Codename Duchess

I can assure you that the MC-130 designed for SOF support and dropping these things has a much more elaborate defensive suite than the TU-160, of which the number of operational Blackjacks is in the single digit range. Both would certainly require a permissive environment to operate as non-standoff bombers so this is moot except for the speed issue (which doesn't matter at the altitude both have to fly at to drop this ordnance anyway).

Gas turbines also get a lot more fuel efficient at altitude but again unless you plop an Abrams in the Himalayas you're not going to see noticeable changes.

The fanny wiggling hull rotation in front of the kids just felt inappropriate. That was still a pretty cool demo. I made the same argument when an LCS project head talked to my Midshipman unit about how fast it could go: "Can it outrun a Chinese ASCM?" I didn't realize how quiet the tank is though. I mean I'd heard stories but it seemed like past like 200 meters it was damn hard to hear, even at full grunt.

You've mixed up your units John. Pzrsrkrtwrfr has already established this is pointless, but for the sake of the engineer in me I'm going to write this out: I used the T-90A with the V-92S2 950hp diesel and the M1A2 with the Honeywell AGT1500C gas turbine. Double underline ANS. In order to get the same power/weight ratio, you'd need to add 3.2 short tons of weight to the Abrams. As I have no idea how much ERA adds (or, wikipedia didn't specify the configuration of the M1A2 as measured) that doesn't seem that hard to me but at the end of the day the T-90 certainly doesn't "run rings around" the Abrams. That said, wikipedia being wikipedia, gives a lower weight later for the M1A2 SEP so if you assume that the 72 short ton weight is fully loaded with ERA then it still reigns king. If it was the point of this thread and I cared enough I'd run the M1A3 with it's multiple ton weight savings versus the bigger engine being added to the T-90AM, but the point being John's numbers were way off. I suspect switching between types of ton through something off there.

? The M1A2 has a power to weight ratio of 23.07 hp/t. The T-90A is 20.43 hp/t, according to wikipedia numbers. They just get better gas mileage, presumably.

I like the logic of the only way US vehicles can get ERA is if we have enough tiles to equip every single vehicle in our inventory (literally thousands) but the Russians can totally justify bringing all <20 Armatas.

I think Lockheed mentioned some sort of defensive air to air missile concept recently so that's already being looked at. I think your most likely bet is going to be a laser based system, but that's still a bit away.

It's just a function of trigonometry. Height of aircraft vs distance over ground of aircraft and target. Hypotenuse, more or less, being the trajectory of the weapon (more straightforward for a Maverick and more ballistic for a non-glide bomb). So it really just comes down to launch parameters but by and large it will almost certainly be greater than 25 degrees because that's really shallow. You'd have to be really low (not recommended or useful against ta ms and what not). Hell, even gun runs are meant to be done at 30 degrees.

I don't want to get too into specifics but there is no requirement for a LGB to have its target lased all the way from launch to impact to ensure a hit (Chosen randomly, 10 seconds is more than enough time and you can almost certainly choose less). Also there's no way for him to know whether or not I've released the weapon, so I can laze him, watch him pop smoke, and patiently wait for the wind to blow it away before lazing him again to keep trolling or to release a weapon. Or I can just bomb the middle of the smoke and hes still going to have a bad day. Suffice it to say I don't think there's any system out there to offer protection from precision munitions released from an aircraft outside of extremely lucky outliers.

Intercepting a JDAM or Maverick (or their Russian equivalents) with APS isn't going to make much of a difference to the poor tank crew on the receiving end, even if it's possible. As for aircraft delivered obscurants it seems like a really wasteful use of resources. You'd need like total air supremacy for it to work which wouldnt happen vs the US, and the kinds of potential enemies where it would work would be curb stomped anyway. Plus it's stupid risky. Great propaganda footage, though. Artillery would be so much more practical.

From my understanding the "S" in SM means export. Are there any plans to acquire the same tank for the Russians themselves? The Indian Army is not featured in CMBS. The question isn't whether the tank could be/has been built (in small numbers for the Russians if at all) it's whether it's an appropriate consideration. The T-90M is a more reasonable request, although there are so many "I'm serious this time, promise" upgrades for Russian tanks that it's hard to avoid skepticism. For what it's worth, I bet we see widespread distribution of T-90M while the Armata quietly goes the route of "hey look we have something brand new! T-14 is such old news!"

Except they do now. Also keep in mind that most of the campaigns feature initial contact being between RUS and UKR (of various strength and sometimes augmented by light US forces) and maybe US Light Infantry. Heavy (US) units don't arrive immediately in theater but when they do they are well prepared and equipped. That's kind of like the US Army's entire thing. If you want it to be initial elite Russian forces (which is not unreasonable) then expect them to not fight US elite forces immediately as tanks don't arrive from Poland immediately. If you want it to be Abrams vs T-90 then understand that it's entirely feasible that the mighty US logistics train will bring them fully prepared to the fight. Three years ago that might not have been the case but that's not when the game is set. Also keep in mind that the T-90AM doesn't exist in Russian ground forces any more than the Abrams v3.5 or whatever as it's currently represented does. But if you were to pit T-90A or T-72B3 against an M1A2 as it currently exists IRL you'd still see them outmatched, possibly even more drastically than T-90AM vs Abrams II: Pershing's Revenge. The SHORAD debate really isn't worth going too far into again because of the poor way the air war is modeled. I think the real issue here is the requirement for their to be a 100% firm contact for the AI to auto fire. I'm curious did all those T-90s have unknown contacts on the Abrams positions? I think there needs to be a step between "I 100% know that that is an Imperialist M1A2" and "there might be something here" where the AI is confident enough that "There is something big and hot and metal here that I am going to shoot because I know it's not mine, even though I don't exactly know what it is." This would help the Russian gunners overcome their technological limitations and shoot sooner without being too much of a boost to the American gunners because they can get an ID so quickly anyway.

Multiple hops in the full mission simulator. No stick time, yet. It's a highly capable aircraft. The amount of information available is staggering. I won't go into specifics but like I said, unless you've been exposed to the full capabilities of the aircraft all you're left with are the program details. Like I've said before, the jet is magnificent, the procurement program for it was truly terrible. Credit to the various folks who made it work. As for the engine issue only time will tell. It's supposed to be a highly reliable engine, so if it's as good as they say then more power to it (literally, heh). I've personally never encountered a situation in the Rhino where I was down to one engine but I know folks who have. I would wager though that the next Naval jet won't be single engine, and won't be co-developed again either.

Speaking from firsthand experience the jet is so much more than Pierre Sprey and defense bloggers will have you believe.

Super Hornets can self escort, or they'd stay with them. The newest version of the HARM go really far, as do any other number of standoff weapons that can be used in a SEAD/DEAD role. The Cold War low CBU pass thing isn't really the current trend when we are talking about modern SAM systems with crazy range. The escort doesn't need to be right on top of the SEAD flight to still do it's job.

The TL;DR of the F-35 as it stands in 2017 is that the program was horribly managed/run/whatever from the beginning, but the aircraft itself is pretty damn awesome. You'll find that analogous to many other big programs throughout US military history (and other countries). The difference is simply the amount of money involved at this point was unheard of up to this point. As for the CAS debate, which I've gone through many times before (don't make me get the Bingo square out...), there simply won't be fixed wing CAS for anywhere from the first day to the first week, depending on how committed Russia (in this example) is. The exception would be Marine F-18s and F-35s because that's their focus, but I imagine even they would be committed to the Air Superiority role. The first air to ground strikes you would see would be SEAD/DEAD and the destruction of enemy airfields and strategic nodes. SEAD is to help gain air superiority and the airfield and strategic (fuel dumps, truck farms, HQs, etc) strikes don't require long term air superiority, merely a simple bubble that can collapse after the strike has passed. Conversely, CAS requires long term (in aviation terms) control of the local airspace in order to allow the best chances of success. The higher the threat, the greater this area needs to be. Note that rotary assets would likely still operate in a CAS role even without air superiority because they are much better at hiding, and I'm less willing to use a missile on something down low when there are Sukhois around. The Russian Air Force would be essentially unable to perform any CAS roles in the face of NATO airpower (this is why SHORAD isn't a big deal for the US) and at best could hope for the kind of "bubble strikes" I mentioned above, likely at great cost. As the situation started to allow CAS, you'd see F-35s followed by 4th gen fighters and the A-10 start to appear in that role. Seriously though, don't make me get the bingo square out.

You guys definitely don't want to believe all the bad press you've seen online. F-35 is pretty damn cool. I always find it interesting that the folks talking about the newest Russian/Soviet wunderwaffe* with a pk greater than 1 and an intercontinental range are the same ones saying how important it is for modern fighters to have guns. Don't get me wrong, to quote another pilot "I've never met another pilot I didn't want to gun" and I absolutely love BFM flights, but there's not going to be a lot of that in a peer to peer conflict. My experiences are limited to the Super Hornet (I've never heard that it's more expensive than an F-35 and I guarantee operating costs are lower) and the biggest issue with it is fuel capacity/range. Simply put it sucks, and the F-35 improves upon this. I've also had the opportunity of trying out the F-35 simulators used for training pilots. There is a lot of really cool features built into the plane that really does put it on the next level up. The comparison that it's an AWACS/Jammer/ISR aircraft strapped onto a fighter aren't wrong. Here's an example of the sort of things it can do. You don't see that everyday. The F-35 will complement nicely other 5th generation fighters as well as current 4th generation inventories. It's an exciting program (I was a skeptic before entering the Fighter Attack community). Let's break down the big three Russian toys: -The PAK FA has 8-12 airplanes produced last I checked, of which only the last 5 airframes are potentially combat capable. There have been promises that production will start "soon" in order to reach IOC sometime between 2020 and 2025. That's a big window that's pretty damn close. There are also reports of discussions in Russia as to whether or it not it justifies the cost (sound familiar?). The US has experience with research, development, and procurement of stealth and fifth Generation aircraft. Russia does not. There is no way in hell that this program will be an easy development and acquisition on the Russian side, and we have seen signs of that. The Indians also have expressed grumblings about their side of the program and are beginning to actually move away from it. So until there are shadows on ramps, treat it as another novelty, or at best a technology demonstrator. -The R-77 (or AA-12 Adder) began initial development in the 1980s and was subsequently cancelled, only to be revived for limited development in the 1990s where it fell victim once again to budgetary issues. Fewer than 200 rounds were produced prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, until export versions started popping up and getting sent to other countries. It's hard to find any sort of mention of production (although lots on development of super versions of the missile, which again, never appear to have been produced. Sounds familiar). The most recent mention was a request for proposals on production in 2015, but not an actual order. If you look at photos from Syria you'll notice the vaunted (and beautiful, not going to lie) SU-30SM only carrying the much older R-27 missile (Sparrow equivalent) instead of the Amraamski. Only after Turkey shot down the SU-24 did a limited number of R-77s appear. So while a capable missile, yet again there aren't nearly as many when compared to the AIM-120. -S-400 or SA-21: Last report I saw was that the long range missile, the 40N6 was still in development as of 2015 and is only just starting to roll out, if at all. There is no evidence to suggest that the long range 40N6 has in fact been deployed. The other long range missile, the 9M96 appears to be stuck in development hell and they have stopped trials on it. All of these are things worth considering.

The term "cut" is metaphorical. They are indeed released, not cut. Those ropes aren't cheap and deliberately damaging them is just dumb, especially when the mechanical system holding them in is fairly straightforward. KISS principle. As for retrieval, I remember in the Black Hawk Down book they talked about some well intentioned soldier basically sprinting into the middle of the street to retrieve the ropes in the middle of the firefight because they were told to retrieve them because they were indeed so expensive. His colleagues knocked some sense into him shortly after, but it's an amusing scene.

You can pause RT. You can't pause a WEGO turn when TAC AI fudges something up. I treat RT as WEGO with flexible turn timing. It's still totally possible to command large formations in RT if you choose to and play in that method. Hell it's preferred because of the ability to pause. The point is everyone has a preference, but there's no reason to remove one or the other. I doubt that processing power is the limiting factor in the AI, and I doubt that removing RT would give an appreciable benefit. I for one would likely not buy future Combat Mission games without Real Time.

Agree. WEGO is fine for multi-player. But leave me my RT for single player.

Stumbled across this documentary today. Very enjoyable to watch, a lot of good details and great footage. I'm sure grogheads will nitpick here and there, but from my base of understanding it seemed well done. I haven't looked, but if anyone has one on the T-90 or any of the Euro tanks they'd recommend I'd love to see that as well. I hope I'm not the only one reminded of the ship of Theseus. @panzersaurkrautwerfer definitely NSFW for you.

Mine was much less spectacular than hers. I fired my spotting round, told the NCO what I thought the correction should be. He, somehow coming across as bored, adjusts my adjustment and tells me to fire for effect. Obliterates the target. I don't think he even looked up to watch.

That's pretty much what happened, a lot of crew coordination. Here's the interview with them afterwards. They all got medals for it, rightfully so. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/navy-pilots-recount-avoiding-crash-off-aircraft-carrier/

In your opinion, would Russian public opinion regarding deployment of Kuznetsov (rather it's continued presence) have changed if either or both of those pilots died? Also, it appears that the majority of it's airwing has been flying from land bases in Syria even before this most recent accident.

Sources said the wire snapped. This is really dangerous because often you've slowed down to the point where you can no longer hit the blowers and power out ("Bolter"), leaving about half a second to eject. Here's a recent maximum pucker factor incident from an E-2. Thing is this happens like once a year in US Navy aviation, which has a whole lot more sorties than a single Russian carrier. The Russians gambled by sending an antiquated and ill-prepared beast out for propaganda purposes. It's time for it to return to port. Here's the same type of plane (Flanker-D) doing the same thing in 2005.