NATION

PASSWORD

NS MilReal Consultation Thread No. 12

A place to put national factbooks, embassy exchanges, and other information regarding the nations of the world. [In character]

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Puzikas
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10912
Founded: Nov 24, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Puzikas » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:31 am

this is what all conscript armies do to a nation

I can't believe conscript only managed to make Army Group Center vanish lmao typical conscript army can't complete objectives
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;

Goodbye.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15166
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:34 am

Manokan Republic wrote:Conscripts did far worse in combat than volunteers in WWII in general, and when professional units went up against conscripts it was generally a massacre, such as in the eastern front with the germans vs. the Soviet union.

They did so bad wikipedia.org (your favourite website) denotes Operation Bagration as the greatest military defeat in German military history.
Last edited by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary on Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:39 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
The Corparation
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34014
Founded: Aug 31, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Corparation » Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:41 am

I'm currently in the process of reading "When Computers Went to Sea" which is a history of US Navy computing and in particular NTDS. The author mentions briefly at one point a "Project CORNFIELD". The basic concept was that due to the size of computers at the time you wouldn't be able to fit two on every ship (You'd need two for redundancy in case a vacuum tube blew out at an inopportune time) and instead would need a dedicated "master ship" to carry a pair of navalized SAGE Derivatives in order to coordinate air defense for the battle group. As is fairly obvious the shrinking size of computers allowed for every ship to carry a computer and the project never went anywhere. The author provides two citations on CORNFIELD, one is behind a paywall that I'm loathe to get through and while I tracked down the other it didn't provide any additional information and didn't have any citations to follow. I'm wondering if anyone here has heard of CORNFIELD before and if so do they have any spare portions of asparagus they could share on it.
Last edited by The Corparation on Wed Feb 03, 2021 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 2020 2024 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.

User avatar
Spirit of Hope
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9965
Founded: Feb 21, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Spirit of Hope » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:22 am

Manokan Republic wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:
There is basically no evidence to support the idea that conscription causes soldiers to be less motivated than a volunteer force. It is a common saying, but just because people say it doesn't make it true.

Note that WW1 and WW2 were fought by conscription on all sides. It is hard to argue any of the sides suffered moral problems because they were using conscription.



The main advantages are political and economic. Conscription generally saves money on low end soldiers, since they are forced to be there you don't have to pay them competitively to the open job market. However you also have to have the political will to enforce conscription, which can be hard in the face of unpopular wars or engagements. The nation's that still maintain conscription generally have the political will because they face existential threats, see South Korea and Israel.

Further consideration is that while conscription will fill out lower ranks there can be a struggle to get quality personnel to stick around and become NCOs. But that is a struggle a volunteer force can face as well.

A final consideration is how many people are being conscripted and how you are choosing them, all adults when they hit a certain age, only men, only a percentage of, etc.

Conscripts did far worse in combat than volunteers in WWII in general, and when professional units went up against conscripts it was generally a massacre, such as in the eastern front with the germans vs. the Soviet union.


You are aware that the German Army of WWII was a conscript army, right? Conscription had been a thing since 1935, and something like a third of the Wehrmachts strength were conscripts in 1939.

The better example of the superiority of volunteers vs conscripts would be Great Britain in WW I, but their excellent volunteer force was quickly killed by machine guns and artillery so they resorted to conscription as well.

Manokan Republic wrote: Most of the U.S. frontline infantry were volunteers in WWII and not, conscripts as well, as they generally didn't expect front-line troops to be successful if they were overly filled with conscripts. However, it's fair to say WWII is an exception to the rule, as when your own homeland is about to be destroyed people will generally be more motivated to fight, vs. a random small-scale war people don't find to be immediately engaging. Essentially conscripts tend to be worse at their jobs and have worse morale than volunteers in general, due to less training and organization, as well as less motivation to join the military in the first place, but that doesn't mean they will be automatically bad.


Training and organization are completely seperate from conscription. There really isn't even correlation between the two.

Motivation on the battlefield is going to mater more on unit leadership than on if someone is a volunteer or a conscript.

A volunteer army with bad training and organization will lose to a conscript army with good training and organization.
Fact Book.
Helpful hints on combat vehicle terminology.

Imperializt Russia wrote:Support biblical marriage! One SoH and as many wives and sex slaves as he can afford!

User avatar
Puzikas
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10912
Founded: Nov 24, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Puzikas » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:30 am

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:Conscripts did far worse in combat than volunteers in WWII in general, and when professional units went up against conscripts it was generally a massacre, such as in the eastern front with the germans vs. the Soviet union.

They did so bad wikipedia.org (your favourite website) denotes Operation Bagration as the greatest military defeat in German military history.



Tbh that's underselling up OPB was such a vicious thrashing of the rectal cavity that it is without peer before or since

Genuinely mad

Also it was a conscript vs conscript army lol
Sevvania wrote:I don't post much, but I am always here.
Usually waiting for Puz ;-;

Goodbye.

User avatar
Amidia-
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Jan 16, 2018
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Amidia- » Wed Feb 03, 2021 11:39 am

Puzikas wrote:
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:They did so bad wikipedia.org (your favourite website) denotes Operation Bagration as the greatest military defeat in German military history.



Tbh that's underselling up OPB was such a vicious thrashing of the rectal cavity that it is without peer before or since

Genuinely mad

Also it was a conscript vs conscript army lol


Exactly it was conscript v conscript, obviously a real professional army would have beat either side, perhaps both.


User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:06 pm

Do people with high school diploma, military experience and military leadership and management training (but no university degree) necessarily make bad military officers?
A nation which partly represents my views.
Founder of the Traditionalist Military Alliance:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493756
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change

Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Amidia-
Secretary
 
Posts: 32
Founded: Jan 16, 2018
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Amidia- » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:18 pm

Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do people with high school diploma, military experience and military leadership and management training (but no university degree) necessarily make bad military officers?

Taking in enlisted personnel to go through officer training is pretty normal, maybe not as a sole source of officer recruits.

User avatar
Immoren
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 64088
Founded: Mar 20, 2010
Democratic Socialists

Postby Immoren » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:25 pm

Amidia- wrote:
Puzikas wrote:

Tbh that's underselling up OPB was such a vicious thrashing of the rectal cavity that it is without peer before or since

Genuinely mad

Also it was a conscript vs conscript army lol


Exactly it was conscript v conscript, obviously a real professional army would have beat either side, perhaps both.


Are you saying that after those years those conscripts weren't indistinguishable from "professional soldiers" ?
IC Flag Is a Pope Principia
I ᴛʜɪɴᴋ I'ᴠᴇ ᴊᴜsᴛ ʜᴀᴅ ᴀ ɴᴇᴀʀ Aʀᴀʀᴀɢɪ ᴇxᴘᴇʀɪᴇɴᴄᴇ.
— Death. Probably.

User avatar
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan
Senator
 
Posts: 4471
Founded: Dec 08, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Champagne Socialist Sharifistan » Wed Feb 03, 2021 12:27 pm

Amidia- wrote:
Champagne Socialist Sharifistan wrote:Do people with high school diploma, military experience and military leadership and management training (but no university degree) necessarily make bad military officers?

Taking in enlisted personnel to go through officer training is pretty normal, maybe not as a sole source of officer recruits.

Thanks
A nation which partly represents my views.
Founder of the Traditionalist Military Alliance:https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=493756
The Turkish War of Independence and everything before along with 2014 modernisation are set in stone.
Everything else is subject to change

Black Lives Matter!

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23179
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:11 pm

Puzikas wrote:this is what all conscript armies do to a nation

I can't believe conscript only managed to make Army Group Center vanish lmao typical conscript army can't complete objectives


Literally the single greatest land offensive in human history, and the sort of campaign seen once a thousand years, as was such during the times of Chinggis Khan and Alexander

or

We literally got ass blasted by some farmers with 120 year old falling block rifles and own goaled every year for 10 years on the dot.

How will professional mercenary "armies" ever recover?

Korva wrote:Soviets had like a 10:1 advantage in guns.

They could have used trained monkeys as infantry and done just as well.


Doubtful.

For all their mechanized tanks and airplanes the Americans still got btfo by a handful of Chinese light infantry with 10x fewer artillery pieces and no planes.

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:Conscripts did far worse in combat than volunteers in WWII in general, and when professional units went up against conscripts it was generally a massacre, such as in the eastern front with the germans vs. the Soviet union.

They did so bad wikipedia.org (your favourite website) denotes Operation Bagration as the greatest military defeat in German military history.


Part of the reason Galla is a conscript army fueled by the principle of mass is because it secretly channels high Bagration energy.

You can nuke it all you want that just makes it stronger.

Except the Sturmoviks are Hawker Hurricanes with Vickers S guns I guess.
Last edited by Gallia- on Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:18 pm, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15166
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:17 pm

Gallia- wrote:Part of the reason Galla is a conscript army fueled by the principle of mass is because it secretly channels high Bagration energy.

You can nuke it all you want that just makes it stronger.

Except the Sturmoviks are Hawker Hurricanes with Vickers S guns I guess.

Sweden before acquiring a professional army: 29 brigades, 19 fighter squadrons, and storage depots enough to fight WWIII.
Sweden after acquiring a professional army: 1 brigade, maybe 5 fighter squadrons on a good day, and 1 field hospital, and ÖB going "We could maybe defend Stockholm for 1 week".

User avatar
Gallia-
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 23179
Founded: Oct 09, 2013
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gallia- » Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:21 pm

Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
Gallia- wrote:Part of the reason Galla is a conscript army fueled by the principle of mass is because it secretly channels high Bagration energy.

You can nuke it all you want that just makes it stronger.

Except the Sturmoviks are Hawker Hurricanes with Vickers S guns I guess.

Sweden before acquiring a professional army: 29 brigades, 19 fighter squadrons, and storage depots enough to fight WWIII.
Sweden after acquiring a professional army: 1 brigade, maybe 5 fighter squadrons on a good day, and 1 field hospital, and ÖB going "We could maybe defend Stockholm for 1 week".


Yes.

Galla before acquiring a professional army: big
Galla after acquiring a professional army: literally a motley collection of variously armed militias and neo-medieval cyberpunk/corporate levy troops

The trick is to never professionalize the army. Down that road lies internationalist neoliberal roadsterism.

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Senator
 
Posts: 3940
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Triplebaconation » Wed Feb 03, 2021 2:21 pm

The Corparation wrote:I'm currently in the process of reading "When Computers Went to Sea" which is a history of US Navy computing and in particular NTDS. The author mentions briefly at one point a "Project CORNFIELD". The basic concept was that due to the size of computers at the time you wouldn't be able to fit two on every ship (You'd need two for redundancy in case a vacuum tube blew out at an inopportune time) and instead would need a dedicated "master ship" to carry a pair of navalized SAGE Derivatives in order to coordinate air defense for the battle group. As is fairly obvious the shrinking size of computers allowed for every ship to carry a computer and the project never went anywhere. The author provides two citations on CORNFIELD, one is behind a paywall that I'm loathe to get through and while I tracked down the other it didn't provide any additional information and didn't have any citations to follow. I'm wondering if anyone here has heard of CORNFIELD before and if so do they have any spare portions of asparagus they could share on it.


Cornfield was contracted out to the University of Illinois. The master ship would have been the aircraft carrier of a task force instead of Lensman-style command ship. It was really more of a systems concept than anything concrete - any software written for it (I'm not sure they got that far) ran on ILLIAC. The Cornfield team went on to use some of the ideas to develop PLATO.

Husseinarti wrote:
The shortened model your talking about was shortened by 7 inches, this is based on the commando, which is shortened by a little over 3 inches.

Plus suppressors were used on the FAMAS, they fit over the muzzle break on the end of the grenade discharger, these do the same thing.


have you verified this information with wikipedia and thefirearmsblog
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.


User avatar
The Corparation
Post Czar
 
Posts: 34014
Founded: Aug 31, 2009
Father Knows Best State

Postby The Corparation » Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:55 pm

Triplebaconation wrote:
The Corparation wrote:I'm currently in the process of reading "When Computers Went to Sea" which is a history of US Navy computing and in particular NTDS. The author mentions briefly at one point a "Project CORNFIELD". The basic concept was that due to the size of computers at the time you wouldn't be able to fit two on every ship (You'd need two for redundancy in case a vacuum tube blew out at an inopportune time) and instead would need a dedicated "master ship" to carry a pair of navalized SAGE Derivatives in order to coordinate air defense for the battle group. As is fairly obvious the shrinking size of computers allowed for every ship to carry a computer and the project never went anywhere. The author provides two citations on CORNFIELD, one is behind a paywall that I'm loathe to get through and while I tracked down the other it didn't provide any additional information and didn't have any citations to follow. I'm wondering if anyone here has heard of CORNFIELD before and if so do they have any spare portions of asparagus they could share on it.


Cornfield was contracted out to the University of Illinois. The master ship would have been the aircraft carrier of a task force instead of Lensman-style command ship. It was really more of a systems concept than anything concrete - any software written for it (I'm not sure they got that far) ran on ILLIAC. The Cornfield team went on to use some of the ideas to develop PLATO.

Have any readings on it? The author of "When Computers Went to Sea" mentions the University of Illinois connection however he seems to have thought that, at least at one point that they intended to have a purpose built ship, From Chapter 2, p69:
For the Navy, Project CORNFIELD proposed a dedicated ship that would literally be a floating computer center, carrying two of the massive computers.

To me at least a dedicated ship somewhat makes as the computers used for SAGE weighed on the order of a couple hundred tons and took up significant space. Multiply by 2 and it seems like you'd be hard pressed to fit the system on a carrier without axing most of the air wing.
Last edited by The Corparation on Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:05 pm, edited 2 times in total.
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 2020 2024 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.

User avatar
The Manticoran Empire
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9865
Founded: Aug 21, 2015
Anarchy

Postby The Manticoran Empire » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:04 pm

Manokan Republic wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:
There is basically no evidence to support the idea that conscription causes soldiers to be less motivated than a volunteer force. It is a common saying, but just because people say it doesn't make it true.

Note that WW1 and WW2 were fought by conscription on all sides. It is hard to argue any of the sides suffered moral problems because they were using conscription.



The main advantages are political and economic. Conscription generally saves money on low end soldiers, since they are forced to be there you don't have to pay them competitively to the open job market. However you also have to have the political will to enforce conscription, which can be hard in the face of unpopular wars or engagements. The nation's that still maintain conscription generally have the political will because they face existential threats, see South Korea and Israel.

Further consideration is that while conscription will fill out lower ranks there can be a struggle to get quality personnel to stick around and become NCOs. But that is a struggle a volunteer force can face as well.

A final consideration is how many people are being conscripted and how you are choosing them, all adults when they hit a certain age, only men, only a percentage of, etc.

Conscripts did far worse in combat than volunteers in WWII in general, and when professional units went up against conscripts it was generally a massacre, such as in the eastern front with the germans vs. the Soviet union. Most of the U.S. frontline infantry were volunteers in WWII and not, conscripts as well, as they generally didn't expect front-line troops to be successful if they were overly filled with conscripts.

This actually false. 61.2% of US servicemen in World War II were draftees. In reality there was no appreciable difference between a conscript and a volunteer during the war. German and Soviet conscripts fought each other in Eastern Europe. British, French, and American conscripts fought German and Italian conscripts in Western and Southern Europe as well as North Africa.
For: Israel, Palestine, Kurdistan, American Nationalism, American citizens of Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and US Virgin Islands receiving a congressional vote and being allowed to vote for president, military, veterans before refugees, guns, pro choice, LGBT marriage, plural marriage, US Constitution, World Peace, Global Unity.

Against: Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Liberalism, Theocracy, Corporatocracy.


By the Blood of our Fathers, By the Blood of our Sons, we fight, we die, we sacrifice for the Good of the Empire.

User avatar
Triplebaconation
Senator
 
Posts: 3940
Founded: Feb 22, 2013
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Triplebaconation » Wed Feb 03, 2021 5:22 pm

The Corparation wrote:
Triplebaconation wrote:
Cornfield was contracted out to the University of Illinois. The master ship would have been the aircraft carrier of a task force instead of Lensman-style command ship. It was really more of a systems concept than anything concrete - any software written for it (I'm not sure they got that far) ran on ILLIAC. The Cornfield team went on to use some of the ideas to develop PLATO.

Have any readings on it? The author of "When Computers Went to Sea" mentions the University of Illinois connection however he seems to have thought that, at least at one point that they intended to have a purpose built ship, From Chapter 2, p69:
For the Navy, Project CORNFIELD proposed a dedicated ship that would literally be a floating computer center, carrying two of the massive computers.

To me at least a dedicated ship somewhat makes as the computers used for SAGE weighed on the order of a couple hundred tons and took up significant space. Multiply by 2 and it seems like you'd be hard pressed to fit the system on a carrier without axing most of the air wing.


There's a chapter on it in The Friendly Orange Glow, which is about the development of PLATO. I'm not sure thinking in terms of processing hardware is especially helpful since the project seemed to be (at least to me) mainly about the cybernetics of theoretical networked computers.

The Manticoran Empire wrote:This actually false. 61.2% of US servicemen in World War II were draftees. In reality there was no appreciable difference between a conscript and a volunteer during the war. German and Soviet conscripts fought each other in Eastern Europe. British, French, and American conscripts fought German and Italian conscripts in Western and Southern Europe as well as North Africa.


I suspect you're both wrong :shock:

Military service was so popular in the US during WW2 that the primary purpose of the draft was to limit volunteers. In fact after 1942 it was impossible to enlist unless you were outside the draft range, which of course was steadily expanded during the war. You could however volunteer for the draft - so most "conscripts" were actually volunteers.

Of course while not actually conscripts they were by no means professional soldiers - this was probably an advantage.

The biggest NS dumb about conscription is the hyper-militarized nation fighting forever wars with conscript armies.
Last edited by Triplebaconation on Wed Feb 03, 2021 8:02 pm, edited 4 times in total.
Proverbs 23:9.

Things are a bit larger than you appear to think, my friend.

User avatar
Hrstrovokia
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 448
Founded: Antiquity
Corporate Police State

Postby Hrstrovokia » Thu Feb 04, 2021 12:52 pm

Is the MiG-31 still a viable concept today?

Most countries have gone towards multi-role aircraft. Would a nation be better off going for a Su-27 or F-16 variant than something as costly and without the same branching path towards multiple capabilities as the MiG-31?

User avatar
Miku the Based
Diplomat
 
Posts: 665
Founded: Dec 03, 2020
Ex-Nation

Postby Miku the Based » Thu Feb 04, 2021 2:15 pm

Yes, the MIG 31 as a interceptor for both high flying fast recon aircraft like the SR-71 and supersonic nuclear armed bombers are perfectly viable today. That threat did not end even after 2011.
January 8th, 2021 - I vow not to respond to anyone OOCIC/OOC I'm 100% serious
Do not ask me my opinion of LGBT. the mods don't approve.
Yes, I'm Homophobic, Transphobic etc. not stop incessantly responding to me and then have the audacity to claim I am the one "trolling". If I don't respond to you most likely I'm on your foe list. If one is hypersensitive I recommend putting me on your foe list
Socialism Cockshottian Economic Pan-aftrica DPRK Hamas Belarus CCP Kazakhstan Maxim Gorky National Bolshevikism jim profit free thought and expression thereof | Susan Sontag Critical Theory New-Left Cub/Ven. Socialism Smashie Drugs USculture NPA Corrupt Moderator Unruley Moderators anglos thought crimes/police

User avatar
Cossack Peoples
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 378
Founded: Jul 11, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Cossack Peoples » Thu Feb 04, 2021 7:06 pm

What are y'all's opinions on command guidance for surface-to-air missiles?
"Вечнасць для Cossacks!"
A corrupt, Post-Soviet anocracy whose de facto third branch of government is an arms manufacturer.
Sponsoring this signature
"Americanism is a question of principle, of idealism, of character. It is not a matter of birthplace, or creed, or line of descent."
— Theodore Roosevelt

User avatar
New Vihenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3781
Founded: Apr 03, 2011
Democratic Socialists

Postby New Vihenia » Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:06 pm

Cossack Peoples wrote:What are y'all's opinions on command guidance for surface-to-air missiles?


Cheap,simple, suitable for supersonic-hypersonic missile, limited to short range tho up to 60 km. May have problem handling multiple targets.
We make planes,ships,missiles,helicopters, radars and mecha musume
Deviantart|M.A.R.S|My-Ebooks

I play Blade and Soul

User avatar
Austrasien
Minister
 
Posts: 3117
Founded: Apr 07, 2013
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Austrasien » Thu Feb 04, 2021 8:45 pm

Hrstrovokia wrote:Is the MiG-31 still a viable concept today?

Most countries have gone towards multi-role aircraft. Would a nation be better off going for a Su-27 or F-16 variant than something as costly and without the same branching path towards multiple capabilities as the MiG-31?


No.

The Mig-31 wasn't known for its multiple capabilities. It could shoot AAMs and in principle drop bombs. It was an aircraft with a very narrow set of capabilities for a very specific mission - shoot down the XB-70 force. Since the XB-70 force notably didn't materialize its existence was rather questionable and was more about salvaging the big investment in the Mig-25 than the need for an aircraft that could fly very fast for about 20 minutes in a nearly straight line.

The PVO was putting SU-30s into service by the end of the USSR and Novator thought for a long time about adapting the R-37 missile for it, and phased array radars for ther Su-30/Su-27 were well underway. Had all the pieces come together the USSR could have fielded a very effective Su-30/R-37 combo with more or less all the valuable capabilities of the Mig-31 baring a sudden RB-71 force, which wasn't going to happen.

Cossack Peoples wrote:What are y'all's opinions on command guidance for surface-to-air missiles?


Between IIR & active radar homing missiles for medium-long range and beamriders for short-range, it doesn't have much going for it.
The leafposter formerly known as The Kievan People

The weak crumble, are slaughtered and are erased from history while the strong survive. The strong are respected and in the end, peace is made with the strong.

User avatar
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
Post Marshal
 
Posts: 15166
Founded: Jun 28, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Austria-Bohemia-Hungary » Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:23 am

Austrasien wrote:
Hrstrovokia wrote:Is the MiG-31 still a viable concept today?

Most countries have gone towards multi-role aircraft. Would a nation be better off going for a Su-27 or F-16 variant than something as costly and without the same branching path towards multiple capabilities as the MiG-31?


No.

The Mig-31 wasn't known for its multiple capabilities. It could shoot AAMs and in principle drop bombs. It was an aircraft with a very narrow set of capabilities for a very specific mission - shoot down the XB-70 force. Since the XB-70 force notably didn't materialize its existence was rather questionable and was more about salvaging the big investment in the Mig-25 than the need for an aircraft that could fly very fast for about 20 minutes in a nearly straight line.

The PVO was putting SU-30s into service by the end of the USSR and Novator thought for a long time about adapting the R-37 missile for it, and phased array radars for ther Su-30/Su-27 were well underway. Had all the pieces come together the USSR could have fielded a very effective Su-30/R-37 combo with more or less all the valuable capabilities of the Mig-31 baring a sudden RB-71 force, which wasn't going to happen.

Kinda excited over what Russia cooks up with PAK DP. Reckon it'll get cancelled after a "production run" of 1?

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Factbooks and National Information

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Geopolity, The Imagination Animals, Tinhampton

Advertisement

Remove ads