Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Banned
- #41
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.