The Secret Soviet Marxist Plan to Crush European civilization in 7 Days

[Daryl Hunt]

The Russians produce and sell systems, that can convert any cargo ship in a sort of erzatz-cruiser, so we may produce (and may be sell) systems that will convert corgo-planes in a sort of erzatz-bombers. Why not?

1. Even though the Buff is very, very large, they did pay attention to the radar signature. But in the early 50s they didn't have that big a handle on it. Physics says that the further away something is, the harder it is to detect it. The larger it is, the design, etc. determines whether or not you can find a firing solution. Yes, the 747 can be modified to carry just about anything, even becoming a missile truck but it's many times larger on Radar than a Buff. I can't speak for the Russians as I am not an expert on their systems but I can for the US. And the US would NEVER use such a big lumbering ac for a bomber.

2. Again, I can't discuss Russians systems, but since the introduction of the F-35B and the upgrades to the EA-18G, the Navy has extended the range of their SM-2 and other Missiles. Without the two birds, the normal range for a SM-2 is about 450 miles. Yes, it has much, much more range but the firing and targeting solution won't go out past that point. Math and Physics gets in the way. But when you put a F-35B at the 400 mile range, you now have a missile with well over 1200 mile range with a pretty good chance of a kill. To give you an idea, that missile used to bag the low orbit sat was a SM-2. The same missile carried by US Destroyers, Cruisers, Frigates and, yes, even carriers. That over 1200 mile range is from the Destroyer not the Carrier. The destroyer is out hundreds of miles doing cover for the Carrier. That means that that same 450 mile SM-2 now has a range of over 1500 miles with a good kill rate from the Carrier which is going to be YOUR intended target. It's not the originating launch platform that is doing the actual guiding of it, it's the closest one in the link. If you can get that F-35B within 450 miles of the enemy coast, the SM-2 fired from that Destroyer can accurately hit a stationary target over 1500 miles away. And let's face it. The only sure way to take a carrier out is to go Nuke. And the only two crazy enough to do that are Iran and North Korea. Can anyone spell "Glass Parking Lot". The only difference, I believe, in capability between the Russians and the US would be the kill rate per fired weapon which Russia really doesn't have a great track record but that doesn't mean that they don't have the capability. It's going to come down to who can destroy the other sides sentry aircraft before they lose their own.

Right now, the F-22 and F-35B pretty much rule the Pacific. This could change. But like all other things, one side makes a development, the other side counters it which prompts the other side to make another development and so on. And in the meantime, both sides are making their war game plans. From those war game plans, comes what the next development of weapons, systems and tactics will be. And the only ones that will be followup on will be the ones that show that one can be a clear winner RIGHT NOW. Not 20 years down the road. The ones that made the moves without have a plan to insure their outright winning have all failed. Everyone is just too equal and cannot be invaded or defeated. The Navy and the Air Force cannot defeat any country. It takes boots on the ground. There has to be someone there to surrender to whether it's domestic or foreign boots on the ground.

So we sit like we are and do the planning which affects next years and beyond Military Procurement and Development on all sides. And until one side can figure out a way to be a clear winner without becoming a loser, that won't change. And each side plays proxy wars in the meantime.

 

[Mushroom]

The Russians produce and sell systems, that can convert any cargo ship in a sort of erzatz-cruiser, so we may produce (and may be sell) systems that will convert corgo-planes in a sort of erzatz-bombers. Why not?

Do you even know what a "Cruiser" is? Obviously not if you made this post.

Just putting a missile of some kind on a ship does not make it a "cruiser". No more than landing a plane on a ship makes it a "carrier". Or putting a cannon on a ship makes it a "battleship".

The last time I know of a major power actually doing something like this, I already discussed. The British took 2 container ships and turned them into "ersatz carriers" during their war with Argentina. The SS Atlantic Conveyor was hit by 2 Exocet missiles, and went down a few hours later, killing 12 crew and all 25 aircraft destroyed on the deck.

So yea, I guess this could be done. But do not forget, "ersatz" is generally slang for a poor copy, garbage, coprolite. In combat these things would have the lifespan of hours if not less. Cargo ships have no defenses against missiles, torpedoes, or mines. Damage most warships would survive after taking will sink them quickly.

And no, using a civilian vessel (air or sea) that is not specifically designated as a combatant in advance falls under the same classification as "spying and espionage", and is generally considered a war crime. No different than a US cargo ship full of weapons and Marines flying Panamanian colors dropping an invasion force. You can use all the mental gymnastics you want, not only are they all stupid ideas, most of them are outright illegal.

And yes, the US military does use the 747. As transport aircraft, and AWACs primarily. Registered as part of the US Air Force, in full military markings, and I am not aware of a single one of them having any kind of offensive capability (other than maybe Air Force 1).

I can tell you exactly what would happen. Russia might hesitate to shoot down a 747 based on what happened in 1983. But they will still go to investigate it. And if it is unquestionably over their air space and not responding to radio, they will try to verify it's markings.

If it is in civilian livery, expect all hell to break out Internationally. And the fact we used a Boeing made aircraft to do this would pretty much guarantee the death of Boeing as a company, as almost every country will dump them, out of fear they might get shot down in the future. And depending on who's livery we used, that reaction might range from denying any flights from the US, to severing all ties and treaties, maybe even a declaration of war.

You see, this is how an Analyst looks at such things. We do not just think up something, we look at it from all angles, and see what can work and not work. And nothing you bring up makes a lick of sense.

 

[Silver Cat]

Sure, ersatz-bomber can't survive in a proper battle. It's why it can be used in the one way - sudden and massive nuclear strike against sleeping enemy. That's why it must be unmanned and bought for a song (for example, from a bankrupt company).

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Sure, ersatz-bomber can't survive in a proper battle. It's why it can be used in the one way - sudden and massive nuclear strike against sleeping enemy. That's why it must be unmanned and bought for a song (for example, from a bankrupt company).

Changing the parameters once again, I see. Glad you aren't helping our Military doing their war game planning. Now if we could only get you to help the Chinese.

 

[Silver Cat]

Sure, ersatz-bomber can't survive in a proper battle. It's why it can be used in the one way - sudden and massive nuclear strike against sleeping enemy. That's why it must be unmanned and bought for a song (for example, from a bankrupt company).

Changing the parameters once again, I see.

Did I ever claim, that we must buy 747 for the price of B-21 or use it in the way we can use a B-52? We are going to fight China, you know. China is rather big and populated country, but we have many other potential and actual enemies. We must knock out China with the first strike and with the minimal loses. So, we are talking about sudden and massive nuclear strike. We need to have cheap and already aviable delivery systems. It means civilian ships and planes.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Sure, ersatz-bomber can't survive in a proper battle. It's why it can be used in the one way - sudden and massive nuclear strike against sleeping enemy. That's why it must be unmanned and bought for a song (for example, from a bankrupt company).

Changing the parameters once again, I see.

Did I ever claim, that we must buy 747 for the price of B-21 or use it in the way we can use a B-52? We are going to fight China, you know. China is rather big and populated country, but we have many other potential and actual enemies. We must knock out China with the first strike and with the minimal loses. So, we are talking about sudden and massive nuclear strike. We need to have cheap and already aviable delivery systems. It means civilian ships and planes.

YOU are talking about first strike on China. The rest of the sane world isn't discussing it and I am getting off this loony bus. Have a nice day, fruitcake.

 

[Silver Cat]

YOU are talking about first strike on China.

Yes. There were many wars in our history. How many of them were started by the enemies attacking American territory? We almost always strike first, and we should strike first in this case, too. PR-men will concoct proper excuses, no doubt, but we are talking here about strategy, not PR.

The rest of the sane world isn't discussing it and I am getting off this loony bus.

And what is your "sane world"? Some kind of your communistic dreams?
Do you want to leave the Earth or something?

 

[Silver Cat]

BTW, there is one more piece of "insanity"

"Vintage Racer -Loitering Weapon System" from General Atomics.

Keywords: “Hypersonic Ingress,” “Survivable,” “Time Over Target,” &“Multi-Role.”

It will be a good thing for the pre-emptive strike against mobile ground-based strategic missiles.

 

[theHawk]

Dems have come closer to destroying Western Civilization with their Marxist ideology. Just look what happened to America in the last week. Marxism in our schools and media is far more dangerous than a foreign army.