Discussion in 'Military' started by shockedcanadian, Aug 2, 2018.
Why? It won’t stop any nukes, which are sure to be used if it comes to war.
Yo.........................Moron with the buck teeth..................if you had bothered to read the link provided, you would know that both Russia and Israel already have this tech.
The last few times there have been conflicts where opponents have fired on US armored vehicles there were no nukes, what makes you think they'll be used the next time?
The last few times we weren’t fighting wars against Russia, or China, or one of Pakistan’s friends. This will cost billions of dollars, will be put on a handful of tanks, and will probably be cancelled after heavy monetary loss. How many tanks did we lose in the Iraq war without it?
Sure, but the last few times not fighting Russia/China does not mean the next conflict where USA deploys armored vehicles will, that is where I don't get your logic. I also don't understand why you're convinced they will be canceled, they are actually one of the few military programs that has been battle tested and proven to work by IDF.
Either way nobody is planning on spending billions, at least initially. They are installing Trophy on 261 M1-1A2 MBTs at a cost of about 91 million dollars, presumably in brigades more likely to be involved in asymmetric warfare. I don't know how many M-1s were lost, but they have been taken out by everything from RPGs to antitank missiles. We haven't lost any F-15s yet continue to advance and improve their capabilities, you never say "well good enough" and stand still with military technology especially on a tank design that is getting long in the tooth.
The answer was zero tanks. If a war breaks out against China or Russia, nukes would be used. That’s why MAD worked, and we never went to war against the USSR.
Nuclear weapons are always the last resort weapon to be used. No, I don't think that there will be nukes used in a war with China or Russia, because they feel the same way about them as we do. How do I know nukes are a last resort weapon? Because I was a member of the Personnel Reliability Program when I was stationed with VFA-131 Wildcats in the late 80's/early 90's. That meant that I was a member of the teams that loaded nuclear weapons onto the FA-18.
And, whenever we had loading drills, we weren't told if the weapon was active or a dummy round. We treated it like it was an active weapon at all times.
Sounds like a more advanced version of reactive armor.
Reactive armor doesn't destroy the fired round. The armor has to be hit by the ordnance first to be useful. This system kills the threat before it gets close to the tank.
No, nothing like reactive armor.
Separate names with a comma.