If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#121
|
|||
|
|||
Charles Gray wrote:
The most logical plan is to expect to conceede air superiority, and try for things that deny us air-supremacy. If you can get them, lots of V/Stols.and very carefully concealed air supply depots. They'll stay concealed until someone tries to use them.... The J-STARS picks up the trucks, an intel weenie figures out the truck/airplane cycle and... Your depot gets a visit from the USAF. One thing the US is getting good at, is identifying the head, and cutting it away from the body. D. -- The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found at the following URLs: Text-Only Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html Enhanced HTML Version: http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html Corrections, comments, and additions should be e-mailed to , as well as posted to sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for discussion. |
#122
|
|||
|
|||
"Ray Drouillard" wrote in message ...
"phil hunt" wrote in message . .. What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10 years? One word: Surrender Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand Fenwick strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of AK-47s, ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair in...' http://sgtstryker.com.cr.sabren.com/...?entry_id=2887 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer |
#123
|
|||
|
|||
"David Pugh" -cay wrote in message ...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message ... Done thirty years ago with assorted single launchers (basically just a rail and a stand) to point a 107mm or 122mm rocket targetwards, and a countdown timer to fire it minutes or hours after the guerilla has departed. If you're lucky then you can plant it on the hospital roof, across the street from the orphanage and next door to the elementary school, and tip off the news crews so that any enemy counterbattery fire is widely reported. Of course, how hard would it be to add GPS guidance to a Katyusha rocket? If you could bring the CEP down to 10m or so and still have a warhead of 10kg (the 122mm Katyusha has a 20kg warhead so this is at least plausible), you'd have a very, very nasty weapon for insurgents (target checkpoints, the people trying to evac the victims of the latest road-side bomb, etc.) or terrorists (target parked commercial aircraft at a gate, the 50-yard line at the Super bowl, etc.). The Katyusha has a range of around 20km so the only defense would be hard cover (tough to arrange everywhere), active defenses (which have yet to be fielded), or GPS-spoofing. The last is possible but it diminishes the usefulness of GPS for your side as well. The problem is there is no system of guidance on the 122, other than the direction you aim it and the elevation. It leaves, it goes, it lands. |
#124
|
|||
|
|||
|
#125
|
|||
|
|||
|
#126
|
|||
|
|||
What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking
country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10 years? For the peer competitor,even more accelerated downsizing classical military power and even more accelerated development of HPM weapons. For others, more attack platforms guided by Mk.I eyeballs and armed with box cutters. |
#127
|
|||
|
|||
"Charles Gray" wrote in message ... On 19 Dec 2003 15:42:36 -0800, (Jack Linthicum) wrote: "Ray Drouillard" wrote in message ... "phil hunt" wrote in message . .. What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10 years? One word: Surrender Precisely, and make that about March 10th 2003. It's the Grand Fenwick strategy, you lose, retain all of your weaponry that counts, and drag the opponent into a situation where he can't win. An armory of AK-47s, ammo, RPGs, ammo, Land mines, Mortar rounds, whatever you can bury in your front, or back, yard. General Van Riper told us this back in August 2002. We said he was cheating. No one remembers 'alls fair in...' Or just avoid the whole invasion to begin with. Right up until the final ultimatum, Saddam probably could have avoided an invasion with unconditional surrender of all bases, etc, to U.S. inspection. Would we have let him stay in power? Would he have survived the loss of prestige? I don't know, but his chances were sure as hell higher than getting into a shooting match with the United States. He was left in power ten years ago. I think that GWB has learned from his father's mistake, however. In other cases, a non-despotic leader will probably be able to retain power. Ray Drouillard |
#129
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 21:11:31 -0500, "Ray Drouillard"
wrote: "phil hunt" wrote in message ... What would be sensible strategies/weapons for a middle-ranking country to employ if it thought it is likely to be involved in a war against the USA or other Western countries, say in the next 10 years? One word: Surrender I must admit that this post by Ray has motivated me to consider the original problem more thoroughly :-) One of the primary goals, as I see it, is to try and maintain control over the air. If a country can control it's airspace, the US (or perhaps China or Russia or whatever major power is becoming bellicose), being at the end of a very long supply chain, is going to have some serious supply problems. However, it will be very difficult and expensive to maintain an air force capable of battling it out in the air with US forces, if it is even possible at all. I think the problem can be subdivided into two problems - the first is the aircraft carrier issue, the second is ground based aircraft. Nukes are a definite possibility for sea "defense", IMO. While I'm sure the US won't be happy to have a carrier fleet nuked, it seems to me that it is a lot less likely to result in your country being turned into a plain of glass than a nuclear attack on ground based forces. The delivery system of choice remains a problem. I would think a relatively unguided ballistic missile would be the best choice, especially if it could be reasonably well armored. Decoys would also aid penetration. If terminal guidance technology becomes advanced enough, the decoys can be given conventional warheads and seeking capability. However, it would be better to do the job without nukes if possible. The original idea of autonomous weapons might be able to work here (as in the terminal guidance missile weapons I mentioned above, or LCCM's). Torpedoes are another definite possibility, to avoid having to deal with the antimissile and point defenses. They'd either have to have a very long range, or be air droppable, or preferrable both (but I'm not sure how feasible it would be to have both). The next problem is the one of ground based aircraft. Anti-runway weapons seem to me to be the weapon of choice here. This is another area in which LCCM's or terminally guided munitions might work well. |
#130
|
|||
|
|||
Ray Drouillard wrote:
Crewed by Alien Space Bats, presumably? European or African alien space bats? What is the flight speed of an unladen African alien space bat? Cheeee! -george |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |