shout out. There really are enough ballistic missiles to do the job without cruise missiles or tactical nukes and the use of any nuclear weapons in anything except an all out war is unthinkable.

I assume your idea is to strike pre-emptively and fly these stealth aircraft deep into enemy territory and fire cruise missiles at things like missile silos, which will have a massive localized ADS more than capable of destroying any subsonic crap you care to fling at it. And in case you think nuclear warheads will go off when the weapon is destroyed, think again, that isn't how they're designed and anything other than a near direct hit on hardened nuclear complexes won't cut it.

Oh, and once the first missile is detected the enemy's central command will fire 200 SS-18 Satans at you, each armed with ten 750kT warheads. So you now have a couple of thousand 0.75MT warheads heading towards you at Mach 25-30 plus decoys and they'll be there in about 20-30 minutes along with whatever Topol-M, Yars and SLBMs join them. Your country is gone. What next?

Sometimes people have a very child-like perception of how a nuclear war will run and I have to put them in their place.

XanderCrews wrote:The fact that you continue to dwell on it shows you know you messed up and now look to find out how so you won't make the same mistake again later on. I must be a loony, because I noticed you are speaking about things you have no knowledge of.

Or maybe it's the other way round.

There are only 2 reasons for bombers taking off in a nuclear war:

1) To avoid destruction; and

2) To launch ALBMs if there was such a thing still in operation.

The role of 'Air' in the Land Sea Air Triad has always been a weak one that bothers enemies far less that ICBMs and SLBMs coming from out of nowhere and hitting them in <30 minutes.

There's really no purpose to a stealth attack against an enemy with SLBMs either. Even if everything went unrealistically well and you knocked out all ICBM silos and enemy bombers before they leave the ground, you still get a few thousand SLBM warheads poured on you anyway.

Nuclear war is unwinnable and only an idiot would consider the possibility.

XanderCrews wrote:Which you naturally interpreted as "hypersonic super missile"

I believe I started by mentioning some kind of supersonic capability and I wasn't the only one.


XanderCrews wrote:
Hey! look who finally gets it!

So why are we discussing stealth again? Surely it's futile since your proposed enemy doesn't even have radars, let alone SAMs. :lol:

XanderCrews wrote:
mcraptor wrote:
Sometimes people have a very child-like perception of how a nuclear war will run and I have to put them in their place.



Pot, meet kettle :lol:

Kettle meet singularity.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Dec 2012, 21:01

Keep talking, you are just digging a deeper hole. Also it turns out that repeating yourself over and over doesn't help your case. You should cut and paste it 5 or 6 more times at least.

mcraptor wrote:Or maybe it's the other way round.


I'm not the one who keeps trying to expand on a scenario in the hopes of proving knowledge.

please continue to "put us in our place" with your clear inside knowledge of nuclear strategy from the 1980's

mcraptor wrote:
Nuclear war is unwinnable and only an idiot would consider the possibility...Sometimes people have a very child-like perception of how a nuclear war will run and I have to put them in their place.



doesn't that make you an idiot?
Last edited by XanderCrews on 15 Dec 2012, 21:16, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

borntoholdout

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 15 Nov 2012, 17:06
  • Location: closer than you think

Unread post15 Dec 2012, 21:07

WOW... :doh:
Being an American means I would die for your childrens freedom. WOULD YOU?
Offline

mcraptor

Banned

  • Posts: 202
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 16:22

Unread post15 Dec 2012, 21:25

XanderCrews wrote:Keep talking, you are just digging a deeper hole. Also it turns out that repeating yourself over and over doesn't help your case. You should cut and paste it 5 or 6 more times at least.

Well I've given you chance to explain yourself, so now I'll just tell you that you're clearly wrong and keep repeating that.


XanderCrews wrote:please continue to "put us in our place" with your clear inside knowledge of nuclear strategy from the 1980's

With pleasure.

mcraptor wrote:
doesn't that make you an idiot?

Logic failure. When did I ever say nuclear war was winnable? That's the whole point I'm trying to make. It's a deterrent and a ballistic missile deterrent >> a bomber deterrent.

Damn, given your monumental comprehension failure, God knows what you thought I said that was wrong. Doesn't that make you the real idiot for:

a) Misunderstanding what I was saying; and

b) Just being plain wrong.

In summary, within your own secret little world you think I am wrong, so rather than discuss the issue, you keep it to yourself so that you can continue deluding yourself without the risk of exposing your imaginary sense of superiority to scrutiny for fear that it would all come crashing down.

Feel free to keep amusing me with your babblings.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Dec 2012, 23:01

mcraptor wrote:Feel free to keep amusing me with your babblings.


Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

assumes that your plane can even fly through ash and fallout without the engines giving up.


Tell me more about this as well

Tell the children about Type II deterrence. Explain what a hostage city is. What is SIOP?

I'll leave you time to google some of this.
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post15 Dec 2012, 23:34

Can we get this topic back to how the new bomber will be using F-35 technology?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post15 Dec 2012, 23:44

count_to_10 wrote:Can we get this topic back to how the new bomber will be using F-35 technology?


By all means.
Offline
User avatar

neptune

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2896
  • Joined: 24 Oct 2008, 00:03
  • Location: Houston

Unread post16 Dec 2012, 00:25

I regretfully requested this thread be deleted. :(
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6370
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post16 Dec 2012, 00:58

neptune wrote:I regretfully requested this thread be deleted. :(


My apologies. /i feed him
Offline

mcraptor

Banned

  • Posts: 202
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 16:22

Unread post16 Dec 2012, 11:23

XanderCrews wrote:
Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

Quite simple. Both sides launch several hundred long range ballistic missiles from land and submarine, which each deploy 8-12 warheads of several hundred kT yield, which arrive in <30 minutes.

XanderCrews wrote:Tell me more about this as well

Nobody has really experience the atmospheric effect of several thousand thermonuclear devices going off. It's quite possible that the atmospheric particulate debris will damage jet engines. Not a certainty but certainly a possibility.

XanderCrews wrote:Tell the children about Type II deterrence.

A Type II deterrent would be stopping the USSR from attacking a third party like Europe. The idea of tippy-toe nuking, where each side nukes a little bit is also unrealistic as it would very quickly escalate.

Assuming this hypothetical tippy toe war did break out, speed of response would be paramount, i.e. not waiting for the USSR to invade the whole of Europe before responding, hence why Pershing I/IA SRBMs and Pershing II MRBMs were based in the UK and Europe during that period. Such missiles guaranteed a sub-10 minute 80-400kT nuke respond to any aggression rather than waiting for a B-52 to haul its fat a$$ across the sky over a period of several hours, possibly getting shot down on the way.

Don't bring a bomber to a missile fight.

In the 1950s when the Soviet missile technology was ahead of ours we had to loop bombers around the ocean constantly just in case. In the 1960s various efforts were made with fast bombers like the XB-70 and fast cruise missiles like the Vought SLAM, but it was quickly realized that ballistic missiles were the fastest, most effective methods of delivery and such projects were cancelled.
Last edited by mcraptor on 16 Dec 2012, 11:28, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

mcraptor

Banned

  • Posts: 202
  • Joined: 16 Nov 2012, 16:22

Unread post16 Dec 2012, 11:28

XanderCrews wrote:
neptune wrote:I regretfully requested this thread be deleted. :(


My apologies. /i feed him

For future reference - I'm not hungry. Now can we get back on topic?
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2607
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post16 Dec 2012, 16:13

mcraptor wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
Tell us more about how the nuclear war will be over in a half hour

Quite simple. Both sides launch several hundred long range ballistic missiles from land and submarine, which each deploy 8-12 warheads of several hundred kT yield, which arrive in <30 minutes.


Nuclear wars were meant to last anywhere from 5-12 years.

Go read WarDay by Whitley Strieber. It will explain why no waged nuclear war is over in an hour, let alone a year. It's a quick 500 pages.
Next

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests