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

[Hangfire]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sciencegeek:<BR>Good thread topic. This kinda stuff is always a fun topic to discuss.<BR><BR>Russia currently has some of the best equipment for the buck right now and it seems a lot of countries are stocking up on their tanks (T-90) and aircraft. I believe the Indian air force recently had a big competition to evaluate several different planes with the Mig-35 being the favored (but still yet undecided I think)<BR><BR>http://www.janes.com/defence/a.../jdi070620_1_n.shtml<BR><BR>I'm not totally sold on the idea of the F-22 and F-35. Mega-expensive considering our current fighers (F-18, 15 and 16) could probably be remodernized and upgraded at bargain prices. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>India has an existing and large investment in Russian made equipment it makes sense for them to continue in that vein, especially with India's history with the USA and Russia and Pakistan's relationship with the USA.<BR><BR>1) The BLU-82 is not in use anymore. Not to say they can't be manufactured again, but why bother when we've got a new bigger and better bang with the GBU-43?<BR><BR>2) Also the BLU-82 cannot be deployed from the B-52, same with the GBU-82, they can only be delivered by Hercules. So the B-52 use status on these bombs is a non issue.

 

[Hangfire]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mboza:<BR>Predictions: scrapping the nuclear deterrent (yay save £20b over the lifetime, will fund 2.5 medium sized hospitals), <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>That's a patently ridiculous idea. The nuclear deterrent is our guaranteed big stick against the world.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mboza:<BR>cancelling the 3rd tranche of eurofighters (cold war relics), <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Not sure if that's doable especially with the way the contracts are set up and with the way the shares of EADS are distributed. That would end up with a lot of pissing and moaning from our european allies.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mboza:<BR>cancel a couple of destroyers (too expensive), the carriers (not enough escort ships, anyone want to buy 80,000 tonnes of steel?), <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>OK, look that's not going to happen as it's part of our stimulus package, those harbours really need it. The navy needs them, look everyone needs those carriers and those destroyers so we can meet our treaty obligations. <BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mboza:<BR>F35 (no carriers), all on the grounds that none of these help in Afghanistan. <BR> </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>No point in building those fancy carriers if we don't have the planes for them.<BR><BR><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mboza:<BR>Though there was also a proposal to cut 4 infantry battalions as well, presumably because boots are not required on the ground either. At least due to the recession, the army has finally hit its manning target. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>Jesus man, just admit it, just say you don't want the UK to have a military and be done with it.

 

[Hangfire]

When the Bowman PRR was introduced it was a shambles, sure it was better than Clansman on paper, but in practice we at least knew how clansman was sucky whereas with Bowman we had to learn about a whole new level of shittiness and incompetence by the contractors building this fucking kit for us.

You know what we ended up calling Bowman? Better Off With Map And Nokia, and that's what we did until we got a bollocking for it because of the very reasons inktomi mentions.

I'd also like to say try if burning something outside is so easy try it yourself. You're shaky, jittery, getting shot at and trying to burn some paperwork you'd stuffed into a pouch that may have gotten damp from your own body sweat or from rain/mud/irrigation ditch whatever. Then throw in that it's pissing down with rain too... Now try burning it with a lighter while the wind is blowing. Fuck I'd barely be able to get the lighter lit, let alone a bit of paper. As ink said, it'd be easier to just stuff it in an ammo can with an incendiary grenade, but that'd require getting the maps off everyone in the unit and putting them all in the can, whilst you're close to being over run. Not the easiest of solutions. It's why on anything really sensitive we have the kill systems for them in case they do get captured, because it's *HARD* to do it when you're about to get a serious shoeing.

 

[Hangfire]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16624401

I thought this would be interesting. No real surprises to be hones the usual gang of suspects involved again.

 

[Hangfire]

Err Pavehawk pretty much nailed it. Actually I was suprised by Qatari involvement, English, French + kinda/ish the rest of NATO not at all.

 

[Hangfire]

Err Pavehawk pretty much nailed it. Actually I was suprised by Qatari involvement, English, French + kinda/ish the rest of NATO not at all.

Qatar played a pretty big role, as they were probably the main conduit for arms to Libyan rebels. It wasn't even disguised, as the rebels were getting crates of arms and munitions with the stamp of the Qatari government on them. I think I remember reading that some other Arab nations used Qatar as a strawman to send weapons as well. One of the shipments captured by the Libyan regime had FALs and ammunition and another had Milan ATGMs.

Interestingly enough these shipments were a clear breaking of un res 1970 and then superceded by 1973 but well it's not like anyone is gonna take em to court for it really? But it does kinda lessen the legitimacy of both the UN (in writing this rule and then having it flagrantly broken) and international law itself (hey we won! might makes right after all!) Why write the law and then have almost everyone supply the NTC anyway? *sigh*

 

[Hangfire]

In other news, those who scrap their power projection lose their ability to protect lines of passage.

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/12/07/uk- ... ng-vessels

No invasion necessary if there is a blockade and UK forces can't safely escort transiting vessels.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -22708102/

*snort* Show me an analysis of where the Argentinians can stage a successful invasion and then I'll take that mirror article seriously.

 

[Hangfire]

If you're going to bring up ergonomics then you have to include the handling of the recoil which with bullpup designs is strong factor in their favour, more of the mass of the rifle at the rear which is nearer the shoulder and so on and so forth.

 

[Hangfire]

ok here's a randomly weird question. I'm also starting up a thread in the lounge about this but it's erm, it could kinda be politically related so I'm shoving it here too.

Why do the Navy SEALs exist? I'm not questioning their skills or abilities at all ok? I just don't quite understand the skills overlap here. I mean there's so many units in the US Army that get called Special Forces I sometimes wonder if they hand them out with the breakfast cereal packets, then there are the US Marine Corps Special Operations guys, also confusingly there are US Airforce Special Forces people too if memory serves me correctly. It just seems like each and every branch has to have a "special forces" and I can't quite fathom why exactly.

I mean especially with the US Navy, I can understand sort of why the USAF would need it with forward air controllers and para rescue jumpers. I can see exactly why the Army has fucking tons of them, but I can't quite wrap my head around the Navy having them, I mean that's the role of the US Marines no? To be the Naval infantry? Yet the Navy decides they need ANOTHER infantry unit on top of it? It just seems needlessly and strangely over-redundant to me. I mean if someone can explain to me WHY this is the case I'll be more than happy to listen and accept the answers of course! But I don't exactly understand it.

P.S. Coming from the British side of things I've always seen the use of Special Forces as force multiplication in being that we drop these guys off in the middle of nowhere to make friends with the locals, train them up to be guerilla fighters and partisans for us and harass our enemies from within. So think of super NCO's in addition to all the running around and shooting people in the head in ninja clothes idea that Hollywood seems to be so in love with.

 

[Hangfire]

Yeah I can see that, but I still see a ton of overlap in capabilities and it just led me to wondering why?

 

[Hangfire]

Alamout[/url]":ndprzn4m]

P.S. Coming from the British side of things I've always seen the use of Special Forces as force multiplication in being that we drop these guys off in the middle of nowhere to make friends with the locals, train them up to be guerilla fighters and partisans for us and harass our enemies from within. So think of super NCO's in addition to all the running around and shooting people in the head in ninja clothes idea that Hollywood seems to be so in love with.

That is pretty similar to what the Army Special Forces does (the ones that are literally called "Special Forces"). Their main role is to build up local forces. The SEALs do completely different things. Other parts of the UKSF do different things too--that's just one of many roles for SF units.

There are a lot of different units with different operational specialties and roles. There are also lots of turf wars which leads to redundancy.

The SEALs are most closely analogous to the SBS, I guess. Why does the SBS exist when you have the Royal Marines?

SBS are Royal Marines still btw, for the most part, that's why we call them Super Booties :3

The best description for them is on the Arrsepediaa wonderful wonderful site even if it run by a bunch of iniquitous former British army types.

Formerly the Special Boat Squadron ... Consider them (superbooties).
A lot of military types see the SBS as the poor cousin to the SAS or 'Them', but in fact they are superior soldiers in some astonishing ways. Here is a list of things that make them, well not 'Them' 'cause thats someone else. Anyway here it is:
1. All SBS can hold their breath underwater for three days (selection criteria).
2. All have to have dark green and black camouflage tattoos on their faces.
3. All can speak fluent dolphin 'click click' language.
4. One phase of SBS selection is "The Way of the Molusc" in which they have to fight to the death with an Octopus.
5. All of the staff at sealife centres are ex-SBS.
6. Peter Andre (of Material Girl fame), is ex-Aussie SBSR.
7. Shane Warne - the Aussie cricketer - applied for SBSR, but was turned down for being too fat.
8. The Aussies don't actually have an SBS unit.
9. Lewis Collins of The Professionals fame was RTUd for trying to kiss a koi carp on the mouth during selection. His defence was 'She came onto me.'
10. Most ex-SBS have evolved gills and have donated their lungs to the NHS.
11. The SBS are sometimes referred to as the 'Shaky Boat Squadron'.
12. Prospective candidates for selection are required to be interviewed by the CO whilst wearing a gimp suit. This assesses their suitability for rubber wear...
13. ...They are then required to do a twenty miler in it...
14. ... and then get the beers in!
15. Unlike the SAS, literacy and literary aspirations are not a requirement ... which has resulted in most SBS books having a reading age of 5 OR have to be ghost written.
16. If you dine out in a Portsmouth restaurant and ask if you may 'have the fish', its too late, the SBS will have had it first.

Lee Vann[/url]":ndprzn4m]A lot of the overlap is only superficial. The various teams are highly specialized in both mission and geography. Also, not all special forces are created equal.

But well, this all started from when the Seals went in and killed Bin Laden ok? I mean it was in Sodding Abbottabad, I know SEAL stands for SEa Air Land etc etc but bloody hell... That's really fucking in from the sea and then some. And yes, not all SF units are created equal. Some are copied from THEM such as American THEM

EDIT: Added picture for clarity.

 

[Hangfire]

Alamout[/url]":vlz2uv28]Still not sure where we're going with this. Your original question has been answered to the extent that it can be, if you care. Yes, we all understand that you are full of patriotic pride when it comes to the UK military. That's swell--I'm glad you're happy. It's not really a discussion though, is it?

Erm if you read the links... They're taking the piss. A lot.

 

[Hangfire]

Alamout[/url]":3abhs93d]I didn't read the link because you quoted so much of it. I understand that it was a joke. I don't understand why you posted it.

What about the other links about THEM as well, why? You asked about the RM and SBS and thought they were separate, they're not. The SBS are a subset of the RM both historically and in terms of command structure still to this day.

 

[Hangfire]

m0nckywrench[/url]":2kdlbo6j]http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/18/brazil-jets-idUSL2N0JX17W20131218

Good fit for Brazil, and unlike US equipment it doesn't come with a US diplomatic supply/support political "kill switch".

The further the international weapons-buying community gets away from US equipment the weaker the toxic influence of DC becomes, and the better for local military-industrial complexes.

Was it really because of the NSA? Doubt it, but it makes for a great political soundbite.

 

[Hangfire]

http://www.dvidshub.net/video/366891/co ... FgnZpCsWz7

The commanding officer of SOCOM discusses the Strategic Quality of Landpower

At a point in the discussion he brings up the possibility of integrating SF units with conventional units and that... Makes me... feel like it's rather redundant and pointless. I personally think it would be a better choice to keep the units separate but make them work together more often. Unfortunately due to the unconventional nature of Special Forces operations I'm not even sure this is a good choice, the utility of this is debatable especially with the vastly differing nature of the way the units work and their rules of engagement. Either way it's an interesting (but long) discussion to watch and I'd like the thoughts of it. The idea seems like a bit of a power grab to me.

 

[Hangfire]

Interesting, my main, err objection to it is that imo an SF unit is basically, well going from it historically, a senior NCO who is a craftsman/professional/master at war now. He (or her) was sent with their unit to train local partisans up in unconventional warfare techniques and force multiply the effect and conduct, plan and help the locals with guerrilla operations. So... like say... a really REALLY well trained NCO cadre? Which is what the NCO cadre should be anyway no?

 

[Hangfire]

Losing Small Wars: British Military Failure in Iraq and Afghanistan

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Losing-Small-Wa ... 0300182740

I was gifted this book and thought "oh dear god I'm going to hate this." But then I opened the first pages and realized that while it was an incredibly painful book for me to read (it hit very close to the bone) and I have to admit an illuminating one too. I'm not going to gush and say it was transformational but I did feel that he nailed British failures pretty much square on the head. Yes, there were some minor factual errors but on the whole the book identifies some of the major structural failures with British policy in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

Where did we fail? We got caught up in the group think. I'll give you an excerpt here merely from the introduction.

Like any other ‘profession’, there is undoubtedly within the armed forces (as within other exclusive organizations) an inherent belief that they are uniquely well qualified to discuss military matters. ‘Leave it to us,’ they say. ‘We know what we are doing.’ We have been happy to devolve debate about the way we conduct warfare to military men (and a very few women) in the most conservative institution in the country. They know, we still presume; leave it to them. This is simply another manifestation of British military exceptionalism. I believe discussion of military matters should not be ‘left to them’. Indeed, it is not in our tradition to do so. It is only recently that military experience and knowledge have been so peripheral to the mainstream of our society. As a result, a ‘stab in the back’ myth has developed – that the primary fault lies with those who failed to resource the missions on which the soldiers were sent with adequate equipment and weaponry; that it is someone else's fault after all.

In seeking to move the debate away from tired questions of kit and whether the wars were ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, I will examine whether the problems facing Britain's armed forces – predominantly the army, which is far larger than the other two services combined – can be found in their mentality and approach; in other words, in their culture. The British military profession is a society apart. The armed forces are the most closed within a strong field of closed establishment institutions. This separation and exclusivity is necessary, since we ask of them the kind of service and sacrifice we demand of no other element of the public service. This separation from the ‘mainstream’ is evident at its most basic level to anyone visiting a military base, upon which no reader without the requisite pass may legally stray. They are secure areas, designed clearly and rightly to keep out the many and ever more varied hostile elements of the outside world. The guarded gates and barbed wire fences serve, to a great degree, also to keep their inhabitants and their ways in.

Of all Britain's professional societies, none is more defined by its different language, values and behaviour. Even the dress is distinctive. With its often strange and arcane rituals and histories, the British military is almost the ultimate example of anthropologist Clifford Geertz's definition of culture as ‘the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves’. There is nothing inherently negative about any of this. The problems begin when those stories are believed and acted upon. Separation then becomes exceptionalism. There is a deep- rooted belief in the idea that anything can be done, and that the possibility of failure is not only not an option, but cannot even be acknowledged. This in turn gives rise to deeply unrealistic approaches, which may be characterized by the benign phrase ‘a can- do attitude’. This is otherwise known as ‘cracking on’. No other profession can afford such illusions. In the law or in medicine the delivery of unrealistic advice results in adverse consequences both for those requesting the advice and for those delivering it.

Ouch. Really really OUCH. I sat back just from the first few pages and had to say "oh shit... he's right." So really take a long hard look and think about the military in the light of this and what else the book has to say.

I really do feel that this should be required reading in war colleges across the world.

Some links to reviews of the book written by people who are far better writers than me

http://www.newstatesman.com/books/2011/ ... aq-british

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9b568e20-bf5e ... z3I77W3L9l

 

[Hangfire]

No, not really sorry, when LTG Charles T Cleveland starts talking at about 52 minutes in he is talking in big picture and concepts rather than actual specifics.

 

[Hangfire]

Isn't SOCOM already larger than the entirety of the Canadian army by about 15% already?

Just fact checked

SOCOM is like 63,000

Canadian Army is like 50,000 so the total percentage difference is like 23%?

 

[Hangfire]

btw, what the hell does ITT mean? This has been bugging me since, forever.

 

[Hangfire]

So I got into a bit of an argument the other night and said

look, here's the simple fact of the matter, yes, I am in favour of the UK keeping the nuclear deterrent actually. While it is a big chunk of the UK defence budget, I also think that it's part of the UK budget is fucking tiny, we're at about 6% of total gov expenditure for defence, trident replacement is going to be about 40bn, the current expenditure puts the nukes at about 5% of the defence budget, so we're looking at it costing us roughly 1% of the total gov budget. Sure that's a big fucking chunk of money, but my point is, we spend that money and it buys us the seat at the big boys table. If we get rid of it, the UK becomes already way way way more marginalised than it already is, which is imo quite a lot already and would only grow with getting rid of trident and it's successor.

I was accused of being all kinds of cynical and twisting the situation to support my support of nuclear arms but I honestly believe everything I said is true, I think the UK has been marginalised more and more every year since the end of WW2. I also believe that the UK only gets to sit at the big boys table mainly due to two factors, US largesse and Nukes. If we factor in dropping the nukes I don't think the US calculus would include much of a "special relationship" any more.

What do you say SB defence nerds?

 

[Hangfire]

From Janes.

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter programme is developing a pod-mounted cyber-attack system as it continues kinetic weapons integration, the deputy programme executive officer said on 17 March.

"Industry is developing a pod that would not degrade the signature of the airplane," said Rear Admiral Randy Mahr at the Precision Strike Association conference in Springfield, Virginia. He told IHS Jane's that the offensive system was in the "prototyping phase" and was not being designed by F-35 prime contractor Lockheed Martin, but declined to name the developer.

Is this the next step for Suter?

 

[Hangfire]

From the Suter link

It is specialised to interfere with the computers of integrated air defence systems.

and

Three generations of Suter have been developed. Suter 1 allows its operators to monitor what enemy radar operators can see. Suter 2 lets them take control of the enemy's networks and direct their sensors. Suter 3, tested in summer 2006, enables the invasion of links to time-critical targets such as battlefield ballistic missile launchers or mobile surface-to-air missile launchers.

It's way beyond what most people think of as ECM/ECCM nowadays

 

[Hangfire]

inktomi[/url]":1kovivzp]

Wudan Master[/url]":1kovivzp]How does CAS work from the ground do you define the targets you need taking out and they workout how to kill it?

If you have no specifically designated spotter, then usually the unit calls and gives a grid, and someone from higher up makes all the decisions. The report for CAS is very long, and very complicated, and requires you to do stuff like pick an approach for the airplane and that sort of thing. As a rule, whatever Joe on the ground asks for is going to be modified and approved by someone else.

The Marines and the British will talk directly to nearby units if they are able, and seem pretty tolerant of the way inexperienced soldiers describe things. They also know to question whether you are giving MGRS coordinates, or whatever it is pilots use, which the USAF doesn’t.

Calling for drones is similar, but faster.

Calling for rotary-wing support is basically going to be like calling another ground unit — you basically tell them where you are and where the bad-guys are, and what frequency they can talk to you on. It’s very common for helicopters to contact the units they support directly, and adjusting their fire is basically like adjusting fire for another ground unit. It might be more involved than that from the pilot’s perspective, but you can talk to them like regular grunts. They use MGRS maps, and know that most soldiers are only familiar with MGRS.

Artillery follows a very strict report format, but any NCO or officer knows the basics of it. You can request certain ammo, or fire patterns, but the gun battery is going to do what it wants. If you have specialized spotters (every company is likely to have one) then they can take very fine control over the guns, but when regular soldiers call in the battery will change the details to whatever they think is best and read them back. They also use MGRS maps.

Usually there will be a two-man fire control team (for artillery, mostly) with each company, and a USAF observer with each battalion. When soldiers are dispersed more widely, it’s pretty normal for them to be too far for the USAF FO to help them, but the artillery spotters can usually be put with whatever platoon is most likely to get contact.




As a general rule, the Joe-proof support comes from artillery and rotorcraft. Drones and fixed-wings typically take higher-level coordination.

That's what always confused us, the US forces insistence on everything being *JUST* so. When some excited JO or even a private is babbling down the net demanding this, that or the other and expecting that they will get it right is probably not going to happen. So we (the Brits) just deal with it and make do, also we take the piss out of them mercilessly for some of the things they're shouting down the net when they're so excited.

 

[Hangfire]

Technarch[/url]":2ifumxud]This could be a big deal for arms control treaty purposes. The image isn't extremely clear, but I'm guessing those are Oscar II and Sierra attack subs pictured--definitely not SSBNs. Are attack subs allowable nuke platforms under whatever the current nuclear weapons arrangement is?

There are indications that Russia's latest attack sub (I don't remember the name, like snevedrnarksnost or something) carries a dual-use cruise missile that can double as a nuclear payload. Nevermind, I went and found what I was thinking of, better than just rumor post, and now it's good to laugh at how I butchered the name:

I'll be impressed when the Russian ship builders can actually build something that doesn't kill rats or sink at the slightest sneeze

 

[Hangfire]

In case of a nuclear blast, hold your rifle away from your body, so that the dripping molten metal doesn't damage your government-issued boots (cold war-era Russian joke).

Having done my time in the early nineties, in the infantry;
In the event that we would be within the range to be casualties, but potentially combat effective for a period of time dependent upon amount of radiation exposed to, we were taught to lay with our rifle underneath us, face down, head pointed toward the epicenter of the incipient blast, in as aerodynamic a shape as was possible. Think planking.

The idea was to minimize blast wave damage, and be able to fight until we died of radiation sickness.

Should we have time to dig even a shallow depression, this was advisable.

We would drill on this occasionally.

That's gotta be a morale booster. "Hey, listen, we know you're about to die an almost unfathomably horrible, slow death, but if you could take out a few baddies on your way out, we'd super appreciate it."

Edit: a word

You want to see a real morale booster?

This was the action drill booklet for our NBC (Yes I know it's called CBRN now, but I'm a crusty old fucker and we called it NBC back in my day) gear.

Yes the cover featured a NBC suited & booted soldier - complete with S6 and SLR - charging, bayonet fixed, towards his inevitable demise at the hands of the 3rd Shock Army.

But Task 17... This one truly boggled our minds....

Spoiler

To quote the lads at Arrse.

Frankly if they had just written 'YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE' on the front it would have saved both time and money.

Their amended action drills are much more accurate too...

Immediate Action Drill - Nuclear

Sadly the correct drill for actions on when a Nuke gets dropped is omitted so here it is.

Lie down some where comfortable.
Tuck your head firmly between your legs.
Kiss your arse good bye.
Die.

Immediate Action Drill - Biological

The 'Biological' aspect has never been adequately explained, as there's nothing really instantaneous about being eaten inside out by the Ebola virus, so its tactical use is negligible. However.

Carry on as normal.
Collapse six weeks later.
Die.

Immediate Action Drill - Chemical

The 'Chemical' bit is more likely. Very nasty and more frightening than the bucket of sunshine option. Not to worry, Survive to Fight covers every aspect of what to do upon hearing GAS GAS GAS or your NAIAD chirruping merrily and how to operate and live in a poisoned environment - right down to the infamous Task 17.

Shit yourself - paying no attention to the procedure laid out in Task 17.
Mask in 9 (seconds) and realise some cnut has nicked your filter. See above.
Wonder why everything is becoming blurred.
Cough.
Splutter.
Fall over.
Have an eppy.
And.... you've guessed it. Die. (Is there a pattern emerging here?)

 

[Hangfire]

Nuclear Armed Cruise missiles were prohibited in SALT II

But...

https://www.state.gov/t/isn/5195.htm

A Protocol of about three-years duration which would cover certain issues such as cruise missile constraints, mobile ICBM limits, and qualitative constraints on ICBMs, while deferring further negotiations on these issues to SALT III;

 

[Hangfire]

https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-nav ... u-to-read/

Holy shit. This makes for an alarming read.

 

[Hangfire]

What puts the cherry on the pie on this is that the junior enlisted who ended up in this shitty position through no fault of their own are now tainted with this brush and will be considered suspect by anyone else in the navy, I mean who can trust their personnel jacket will actually be accurate? Did they really pass that cert? Do they really have that qual? How far back in training are they compare to others? All kinds of questions run through my head on this issue. What about the Squandron that the Fitz was on? Remember all the other people tested they only got the answers half right? This scares the fuck out of me.

 

[Hangfire]

So the rumour mills are a buzzing.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -in-russia

A Russian Su-57 has crashed roughly 68 miles from the Komsomolsk-on-Amur aircraft plant in Russia's Far East. The jet belonged to Sukhoi and was executing a flight test at the time of the incident. The pilot ejected and was recovered alive by an Mi-8 search and rescue helicopter not long after the crash. It is the first total loss of a Su-57

~

TASS reports that a flight control system failure caused the crash, with one source stating it had to do with the aircraft's tail control surfaces. Interfax reports the aircraft was the first production Su-57 ever and it was supposed to be delivered to the Russian Air Force by year's end. If this is the case, it would be a significant blow to the program on a number of levels.

~

TV Zvezda, an official outlet of the Russian Ministry of Defense, says that Su-57 exploded when it hit the ground and was totally destroyed. Multiple outlets are also now reporting that aircraft was indeed the first serial production example.

State-run media outlet RIA Novosti has reported that the mishap occurred during an engine test, but it remains unclear if engine trouble was the actual cause of the accident. Some Russian media reports have pointed to a potential failure in the Su-57's engine control system, but TASS continues to report that its sources say the issue was in the flight control system.

 

[Hangfire]

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso/na ... 8/?lang=en

Russia has just released this set of demands.... hahahahahahahahahahaha

The United States of America shall undertake to prevent further eastward expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and deny accession to the Alliance to the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The United States of America shall not establish military bases in the territory of the States of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics that are not members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, use their infrastructure for any military activities or develop bilateral military cooperation with them.

The Parties shall refrain from flying heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear armaments or deploying surface warships of any type, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas outside national airspace and national territorial waters respectively, from where they can attack targets in the territory of the other Party.

LOL Can any Russian Surface Combatants even make it to anywhere near the East Coast of the USA without nearly sinking?

This would be my reply of choice personally to these demands... Go fuck yourself or in Russian иди на хуй себя

I've not laughed this hard in years.

 

[Hangfire]

Yep, Red Heat, my favourite terrible Russian Movie after Red October.

 

[Hangfire]

https://twitter.com/UncleChaps/status/1 ... 2228172804

So General James Mattis is now married... by an Elvis impersonator officant...

Once a marine....

So I guess he can now move out of barracks?

 

[Hangfire]

In other news

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/russian-aircraft-carrier-admiral-kuznetsov-on-fire-again/
The Kuznetsov is burning... again... God why don't the Russians just give up on that thing already?

 

[Hangfire]

So we all know that at times the Military Industrial Complex comes up with some deeply unfortunate names and acronyms. Ladies and Gentlemen may I present to you...

https://www.drdo.gov.in/120-mm-penetration-cum-blast-pcb-and-thermobaric-tb-ammunition-mbt-arjun
the 120mm Penetration-Cum-Blast (PCB) ammunition for the Arjun Main Battle Tank

 

[Hangfire]

Eh. The Sig MCX is a decent rifle. I think they should have gone with HK's M27 IAR like the Corps. But that's just me.

At least EMALS was/is a good idea. LCS was stupid from the conceptual stage.

No, sorry I fundamentally disagree. It's a stupid rifle, the round is hot, the recoil is gnarly and the weight of the round is heavy as fuuuuuuuuu so we're basically back down to 7.62 loadouts for the guys. Which fucks with all the fire and movement training and makes training new recruits a lot more of a pain in the ass. This rifle is all the wrong lessons learned from Afghanistan and applied to big army at great cost for no good fucking reason.

I do agree they should have gone H&K 417 instead though with the new sexy optic and ENVG

 

[Hangfire]

uh ok so here's the problem. For all this talk of drones and air combat etc. Right now, there are literally zero UCAV's that have even anything remotely close to the performance envelopes of a modern air superiority jet or even an F-16. The best currently available is a Global hawk with a performance ceiling of 60,000ft but it's speed is 357 mph (570 km/h, 310 kn). They're running basic turbofan jet engines like in a widebody...

The Specs are
Maximum speed: 391 mph (629 km/h, 340 kn)
Cruise speed: 357 mph (570 km/h, 310 kn)
Range: 14,200 mi (22,800 km, 12,300 nmi)
Endurance: 34+ hours
Service ceiling: 60,000 ft (18,000 m)
Lift-to-drag: 33

vs the F-15
Maximum speed: Mach 2.54 (1,650 mph, 2,655 km/h) at high altitude
Mach 1.2, 800 kn (921 mph; 1,482 km/h) at sea level
Combat range: 1,061 nmi (1,221 mi, 1,965 km) for interdiction mission
Ferry range: 3,000 nmi (3,500 mi, 5,600 km) with conformal fuel tanks and three external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)
g limits: +9
Rate of climb: 67,050[148] ft/min (340.6 m/s) (with 3 pylons)
Wing loading: 73.1 lb/sq ft (357 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 1.07 (1.26 with loaded weight and 50% internal fuel)

the F-16
Maximum speed: Mach 2.05, 1,176 kn (1,353 mph; 2,178 km/h) at 40,000 feet, clean
Mach 1.2, 800 kn (921 mph; 1,482 km/h) at sea level
Combat range: 295 nmi (339 mi, 546 km) on a hi-lo-hi mission with 4 × 1,000 lb (454 kg) bombs
Ferry range: 2,277 nmi (2,620 mi, 4,217 km) with drop tanks
Service ceiling: 58,000[328] ft (18,000 m)
g limits: +9.0
Roll rate: 324°/s[330]
Wing loading: 88.3 lb/sq ft (431 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 1.095 (1.24 with loaded weight & 50% internal fuel)

The F22
Maximum speed: Mach 2.25, 1,500 mph (2,414 km/h) at altitude
Mach 1.21, 800 knots (921 mph; 1,482 km/h) at sea level
Mach 1.82, 1,220 mph (1,963 km/h) supercruise at altitude
Range: 1,600 nmi (1,800 mi, 3,000 km) or more with 2 external fuel tanks
Combat range: 460 nmi (530 mi, 850 km) clean with 100 nmi (115 mi, 185 km) in supercruise
590 nmi (679 mi, 1,093 km) clean subsonic
Ferry range: 1,740 nmi (2,000 mi, 3,220 km)
Service ceiling: 65,000 ft (20,000 m)
g limits: +9.0/−3.0
Wing loading: 77.2 lb/sq ft (377 kg/m2)
Thrust/weight: 1.08 (1.25 with loaded weight and 50% internal fuel)

The F-35A
Maximum speed: Mach 1.6 at altitude
Range: 1,500 nmi (1,700 mi, 2,800 km)
Combat range: 669 nmi (770 mi, 1,239 km) on internal fuel
760 nmi (870 mi; 1,410 km) interdiction mission on internal fuel, for internal air to air configuration
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)
g limits: +9.0
Wing loading: 107.7 lb/sq ft (526 kg/m2) at gross weight
Thrust/weight: 0.87 at gross weight (1.07 at loaded weight with 50% internal fuel)

The Chengdu J-20
Maximum speed: Mach 2.0[213]
Range: 5,500 km (3,400 mi, 3,000 nmi) with 2 external fuel tanks
Combat range: 2,000 km (1,200 mi, 1,100 nmi)
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (66,000 ft)
g limits: +9/-3
Rate of climb: 304[9] m/s (59,800 ft/min)
Wing loading: 340 kg/m2 (69 lb/sq ft)

The Su-57
Maximum speed: Mach 2 (2,135 km/h; 1,327 mph) at altitude
Mach 1.3 (1,400 km/h; 870 mph) supercruise at altitude
Range: 3,500 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) subsonic, 4,500 km from 2 outboard fuel tanks[253]
Supersonic range: 1,500 km (930 mi, 810 nmi)
Service ceiling: 20,000 m (66,000 ft)
g limits: +9.0
Wing loading: 371 kg/m2 (76 lb/sq ft) normal takeoff weight
Thrust/weight: 1.16 at normal takeoff weight (0.99 at loaded weight with full fuel)

The Su-35

Maximum speed: 2,400 km/h (1,500 mph, 1,300 kn) / M2.25 at altitude
1,400 km/h (870 mph; 760 kn) / M1.13 at sea level
Cruise speed: 1,170 km/h (730 mph, 630 kn) / M1.1+ supercruise at medium altitude[218]
Range: 3,600 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) at altitude
1,580 km (982 mi) at sea level
Combat range: 1,600 km (990 mi, 860 nmi) approx[219]
Ferry range: 4,500 km (2,800 mi, 2,400 nmi) with 2 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 18,000 m (59,000 ft)
g limits: +9
Rate of climb: 280 m/s (55,000 ft/min) +
Wing loading: 408 kg/m2 (84 lb/sq ft) With 50% fuel
500.8 kg/m2 (102.6 lb/sq ft) with full internal fuel
Thrust/weight: 1.13 with 50% fuel
0.92 with full internal fuel

The Shenyang J-11
Maximum speed: 2,400 km/h (1,500 mph, 1,300 kn) / M2.25 at altitude
1,400 km/h (870 mph; 760 kn) / M1.13 at sea level
Cruise speed: 1,170 km/h (730 mph, 630 kn) / M1.1+ supercruise at medium altitude[218]
Range: 3,600 km (2,200 mi, 1,900 nmi) at altitude
1,580 km (982 mi) at sea level
Combat range: 1,600 km (990 mi, 860 nmi) approx[219]
Ferry range: 4,500 km (2,800 mi, 2,400 nmi) with 2 external fuel tanks
Service ceiling: 18,000 m (59,000 ft)
g limits: +9
Rate of climb: 280 m/s (55,000 ft/min) +
Wing loading: 408 kg/m2 (84 lb/sq ft) With 50% fuel
500.8 kg/m2 (102.6 lb/sq ft) with full internal fuel
Thrust/weight: 1.13 with 50% fuel
0.92 with full internal fuel

All of them can conceivably reach out and touch the Global Hawk at it's Max alt and it's so slow it's not going to be dodging it, or evading it or using chaff or anything at all.

The most advanced of the publicly known currently armed UCAVs is the RQ-9 Reaper

Maximum speed: 300 mph (482 km/h, 260 kn)
Cruise speed: 194 mph (313 km/h, 169 kn)
Range: 1,200 mi (1,900 km, 1,000 nmi)
Endurance: 14 hours fully loaded
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,420 m)
Operational altitude: 25,000 ft (7.5 km)

Every single jet fighter in existence outperforms a drone by an order of magnitude, couple the weapons loadout availability vs what can be strapped onto a drone and my point still stands. Until someone invents, builds, deploys and tests the EDI UCAV from the movie stealth, then drones will be absolute kill marker bait for IADS and enemy fighter pilots.


View: https://youtu.be/xCEzEVwOwS4?t=1009

But on both sides those sort of issues would prove to be temporary. Ukrainian air defences were able to re-site themselves, integrate, and also begin to evade jamming. Because as the Russian forces moved forward jamming, which is essentially a directional activity, became harder and harder among other things.


Again that's speculative at this stage, but there are people on the ground who claim that it's true. At the same time the Russians were able to sort out the original organisational chaos. They were able to get their batteries sorted out, their radar switched on, and eventually established something like an air defence network over much of the front line.

The result was a brief spike in aircraft losses, followed by everyone collectively deciding on both sides that the deck was where they wanted to operate. Mid and high altitude was now a no-go zone for anyone flying a jet or a helicopter. This was now the kind of high-threat environment where only advanced stealthy systems like F-35 are intended to operate, and even then at high risk.

And neither Russia nor Ukraine were on Lockheed Martin's authorised buyer list. Instead aircraft and helicopters would now operate at low altitude. Something which actually led to ... a sustained increase in casualties credited to short-range air defence systems, things like MANPADS.

Now if one looks at the statistics alone without any context, you can look at these and argue that MANPADS and short-range air defences are the solution to all problems. After all look at it, they're shooting down jets and helicopters galore. But those jets and helicopters wouldn't even be within range if it wasn't for the S-300s and the Buks forcing these aircraft and helicopters down to dangerously low altitude.

Make no mistake, every fighter pilot I've ever met is a self-confessed adrenaline junkie. But most of them don't want to fly 3 foot off the deck just for fun in a combat zone. They're more inclined towards safer activities like base jumping. They're after the risky, not the suicidal. So forcing them down this low was a credit to the air defence system. It was exactly the kind of interplay between different systems with different engagement altitudes and ranges that the Soviets and the Russians had always expected. The only problem from their perspective is it was cutting both ways.

and

But both loss statistics and Ukrainian commentary confirmed that after the early stages of the war, the quality of Russian air defences basically made using the TB2 in a strike role essentially impossible in most areas of the front. The thing was just too vulnerable. It could still be used of course, it was used in a surveillance and a distraction role, and a reconnaissance role. It was involved in the Moskva sinking for example. But unless paired with suppression of enemy air defences activity, like with the use of HARM missiles on the Kherson front, the TB2 wasn't able to operate with impunity in the same strike role that it enjoyed in those first few days on the Kyiv front. It was too slow and not quite stealthy enough to avoid destruction in a particularly high-threat environment.

So until

This EDI UCAV gets invented. The "drone" combat that's being envisioned is NOT going to happen.

 

[Hangfire]

There's a lot of fundamental misunderstanding about what the Army wants, which is a round that can penetrate a hypothetical peer state's infantry personal body armor at non-MOUT combat ranges, with a weapon that has an integral suppressor yet has the same footprint as the current M4. They specified the 6.8mm projectile because that's optimal to retain energy (and hence penetration) at combat range, but left it to the contestants on how they get that round going. Practically speaking, however, you're not going to be able to get that velocity out of suppressed rifle with the same overall length of the M4 without using either magnificent chamber pressures or going to a bullpup layout. The Army decided it would rather deal with the chamber pressure issue and keep the overall M4 form factor than deal with a bullpup layout, while the problems caused by high chamber pressures and barrel erosion limiting life span of the barrel can be dealt with by issuing reduced pressure ammo for training and peacetime, and issuing the hot stuff for combat and infantry weapons essentially become disposable.

The 6.8mm projectile requirement does mean individual combat loads will be lower for the same weight, but this is why the Army is also requiring compatibility with advanced weapon sights that will essentially permit first round hits. Suppressing the enemy through sheer volume of fire is going to go away in favor in suppression through accuracy of fire.

And speaking of suppression, speculation is that what really sold the Army on the Sig system was their squad machinegun entry. The XM250 is a really, really nice MG, and paired with the new round it's a real beast.

yeah I know all that, but with 5.56 you can basically shoot at the enemy a lot and sure it won't defeat their supposed body armour, but here's the deal, so what? Most of what frags the opfor nowadays is supporting fires, the bullets are there to keep their heads down and in place until the 155 or JDAM turns them into a red mist. And by the off chance a round does hit the enemy that's an actual bonus, but whats even better is if the round hits an arm or a leg, then they're combat ineffective, tying up a bunch more combatants and/or the guys gonna die from bleeding out anyway. The vortex scope and etc is really nice, and tbh now that you've said that about the MG thing it sounds even dumber, why bother with that when we've already got a perfectly fine FN MAG that everyone uses anyway? The weight differential isn't that great and well, lots and lots of units started to ditch the L110A3 in favour of the gimpy (pronounced jimpy) for a reason... The Minimi was shit and the rest of the squad would carry extra belts for the gimpy gunners anyway.

 

[Hangfire]

NGAD is a USAF program. If conversion is as easy as you say why hasn't it been done already?

The lag from tightbeam to satellite to ground station is huge (Roughly 2 seconds from ground stations in CONUS to Afghanistan) and then on top of that the tracking of the comms to the jet in the middle of combat maneuvers? How much bandwidth are you going to need for all the sensor information to be relayed back to the pilot at the ground station? 4K visuals is going to be at least 25 megabits, then add in radar, IR, sensor information and all the telemetry from the aircraft itself too.

The more situational awareness you have the better, but adding that much complexity to the datastream and latency and tightbeam tracking so it can be harder to jam is.. that simple?

That much bandwidth is going to be tough for EMCON and keeping the aircraft LO, also making that fat of a link LPI is also a challenge. To say the least, but hey I'm super glad you've decided that all of this is fixable right now.

 

[Hangfire]

That presumes supporting fire is immediately available. I don't think the Army assumes that in a peer fight. The Army is concerned with maximizing the lethality of the individual rifleman.



Limb hits by 5.56 at long ranges don't stop people from fighting, that was one of the lessons from Afghanistan that started the interest in replacing the round in the first place: 5.56 NATO doesn't have the terminal performance at longer ranges to either guarantee incapacitation or penetrate armor/cover.



Because the new 6.8mm is even better than the 7.62 NATO, if it wasn't they would have just gone back to 7.62 NATO.

And again this is because all the wrong lessons were learned in Afghanistan. Let's look at the combat happening in Ukraine, right now, it's all combat in/around/or on approaches to the cities.