| Author |
Message |
|
elp
|
 Posted: Mar 14, 2006 - 08:32 PM
|
 
|
|
F-16.net Editor
Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 09:08 PM
Posts: 3147
|
We are really good with our SAMs. So good in fact we applied a LEAN inititive to eliminate that troublesome time consuming IFF non-sense. 
PAC 3 is a license to steal. It has trouble doing scripted range events. Hate to see it used in combat to consistantly do the job. Maybe the Japanese version can help that.
PAC 2. Again it comes down to training. Want an effective PAC 2? Remove it from the control of the Army. Having them program manage complex gear is like telling your kids to go out and play in the traffic. |
_________________
- ELP -
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 24, 2013 - 8:02 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guysmiley
|
|
Posted: Mar 14, 2006 - 09:32 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
|
Quote:
PAC 2. Again it comes down to training. Want an effective PAC 2? Remove it from the control of the Army. Having them program manage complex gear is like telling your kids to go out and play in the traffic.
 zing! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snypa777
|
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2006 - 10:02 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527
Status: Offline
|
Hasn`t the US army had control over all US land based SAM sites traditionally?
The Boeing Bomarc was the only system the USAF controlled right?
If ELP is correct about the army record on SAM capability it would suggest the US had a shaky homeland defence for decades  ( Apart form AF fighters of course!). |
_________________
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guysmiley
|
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2006 - 05:47 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
|
snypa777 wrote:
If ELP is correct about the army record on SAM capability it would suggest the US had a shaky homeland defence for decades
I'll let you in on secret: The "Department of Homeland Security" is a political dog and pony show. The US doesn't have strict border security because that would require East German-esque walls, guardtowers and razor wire, which will never happen. It isn't "protecting us from terrorists". Hell, if some jihadists got ahold of a true 'suitcase nuke' I still maintain all they have to do is disguise it as a bale of pot and smuggle it in that way.
The Army has shot down more friendly aircraft in anger than enemy aircraft in the modern era. Which is why I'm glad they don't provide air defense for the country. The problem with SAMs is they don't move. A competent fighter force combined with tankers and C3I gives more "bang for the buck" than if the country was ringed with enough SAM batteries to provide the same coverage. The perimiter of the US is huuuge, fixed SAM batteries just don't make sense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
elp
|
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2006 - 10:44 PM
|
|
|
F-16.net Editor
Joined: Sep 23, 2003 - 09:08 PM
Posts: 3147
|
This video pretty much sums up my opinion of the effectiveness of DHS...
Windows video....
***Video Here!*** |
_________________
- ELP -
|
|
|
|
|
|
LWF
|
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2006 - 12:23 AM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Jun 13, 2005 - 01:20 AM
Posts: 190
Status: Offline
|
| True suitcase nukes don't exist. The smallest the Russians ever got was about 3 footlockers big, because if you tried to get it into a suitcase you would still need shielding, and by the time you got through with the shielding you wouldn't have much space for the uranium, and then the half-life would take it below critical mass pretty quickly. Or, you could make it so everyone in 300 miles would know about it by taking out the shielding. |
_________________
It takes a fighter with a gun to kill a MiG-21!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guysmiley
|
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2006 - 01:56 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
LOL at that video elp!
LWF: I put suitcase nuke in quotes for a reason. There ARE very small nuclear warheads. Google ADM/MADM/SADM/XM-785 if you'd like to know more (from a public knowledge source). All I know of them is from a book called "History of the US Nuclear Arsenal", and in it MADM is cited as having a length of 3' 6.5", height and width of 2' 4" and a shipping weight of 391lb with a yield of 1 to 15 kilotons (adjustable). The actual warhead is less than 1' 0.5" (the size of a Little John warhead section, which shares the same physics package). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snypa777
|
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2006 - 04:07 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527
Status: Offline
|
Just to back up GUYSMILEY, the Russian government admitted to making about 50 suitcase bombs during the cold war. A number as high as 200 was quoted. I had no idea that the US made them too, that was a new one on me. I thought the smallest nuke made was the one for the artillery shell, I forget what calibre it was though, about 235mm?
One thing is certain though. The Russians admitted that they can no longer account for the whereabouts of them all. They are probably rotting away somewhere in a bunker rather than in hands of a terrorist cell. |
_________________
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Guysmiley
|
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2006 - 05:11 AM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM
Posts: 1496
|
|
snypa777 wrote:
I thought the smallest nuke made was the one for the artillery shell, I forget what calibre it was though, about 235mm?
You're thinking of the 280mm (11 inch) atomic cannon. There was also a "one five five" (155mm) shell, thats the XM-785 I mentioned above. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
parrothead
|
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2006 - 04:54 PM
|
|
|
Elite 3K
Joined: May 11, 2004 - 12:04 AM
Posts: 3280
Status: Offline
|
Don't forget the "Davy Crockett" nuclear round for recoilless rifles and the nuclear land mines  . |
_________________
No plane on Sunday, maybe be one come Monday...
www.parrotheadjeff.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
snypa777
|
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2006 - 06:58 PM
|
|
|
Elite 1K
Joined: Jul 26, 2005 - 03:00 AM
Posts: 1527
Status: Offline
|
|
Guysmiley wrote:
snypa777 wrote:
I thought the smallest nuke made was the one for the artillery shell, I forget what calibre it was though, about 235mm?
You're thinking of the 280mm (11 inch) atomic cannon. There was also a "one five five" (155mm) shell, thats the XM-785 I mentioned above.
That would be the sucker, thanks!
Parrothead wrote:
Don't forget the "Davy Crockett" nuclear round for recoilless rifles and the nuclear land mines.
Nuclear land mines, damn,has every military explosive been re-designed as a nuke! Would hate to be a sapper (combat engineer) with those things buried in front of me! |
_________________
"I may not agree with what you say....but I will defend to the death your right to say it".
|
|
|
|
|
|
LinkF16SimDude
|
|
Posted: Mar 17, 2006 - 05:16 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Jan 31, 2004 - 07:18 PM
Posts: 2365
Status: Offline
|
|
parrothead wrote:
Don't forget the "Davy Crockett" nuclear round for recoilless rifles ....
Does the NBC suit for that include a Racoon Skin Cap? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
