Yes, and the RIM-162 ESSM (a modern ship-launched SAM) can travel at Mach 4+.
Advertisement
by Wikipedia and Universe » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:37 pm
An ODECON Naval Analyst wrote:Superior tactics and training can in fact triumph over force of numbers and missile spam.
Bottle wrote:This is not rocket surgery, folks.
Senestrum wrote:This is relativity, the theory that takes everything we know about the world, bends it over, and fucks it to death with a spiked dildo.
by Licana » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:39 pm
Puzikas wrote:Gulf War One was like Slapstick: The War. Except, you know, up to 40,000 people died.
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.
Senestrum wrote:How are KEPs cowardly? Surely the "real man" would in fact be the one firing giant rods of nuclear waste at speeds best described as "hilarious".
by The Kievan People » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:42 pm
by The Corparation » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:44 pm
The Kievan People wrote:Rockets go fast. Hardly news.
But that does not have the implications you think it does. The advantage gained from the SR-71's speed and altitude is not about outrunning rockets.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Rusikstan » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:48 pm
The Corparation wrote:The Kievan People wrote:Rockets go fast. Hardly news.
But that does not have the implications you think it does. The advantage gained from the SR-71's speed and altitude is not about outrunning rockets.
But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
Cyrupe wrote:Canadians are not good at electronics, hence why you never see them at the top of ANYTHING in the technology industry. Bowling ball track pads are the perfect example of this.
by Transnapastain » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:51 pm
The Kievan People wrote:Rockets go fast. Hardly news.
But that does not have the implications you think it does. The advantage gained from the SR-71's speed and altitude is not about outrunning rockets.
by Transnapastain » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:52 pm
The Corparation wrote:The Kievan People wrote:Rockets go fast. Hardly news.
But that does not have the implications you think it does. The advantage gained from the SR-71's speed and altitude is not about outrunning rockets.
But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.
Rusikstan wrote:The Corparation wrote:But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.
The rest whatever idk idc. Not so sure about the bolded part though. A satellite isn't some unreachable god object in space. Its fairly delicate comparatively and can be reached at taken out of commission in relativly simple ways.
by The Corparation » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:54 pm
Transnapastain wrote:The Corparation wrote:But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.
Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Transnapastain » Mon Jan 10, 2011 9:56 pm
The Corparation wrote:Transnapastain wrote:
Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble
Hubble is completely different from a recon sattelite. Recon sattelite don't need massive mirrors grinded to the tiniest fraction of an inch to work right.
by Rusikstan » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:00 pm
The Corparation wrote:Transnapastain wrote:
Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble
Hubble is completely different from a recon sattelite. Recon sattelite don't need massive mirrors grinded to the tiniest fraction of an inch to work right.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
Cyrupe wrote:Canadians are not good at electronics, hence why you never see them at the top of ANYTHING in the technology industry. Bowling ball track pads are the perfect example of this.
by The Corparation » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:01 pm
Transnapastain wrote:The Corparation wrote:But you can stick better cameras on a sattellite and not have to refuel and maintain it after its up there. Just moniter its systems and recieve the data. Also its much harder to take out.
Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned HubbleRusikstan wrote:
The rest whatever idk idc. Not so sure about the bolded part though. A satellite isn't some unreachable god object in space. Its fairly delicate comparatively and can be reached at taken out of commission in relativly simple ways.
ASAT missiles, they DO work...more practical, other satellites, rumor had it the Russians had deployed hunter-killer satellites. I'm SURE it can be done withwank, er, NS tech
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Transnapastain » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:04 pm
The Corparation wrote:Transnapastain wrote:
Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble
ASAT missiles, they DO work...more practical, other satellites, rumor had it the Russians had deployed hunter-killer satellites. I'm SURE it can be done withwank, er, NS tech
Actually the russians just launched a test vehicle for their anti-star wars program. But thanks to a computer glicth instead of rotating to a position to boost itself into the correct orbit, it boosted its self straight into the pacific. As it was set to launch the goverment started to kill the program by cancelling a lot of the outer space tests anyways so they didn't get a second chance to develop it. Granted ASAT missiles work but they're more expensive and harder to use then a standard sam.
by Rusikstan » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:06 pm
The Corparation wrote:Transnapastain wrote:
Things in space do require maintenance, or replacement. Ask NASA how much it costs to fix that damned Hubble
ASAT missiles, they DO work...more practical, other satellites, rumor had it the Russians had deployed hunter-killer satellites. I'm SURE it can be done withwank, er, NS tech
Actually the russians just launched a test vehicle for their anti-star wars program. But thanks to a computer glicth instead of rotating to a position to boost itself into the correct orbit, it boosted its self straight into the pacific. As it was set to launch the goverment started to kill the program by cancelling a lot of the outer space tests anyways so they didn't get a second chance to develop it. Granted ASAT missiles work but they're more expensive and harder to use then a standard sam.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
Cyrupe wrote:Canadians are not good at electronics, hence why you never see them at the top of ANYTHING in the technology industry. Bowling ball track pads are the perfect example of this.
by Transnapastain » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:09 pm
Altamirus wrote:Transnapastain wrote:
Huge fan of the SR-71 here.
However, ...any advantages you are going to mention...are a moot point when the thing is downed by missile.
As much as I don't want to believe it, or accept it, I'm positive that the SR-71, even traveling at Mach 3+, even at 85,000ft (cite me, thats its height isn't it?) is no longer invulnerable to surface to air missiles. It has stealth characteristics, but none of them do it a damn bit of good, as, during the Cold War, it was reportedly spotted by civilian ATC radar in India during flyovers of the USSR (Source: Wikipedia). They even laced the fuel with cesium, or some such, to reduce its thermal plume...didn't help, that bastard is fat and hot, and, sadly, outdated.
However, I'm going to refute that the role of a recon plane has gone by the wayside.
Satellites are amazing...they can give you a birds eye view of a given location from the relative safety of space.....and they can only be in so many places. Also, NS seems to fail to realize just how hard it can be to locate something like a fleet in the ocean. Thats a lot of blank territory to cover. Recon planes can be useful when Intel is needed, right the hell now, and no orbital assets have been tasked, or are currently being redeployed. You can only watch so much, and even I, with my MASSIVE SATINT network, routinely miss things. SATINT is awesome at strategic recon, but...the role of tactical recon is not diminished.
Now...I don't think the SR-71 is the way to do it...I'd think that stealth aircraft, like a recon version of the B-2 (Good god the price tag!) or, better, small, stealthy UAV's, is the way to obtain tactical recon.
That being said...yeah, we still deploy SR-71's in a recon role...cause we're old school, and love tradition...and one day I'm going to send those SR-71's to recon the wrong nation...and its going to get blasted, and, as I write the post of the Blackbird going down in flames, I will shed tears.
IRL USAF updates aging aircraft for modern requirements all the time, why can't you do the same for the SR-71?
by The Corparation » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:10 pm
Altamirus wrote:Transnapastain wrote:
Huge fan of the SR-71 here.
However, ...any advantages you are going to mention...are a moot point when the thing is downed by missile.
As much as I don't want to believe it, or accept it, I'm positive that the SR-71, even traveling at Mach 3+, even at 85,000ft (cite me, thats its height isn't it?) is no longer invulnerable to surface to air missiles. It has stealth characteristics, but none of them do it a damn bit of good, as, during the Cold War, it was reportedly spotted by civilian ATC radar in India during flyovers of the USSR (Source: Wikipedia). They even laced the fuel with cesium, or some such, to reduce its thermal plume...didn't help, that bastard is fat and hot, and, sadly, outdated.
However, I'm going to refute that the role of a recon plane has gone by the wayside.
Satellites are amazing...they can give you a birds eye view of a given location from the relative safety of space.....and they can only be in so many places. Also, NS seems to fail to realize just how hard it can be to locate something like a fleet in the ocean. Thats a lot of blank territory to cover. Recon planes can be useful when Intel is needed, right the hell now, and no orbital assets have been tasked, or are currently being redeployed. You can only watch so much, and even I, with my MASSIVE SATINT network, routinely miss things. SATINT is awesome at strategic recon, but...the role of tactical recon is not diminished.
Now...I don't think the SR-71 is the way to do it...I'd think that stealth aircraft, like a recon version of the B-2 (Good god the price tag!) or, better, small, stealthy UAV's, is the way to obtain tactical recon.
That being said...yeah, we still deploy SR-71's in a recon role...cause we're old school, and love tradition...and one day I'm going to send those SR-71's to recon the wrong nation...and its going to get blasted, and, as I write the post of the Blackbird going down in flames, I will shed tears.
IRL USAF updates aging aircraft for modern requirements all the time, why can't you do the same for the SR-71?
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by Transnapastain » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:11 pm
Rusikstan wrote:The Corparation wrote:Actually the russians just launched a test vehicle for their anti-star wars program. But thanks to a computer glicth instead of rotating to a position to boost itself into the correct orbit, it boosted its self straight into the pacific. As it was set to launch the goverment started to kill the program by cancelling a lot of the outer space tests anyways so they didn't get a second chance to develop it. Granted ASAT missiles work but they're more expensive and harder to use then a standard sam.
Use RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 or similar like US used to down that one satellite. OR use an Air-launched missile from a high up plane to launch an ASAT-esque missile.
by Licana » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:15 pm
Transnapastain wrote:Altamirus wrote:IRL USAF updates aging aircraft for modern requirements all the time, why can't you do the same for the SR-71?
You do have a valid point, sir.
I made mine go faster, thats about all. I think you could dot he same thing the USAF did to add to the B-52's survivability and give it ECM ability. Thats an idea. An SR-71, at 85,000ft, going Mach 3.2+, with the ability to jam or confuse enemy radar guided missiles,, may well increase its survivability. No way to make it stealth of course, its too damn fast and hot. The hull gets up to something like 500 degrees F, and I've read the cockpit windscreen can get to 200 degrees F...they supposedly bleed heat from the cabin into the rapidly emptying fuel tanks using heat exchangers.
Not a lot you can do about heat-seekers, but a lot of craft will have trouble getting high enough to get a good missile lock with an IR guided missile. Licana, you check me on that?
Puzikas wrote:Gulf War One was like Slapstick: The War. Except, you know, up to 40,000 people died.
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.
Senestrum wrote:How are KEPs cowardly? Surely the "real man" would in fact be the one firing giant rods of nuclear waste at speeds best described as "hilarious".
by The Corparation » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:17 pm
Licana wrote:Transnapastain wrote:
You do have a valid point, sir.
I made mine go faster, thats about all. I think you could dot he same thing the USAF did to add to the B-52's survivability and give it ECM ability. Thats an idea. An SR-71, at 85,000ft, going Mach 3.2+, with the ability to jam or confuse enemy radar guided missiles,, may well increase its survivability. No way to make it stealth of course, its too damn fast and hot. The hull gets up to something like 500 degrees F, and I've read the cockpit windscreen can get to 200 degrees F...they supposedly bleed heat from the cabin into the rapidly emptying fuel tanks using heat exchangers.
Not a lot you can do about heat-seekers, but a lot of craft will have trouble getting high enough to get a good missile lock with an IR guided missile. Licana, you check me on that?
I don't find the concept bad, but the stress from going MACH 3.2+ is enormous. You'll have to make sure the airframe can handle the heat without the canopy melting and the aircraft burning up. Although most aircraft would have trouble getting in range (MiG-25 and 31s could, if I remember correctly) for an IR guided missile, it's definitely far from impossible (not that you're saying it was), and if an IR guided missile is fired against such an aircraft...well, it's fucked.
My thing would be, why not make a purpose built, stealth UAV to do the same job. It wouldn't be as fast, sure, but it would also be fairly hard to detect.
Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here | A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc. | Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia- |
Making the Nightmare End | WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety | This Cell is intentionally blank. |
by The Kievan People » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:18 pm
by Licana » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:18 pm
The Corparation wrote:Licana wrote:I don't find the concept bad, but the stress from going MACH 3.2+ is enormous. You'll have to make sure the airframe can handle the heat without the canopy melting and the aircraft burning up. Although most aircraft would have trouble getting in range (MiG-25 and 31s could, if I remember correctly) for an IR guided missile, it's definitely far from impossible (not that you're saying it was), and if an IR guided missile is fired against such an aircraft...well, it's fucked.
My thing would be, why not make a purpose built, stealth UAV to do the same job. It wouldn't be as fast, sure, but it would also be fairly hard to detect.
Like say the RQ-170 Sentinal?
Puzikas wrote:Gulf War One was like Slapstick: The War. Except, you know, up to 40,000 people died.
Vitaphone Racing wrote:Never in all my years have I seen someone actually quote the dictionary and still get the definition wrong.
Senestrum wrote:How are KEPs cowardly? Surely the "real man" would in fact be the one firing giant rods of nuclear waste at speeds best described as "hilarious".
by Rusikstan » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:19 pm
Transnapastain wrote:Rusikstan wrote:
Use RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 or similar like US used to down that one satellite. OR use an Air-launched missile from a high up plane to launch an ASAT-esque missile.
What about simply putting a satellite in space that acts as its on KE kill device. Point it at the satellite, and have it maneuver into it....I suppose that would be expensive, but ti seems effective.
Senestrum wrote:Russians took the maximum allowable missile performances from the ABM treaty as design goals.
lolz ensued
Cyrupe wrote:Canadians are not good at electronics, hence why you never see them at the top of ANYTHING in the technology industry. Bowling ball track pads are the perfect example of this.
by Transnapastain » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:20 pm
Rusikstan wrote:Transnapastain wrote:
What about simply putting a satellite in space that acts as its on KE kill device. Point it at the satellite, and have it maneuver into it....I suppose that would be expensive, but ti seems effective.
It works as an idea, but I think the cost would be prohibitive. I've not compared any prices or anything as its been a non-issue until now. We'd have to look it up. Though, I want to say that the 9.5 million ship launched missile would be cheaper than the development of, construction of, and placement of a KE/Killer satellite, but again I'm not really sure.
by No endorse » Mon Jan 10, 2011 10:31 pm
Altamirus wrote:IRL USAF updates aging aircraft for modern requirements all the time, why can't you do the same for the SR-71?
OMGeverynameistaken wrote:We had better trolls back in the day. None of this "I DEKLARZ WUR" stuff. Our trolls could troll you with a fifteen page (in MSword) document. And you couldn't fault their spelling because in-browser spellcheck didn't exist back then.
by The Kievan People » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:03 pm
by Senestrum » Mon Jan 10, 2011 11:44 pm
Advertisement
Return to Factbooks and National Information
Users browsing this forum: ComyBasturd
Advertisement