If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"PENTAGON WORKING TO GIVE F-35 JSF NUCLEAR-STRIKE CAPABILITY"
Paul J. Adam wrote:
Ken S. Tucker wrote: On May 10, 1:31 pm, "Paul J. Adam" wrote: It's dead by then: SM-3 is an exoatmospheric interceptor, capability demonstrated at 133 miles up. 1st stage cheap solid, 2nd stage ditto, the ballistic course is set, and the 3rd stage is lobbing, however, when the 3rd stage separated, 5 decoys also blow off. "A saturation campaign my boy", 6 missiles is 30 inbound targets. Only six of which are emitting and manoeuvering. The problem with making decoys Really Convincing is that they end up as expensive as the platform they're meant to be protecting... Which, in fact, was the genesis of the U.S. Cruise Missile resurrection in the 1960s. Both the Boeing ALCM and the Tomahawk had their roots in SCAD (Subsonic Cruise Armed Decoy). The old Quails were no loner up to the job, you see, and th idea was that even if the Bad Guys did figure out which blips were decoys, you'd still have to intercept them if they had warheads aboard. The trouble is, a reusable ship can host a lot more sensor output and processing power than a one-shot missile and its expendable decoys, which makes discrimination that much easier. Or you throw a lot of money at your decoys... at which point you're no longer launching a cheap missile. You're not going to get these missiles with the capability you describe for a million dollars each. These are going to be expensive beasts... Not really, mass production reduces cost. No, it doesn't. It spreads the cost more thinly across more platforms, but you don't get cheaper development from a longer run. The development cost is what it takes: if it costs ten billion dollars to design the system, then you need to produce ten thousand missiles to get the per-unit development cost down below a million apiece - even before you worry about any manufacturing and material costs. Halve the run and you make each weapon appear to cost more - but the development costs don't get any bigger, just the share heaped on each unit. Okay - according to you these missiles can't be stopped, can't miss, and are so cheap they can be fired in hundreds. We all die and nothing can be done. So why worry? It's like a game of chess. We're trying to discuss the vulnerability of a CVN fleet to conventional missile attack, especially going forward 20 years. Well, if he's going to phrase it that way... The idea is plausible only to the point of discussion if the ballistic missiles are carrying large area-effect warheads. (For values of large equal to several megatons. Conventional-warhead missiles will require several direct hits, and given the flight times, which can't be changed materially for a ballistic missile, you'd have to saturate an incredibly huge area to have a reasonable chance, Here's the upshot - the idea only works as a first shot - The results of throwing a large number of your strategic nuclear weapons at a Carrier Battlegroup has just raised the ante to where your country is a Trinitite Mine, and any survivors are being hunted down by the folks who were downwind. Trying it with conventional warheads means that you now have, among other things, an extremely ****ed off Carrier Battle Group off your shores, with the exact location of your launchers all dialed in. (And, given ELINT vs. the sensors and Command and Control net, your eyes nd brains, too.) Either strategy accomplishes the demise of your regime, at best, and your nation, at worst, in record time. Paul, I just realized that we may know some of the same people. Drop me an Email to see if that's so. -- Pete Stickney The better the Four Wheel Drive, the further out you get stuck. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Pentagon Wants Kill Switch for Planes" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 24 | June 16th 08 03:27 PM |
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" | Jim Logajan | Piloting | 259 | December 13th 07 05:43 AM |
Spinner strobing as a "Bird Strike Countermeasure" | Jim Logajan | Home Built | 212 | December 13th 07 01:35 AM |
"British trace missile in copter strike to Iran" | Mike[_7_] | Naval Aviation | 8 | March 10th 07 08:20 PM |
"Pentagon Command Shuffle Rekindles Equity Debate" | Mike | Naval Aviation | 1 | January 26th 07 03:04 PM |