Military Tech Thread

[11bee]

Kinda relevant - the ongoing struggle to find longer ranged sniper rifles and in this case, the USMC is on the loosing side. According to the article, the Corp is pushing an inferior rifle on it's snipers because the ancient M40 is a USMC jobs program.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/why-the-marines-have-failed-to-adopt-a-new-sniper-rifle-in-the-past-14-years/2015/06/13/cb924d96-0eaf-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html

Edited June 15, 2015 by 11bee

[11bee]

Don't mess with China.. First they send a naval task force off the coast of AK, now they release a video showing what they will do to us if provoked.

Scary stuff indeed.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-the-insane-video-china-just-put-out-showing-it-1728674129

[TaiidanTomcat]

Don't mess with China.. First they send a naval task force off the coast of AK, now they release a video showing what they will do to us if provoked.

Scary stuff indeed.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/this-is-the-insane-video-china-just-put-out-showing-it-1728674129

call of duty. CHINA TOWN

The USN outweighs the next 10 navies combined. 8 of those ten are allied with us.

I mean "oh no!! Only a trillion dollars over the next ten years can bring parity to the USN!! 700 ship navy!! Expand the Marines to 400,000!!"

I get a kick out of sites like foxtrot alpha that waiver between the evils of the MIC while inflating the threats that are then used to feed it

Just lol

Edited September 4, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[Berkut]

Can we all, collectively, agree to ban foxrotalpha links? Together with War is boring they are the TMZ of military news. Absolutely pile of sh!te.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Can we all, collectively, agree to ban foxrotalpha links? Together with War is boring they are the TMZ of military news. Absolutely pile of sh!te.

I second the motion.

I will say though, nothing is funnier than watching commenters call the authors out, and just burn them outright.

[11bee]

Can we all, collectively, agree to ban foxrotalpha links? Together with War is boring they are the TMZ of military news. Absolutely pile of sh!te.

The signal to noise ratio isn't the best but on occasion, they have some worthwhile stuff. I find the various interviews with pilots to be informative, they just posted an article on a "stealth hornet" that is, if nothing else, interesting.

[TaiidanTomcat]

The signal to noise ratio isn't the best but on occasion, they have some worthwhile stuff. I find the various interviews with pilots to be informative, they just posted an article on a "stealth hornet" that is, if nothing else, interesting.

I enjoy watching them get slayed on the comments. So theres that.

[Trigger]

they have some worthwhile stuff.

Can we all, collectively, agree to ban foxrotalpha links? Together with War is boring they are the TMZ of military news. Absolutely pile of sh!te.

That's not very nice; what did TMZ ever do to you to deserve that kind of slander?

Edited September 4, 2015 by Trigger

[TaiidanTomcat]

That's not very nice; what did TMZ ever do to you to deserve that kind of slander?

[11bee]

New Chinese A2A missile seems to have our boys in blue a bit concerned.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/25/the-new-chinese-missile-that-has-the-u-s-air-force-spooked.html

[TaiidanTomcat]

New Chinese A2A missile seems to have our boys in blue a bit concerned.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/09/25/the-new-chinese-missile-that-has-the-u-s-air-force-spooked.html

I cant belive Axe left out the parts where american aircraft can carry more AAM either externally, or with F-35 double the amount he quotes. (Plus external!)

[11bee]

I cant belive Axe left out the parts where american aircraft can carry more AAM either externally, or with F-35 double the amount he quotes. (Plus external!)

Yeah but doesn't that negate the ability to sneak up undetected and smack the bad guys in the mouth? I can't believe that if we ever go up against a neer-peer adversary like China, we would send our F-22's and F-35's loaded with external weapons. I would also think that if they are configured like this, that would eliminate the F-22's super cruise performance and further limit the F-35's already marginal maneuverability.

Doesn't sound like a plan for success.

[TaiidanTomcat]

Yeah but doesn't that negate the ability to sneak up undetected and smack the bad guys in the mouth? I can't believe that if we ever go up against a neer-peer adversary like China, we would send our F-22's and F-35's loaded with external weapons. I would also think that if they are configured like this, that would eliminate the F-22's super cruise performance and further limit the F-35's already marginal maneuverability.

Doesn't sound like a plan for success.

Didn't you read the words "straight up fight" wherein we negate key advantages to go slug it out like drunken idiots?

If combat loaded F-35 is marginal maneuverability that's awful news for the teen series

Edited September 25, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[Gordon Shumway]

If war came to pass between the USA vs China and/or Russia, the conventional stuff would only be a prelude to how said war would end. The battle would likely move quite quickly from conventional arms to throwing nukes. If any of these three felt that they had no other option they each would begin tossing nukes and in the end nobody would win.

The never ending game of one upmanship conventional and even cyber military industrial complex games will go on and on as long as major powers and each's allies feel a need to have said conventional deterrence. It's damn good for business. It also allows proxy wars to go on and on, but none of the major powers here are stupid enough (I hope ) to ever engage in a real shooting war against each other, conventional to start and nuclear to end.

The one upmanship game of military deterrence and ability for major powers to go around inciting various proxy conflicts is not likely to end any time soon. But again war between the big three here will never end with a true victor and as such will not likely happen. Though egotistical retards in power of any of these three major nations could go mental I guess. But each power here likely has enough safe guards in place to keep a maniacal idiot from going ape$hit on each other.

Fear and paranoia though (oooh! be scared of the bogyman. ) is good for business, so expect always to have the stew of such cooking on at least simmer temperatures. Each of the big three :wub: love it! and in the end they man love :wub: :wub: :wub: each other for keeping it all going. We as a global society in the 21st. century should be use to it by now.

Edited September 25, 2015 by Gordon Shumway

[Aurora Mark]

Absolutely.

ASW has been a neglected art these last several years too, 6 years in P-3s and all of my time is flying over sand or looking at dhows off the east African coast. Anyone who has ever tracked an actual sub (no, not one of ours coming out of Kings Bay at a known point and time...) is now USN Retired. And I'll say it, practically every time we flew an ASW ex, it would be us knuckle draggin' flt engineers sitting up front eating Cheetos who'd spot the subs periscope trailing in the water long before "Contact!" was called from the tube rats. Oh well.

I take offense to that! I'll have you know... ...hahahaha.

Whitey, you know me. I'll just shaddup and go back to my tube.

[11bee]

The never ending game of one upmanship conventional and even cyber military industrial complex games will go on and on as long as major powers and each's allies feel a need to have said conventional deterrence. It's damn good for business.

Damn good indeed. I've got stock in LM, Boeing and Textron. Despite some recent dips, some of my better purchases. Fear the menace from the East (and West) folks! Write your congressman to demand more military spending (only from from the above contractors though).

Edited September 26, 2015 by 11bee

[11bee]

I posted this in the F-35 thread but maybe more appropriate here?

Interesting article about the E-2D's ability to detect LO targets and the Navy's pretty impressive abilty to use these platforms to guide air and surface launched missiles.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-japans-secret-weapon-destroy-chinas-j-20-j-31-14016

[Trigger]

Now that 11bee mentions it, this thing I posted about in the F-35 thread may be more appropriate here as well

McCain To Carter: Make UCLASS A Long-Range Strike Drone

WASHINGTON: Former Navy pilot Sen. John McCain wants the Navy to build its first carrier-based drone with the ability to carry two tons of weapons in a stealthy platform able to fly into harm’s way and not primarily as a reconnaissance aircraft. And McCain, chairman of the Senate Armed Serves Committee, went straight to Defense Secretary Ash Carter to make his case in a letter today.

The Navy is in the midst of developing a final Request for Proposal for UCLASS — a process which has been delayed several times in the face of serious question about the balance between range, weapons payload size the reconnaissance mission — and McCain clearly wants the Navy to change direction.

As a former Navy congressional liaison, the chairman certainly knows how to work the system. He isn’t alone in pushing for the navy to change direction. Rep. Randy Forbes, chairman of the House Armed Services seapower subcommittee, has also weighed in on UCLASS. However, Forbes pushed for a smaller payload of at least 1,000 pounds.

The senator was pretty specific in his letter. He said the Navy should build a system: “unrefueled endurance several times that of manned fighters; a refueled mission endurance measured in days; broadband, all-aspect radar cross-section reduction sufficient to find and engage defended targets; and the ability to carry internally a flexible mix of at least 4,000 pounds payload.”

On top of all that, MCCain urges the Pentagon to actually use the UCAS-D — better known as Northrop Grumman’s X-47B — to learn more about how to use carrier-based drones. He notes that, “under current plans” there won’t be any drones operating from a carrier deck for several years. “I think this would be a lost learning opportunity in what promises to be a a critical area for sustaining the long-term operational operational and strategic relevance of the aircraft carrier.

[11bee]

Stumbled upon a few interesting articles while enjoying a quiet morning of net surfing.

Navy's plan to defeat the big, bad S-400 SAM.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revealed-us-navys-plan-defeat-russias-deadly-s-400-14515

Interesting, it shows why the Navy is pushing so hard for more Growlers. Didn't know that they could (either with 3 Growlers or two EA-18's and an E-2D) obtain "weapons quality tracks" against emitters like this. I guess my question is - even if you have this data, how do you take out this system from presumably a long ways off?

Navy seems to have figured out that they might actually have to get back into the ship sinking business.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a18391/the-us-navy-is-slowly-realizing-it-may-have-to-sink-ships-again-in-the-future/

Not sure the SM-6 is a real answer and upgrading slow and relatively unstealthy Tomahawks may not be very effective either against modern ship-mounted SAM's and close-in defense systems. So far, the Navy's most effective way to sink a ship is probably with a submarine.

Israel gets some training against the S-300 SAM system

http://news.yahoo.com/israel-trained-against-russian-made-air-defense-system-110048789--finance.html

I'm guessing the US has also had similar opportunities but it's worth noting that these are older generation systems, the current ones that Russia is fielding are much updated.

[SERNAK]

The battle would likely move quite quickly from conventional arms to throwing nukes.

General Patton once said, "Accept the challenges so that you may feel the exhilaration of victory.” What's the challenge if one of the two sides decides to use nukes??

[Gordon Shumway]

General Patton once said, "Accept the challenges so that you may feel the exhilaration of victory.” What's the challenge if one of the two sides decides to use nukes??

There is no challenge, therefore the US led western continuing nonsense of poking at Russia and by lesser extent China is purely silly. But there are those in the shadows of western govt. who I believe that think they can defeat the Russians and even the Chinese. Not when either side has enough nukes to wipe you out with them.

BUT!

Read my signature here, it's from the movie Under Siege. Ryback's point is more true than not. Much of our world is offensively and in the shadows run by lunatics. We must as citizens be intelligent enough to not sleep walk into a greater provocation to war with especially those who can fight back.

Montenegro in NATO for one. Do any of you in service to a NATO country want the possibility of a greater war with Russia over the corrupt piss ant state of Montenegro? That is what YOUR governments are signing you up for!

Edited December 5, 2015 by Gordon Shumway

[TaiidanTomcat]

There is no challenge, therefore the US led western continuing nonsense of poking at Russia and by lesser extent China is purely silly. But there are those in the shadows of western govt. who I believe that think they can defeat the Russians and even the Chinese. Not when either side has enough nukes to wipe you out with them.

BUT!

Read my signature here, it's from the movie Under Siege. Ryback's point is more true than not. Much of our world is offensively and in the shadows run by lunatics. We must as citizens be intelligent enough to not sleep walk into a greater provocation to war with especially those who can fight back.

Montenegro in NATO for one. Do any of you in service to a NATO country want the possibility of a greater war with Russia over the corrupt piss ant state of Montenegro? That is what YOUR governments are signing you up for!

There is absolutely no rule that says nuclear armed states will engage in wholesale nuclear war, even when there is conventional war. I think a lot of that started with the ban the bombs folks but it persists to this day.

Next. The us rearming conventionally in the 1970s was a pretty darn good idea. It made conventional warfare unpalatable and those systems are still in use today. Sometimes being well armed is enough to prevent the war in the first place, and if you take your nuke theory, thus prevent escalation to nuclear war. So there are many many good reasons to prepare for conventional conflict against nuclear armed states. Some would say more so.

The world was much more nuke rich and both sides far more antagonistic during the cold war, yet it was considered wise to spend billions in conventional arms from tanks to planes to ships. I'm waiting for the person who is going to tell me that was all a waste as we continue to get use from them.

Lastly, if under siege is the movie you have decided to base your life philosophy on, you need to find some better movies or try reading a book. Many books talk about war, history, and nuclear war, even nuclear tactics and strategies. As far back as 1960 people were figuring out that nuclear war probably wouldn't be a one and done affair. Even Hitler refused to use chemical weapons In combat, yet another historical example of restraint. And by a genocidal lunatic at that. You will also notice Under Siege took place on a battleship, which was a part of the rearming I mentioned earlier.

Countries routinely deescalate force even after blood is shed. We call that "peace" actually.

There are also conditions other than war, wherein short of war, short of nuclear war, conventional forces need to be utilized and have decent conventional forces is important to that.

Edited December 5, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat

[11bee]

There is no challenge, therefore the US led western continuing nonsense of poking at Russia and by lesser extent China is purely silly. But there are those in the shadows of western govt. who I believe that think they can defeat the Russians and even the Chinese. Not when either side has enough nukes to wipe you out with them.

BUT!

Read my signature here, it's from the movie Under Siege. Ryback's point is more true than not. Much of our world is offensively and in the shadows run by lunatics. We must as citizens be intelligent enough to not sleep walk into a greater provocation to war with especially those who can fight back.

Montenegro in NATO for one. Do any of you in service to a NATO country want the possibility of a greater war with Russia over the corrupt piss ant state of Montenegro? That is what YOUR governments are signing you up for!

Gordon - Please spare us your political viewpoints. I started this thread simply as a means to discuss modern weapons systems. Too many interesting threads have ended up being locked due to politics being introduced.

If you want to share your opinions with the rest of the ARC community, start your own thread. Otherwise, keep your politics out of this one.

[Gordon Shumway]

Gordon - Please spare us your political viewpoints. I started this thread simply as a means to discuss modern weapons systems. Too many interesting threads have ended up being locked due to politics being introduced.

If you want to share your opinions with the rest of the ARC community, start your own thread. Otherwise, keep your politics out of this one.

No politics by me except to again just note that we are governed essentially by lunatics and such ungrateful and dangerous persons. I have not singled out any one or more sides on the political scale by stating such. The disease of such lunacy in leadership ebbs and flows between the prospective/possible combatants, be it political/diplomatic combat, economic combat or real war type combat. The sooner we all see this, the sooner we can collectively try to affect such hopefully more positively.

The idea though of a (conventional arms) range war is really moot as again any conventional war between the top powers, USA, Russia, China will all in the end move from conventional warfare to the use of nukes. All three above have the ability to deliver enough nukes to any place on the planet to more than do the job.

The US has in its back pocket the nukes from Great Britain, France and Israel. So if the USA goes lobbing nukes, so too shall they.

The real nuclear wild cards are India and Pakistan. Many feel that they have a good chance of nuking each other one day if their tempers go too hot.

But as to the conventional arms range war discussion, it's all just a game of one upsmanhip. Tic toc back and forth. Today "A" leads, tomorrow "B" leads, maybe the next day "C" leads and round and round it goes. It's all interesting info and discourse for those who are interested in military products and affairs such as most of us may be here.

By all mean continue on with said discussion. B)

[Gordon Shumway]

There is absolutely no rule that says nuclear armed states will engage in wholesale nuclear war, even when there is conventional war. I think a lot of that started with the ban the bombs folks but it persists to this day.

Next. The us rearming conventionally in the 1970s was a pretty darn good idea. It made conventional warfare unpalatable and those systems are still in use today. Sometimes being well armed is enough to prevent the war in the first place, and if you take your nuke theory, thus prevent escalation to nuclear war. So there are many many good reasons to prepare for conventional conflict against nuclear armed states. Some would say more so.

The world was much more nuke rich and both sides far more antagonistic during the cold war, yet it was considered wise to spend billions in conventional arms from tanks to planes to ships. I'm waiting for the person who is going to tell me that was all a waste as we continue to get use from them.

Lastly, if under siege is the movie you have decided to base your life philosophy on, you need to find some better movies or try reading a book. Many books talk about war, history, and nuclear war, even nuclear tactics and strategies. As far back as 1960 people were figuring out that nuclear war probably wouldn't be a one and done affair. Even Hitler refused to use chemical weapons In combat, yet another historical example of restraint. And by a genocidal lunatic at that. You will also notice Under Siege took place on a battleship, which was a part of the rearming I mentioned earlier.

Countries routinely deescalate force even after blood is shed. We call that "peace" actually.

There are also conditions other than war, wherein short of war, short of nuclear war, conventional forces need to be utilized and have decent conventional forces is important to that.

I agree there is no established rule of war going nuclear, (MAD still exists though, even if it's not really brought up between the US and Russia) but logic or illogic in the minds of the side that may feel it's losing will almost certainly invoke said rule of tossing its nukes.

Any person(s) in government who feel they can wage war with other top powers and feel victory will be at hand IS A FOOL! We should be scared *hitless of them. They are the most dangerous of leaders.

Wars are deescalated if they are not seen as global or potentially global wars. Proxies, secret wars, piss pot illegal wars, can all be deescalated in time as noted. But start a grievous war between the USA, Russia and or China and it will GO NUCLEAR!

Next, I don't base my life's outlook on a movie, but Ryback's quote in said movie is more correct than not.

The governments you, I, we all see each day are the public governments. But working in secret as the string pullers are the often sick minded people, who are lustful, power hungry, greed hands. They operate generally in the shadows and sadly I believe suffer from a level of grand myopia and grand self delusions. History is pockmarked with their misguided follies and errors. But they are heartless beasts and DON'T GIVE A RATS A**, especially with those who suffer. They are masters at spin and can often keep a public blind and even willing to do their favours without much if any a question asked.

Now I'll send you all back your regular programming, :D/> it's easier for most that way. Tune into American Idol, So You Think You Can Dance, Big Brother and or Survivor and such. All are good at general distractions from such darkness in our governments.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Gordon Shumway