Maior

Ah. I read T-55 somehow... I feel rather stupid :D... Still, depending on the missile version, the front armour of the M1 could probably defeat older models, while for more recent ones, smoke and manoeuvre.

Well, a bit of info. First, the T-55 doesn't have ATGM, second, early ATGM are useless against Chobham armour, thirdly, a T-55 round can't destroy an M1 of any kind. It's physically impossible. Disable it by shooting the tracks or managing a rear penetration, ok on the first, maybe on the second but to destroy an M1, impossible. 4th, Chobham armour was developed to defend against HEAT and is designed to be tougher than the kinetic penetrators available on these rounds. Plus, the layered design of this defence system is different than the more common bonded ceramic/metal plates. In fact, it's protective capabilities mimic those of ERA armour. It's armour is a matrix of nano carbon tubes, depleted Uranium, Steel, ceramics, etc. Each suited to defeat a particular set of rounds. His M1s should roll over T-55s just by moving straight at them presenting their toughest layer and firing at over 3Km away. The T-55 gun would be unable to defeat their armour and the T-55 armour would be blown to bits by the M1s depleted Uranium rounds. Funny story, During Desert Storm, the Turret's front and side armour survived impacts from friendly APFSDS rounds from other Abrams. Rounds that were developed to counter T-72, T-80U and T-90 armour upgrades. The side hull and rear turret were penetrated by friendly fire on two occasions. Still, this point is a bit moot since the Abrams is a tank from another generation with a much better gun than the T-55. Frankly, watching this argument is like watching someone arguing that a MiG-15 could routinely defeat an F-15 in aerial combat. It just doesn't make sense. EDIT: In the 2003 war, the American M1 destroyed 7 Iraqi T-72s without loss of their own at point blank range. The T-72 has a bigger gun than the T-55 and was not able to destroy or disable a single M1 in a frontal engagement.

Well, theoretically a MiG-25 flying high, high could launch ASAT munition without the need for a heavy rocket. At 30Km height, most of the work is done. Afterwards, is just to allow the emptiness of space to provide a safe journey. Also, using kinetic kills usually means you'll need a lower weight for the launcher to hold further reducing the need for Major launch centers. It's all a matter of weight. How much energy does a SCUD launching platform holds? How much energy would you need to send a 10Kg object into space? There are just so many ifs... still, nice idea for a computer game. Space billiards. Try to hit GPS Orbits at their 20K Km height with one shot ^^

Well, the math is not that hard to plot an intercept. Heck, even solid warheads if you placed them just right would do the trick. It wouldn't take much to take satellites out of orbit... If you can reach them :D Yeah. Usually the info that should be public knowledge like, weapons that can kill us all, usually isn't. Yeah, the thing about the moon is that supposedly there is enough material there to build a nuclear powerplant. that way, you could provide the power needed to fuel such a system. And a cart of rocks can send way more projectiles. And they have more time to gain speed. You'll probably just have to bury the whole system to prevent systematic destruction from meteors... Still, as soon as anyone tries to get a base on the moon, I believe a lot of threats will ensue. He who controls such asset, truly controls the World.

Well, the only problem at placing another shadow satellite that I can see is the gravitational pull it'd have. It'd be tricky to achieve a balance. Maybe one on each side ^^. Still, a US War with China would see GPS to no one. China could easily detonate a couple of nukes very high in the sky to just use all that radiation energy to disrupt and push satellites out of orbit. What the Chinese doctrine states is that many low tech missiles using inertial guidance for instance, could force the depletion of the missile stocks on the opposing navy. From that point onward, the opposing side would have to rely on point defence weapons like the Phalanx to avoid being hit. And that would be the proverbial "it". From their point of view. Obviously things never go as planned but there was a defence analyst who took chinese claims as a serious fault in the Western navy's move to missile based platforms since you need to replenish missile stocks rather quickly. Now with the introduction of LASER defence in liew of Phalanx should provide more mid range capabilities vs incoming threats. Airborne LASER platforms such as the Boeing AL-1 should also help. Again, America has 90 Burke class destroyers with 90+ vls. Japan has 6 Burke like destroyers with 96 VLS. if China focuses their 80 stealth ships against Japan, it's materially impossible for the Japanese navy to be able to destroy all incoming missiles. If you run out of missiles, an AEGIS system, good as it is, will loose it's main anti cruise missile ability. Of course, the Chinese would have to find the japanese navy first and the JMSDF is one of the best trained in the world. did some math some time ago and it's interesting in that, if you look at the list of all the main Chinese LSTs and transport crafts, you'll find out that the Chinese can carry roughly one mechanised division at once. Interesting bit of info I thought. EDIT: Speaking of space assets, the best weapon available to any earth nation, would be a magnetic monorail carrying a cart laden with rocks or XIXth century cannon balls. After accelerating to 50 Km/s, release them in the earth's general direction. Any nation caught in that hail of stones would be minced meat.

Well, It'll be a RF showdown it seems ^^

Well, from what I read coming from professionals in the industry, this problem is not so easy to solve as the f-22's already modular structure was not built to "play" with other assets the way the JSF was designed to. F-22s are effectively playing catch-up technology wise. Oh, I'm sure that eventually, they'll solve the issues they're having however, it remains to be seen if in this year's RF, the F-22 JSF combo will be the Dream team or, if the F-22 will be left lagging in the joint operations part due to trouble in communication and data sharing. I'd really like to see the JSF artillery director role working but that may take some time.

Nice. Finally we'll see how these assets actually work. Some news. USAF's techies are scratching their heads on how to be able to update the F-22 to keep up with the F-35. So far, the F-35 is a better asset at harvesting and managing data including comms. The F-22 has been showing some incompatibilities issues with more advanced networks making it worse in the overall sensor fusion network. How's that for effective?

Ahhh. Good old LM videos. It's funny to watch those videos where everything goes smoothly and then compare it to a real life result like, the Millennium Challenge. Chinese doctrine is actually to use Low tech ballistic missiles en masse to force the spending of Anti missile, missiles and then finish the job with proper tech missiles. They acquired over 80 small stealth missile boats Each having 4 long range anti-ship missiles. That's 320 missiles right there. A Chinese military expert argued that missile destroyers and frigates cannot be reloaded while at Sea. If they are to be found without missiles, no matter how good their detection systems are, it's useless. Now, the US navy has 90 AEGIS destroyers so that's not an issue considering the current Chinese Navy. The Japanese Navy however can get a nasty surprise. Well, can and can't since the Japanese navy is one of the best trained navies in the World. Some sources on tech vs asymmetric warfare: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wartech/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB207/index.htm

well, having read this document, i was surprised at how critical the authors were of post war Russia military (well, even during war). They mention that the reforms enacted will work mid term but that short term, Russia lost intervention capability. Who knows the recent state of Russian affairs? According to the article, the 2010 Georgian army was tougher to beat than war Georgian army. Even though their airforce and navy effectively ceased to exist. I find it impressive since they lost so much equipment. Still, they were being supplied by pre war agreements and continue to be so. And now that NATO membership is off the table, the army is looking for what their home needs are. Another conflict doesn't seem foreseeable in the near future though. EDIT: Just found an interesting PDF on Russian military doctrine and the current state of affairs. Ah, and I read that the Russian South MD is getting current gen material really fast. Prioritizing over other MDs, Especially in terms of artillery and IFVs. http://red-stars.org/doctrine.pdf

thanks. take your time :) 160 pages will take me a couple of days to read :)

Well, watching that, remembered me of a funny cartoon called "Vampires in Havana". It's a bit long but funny as hell.

And one that doesn't allows you to see the references of the book in the preview preferably. I was led astray once with a T-34 specialized book and I wound up with the biggest literature lemon available on the subject. The Book was published in 2005 or so yet, it's information was more like 1950 something. From T-34s destroying over 400 Tigers during the Kursk campaign to other stupid gibberish, you name it. Sources were mainly from Soviet propaganda and other similar "high quality" venues. If sources had been available, I'd avoid buying that book. That's why now I spend time reading reviews. The book was cheap tbh but too expensive for toilet tissue. Also the paper sheets do not provide enough grip and absorption. Back on topic, I'm searching for more info on the wars of the 80s so if anyone finds decent nuggets of information do keep posting. RIPTIDE, any pointers on those Iraqi vets and biographies? I feel that the 80s, early 90s will be the prime focus of this sim since a lot of info becomes available on the platforms available. I would still like to see a proper F-117 modelled in this game for some stealthy strike missions :)

Yup, figured as much. And only three of those seven books apply to the period in question. Guess who wrote all of them? :D Also, after looking in the web, only these authors have such claims on what the air battle was like. Another alarm bell rings. Either they have unparalleled access to data (more so than intelligence agencies around the World) or, they wrote a book to sell betting on highly controversial claims.

As for Osprey not publishing garbage, well, you obviously never had an interest in Ancient History. Some fice years ago, I started to study the Classic Empires and boy, was that garbage. Also, Their books on Napoleon and WWII are usually outdated and with lots of disinformation. I remember wanting a book on the JS2 like the one I have for the Tiger and Panther by Thomas Jentz and David Glanz and never got to buy it because only Osprey was available. I'm not guiding myself through the review of Forczyk. Even reviews that gave it 3 and 4 stars mention that there are no sources to check pilots claims. Well, if I wanted to be cynical, I could ask you how do you know that the info doesn't come from the Iranian government? All the sources the authors use are ex-pilots with fake names. How do you know it's not fake? You know, whenever I publish an article, I have to properly cross reference it. This way, reviewers will look to my work and can check all the facts I present. If I did an article on the AIM-54 missile, and presented Iranian pilots with fake names as my only source, I'd never publish. Maybe it's because of my background but this book spells BS to me and, since I own a limited budget, I have many other books to buy first.

You are right of course speed. Sorry for the confusion. It's been a couple of years I've worked with Astronomy and it was a recollection of a conversation I had with one of the project managers (name removed). Your mentioning of spacecraft jogged my memory as it was one of the things he mentioned. It actually devolved into an argument since when he heard I changed my field of study to Surveying engineering he sneered and said earth sciences were unimportant since the earth is "there". What was important was space sciences since that's the future. I replied "Well, I'm more concerned in learning to survive with what we've got than to rely on fictional spacecraft that, precise as they may be in their positioning, will be pretty useless for years to come. " Ahhh... Good old times. Yes, I have no shame and I was clueless on who he was (my application on the project was still being reviewed though). Oddly enough, my application to the project got rejected :D Still, now I'm free to focus on trying to start an UAV project. So, Win for me. Ah, and I almost missed a bit. It's not changes in brightness their measuring. That is like, soooo 70s (joking). They measure frequency patterns and how those patterns repeat over time. Just like GPS. EDIT: Ah, the VLBI is indeed used to provide measurements to the ITRF. VLBI stations are the most precise points on Earth in that we know where they are with huge precision. Just like sticking a wooden sign saying "You're exactly here!" with an arrow pointing down is one of the most precise measurements you can make. When me and some friends went to the desert, we wanted to leave those signs across in case anyone was lost. The irony of it would allow them to die of thirst with a smile on their faces. Invader, is the question mark on the microarcseconds a doubt? Or was it on the text?

hmmm... The Iran-Iraq article I posted is from the same year as the book you supplied. I wonder what kind of different info they had access to. Which sources does the website you posted use? Well, it's a minor deal in the article I posted. The article in question is much more focused on doctrine, operational capacity and problems faced by third world countries with tech transfers. EDIT: Read the preview on the book Eihort advised (added to my to buy list) and I think that since the article I posted is American in origin, many of it's info on the F-14 falls into what the Americans were sold (as in, Iranian jets were worse) and a lot comes from that. Lack of spares was and still is an issue however. Thank you for this recommendation Eihort. However, not all that glitters is gold. This book apparently lacks the Iraqui and American "side" of the engagement and apparently they consider many of the Iranians testimonies as fait accompli without proper cross checking. It is apparently a good book but a grain of salt must be added. Same as with any info we read tbh. EDIT2: After some more review reading, the book has no sources unless hearsay for many of it's data. Highly suspicious. Also, the Author is Tom Cooper which is known for not double checking many of it's sources and the other author is apparently a former Iranian airforce magazine contributor. So, I will not buy this book and it's credibility just plummeted for me.

Care to expand on it a bit more? All they said about the Iranian F-14s was that they could not operate the phoenix missiles due to sabotage. Are you saying they did fire a Phoenix? That'd be interesting.

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/reports/2007/R3000.pdf More news from the 80s (rather old news :p). This document encompasses the lessons Russia was able to extract from the Lebanon war. Including: The importance of CAP and the greater flexibility they can afford. The vulnerability of airborne command posts to enemy fighters and SAM batteries. The value of communications and jamming in destroying enemy troops SA. The ability of fighters with large radars to work as AWACS. The diminished reliability of RADAR control (I assume they mean ground based) in controlling fighters as the depth of air ops into enemy territory increases. Having just begun reading it, it looks promising. Even though the publisher warns that this has some misinterpretations. The first problem appears to be, again, lack of effective doctrine even though the technology was quite recent.

Thank you very much. There's also a David Glanz foreword to boot. Nice.

Yeah, just goes to show my thought process was spot on :p Didn't know about that wikileaks memo. They're so many however, it's easy to miss I suppose. Still, this drifts into a more political rather then doctrinal and technical discussion which was the purpose. On the more practical side of things, I haven't been able to find the "Tanks of August" book. Did you manage to read something out of it? I'm interested especially since the Russians were very critical of their own performance.

Oh, science Fiction has long been overtaken :) I actually read news about the SM-6 today and another tidbit on a undervalued program. CEC. CEC stands for Cooperative engagement capability and is aimed at a level of unprecedented sensor integration. This will "just" fuse all sensor information of the fleet into one sensor with the aperture of all the combined sensors (in case of RADAR). Now this is being done in astronomy for a long time. It's called radio interferometry. It's basically to combine the data from all sensors into one giant antenna the same aperture as the combined basis (ie, the distance between antennae). Now, I can tell you that the math for standard interferometry is ugly. This has an added twist. Platforms are always moving. And at different speeds at that. If they manage to pull it off, we'll see an exponential increase in the USN capabilities in terms of detection range and capabilities. Pretty darn impressive. I'll leave you to figure out how this system integrated with the SM-6 makes for the best missile shield, ever. https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/ Also, for stealth detractors, Russia chose a new strategic bomber design. It'll be a bomber focused on LO features. Among the different designs presented, several supersonic and one hypersonic design were scraped. So, Russia is building a B-2 hey?

If you ask me, this study reminds me of other older studies. Remember Vietnam? People could swear back then that guns were useless in fighters. It looks like more of the same to me. Anyway, I think combat will be more and more BVR especially now that LASER weapons are being developed at an accelerated pace.

loooool. That one made my day. Great story. Kinda reminds me when I had a cat who liked to sleep on people's faces (weird cat). Suddenly you wake up breathless with something strapped to your face. The scratches eventually healed.

By planning I meant actual looking for a casus belli. It began with Russia giving away citizenship to the seceding provinces' inhabitants. Then Georgia procured NATO membership and things began to escalate. Then Saakashvilli tried to subdue those provinces to be able to be a NATO member (one of the requirements is no territorial disputes iirc). I also believe that the timing was not random at all. I think as more info becomes available, we'll find pushes and nudges here and there from several factions. I also believe Saakashvili is easy to push into doing something rash. As you say, the Russians wanted to solve this Georgian "silly business" once and for all. Not for Georgia alone.