Prompt Global Strike

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: Cuda1447
I'm not sure what to say, what exactly are you talking about? You start out talking about such a weapon, but what type of weapon is this?

Tesla Coils from C&C?

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
Orbiting missiles, pointed downward? Say the word and the closest one fires up and drops in!

"I've seen it on a hundred worlds; orbital weapons always destabilize planetary politics..." Anyone remember the source of that quote??

what is it? sounds Dr. Who-ish.

 

[jpeyton]

Is it time for what? More WMDs? No thanks.

 

[Fox5]

Sounds like a question you'd find in some 4X game.

"Your scientist proposes a way to quickly launch missile strikes anywhere in the world. However, this weapon requires puppies as fuel. What will you do?
A. The world needs no more destructive weapons. Save the puppies at any cost! (-500 gold, +100 karma)
B. Well, we do need better weapons to fight our enemies. Only use puppies that are clinically ill. (-100 karma, +1% military capability)
C. Yes, slaughter the puppies! Oh, we get a new weapon out of that too? Awesome. (-2000 karma, +5% military capability)"

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Is it time for what? More WMDs? No thanks.

Off topic, but I would have to agree, the world does not need more WMDs...

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The idea that high tech gadgetry is a replacement for well trained, well equipped and well supported soldiers on the ground is a fantasy born out of the army air corps in ww2...and apparently fueled mostly by Tom Clancy novels.

fixed

I'm not sure the army air corps was intended as a replacement for soldiers, I think it was intended as a supplement for the army...that's why it started as the army air corps, after all. It's not obvious to me how this "Prompt Global Strike" idea would work with soldiers, since it's primary application would seem to be hitting places we aren't anywhere close to in the first place (otherwise we could take out the target a more conventional way). That seems like a new military doctrine, rather than an evolution of an existing one, and I'm not entire sure what problem it's solving.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
That seems like a new military doctrine, rather than an evolution of an existing one, and I'm not entire sure what problem it's solving.

The problem, of course, is how to siphon off more taxpayer money on unnecessary high profit military crap.

 

[Orignal Earl]

ya. aint gonna make a dif

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The idea that high tech gadgetry is a replacement for well trained, well equipped and well supported soldiers on the ground is a fantasy born out of the army air corps in ww2...and apparently fueled mostly by Tom Clancy novels.

fixed

I'm not sure the army air corps was intended as a replacement for soldiers, I think it was intended as a supplement for the army...that's why it started as the army air corps, after all. It's not obvious to me how this "Prompt Global Strike" idea would work with soldiers, since it's primary application would seem to be hitting places we aren't anywhere close to in the first place (otherwise we could take out the target a more conventional way). That seems like a new military doctrine, rather than an evolution of an existing one, and I'm not entire sure what problem it's solving.

Well we need the army to minimize civilian casualties, but if we really wanted to we wouldn't have to land a soldier to take out our targets.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The idea that high tech gadgetry is a replacement for well trained, well equipped and well supported soldiers on the ground is a fantasy born out of the army air corps in ww2...and apparently fueled mostly by Tom Clancy novels.

fixed

I'm not sure the army air corps was intended as a replacement for soldiers, I think it was intended as a supplement for the army...that's why it started as the army air corps, after all. It's not obvious to me how this "Prompt Global Strike" idea would work with soldiers, since it's primary application would seem to be hitting places we aren't anywhere close to in the first place (otherwise we could take out the target a more conventional way). That seems like a new military doctrine, rather than an evolution of an existing one, and I'm not entire sure what problem it's solving.

The major focal points of a PGS system align nicely to US doctrinal strategy. It can be boiled down into 4 terms: Speed, Global, Precision, Conventional. Personally, I see this as an excellent investment considering the types of challenges we face.
A PGS system is good for:
high-payoff targets
sudden opportunities
traditional, irregular, and disruptive warfare
"pre-boost phase" missile defense

This means being able to force project into very distant anti-access environments and the ability to deny enemies sanctuary, even when no permanent military presence or only limited infrastructure is in a region.

I'm all about fighting smart using information and drones.

 

[SammyJr]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The idea that high tech gadgetry is a replacement for well trained, well equipped and well supported soldiers on the ground is a fantasy born out of the army air corps in ww2...and apparently fueled mostly by Tom Clancy novels.

fixed

I'm not sure the army air corps was intended as a replacement for soldiers, I think it was intended as a supplement for the army...that's why it started as the army air corps, after all. It's not obvious to me how this "Prompt Global Strike" idea would work with soldiers, since it's primary application would seem to be hitting places we aren't anywhere close to in the first place (otherwise we could take out the target a more conventional way). That seems like a new military doctrine, rather than an evolution of an existing one, and I'm not entire sure what problem it's solving.

The major focal points of a PGS system align nicely to US doctrinal strategy. It can be boiled down into 4 terms: Speed, Global, Precision, Conventional. Personally, I see this as an excellent investment considering the types of challenges we face.
A PGS system is good for:
high-payoff targets
sudden opportunities
traditional, irregular, and disruptive warfare
"pre-boost phase" missile defense

This means being able to force project into very distant anti-access environments and the ability to deny enemies sanctuary, even when no permanent military presence or only limited infrastructure is in a region.

I'm all about fighting smart using information and drones.

You make it all sound so clean. War is death. Its a last resort, not a first.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The idea that high tech gadgetry is a replacement for well trained, well equipped and well supported soldiers on the ground is a fantasy born out of the army air corps in ww2...and apparently fueled mostly by Tom Clancy novels.

fixed

I'm not sure the army air corps was intended as a replacement for soldiers, I think it was intended as a supplement for the army...that's why it started as the army air corps, after all. It's not obvious to me how this "Prompt Global Strike" idea would work with soldiers, since it's primary application would seem to be hitting places we aren't anywhere close to in the first place (otherwise we could take out the target a more conventional way). That seems like a new military doctrine, rather than an evolution of an existing one, and I'm not entire sure what problem it's solving.

The major focal points of a PGS system align nicely to US doctrinal strategy. It can be boiled down into 4 terms: Speed, Global, Precision, Conventional. Personally, I see this as an excellent investment considering the types of challenges we face.
A PGS system is good for:
high-payoff targets
sudden opportunities
traditional, irregular, and disruptive warfare
"pre-boost phase" missile defense

This means being able to force project into very distant anti-access environments and the ability to deny enemies sanctuary, even when no permanent military presence or only limited infrastructure is in a region.

I'm all about fighting smart using information and drones.

Like I said, it SOUNDS cool...but is this really a problem that needs solving? In other words, how often do we need to blow something up in an area where we have no military presence and no ability to quickly move military assets into the area? I would also point out that it seems less than useful against counterinsurgency fights, since the issue is not so much strike capability as intelligence knowing WHERE to strike. And even then, a capability more flexible than just blowing the shit out of a building is probably the way to go. No matter how advanced, bombs can't take out individuals in a building without hurting innocent people who also live there, or capture a terrorist alive for questioning.

Given the current state of our air force (and naval aviation, of course), we can for all practical purposes hit any target anywhere we like with a variety of munitions, and often with no way for an enemy to stop us...it's just a matter of how LONG it takes to do so. Is there any evidence that the lack of "promptness" in some circumstances is negatively impacting our military mission in some way?

 

[TheSkinsFan]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Is it time for what? More WMDs? No thanks.

Jesus... some of you fucktards are reading impaired. This discussion is about conventional precision weapons, not WMDs.

OP, great topic! What are the max ranges of our current railguns and cruise missiles in 60 minutes, or less? Couldn't we solve this problem by simply increasing, and then properly disbersing, the number of launch platforms for each of those? I'm sure the Navy wouldn't mind another 500 launch platforms to play with...

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: Rainsford

The idea that high tech gadgetry is a replacement for well trained, well equipped and well supported soldiers on the ground is a fantasy born out of the army air corps in ww2...and apparently fueled mostly by Tom Clancy novels.

fixed

I'm not sure the army air corps was intended as a replacement for soldiers, I think it was intended as a supplement for the army...that's why it started as the army air corps, after all. It's not obvious to me how this "Prompt Global Strike" idea would work with soldiers, since it's primary application would seem to be hitting places we aren't anywhere close to in the first place (otherwise we could take out the target a more conventional way). That seems like a new military doctrine, rather than an evolution of an existing one, and I'm not entire sure what problem it's solving.

The major focal points of a PGS system align nicely to US doctrinal strategy. It can be boiled down into 4 terms: Speed, Global, Precision, Conventional. Personally, I see this as an excellent investment considering the types of challenges we face.
A PGS system is good for:
high-payoff targets
sudden opportunities
traditional, irregular, and disruptive warfare
"pre-boost phase" missile defense

This means being able to force project into very distant anti-access environments and the ability to deny enemies sanctuary, even when no permanent military presence or only limited infrastructure is in a region.

I'm all about fighting smart using information and drones.

Like I said, it SOUNDS cool...but is this really a problem that needs solving? In other words, how often do we need to blow something up in an area where we have no military presence and no ability to quickly move military assets into the area? I would also point out that it seems less than useful against counterinsurgency fights, since the issue is not so much strike capability as intelligence knowing WHERE to strike. And even then, a capability more flexible than just blowing the shit out of a building is probably the way to go. No matter how advanced, bombs can't take out individuals in a building without hurting innocent people who also live there, or capture a terrorist alive for questioning.

Given the current state of our air force (and naval aviation, of course), we can for all practical purposes hit any target anywhere we like with a variety of munitions, and often with no way for an enemy to stop us...it's just a matter of how LONG it takes to do so. Is there any evidence that the lack of "promptness" in some circumstances is negatively impacting our military mission in some way?

One example would be in Africa, when we pinpointed OBL in a building and launched a cruise missile. From confirmation, to launch, to target took 2 hours. We missed him by 30 minutes. And this was a most optimal situation that we couldn't capitalize on. There are many, many others... and other scenarios that are emerging with nuclear proliferation and situations where it could be used for "preventive warfare," designed to strike quickly, without warning, anywhere on earth. Just possessing this capability may convince any potential adversary that it cannot prevail in a conflict and that engaging in warfare will entail substantial strategic risks beyond military defeat.

The US military establishment's goals include 1) the ability to project power worldwide, 2) rapid, precision strike and maneuver deep within denied areas, and 3) emphasis on unmanned long-range precision strike assets. The key is to determine the best method (means) to create desired effects, taking into account all the pertinent factors like logistics, cost, manpower, risk, etc.

I am really leaning away from all these boots on the ground theories. It's a slow, painful, and costly process in every way. It puts a lot of strain on families and the military, and the results are often questionable. Drawing back and working smarter, not harder, seems to make sense to me. We should maximize our best advantages: information, speed, precision, reach.

 

[yllus]

This rapid strike system plus a diversion of funds into better (more accurate/timely) intelligence would be incredibly useful in an asymmetric war scenario. I'm actually not sure why people here seem unable to grasp how advantageous it would be from the military point of view.

 

[bobsmith1492]

what is it? sounds Dr. Who-ish.

Wow, thread resurrection!

Actually it's from the Justice League cartoons... after Lex Luthor hijacks the space station's cannon and fires on his own base to frame the Justice Leaguers.

 

[ElFenix]

I'm not sure the army air corps was intended as a replacement for soldiers, I think it was intended as a supplement for the army...that's why it started as the army air corps, after all. It's not obvious to me how this "Prompt Global Strike" idea would work with soldiers, since it's primary application would seem to be hitting places we aren't anywhere close to in the first place (otherwise we could take out the target a more conventional way). That seems like a new military doctrine, rather than an evolution of an existing one, and I'm not entire sure what problem it's solving.

it wasn't intended that way, but airpower advocates in the aac tried many times to show that airpower could replace good old fashioned manpower. and they failed many times (the bombardment of monte casino is a very good example).

 

[0marTheZealot]

The US cannot afford another arms race, especially running trillion dollar deficits.

What do you think will happen when we develop such a weapon? The Chinese and Russians will develop an even more massive retaliatory response. Unfortunately, this time, the global economic system puts the advantage in their court. Remember, during much of the Cold War, the USA was the #1 creditor nation on earth. That stopped around the '80s, so much so that we are now the #1 debtor nation on Earth. The Russians and Chinese? They are major (if not the major) creditor nations now. And with the resource distribution the way it is, they'll stay that way for at least a quarter century.

 

[hal2kilo]

Studies and data have already been collected in pursuit of putting conventional warheads in the D5. That's all I can say.

 

[StageLeft]

Studies and data have already been collected in pursuit of putting conventional warheads in the D5. That's all I can say.

In fact, that is more than you are authorized to say, son. Your CO will be talking with you tomorrow. You're in hot water, mister.

 

[fskimospy]

it wasn't intended that way, but airpower advocates in the aac tried many times to show that airpower could replace good old fashioned manpower. and they failed many times (the bombardment of monte casino is a very good example).

Yeap, in fact there was a significant push after WW2 to dismantle the army to almost nothing because we figured that our air power with the atomic bomb was so huge that it would eliminate the need for a real army.

Oops.

 

[UberNeuman]

Isn't it "everyone"?

This is obvious....:sneaky:

 

[Ozoned]

The idea for such a weapon has been tossed around but there has been little funding, mainly over fears that countries like Russia would be unable to properly determine whether an in-flight warhead was nuclear.

But the requirements for such a weapon are really starting to emerge. The idea is that the US should have the capability to attack and destroy any point on earth with a conventional warhead within 60 minutes on the low end and as quick as 300 milliseconds on the high end.

There is certainly a military requirement to take out "fleeting" targets in a very short time frame. The old way- using bombers to take out static targets- isn't as important today. The US has to be able to use its eyes and ears to track the asymetrical threats and respond to them in real time, such as a target of opportunity like a terrorist leader in a safe house or a WMD about to be launched from a rogue nation/group.

Intel, speed, and accuracy is the name of the game in our current threat environment. Obviously such a weapon would be used on a limited, high-level basis.

Short range (1000-2000mile) ICBMs with conventional warheads, hypersonic missiles that skirt the edges of space, and other systems are being studied.

What say you?

I say give one to the RNC & the DNC to use on each others membership, and the need for such a weapon will be abated.

 

[Ozoned]

Yeap, in fact there was a significant push after WW2 to dismantle the army to almost nothing because we figured that our air power with the atomic bomb was so huge that it would eliminate the need for a real army.

Oops.

The use of Atomic weapons are limited when you consider what we actually use our military for.

 

[cirrrocco]

http://www.defencetalk.com/x-51a-waverider-gets-first-ride-aboard-b-52-23345/

http://www.defencetalk.com/wp-conte.../2009/12/X-51A-B-52-USAF.jpg&w=390&h=260&zc=0