/k/ - Weapons

Direct dropped, yes.

Strapping a glide package on it, or dropping a cruise missile from a bomber, is still very ok.

For example Tu-95 is relevant because it launches a missile with a 5000km range. Can almost hit New York by flying over Hawaii.

>>525485

Yes.

The airforce is going to replace the entire minute man infrastructure. What are your thoughts on this video any ways?

>>525485

Yes.

For the simple reason that strategic bombers would never reach their targets unless you send twelve of them and expect one to go through.

It's even funnier when you realize US B-52 haven't been upgraded since 1961 because it's around the time they realize that soviet SAM will shoot them down (and why at least faster or stealthier design were needed).

>>525505

Minuteman III has a throw weight of 1,150 kg and a weight of 35,400 kg. a 31:1 ratio.

Comparison with similar throw weight RS-24 (3,260 kg) which has a weight of 49,600 kg, which is a 15:1 ratio. Some of that is environmental protection (insulation, humidity seal) and extra reinforcement because it's truck-mobile and riding all over Siberia.

Comparison with silo-based missiles that does not need extra reinforcement or massive insulation gives us RS-28 which has a throw weight of 10,000 kg and a weight of 100,000 kg, a 10:1 ratio.

Comparison to other missiles America has in service gives us Trident II, with a throw weight of 4,320 kg and a total weight of 58,500 kg, for a ratio of 13:1… probably due to naval environmental protection. It would be 10:1 or better without it.

I'm just using general weight as a comparison analog here, obviously assuming that if something has a better throw weight ratio, it must mean the fuels are better, electronics in the missile is lighter and engineering is superior. It's not a wild assumption, and good enough for a polynesian coconut carving website.

tl;dr the appropriate thing to do is to make a land version of trident and put it everywhere, because it's the only missile in the west that's actually competitive.

Call me when they do that, "upgrading" the geriatric minuteman isn't a solution.

>>525556

I'll also add that aside from a portion of weight being due to environmental protection, a major portion of the Tridents OAL is the multi-tier warhead rack.

It can carry 12xW88 which are 1.75 m long, four stacked on four stacked on four, each upper pallet about 2m long with the 0.25m seperation section. Remove the top two racks to shave off 4m from the OAL of the Trident…

The land based Trident is now only 9.5m or 31 foot long.

It can still carry four warheads of 475kt each whereas a Minuteman only has three warheads of the same kiloton range.

But now… you can put two Tridents stacked on top of one another in one Minuteman silo.

So instead of having one minuteman with three warheads shotgunnning one area, you can have two tridents with four warheads each shotgunning two completely separate targets.

>>525514

>It's even funnier when you realize US B-52 haven't been upgraded since 1961

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/07/12/air-force-begins-massive-b-52-overhaul/

https://newatlas.com/b-52-weapons-bay/35706/

?????

>>525627

Also

>inb4 "hurr the B-52H was produced in 1961"

Variants =/= upgrades.

>>525485

As a first strike option, yes. As a second strike option, if all goes in your favor during the first strike, IE your ICBMs blow a big hole in the opposing countries air defense batteries and airbases, bombers with gravity deployed bombs can seep through the cracks and hit secondary targets just as well as anything else can. of course things will almost never go to plan. Especially in the case of a nuclear war, but its also safe to say things will be so fucked on all sides that the second strike would be a bit of a toss up.

>>525628

>>525627

They stopped making B-52 because B-52 were obsolete, the 1961 design upgrade being the last one before the transition to supersonic bombers, the first of which being the B-58 replacing the older B-47. But because of the multiple cancellation and dodgy designs a successor to the B-52 was never made (not for a lack of trying and probably trillions in today $ of US taxpayer money pissed away for it).

They can change the bells and whistles all they want a concept that was obsolete in 1961 is still obsolete 55 years later.

It's like if the US decided to use cavalry charges in Vietnam…

Note that ONLY the US have retained their air droppable nukes.

Everyone else has put missiles under the butt of those warheads.

Airdroppable bombs only advantage over missile is cost per bang.

If the bomb is already costlier than the plane there is no reason to cheap out on a missile…

The only reason to spend money to maintain those bombs is corruption. Spend billions on cheap tech made decades ago for some (((contractor))) to make an insane profit margin compare to what they would gain if they made new stuff.

>>525556

>throw weight ratio

>completely meaningless statistic