China Seizes U.S. Underwater Drone From International Waters

@oralloy,

You sound like Hitler in his bunker talking how a wonder weapon would change the course of the war. And you're not even at war.

There's no such thing as a 'tactical nuke,' they can't be used tactically, they're zero sum options.

The Serbs managed to knock down your last state of the art stealth bomber. How long do you think it's designs can be kept secret when people like you are already boasting about it? If Putin doesn't have the blueprints now he soon will.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

yeh you are right. I later found out (after posting) that outer space deployment of MIRVs was one of the things first outlawed in START I (one of the few things for which I give Reagan credit )

Thnk you for the note of correction

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Quote:

There's no such thing as a 'tactical nuke,' they can't be used tactically, they're zero sum options

You must tell the other guys. I know that a defense detection means , useable against stealth planes is shortly in the mill so even stealth wont be a deliverable option for tactical nukes.
We may be back to actual ballistic missiles with guidance systems based on land means , not satellites.

Tactical nukes will ultimately be used against N Korea if they keep up their crazy saber rattling and threats against our West Coast. We will take out their own buried bunkers to show them (without turning the entire country into a crispy parking lot) AND, it will show the Chinese that their present defense posture of building all these "ratwarren" missile sites and submarine sites are not safe either.

Sometimes the realities of military readiness must concern itself with the possibilities of what the other guy may try to wreak upon you.
There is no such thing as a " gentlemanly war".
I have no moral or philosophical problem with that

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

You sound like Hitler in his bunker talking how a wonder weapon would change the course of the war. And you're not even at war.

???

All I did was clarify what new weapons were in the pipeline.

izzythepush wrote:

There's no such thing as a 'tactical nuke,' they can't be used tactically, they're zero sum options.

Tactical refers to their use to destroy enemy soldiers on the battlefield. As opposed to destroying the enemy's cities deep in their homeland.

If Russia were to invade the European Union, and if the US were unable to repel the invasion conventionally, the US would use these bombs to destroy Russian military forces. At least, we would under Obama or Hillary. Trump might decide to cheer for Russia I guess.

izzythepush wrote:

The Serbs managed to knock down your last state of the art stealth bomber.

The F-117 (and F-35) has great stealth from the front, fair stealth from the back, and no stealth from the sides. That is good enough for flying directly at a heavily defended target and then destroying it before flying away. It is not so good if the enemy is firing a missile at your side.

In the case of Serbia, we flew the same route into the country over and over again, which allowed the Serbs to position a mobile radar where they knew it would catch a F-117 from the side. Merely varying our routes into Serbia would have defeated this tactic.

The F-22, B-2, and B-21 are stealthy from all directions, so do not need to worry about radar from unexpected locations.

izzythepush wrote:

How long do you think it's designs can be kept secret when people like you are already boasting about it?

Beats me. I know there is some bit of hysteria in Washington right now about keeping all of its features secret even though some of the capability goals were public earlier in the contract bidding.

izzythepush wrote:

If Putin doesn't have the blueprints now he soon will.

I doubt they will be able to replicate the planes even if they manage to get a copy of the designs. We haven't seen any Russian or Chinese versions of B-2 bombers yet.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

yeh you are right. I later found out (after posting) that outer space deployment of MIRVs was one of the things first outlawed in START I (one of the few things for which I give Reagan credit )

Thnk you for the note of correction

I meant it less as a note of correction and more as informational about what new systems are pending for our arsenal.

farmerman wrote:

I know that a defense detection means , useable against stealth planes is shortly in the mill so even stealth wont be a deliverable option for tactical nukes.

VHF radar can only detect fighter-sized stealth planes. Bomber-sized stealth planes are completely invisible to VHF radar. I did see though that you specified tactical nukes, which presumably would be delivered by a fighter and not a bomber.

I don't know that this will be "shortly" available as an effective counter-stealth measure though. Right now VHF radar cannot detect a position with enough accuracy for a weapons lock. Weapons makers might someday in the future figure out how to use VHF radar to get a weapons lock, but there is no reason to think such a development is imminent.

I suppose the F-35 with its vulnerability to the side is the most likely for delivering tactical nukes, and perhaps a cleaver enemy could use VHF to track their general location and then suddenly activate a normal radar right at a moment when it would catch an F-35 from the side.

But why would we allow VHF radar to even operate against us? It is a trivially easy band to jam or spoof. VHF is what we used to transmit analog TV signals for the last half of the 20th century. If the enemy tried to receive VHF signals bouncing off our fighters, our electronic warfare guys could override their screens with Seinfeld reruns. Or better yet, feed them fake signals. The enemy could exhaust all their SAMs firing at ghost signals while our fighters go about their missions unnoticed.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

North Korea cannot win a nuclear war, their deterrent only works if they strike first. That's the problem, and the leadership will only do that if they can get out of Dodge. That gives China an incredible edge, they can privately assure the Kims that they'll get safe passage and then execute them post strike, keeping plausible deniability.

That's the scenario I fear, because Trump is a dangerous lunatic with no understanding of the consequences of nuclear war.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

That's the scenario I fear, because Trump is a dangerous lunatic with no understanding of the consequences of nuclear war.

Reminds me of a picture I recently saw over at the War Is Boring blog.

http://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1200/1*6_yISInDubzj30wls0UfXg.jpeg

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

noone here (even the Trumpies) have even suggested that N Korea has any hope of winning a war. Thus any first strike they may achieve would be a regionl danger to our W Coast. NOT DOING anything to show them the error of their ways is not acceptable in such an event(IE a Tactical nuke that would blow the **** out of their bunkers and centrifuges) >This could be an acceptable lesson to them and a powerful message to China. China will not strike us yet, they are still in a third world nation. In 10 or 20 yeqrs?? Look out.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Ive seen a paper in Def Intel about (We sometimes look at whats going on to see if anything may be useful to mining technology)-
Multispec scanning and VHF interferometry. I guess the way they use it is to join two or more antennae and send out same frequencies and then use a computer program to ENHANCE the slighly different returns. This is kinda like what they do in radio telescopy when theyre looking for amino acids in space

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

In the case of Serbia, we flew the same route into the country over and over again, which allowed the Serbs to position a mobile radar where they knew it would catch a F-117 from the side.

I recall that, the pilots made it out and then debriefed the brass with the statements that"We had the bombay doors open"
I have a friend who flew Eagles in the early years of stealth and they had an avoidance thing about "dump your j-dams and close the barn doors reql quick"

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

What's par for the course for you is making stuff up and then accusing me of hacking the system and editing/deleting your posts because you're not man enough to stand by what you've said.

No hacking was your word, I accused you of having admin privileges and deleting your own posts. It figures this is what you fall back to, it what you always fall back to when you have nothing to contribute to the discussion. Like Rabel, you only enter into a thread only when you have insults and BS to hand out. You NEVER post anything of substance.

Quote:

The points I've made have shot right over your head, because you simply don't understand global politics, or anything else for that matter.

You made no points, you only insult. You never say anything about Global politics except to try and point out why someone is stupid about their own opinions. In fact most everyone who responds to you is doing so to counter some stupid personal attack, it's never the topic at hand.

See another whole post talking about your BS instead of the actual topic. Typical Izzy.

1 Reply

There are other methods of delivering tactical nukes on target that do not include aircraft of any kind.

http://www.highpants.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Highpants-Tackitac-Nuke-Sanaa.jpg

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

It's so long since I spoken to you that I've forgotten how monumentally stupid you are. You admit having a paranoid meltdown but dispute the actual language used, as if that has any relevance whatsoever.

I can see why America keeps losing to third world countries if you're any example of the calibre of your military.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

It's so long since I spoken to you that I've forgotten how monumentally stupid you are. You admit having a paranoid meltdown but dispute the actual language used, as if that has any relevance whatsoever.

I can see why America keeps losing to third world countries if you're any example of the calibre of your military.

When I was new in the Navy, I saw a few things that made me fear we could not be smart enough to stand up to our foes properly. Then I realized that stupidity likely was rife in the USSR's military also, and relaxed.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

There are more nuke Russian subs at the bottom of the seas than are in its service

1 Reply

@farmerman,

and their big aircraft carrier is an unadulterated mess.

0 Replies

China Seizes U.S. Underwater Drone From International Waters

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know