America’s Junk Weapons

Discussion in 'Military' started by longknife, Jul 8, 2018.

  1. Manonthestreet
    Offline

    Manonthestreet Platinum Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2014
    Messages:
    19,629
    Thanks Received:
    6,878
    Trophy Points:
    430
    Ratings:
    +17,215
    Talk about proppo....you got no shot of invading China....madhaatter to the max Carrier strike is so short legged you need help big time. Building another nuke bomber is ridiculous.....especially if its slow as B2....you really are in the dark on tech advances.
     
  2. Daryl Hunt
    Offline

    Daryl Hunt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    5,817
    Thanks Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,578
     
  3. Mushroom
    Offline

    Mushroom VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
    Ratings:
    +119
    Uh-huh, and exactly what "new RADAR" is going to accomplish this magic feat?

    You are aware that actual RADAR itself has not really been significantly changed in over 40 years, are you not? Yes, they make improvements to them, but that is really the last time that there has been any major improvement of significance to military detection and tracking RADAR systems.

    "Ultra fast strike to roam the Pacific"? What does that even mean?
     
  4. Daryl Hunt
    Offline

    Daryl Hunt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2014
    Messages:
    5,817
    Thanks Received:
    317
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +1,578
    Higher band radars are shorter but more powerful but they are also the easiest to defeat. The lower down the frequency you go the longer the range but the power must be increased to use them. They also can be defeated. Until you reach the low refrequency band radars that have the longest range but require oodles of power. But the low band radars can track but they lack the ability to lock on.

    In something the size of a fighter, they can only marginally defeat the low wave radar making the low wave radar able to pick them up right around 50 miles or 80km. This enables the enemy the ability to vector in their own fighters to that location. The bad news is, long ranged stand off weapons have a longer range than the affective range of the low band radar. While the low range radar will be able to get an initial track, the stand off weapon will fallow that beam in and destroy the radar site. And the fighters will not remain static and just move to another vector.

    Bombers like the B-2 are large enough where they were designed to lessen the affects of even the low band radars. Meaning, they can get closer before detection. How close? I doubt the US is going to release that data any time soon. And, unlike the fighters, the IR detection is pretty well worthless against them. Their exhaust heat dissipation is pretty good to the point you will probably have a visual before you have an IR signature. In the end, it's going to be a visual fight and anyone playing that game is going to pay dearly getting there.
     
  5. Mushroom
    Offline

    Mushroom VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
    Ratings:
    +119
    The DF-21D? That is little but a crazy propaganda weapon. And the Chinese would be totally insane to even try to launch one of those at a US carrier.

    Yes, the weapon has 0 chance of hitting a carrier. There is a reason nobody uses ballistic weapons against point targets, they lack the accuracy to do so.

    And even worse, the DF-21D is based on the DF-21 series of missiles. And other than this one, each and every one of them is a 500kt nuclear weapon. And until the thing hits it's target, it is impossible to determine which one would be launched.

    So how do you think the US Navy would react if it say a medium range ballistic nuclear missile heading towards it? They are going to react as if it is a nuke, if it is or not. And since it is "strongly believed" that every carrier task force has nukes of their own on board, that means the odds increase significantly that the US will react as if it is a nuke.

    Never mind that the CEP of this missile is over 3 times the width of a carrier in the first place. That means even if the thing is stationary at anchor and not moving, there is only a 1 in 3 chance it could hit it. When the ship is actually moving at sea, you can give up ever hitting it.

    Well, it is more than just bands. Probably the biggest advancement in RADAR since WWII was the Phased Array RADAR system, a key feature of such systems as the AEGIS system for the Navy, and PATRIOT for the Army.
     
  6. longknife
    Offline

    longknife Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    38,466
    Thanks Received:
    11,852
    Trophy Points:
    1,400
    Location:
    Sin City
    Ratings:
    +24,348
    We never know what other stuff is being dreamed up in super secret sites.
     
  7. Mushroom
    Offline

    Mushroom VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
    Ratings:
    +119
    But none of this is "new". Frequencies are chosen for a reason.

    That is why OTH RADAR uses very long frequencies. They are good at seeing things at extreme ranges (and even things that should technically be "out of sight"), but they are almost impossible to use at closer ranges, and for vectoring any kinds of weapons.

    Shorter frequencies are the choice for targeting and acquisition for that reason. Shorter range in general, but more accurate for this purpose.

    And then there is the inverse issue of "pumping up the volume", and that is enemy detection. On average, the rule is generally that the enemy can detect a RADAR system at twice the distance that the RADAR can detect it. And it's range is ultimately a combination of it's power, and the horizon itself. Pump in more power, you are giving it's location away from a greater distance, making it easier to evade altogether.

    And that actually does little good in defeating stealth. Most SAM sites actually do have the capability to detect stealth. It is just that the RADAR return means they have to be very close in order to do it with enough of a return to engage.
     
  8. Mushroom
    Offline

    Mushroom VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Messages:
    658
    Thanks Received:
    88
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    Near Baghdad By The Bay, California
    Ratings:
    +119
    That is actually a rather shrewd analysis.

    But I think it would be impossible for Japan to not get sucked in. Any attacks on US bases would inflict huge casualties to the Japanese civilian population, and they would have to react or loose face both overseas and to their own citizens.

    And one thing it neglects to mention is the likelihood of the Philippines joining the US. This would provide yet another large land area to deploy US ships and air forces, making it harder to strike at all of them as they would be spread out even more.

    And one thing a lot of people fail to realize is that this is no longer the WWII era. In such conflicts it is no longer needed to "invade and occupy" another nation. Simply to crush their will or ability to fight (Gulf War I), or to strike directly at eliminating the government itself (Panama, Gulf War II).

    The US has not fought any kind of long wide spread war of total domination and control of another nation since 1950. But I can see the US conducting some amphibious strikes at key selected locations. If nothing else on the scale of large raids.

    Like say in Southern China. Around Hong Kong, Hainan, and the Leizhou Peninsula for example. Hit an area, eliminate local defenses and maybe imprison local officials, then withdraw after putting in a "Provisional Government", maybe even one influence by Taiwan.
     
  9. harmonica
    Offline

    harmonica Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Messages:
    11,706
    Thanks Received:
    1,243
    Trophy Points:
    290
    Ratings:
    +6,266
  10. DrainBamage
    Offline

    DrainBamage Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2016
    Messages:
    1,342
    Thanks Received:
    130
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +456
    Indeed, sometimes I wonder if anyone who babbles about DF-21 even stops to think about the kill chain and how this alleged missile could possibly target something that moves.
     

Share This Page