Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
Dutchy wrote:Northrop Grumman and Boeing dueling for a 62bn USD contract and the US is estimated to spend over 1trillion over the next 30 years. I would say, a waste of money, that money is far better spent on American infrastructure or school system. But then again, I am a nasty European Lefty, so what do I know.
Some more info: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... B12H3?il=0
And a question, why were Boeing and Northrop awarded different amounts for the same work? Was that part of the selection process? 3 years or this phase and when will the first missile be operational? 2025?
I guess we can't make a joke around here, although there is a serious undertone. How can one country quite publicly deny some other country a system, while they start to develop a new missile - in this case - themselves. If you are talking about credibility, this doesn't help, the same with leadership. Perhaps MMO doesn't see this, doesn't understand irony or feels that America is more entitled than North Korea. I don't know.
Aesma wrote:In France we used to have land based missiles in silos but it didn't make much sense in the end, it just becomes a target. In the US you have many sites so many targets, I'm not sure it's better.
I guess it's the idea that you have all those "visible" missiles pointed at the "enemy" instead of just stealth submarines and bombers that justify it, rather than a strategic role.
bigjku wrote:Trident can do this as well but subs are somewhat reliant on external navigational cues to optimize accuracy. Land based weapons are in a known position and can be highly accurate even if GPS is degraded.
ChrisKen wrote:bigjku wrote:Trident can do this as well but subs are somewhat reliant on external navigational cues to optimize accuracy. Land based weapons are in a known position and can be highly accurate even if GPS is degraded.
Hate to break it to you but Trident, although desirable, doesn't really need to know where it was launched from when all is said and done, just as long as it's pointed in roughly the right direction it'll pick up it's own non GPS derived position in flight.
The last firing I was involved with, arrived at target with rather 'unnecessary' accuracy.
Dutchy wrote:Northrop Grumman and Boeing dueling for a 62bn USD contract and the US is estimated to spend over 1trillion over the next 30 years. I would say, a waste of money, that money is far better spent on American infrastructure or school system. But then again, I am a nasty European Lefty, so what do I know.
Some more info: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... B12H3?il=0
And a question, why were Boeing and Northrop awarded different amounts for the same work? Was that part of the selection process? 3 years or this phase and when will the first missile be operational? 2025?
I guess we can't make a joke around here, although there is a serious undertone. How can one country quite publicly deny some other country a system, while they start to develop a new missile - in this case - themselves. If you are talking about credibility, this doesn't help, the same with leadership. Perhaps MMO doesn't see this, doesn't understand irony or feels that America is more entitled than North Korea. I don't know.
deltal1011man wrote:Dutchy wrote:Northrop Grumman and Boeing dueling for a 62bn USD contract and the US is estimated to spend over 1trillion over the next 30 years. I would say, a waste of money, that money is far better spent on American infrastructure or school system. But then again, I am a nasty European Lefty, so what do I know.
Some more info: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... B12H3?il=0
And a question, why were Boeing and Northrop awarded different amounts for the same work? Was that part of the selection process? 3 years or this phase and when will the first missile be operational? 2025?
I guess we can't make a joke around here, although there is a serious undertone. How can one country quite publicly deny some other country a system, while they start to develop a new missile - in this case - themselves. If you are talking about credibility, this doesn't help, the same with leadership. Perhaps MMO doesn't see this, doesn't understand irony or feels that America is more entitled than North Korea. I don't know.
you didn't make a joke. You are just acting like you made a joke. Anyone who has kept up with your general posting re America and nukes knows that you feel the US shouldn't have them.
If you really think America (or Russia/China etc) are 1/16th as dangerous as a nuclear North Korea you need to stop posting here and do a lot more world research. We aren't "entitled" we are simply keeping the rest of the world in check. It is also a huge protection for people like you over in Europe, even if you can't figure that out. (remember, most of you would be speaking German if it wasn't for those dirty, evil, war starting, baby killing, entitled Americans. )
Anyways, Glad to see some money finally being put toward a minuteman replacement (even though we had them already, hello peacekeeper). Hopefully a Trident and actual warhead replacement is next. Also hopefully Trump is serious about dumping new START.....
Dutchy wrote:deltal1011man wrote:Dutchy wrote:Northrop Grumman and Boeing dueling for a 62bn USD contract and the US is estimated to spend over 1trillion over the next 30 years. I would say, a waste of money, that money is far better spent on American infrastructure or school system. But then again, I am a nasty European Lefty, so what do I know.
Some more info: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-boein ... B12H3?il=0
And a question, why were Boeing and Northrop awarded different amounts for the same work? Was that part of the selection process? 3 years or this phase and when will the first missile be operational? 2025?
I guess we can't make a joke around here, although there is a serious undertone. How can one country quite publicly deny some other country a system, while they start to develop a new missile - in this case - themselves. If you are talking about credibility, this doesn't help, the same with leadership. Perhaps MMO doesn't see this, doesn't understand irony or feels that America is more entitled than North Korea. I don't know.
you didn't make a joke. You are just acting like you made a joke. Anyone who has kept up with your general posting re America and nukes knows that you feel the US shouldn't have them.
If you really think America (or Russia/China etc) are 1/16th as dangerous as a nuclear North Korea you need to stop posting here and do a lot more world research. We aren't "entitled" we are simply keeping the rest of the world in check. It is also a huge protection for people like you over in Europe, even if you can't figure that out. (remember, most of you would be speaking German if it wasn't for those dirty, evil, war starting, baby killing, entitled Americans. )
Anyways, Glad to see some money finally being put toward a minuteman replacement (even though we had them already, hello peacekeeper). Hopefully a Trident and actual warhead replacement is next. Also hopefully Trump is serious about dumping new START.....
bigjku wrote:The attack on you was silly by the other poster...
That being said you can't simply waive your hand and say 300 warheads is enough. What is this based on? Is it based on a target set? If so where? What type of force is it and how is it targeted? What type of force does the opposition have? How are you deploying your force?
Some answers would facilitate an actual discussion of the matter beyond effectively calling those calling the shots on this incompetent...
Dutchy wrote:bigjku wrote:The attack on you was silly by the other poster...
That being said you can't simply waive your hand and say 300 warheads is enough. What is this based on? Is it based on a target set? If so where? What type of force is it and how is it targeted? What type of force does the opposition have? How are you deploying your force?
Some answers would facilitate an actual discussion of the matter beyond effectively calling those calling the shots on this incompetent...
If I am not mistaking, that target is set by China, so a world leader and some say the world leader. I think the reasoning behind it is quite simple, If you make the price high enough, nobody will attack you, and that is the only real reason to have nukes, deter, not to use them in actual combat. So how many times do you need to be able to destroy another country major population areas? Even though some will fail, some might be intercepted, if only ten will reach the target, out of 300, you have destroyed ten major cities with potentially millions of casualties. Is that not enough of a deterrent? Do you need to have a few thousand of them? With all the cost associated? If I were in charge of the defence of the US, I would say, give the nuclear deterrent to the submarine fleet. They are best equipped to deliver the faithfull mission. If you are set to keep the same spending level in the military, the funds could be used elsewhere, although for the US I would say, spend it on infrastructure, much more useful for them.
That is my take on things, and I am no strategist, so an arm chair general with no military experience, so you shouldn't take it too seriously, although I am interested to know why this reasoning fails