I agree that Alex Jones is a complete crackpot dipshit. But he also represents a portion of Trumps base. That's what I find interesting.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Letter to Sen McCain RE CBRN use in Syria
- Thread starter dtxz
- Start date
I would argue that the President allowing himself to be interviewed by Jones then praising him gave him a degree of legitimacy he otherwise wouldn't have.
That he is, and he has been that way for well over a decade. Which begs the question, why would anyone agree to be interviewed by him much less praise him? Since the President first gained significant political traction by promoting a conspiracy theory about President Obama's birthplace I suppose an interview with and praise for Alex Jones isn't be surprising.
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Well, while Russian General Staff had counted outgoing missiles quite precisely (103 vs 105), it failed to recognize French Rafales, stating those were "F-15s and -16s". Nor the battle debut of two types was noticed: JASSM-ERs from Bones and French "naval Scapls"(MdCNs) from D 653 Languedoc. Staff work is quite far from excellence...
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
Again... SWOs' show. 66 of 105 missiles are TLAMs, 60 from CRUDES. Air Warriors, what about envy?
I sleep in my own bed at night, they can have their missiles.Again... SWOs' show. 66 of 105 missiles are TLAMs, 60 from CRUDES. Air Warriors, what about envy?
Max the Mad Russian
Hands off Ukraine! Feet too
You should be wise, you're from MPRA
Would have been interesting to see what USS Zumwalt could have done with its much hyped Advanced Gun System - until they figured out shells cost nearly $1 million - each. I seem to remember a class of ships that could range deep inland.... Missiles and aircraft can be shot down, good luck with an incoming Volkswagon....
Speaking of that, informative 2014 article from the Marine Corps Gazette detailing gunfire support and referencing the Joint Advanced Warfare School study on reactivation of the Iowa class.
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/10/another-look-nsfs
In November 1964, a high-powered Navy commission recommended reactivating two battleships and two heavy cruisers for Vietnam contingencies...One result was that we lost 1067 aircraft attacking targets in North Vietnam, 80 percent of which could have taken out by 16-inch guns.
Speaking of that, informative 2014 article from the Marine Corps Gazette detailing gunfire support and referencing the Joint Advanced Warfare School study on reactivation of the Iowa class.
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2014/10/another-look-nsfs
In November 1964, a high-powered Navy commission recommended reactivating two battleships and two heavy cruisers for Vietnam contingencies...One result was that we lost 1067 aircraft attacking targets in North Vietnam, 80 percent of which could have taken out by 16-inch guns.
You know there are systems that intercept arty and mortar rounds. Pretty sure they could handle a 16” shell. 16” shells are also not precision weapons, which pretty much rules them out for this kind of fight.
Not saying it’s impossible but I’d love to see a system that could bust up incoming shells at the sustained rate of fire from a proficient Arty battery.
And yet I doubt they could have hit a single target we struck in Syria given how far inland they apparently were.
I would hazard a guess that an adversary that has systems to intercept artillery rounds also has the capability to target the source of those rounds.
True, and a proficient battery knows how to fire, maneuver, drop their guns, re-lay their tubes and re-register their rounds with in that time construct. It was timed and drilled down to the second when we were more prominently fighting conventional forces (I.e. The former USSR). It is still practiced today by Marine Arty battalions. As for a ship, it’s anyones guess what SWOs practiced when it came NSFS and if it is still a thing. At the end of the day, if your arm length is longer than your adversary’s it’s not a completely obsolete idea.
Not questioning proficiency, but I would seriously love to know how effective shoot and scoot of towed arty like M777 is supposed to be against modern counter-battery systems, ie REDFOR MLRS. Probably not an answer for here, but also probably not great.
For ships, NSFS is still a thing, and has supposedly been used somewhat effectively recently real world, but within limitations of current naval artillery systems, is pretty fucking stupid against anybody who can actually reach out with Antiship missiles.
Putting a $1B destroyer within visual range of the coast just to lob unguided 5" projectiles at bad guys is not the most efficient use of resources.
No doubt they could track the shell, intercept it too. However, I have my doubts about altering the course of a small steel object weighing 2,700 lbs moving at Mach 2+, or destroying something so solidly constructed it could do this to a 26" armor plate.
Test of 26″ (66cm) Class “A” Main Armament Turret Face (Port) Plate, originally for IJN SHINANO, the third Japanese YAMATO-Class super-battleship
The article referenced the long range sabot 11" rounds capable of 100 miles and a scramjet shell (which I had not heard of previously) theoretically capable of 400+ miles.
Disassembled "Gunfighter" saboted projectile of the late 1960s. From left to right: Front Rider, supporting sabot, 280 mm (11") projectile and obturator.
OK...but that's an Armor Piercing round.
It's built solidly to punch through thick armor belts before it fuzes.
It'd be far from ideal for over land fire missions...unless your target was an underground bunker...and then you'd still probably have to hit dead on for it to be effective.
Also, hit it early enough, and you don't need to move it much. It's only an issue if you're trying to intercept it with point defense weapons in the last few miles.
And if you got a skin on skin missile hit...even a 2000lb shell is gonna feel it.
If an interceptor hit the shell it could probably be done easily, and might not even need a warhead to do it. The kinetic energy alone of the interceptor hitting the shell would probably be enough to destroy it, that's exactly how many missile interceptors like the THAAD, SM-3 and GBI's, work.
"Look Ma, no explosive warhead!"
