American Space Marines of the 1960s

[Jonfliesgoats]

There were serious proposals to make sub-orbital troop transports to move a QRF anywhere in the world in an hour.  Here's one of many stories:

https://warisboring.com/this-cold-war-concept-envisioned-space-marines-with-jetpacks-5a3ee398d42e#.q8zsd4sh3

[Emperor of the Titan Squid]

Ah, good old Philip Bono. That is a pretty interesting plan. Sort of impractical, probably not worth the money, but possibly useful and cool. A good way to get military money into space exploration.

[James Kerman]

Quote

...other countries wouldn’t be able to tell it apart from a nuclear weapon. A Soviet or Chinese ballistic missile-detection system would simply see a ballistic missile screaming through the atmosphere.

It has some drawbacks.

[Nibb31]

It was a silly idea, which is why the military never showed any interest.

First of all, dumping 100 marines in hostile territory without a logistics supply chain to relieve and rotate them is suicide. If you have a logistics chain, then you don't need a suborbital lander sent from the other side of the world.

Secondly, it ignores extraction. How does it take off again ? How do you evacuate it from the battlefield? And how do you get your troops back ? Tu ensure extraction, you are going to have to land at a friendly airbase where you can send large aircraft, so why not fly in your troops in large aircraft in the first place?

Thirdly, there is zero stealth. A reentry vehicle like this is going to come in hot and show up on every radar. It has practically no manoeuverability, so it is very easy to intercept.

Finally, you are exposing a super high-tech SSTO rocket to the possibility of being captured by the enemy, so the cost of losing one is also too great.

Edited December 5, 2016 by Nibb31

[TheDestroyer111]

In these good old times, everything was possible for the military, no matter how absurd- just like in KSP. 

[kerbiloid]

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

dumping 100 marines in hostile territory without a logistics supply chain to relieve and rotate them is suicide. If you have a logistics chain, then you don't need a suborbital lander sent from the other side of the world.

Secondly, it ignores extraction. How does it take off again ? How do you evacuate it from the battlefield? And how do you get your troops back ?

They could occupy an airfield on another continent and keep holding it until the main forces on big aeroplanes arrival.
What an aerial descent is purposed for.

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

Thirdly, there is zero stealth. A reentry vehicle like this is going to come in hot and show up on every radar.

It's 1959. The nearest "every radar" could be in many kilometers. Also anti-aircraft missiles were poor.

5 hours ago, Nibb31 said:

you are exposing a super high-tech SSTO rocket to the possibility of being captured by the enemy, so the cost of losing one is also too great.

As with any new weapon.

[p1t1o]

woops

Edited December 5, 2016 by p1t1o
wrote a whole loada garbage

[Nibb31]

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

They could occupy an airfield on another continent and keep holding it until the main forces on big aeroplanes arrival.

If you were in range of aircraft, then you might as well drop paratroopers from an aircraft. 

The whole idea was based on "global strike", which means that you are dropping on another continent, far away from any air support.

In practice, there aren't any conflicts where this sort of capability is useful. It would take several days to prepare and launch a mission involving these vehicles, which is more than it would take to send troops to a nearby base in conventional aircraft.

US military doctrine leaned towards establishing bases in foreign countries and its carrier doctrine.

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

What an aerial descent is purposed for.

Yes, and look how well that worked for the Germans. Not.

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

It's 1959. The nearest "every radar" could be in many kilometers. Also anti-aircraft missiles were poor.

It was the height of the cold war. Both the US and Russia could detect ICBM launches, which is basically what this is.

2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

As with any new weapon.

Which is why the military rarely deploys its most advanced weaponry in real world theaters.

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

If you were in range of aircraft, then you might as well drop paratroopers from an aircraft. 

It will take 12-14 hours for aircraft to reach the point, and it will be under fire.

Between deorbiting and landing of a dropship there would be about 15 minutes and exact destination should get clear just at 5 minutes before landing.
No AA defense of that time could be ready. Spacecrafts even use beacons, but it takes time to find them with aviation.

So, they could launch it when main forces with heavy ammo (not paratroopers) on cargo planes were already in air, several hours before their arrival, to prepare their landing.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

In practice, there aren't any conflicts

In 1959?

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

US military doctrine leaned towards establishing bases in foreign countries and its carrier doctrine.

What does it change? They anyway need to land somewhere.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Yes, and look how well that worked for the Germans. Not.

Especially when it was the first such operation at all.
They captured strategic bridges, preventing them from demolition and allowing tanks to get into Nederlands.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

It was the height of the cold war. Both the US and Russia could detect ICBM launches, which is basically what this is.

It was a year before Capt. Powers was shot down in 20 km above Ural, when 20 km altitude presumed being safe.for spy planes.

1 hour ago, Nibb31 said:

Which is why the military rarely deploys its most advanced weaponry in real world theaters.

How many countries can send spacetroopers even now? How could this knowledge help somebody to get able?

Edited December 5, 2016 by kerbiloid