I don't believe there is anything noteworthy about this. If the US Navy wanted to clear the airspace of those drones they could, but clearly it is not a priority. I also believe the Iranian's have released footage very similar to this in the past.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
I don't believe there is anything noteworthy about this. If the US Navy wanted to clear the airspace of those drones they could, but clearly it is not a priority. I also believe the Iranian's have released footage very similar to this in the past.
Stratolaunch released footage of the TA-2 launch and recovery. They claim that this is the first time that a hypersonic vehicle has been launched and "recovered" (thinking landing at a runway), but I am not sure if this is true.
Thats legit cap because their own X-15 did it a few dozen times back in the 60s
Yeah, I was wondering about that. I think they are trying to basically say it is the fist hypersonic vehicle that lands with wheels on a runway and I believe the X-15 landed with skids on salt flats (could be wrong on that). Splitting hairs, but that is what they are going forThats legit cap because their own X-15 did it a few dozen times back in the 60s
.
I mean the space shuttle is also a hypersonic vehicle (Worlds fastest glider and manned aircraft) and is launched and recovered on a runway lmao, even then we have the WZ-7 rocket powered recon drone that is both air launched and recovered by landing on a runway.Yeah, I was wondering about that. I think they are trying to basically say it is the fist hypersonic vehicle that lands with wheels on a runway and I believe the X-15 landed with skids on salt flats (could be wrong on that). Splitting hairs, but that is what they are going for
Oh yeah, I totally forgot about the space shuttle
!!!
About the $18B SSN deal... Someone under my Quora posts wrote me it was probably related to the re-introduction of nuclear weapons to US SSNs. And, indeed, almost $5B of this contract is uncertain and undisclosed options.
This would be another fiasco of the US procurement. I was chatting about this long ago.
1- It literally gives the USA no new option. For tactical strikes, they have the ALCM on the B-52s; bombs on the F-35, B-2 and on non-VLO platforms; the W76-2 on SSBNs; and the LRSO and the B-21 in development. So they already have many options of various survivability, time-to-target and sustainability levels.
2- Tactical nuclear warfare is a stupid idea. It would escalate to strategic strikes very quickly.
3- The military argued against it but it is being forced to continue by the Congress, particularly by the Republicans. It was started by Trump I. Biden then failed to cancel it. Both him and the military didn't want a nuclear SLCM, probably because of the awful cost/benefits ratio.
4- A new design from the scratch would "ambitiously" take a decade to develop, and the program would use tens of billions USD, according to the MIC. The cost is because nuclear weapons are never just about the warhead or even the delivery system. They require the entire branch to be shaped around them. The subs themselves will likely need some re-engineering too. New consoles, personnel spaces and nuclear-specific fire control and C3 systems might be necessary.
5- The former point means they will have to use the Tomahawk as basis if they want a fast introduction and they will still pay most of the said price. This would be something meme level. The Tomahawk is a horrible choice for a nuclear weapon because of its horrible survivability in this age, and time to target.
If the US is going to spend tens of billions to have nuclear-armed Tomahawks on SSNs then they are even more wasteful than the militaries of the Gulf.
This would be another fiasco of the US procurement. I was chatting about this long ago.
1- It literally gives the USA no new option. For tactical strikes, they have the ALCM on the B-52s; bombs on the F-35, B-2 and on non-VLO platforms; the W76-2 on SSBNs; and the LRSO and the B-21 in development. So they already have many options of various survivability, time-to-target and sustainability levels.
2- Tactical nuclear warfare is a stupid idea. It would escalate to strategic strikes very quickly.
3- The military argued against it but it is being forced to continue by the Congress, particularly by the Republicans. It was started by Trump I. Biden then failed to cancel it. Both him and the military didn't want a nuclear SLCM, probably because of the awful cost/benefits ratio.
4- A new design from the scratch would "ambitiously" take a decade to develop, and the program would use tens of billions USD, according to the MIC. The cost is because nuclear weapons are never just about the warhead or even the delivery system. They require the entire branch to be shaped around them. The subs themselves will likely need some re-engineering too. New consoles, personnel spaces and nuclear-specific fire control and C3 systems might be necessary.
5- The former point means they will have to use the Tomahawk as basis if they want a fast introduction and they will still pay most of the said price. This would be something meme level. The Tomahawk is a horrible choice for a nuclear weapon because of its horrible survivability in this age, and time to target.
If the US is going to spend tens of billions to have nuclear-armed Tomahawks on SSNs then they are even more wasteful than the militaries of the Gulf.
