Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ...
4
5
6
7
8
... LastLast
  1. #101
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ironhorn View Post
    Tomahawk's use a 1000 lb warhead and are now used by the US Navy as anti-ship ordnance.
    They was converted to land attack Tomahawk's, so tecnical they do not have them.

  2. #102
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    Bull. That's the Super Hornet's range all right... with jack for payload.

    The US Navy -- Fact File: F/A-18 Hornet strike fighter
    : Range: Combat: 1,275 nautical miles (2,346 kilometers), clean plus two AIM-9s.

    You throw anything resembling a decent anti-shipping load on it, and it's range drops to <400nm. (And in practice, the USN pulls off .7-1.3 sorties per aircraft per day; higher numbers than that are achieved by gaming the system.)





    The AGM-130 is a USAF weapon that has never been navalized - it's also designed to hit slow or non-moving targets, and only the never-produced 130C had a 2000 lb warhead; the other versions are under 1000lbs according to the sources I can find.

    As for the GBU-15... I see claims that it was intended for a naval strike role, from the B-52G... which is no longer in service. If you can find an example of an F-15 (or B-52H) equipping a GBU-15 for a naval strike mission, I'll yield (since I suppose 15nm is technically "long range" being outside everything but main gun range).
    Combat RADIUS for interdiction is 390nm, or a RANGE of 780nm, and it can do in-flight refueling (Hi-Lo-Hi mission, 4 1000lbs bombs, 2 tanks). I have observed flight ops exceeding 2 sorties per day off a carrier, its called surge operations. Extended combat operations (40+ days) from a Nimitz produces more than 1.2 sorties.

    I said the US, not the USN. There is no reason to field a anti-ship weapon designed to destroy a battleship, so there has been no reason to deploy them. The AGM-130 is based on the GBU-15, which is a guided Mk-84 2000lbs bomb. A large ship is a slow moving target btw. The AGM-130C was going to use a 2000lbs penetration BLU-109 in place of the Mk84.

    The B-52H has been modified to take the place of the B-52G in maritime interdiction.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by a77 View Post
    They was converted to land attack Tomahawk's, so tecnical they do not have them.
    The USN is converting some TLAM-Es to ASuW.
    Last edited by Kellhound; 2016-08-06 at 07:20 AM.

  3. #103
    U.S would destroy them! Go America!

    About that non hypothetical everyday of every year healthcare and education funding though...

    Ha just joking your military looks awesome and that is what matters the most.

  4. #104
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by Trickname View Post
    U.S would destroy them! Go America!

    About that non hypothetical everyday of every year healthcare and education funding though...

    Ha just joking your military looks awesome and that is what matters the most.
    The US is in the top 5 for spending per student, and tied for 15th in public spending on healthcare as a % of GDP....

  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by a77 View Post
    They was converted to land attack Tomahawk's, so tecnical they do not have them.
    No. They "unconverted" them let's say.

    https://news.usni.org/2016/02/18/wes...arting-in-2021

    SAN DIEGO – Any U.S. Navy ship or submarine capable of firing a Tomahawk Land Attack Missile (TLAM) could be armed with an 1000-nautical mile anti-ship cruise missile in less than a decade, service officials told USNI News on Wednesday during the West 2016 conference.

    Included in the Fiscal Year 2017 budget request to Congress is a $434 million ask over the next five years to modify 245 Raytheon TLAMS with a maritime attack capability, Vice Adm. Joseph Mulloy, deputy chief of naval operations for integration of capabilities and resources, told USNI News in a Wednesday interview.

    “It won’t be all the Tomahawks but a good number of them coming off the line will have it,” he said.
    “It’s going for surface first and the submarines will encapsulate it.”

    The budget moves follows a Naval Air Systems command (NAVAIR) proved a Block IV TLAM – a long range land attack weapon — could be guided into a moving maritime target during a test in early 2015.

    The Navy had briefly fielded an anti-ship Tomahawk in the 1990s but the lower fidelity of contemporary sensors made the missile risky to use at long ranges for fear of hitting an unintended target.

    Following the test, Deputy Secretary of Defense Bob Work called the prospect of a modified anti-ship Tomahawk, “a game changing capability.”

    According to the plan laid out in the Navy budget (and blessed by big Pentagon) the maritime attack modified Tomahawk will enter the surface force in 2021 for live testing and then trickle out to every platform that can fire the missile – currently the Ticonderoga guided missile cruisers, Arleigh Burke guided missile destroyers the Navy’s attack submarine fleet (SSNs) and the four Ohio-class guided missile nuclear guided missile submarines (SSGNs).

    The modification will be part of the Navy’s recertification and life extension of older Tomahawks, which – with new FY 2017 funding for new TLAMS – will be ultimately an inventory of 4,000 missiles.

    When the service was programming the FY 2017 budget – which dipped three-and-a-half percent below 2016 projections – it told the Office of the Secretary of Defense it would like to have the capability but didn’t have the funds. OSD agreed and added the line item to the service’s budget, Mulloy said.

    The move not only fits into the surface Navy’s ongoing distributed lethality philosophy that seeks to improve the offensive power of the service’s surface assets as quickly as finances allow but also adds a new weapon for submarines to take on surface threats.

    It's been tested for the past couple of years. Here's a video.



    This is a trend, that I've been posting about here for ages now: a software driven approach to arms. We first saw this back in 2008 when the US shot down USA-193 in orbit using a "modified" SM-3 from the USS Lake Erie. Done on short notice, with the Lake Erie underway, the implication was that the "modification" was that the warhead's seeker was designed to fix onto a sattelite.

    We saw this next with LRASM. The first LRASM were really JASSM-ERs, again, with a seeker modified from it's land attack role to be able to track moving targets at sea. The "real" LRASM that's since been tested (since the program began in 2009) has sea-skimming and all the things you'd expect an anti-ship missile to have.

    We saw next with Tomahawk's above. Evidently it requires a modified seeker (hardware), but we're talking one compontent of an already in service weapon system, hence the inexpensive modification.

    And most recently, we saw JSOW modified for mobile maritime targets, again, with software modifications, meaning that the approach has moved from missiles to glide bombs.

    This entire approach fits with the Navy's dream. Areligh Burke destroyers and Ticondergia cruisers have 96 and 124 Vertical Launch Tubes respectively. They cannot be rearmed at sea, which means that the ships have (inaccurately, but broadly) 96-124 shots. The reason that is inaccurate is because some missiles, like the Sea Sparrow, are quad packed. Furthermore they carry an array of arms - it's not just 96 cruise missiles, for example. It's some combination of Cruise Missiles for air defense (SM-6/SM-2), cruise missiles for ballistic missile defense on 24 ships (SM-3), quad packed Sea Sparrows, anti-submarine missiles. Burkes typically carry around 56 Tomahawks.

    What the Navy would love would be one missile for anti-surface, anti-air and land attack (SM-3 for missile defense is it's own thing). That wasy On non-Missile Defense Destroyers, 96 shots means 96 shots, not 56, before the ship has to return to port and rearm. So if they can get the Tomahawk, or the LRASM to do all three, it'll greatly improve a ships effectiveness over stapling on another new weapon.

    Right now Naval weapons procurment is in transition because Obama's 2012 Pacific Pivot plan has directly lead, 4 years later, to a kind of small revolution in anti-ship weaponry. The US is even buying the Norwegian Naval Strike Missile to agument itself. But the real inflection point is that Tomahawk procurement is ending in the next couple of years, and in the next few years the US has to decide whether to develop an "improved Tomahawk", or adopt the LRASM on a booster, as Lockheed has tested, and replace Tomahawk as the next generation cruise missile. That won't be decided for some years in any event, and the Tomahawk stockpile will last for years to come in any event.

    Right now the plan is to modifie those Toamhawks, and procure LRASM to use princpally on B-1Bs and F/A-18s as an air to surface missile. JSOWs will be retrofitted. And the US is putting the Naval Strike Missile on the Littoral Combat Ship, giving it a better punch. It is also probable the US will fit the NSM on F-35s as they are introduced. They've already been integrated on to the F-16.

    Basically this entire episode above has been a moment of extreme sanity at the Pentagon. They identified a specific, long neglected need and rather than develop a revolutionary weapon that costs $50 billion and arrives in 20 years, they looked at what they had developed over the last 15 years and patched it's "eyes" to be able to track ships. That's the way things should be.

    What's interesting though, a slight side story, is LRASM's cousin, JASSM-ER. JASSM-ER was introduced into the arsenal in the last two years. The Air Force is a big, big fan and is buying a lot of them and exporting them to Poland. But the entire JASSM cost, including -ER, was in the realm of about $3 billion, from design to testing to procurement. So what is the Air Force doing asking for $20 billion and 15 years to design and build the nuclear armed Long Range Stand Off Cruise missile, which will replace the AGM-85 ALCM? JASSM(-ER) is replacing the conventional version of the AGM-86. Both are stealthy. JASSM-ER is longer range (but has a smaller warhead). JASSM-ER is cheaper to own which is why AGM-86C's phaseout is planned. So why not make a JASSM-ER variant for the nuclear Air Launched Cruise Missile requirement, similar to what was done for the LRASM? What kind of cruise missile costs $20 billion when the whole JASSM program was a fraction of that? Smart money: LRSO is a air launched, long range hypersonic weapon, evolving from the X-51 and is a nuclear-armed prompt global strike weapon. It's delivery schedule and it's budget profile match up with the so called "High Speed Strike Weapon", a name that's vanished exactly as LRSO started to be used.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Trickname View Post
    U.S would destroy them! Go America!

    About that non hypothetical everyday of every year healthcare and education funding though...

    Ha just joking your military looks awesome and that is what matters the most.
    We spend more one education and healthcare than defense. Far more.

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/
    $1.4 trillion on on Healthcare.
    $1 trillion on Education
    $800 billion on defense, $178B of which is on Veterans income security + education + healthcare, and $604 billion of which is for the Pentagon budget.

    http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/classic

    Everybody forgets that the US has three levels of government - Federal, State and Local, and three level of taxation and spending.

    The Federal government pays all defense costs while state and local pay basically nothing.

    By contrast State and Local pay the VAST majority of Education costs, while the Federal government pays a minority share.

    But yes, heaven for bid in a country with $6.7 billion in government spending per year at all levels, we spend 9% of that share on buying guns and not butter. We're absolutely robbing our next generation blind, amirite?

  6. #106
    Over 9000! ringpriest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Silk Road
    Posts
    9,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Logic says the winner of a war is the one that watches their enemies wage it while not getting involved then exploit the aftermath. That is why China and Russia will never come to the aid of the other against the US.

    What part of "against the states" eludes you? The US defeated the GOVERNMENT forces of North Vietnam and Iraq, just as the US swept the Taliban out of power in Afghanistan. The defeat in Vietnam came from getting involved in a civil war. The issues in Iraq and Afghanistan come from trying to occupy a location that degraded into civil war (Iraq) or a location that never has worked under a central government (Afghanistan).

    A war against China plays into the US' conventional strengths while allowing very very liberal ROEs.
    Both Sun Tzu and Clausewitz would consider all the above wars to be failures - resources were expended, while the aims of the state (the US government) were not successfully reaches; war is not some Olympic sport, to be "won" on points, it is a tool of state (or non-state) power and if it doesn't produce the desired and intended outcome, then there was no victory (and playing Fox and the Grapes afterwards to re-define victory for PR purposes doesn't count either).

    With China, I think it takes an awful lot of presumption to assume that a war with them would be fought exactly as the US wishes... (I lack the time at the moment for a more detailed reply to this and other recent posts, I'll attempt to get back to it when I have some).
    "In today’s America, conservatives who actually want to conserve are as rare as liberals who actually want to liberate. The once-significant language of an earlier era has had the meaning sucked right out of it, the better to serve as camouflage for a kleptocratic feeding frenzy in which both establishment parties participate with equal abandon" (Taking a break from the criminal, incompetent liars at the NSA, to bring you the above political observation, from The Archdruid Report.)

  7. #107
    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    Both Sun Tzu and Clausewitz would consider all the above wars to be failures - resources were expended, while the aims of the state (the US government) were not successfully reaches; war is not some Olympic sport, to be "won" on points, it is a tool of state (or non-state) power and if it doesn't produce the desired and intended outcome, then there was no victory (and playing Fox and the Grapes afterwards to re-define victory for PR purposes doesn't count either).

    With China, I think it takes an awful lot of presumption to assume that a war with them would be fought exactly as the US wishes... (I lack the time at the moment for a more detailed reply to this and other recent posts, I'll attempt to get back to it when I have some).
    Lets say you have a basketball game and you are winning in the end of the 3rd quarter but in the fourth you pack and leave. You will loose the game. That what US did in Vietnam. They clearly lost the war even though they won many fights. This is a globally accepted FACT, let Kellhound imagine w/e he likes.

    As for the war scenario, USA could only hope to contain China in sea, which i personally find unrealistic scenario. The loses will be tremendous, governments will fall, riots will happen etc etc. As for ground invasion in Chinese soil, its Sci-Fi scenario. Vietnam would look a fairy tale in front of such war.
    China is very close being completely immune from the USA. They really don't need to fight now anything since in a decade or so their navy will be able to completely immunize the south China sea from USN. So they just have to sit and wait a bit longer.

    World's mono polarity is coming to an end. Fucking finally.

  8. #108
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Lets say you have a basketball game and you are winning in the end of the 3rd quarter but in the fourth you pack and leave. You will loose the game. That what US did in Vietnam. They clearly lost the war even though they won many fights. This is a globally accepted FACT, let Kellhound imagine w/e he likes.

    As for the war scenario, USA could only hope to contain China in sea, which i personally find unrealistic scenario. The loses will be tremendous, governments will fall, riots will happen etc etc. As for ground invasion in Chinese soil, its Sci-Fi scenario. Vietnam would look a fairy tale in front of such war.
    China is very close being completely immune from the USA. They really don't need to fight now anything since in a decade or so their navy will be able to completely immunize the south China sea from USN. So they just have to sit and wait a bit longer.

    World's mono polarity is coming to an end. Fucking finally.
    Given how ignorant you are about the most basic military facts, I take your word with a bucketload of salt.
    They really don't need to fight now anything since in a decade or so their navy will be able to completely immunize the south China sea from USN.
    Chinese Navy is still years behind Japan, never mind USA. And it is in the process if rebirth. Once Japan moves from it's neutrality in to a lot a more natural state, it will further assert Japanese domination of the Pacific. Japan is the true heart of Asia, not China.

    The gap between USN and Chinese Navy is generational. It will take more than ''sitting'' to overcome. I doubt it ever will be overcomed.

    World's mono polarity is coming to an end.
    Sure.
    It'll be a miracle if China will be a state by 2030.

  9. #109
    Banned Kellhound's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bank of the Columbia
    Posts
    20,935
    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    Both Sun Tzu and Clausewitz would consider all the above wars to be failures - resources were expended, while the aims of the state (the US government) were not successfully reaches; war is not some Olympic sport, to be "won" on points, it is a tool of state (or non-state) power and if it doesn't produce the desired and intended outcome, then there was no victory (and playing Fox and the Grapes afterwards to re-define victory for PR purposes doesn't count either).

    With China, I think it takes an awful lot of presumption to assume that a war with them would be fought exactly as the US wishes... (I lack the time at the moment for a more detailed reply to this and other recent posts, I'll attempt to get back to it when I have some).
    Again, what part of the "against the states" is beyond your understanding? The conventional wars were won. I never said we "won" the grand strategy goal.

    I never said the Chinese would fight exactly as we wished, just that a conflict at sea and on small islands is one fought in our area of strength.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulmita View Post
    Lets say you have a basketball game and you are winning in the end of the 3rd quarter but in the fourth you pack and leave. You will loose the game. That what US did in Vietnam. They clearly lost the war even though they won many fights. This is a globally accepted FACT, let Kellhound imagine w/e he likes.

    As for the war scenario, USA could only hope to contain China in sea, which i personally find unrealistic scenario. The loses will be tremendous, governments will fall, riots will happen etc etc. As for ground invasion in Chinese soil, its Sci-Fi scenario. Vietnam would look a fairy tale in front of such war.
    China is very close being completely immune from the USA. They really don't need to fight now anything since in a decade or so their navy will be able to completely immunize the south China sea from USN. So they just have to sit and wait a bit longer.

    World's mono polarity is coming to an end. Fucking finally.
    Except in your scenario, the US won the first game, and left the second game against a different team and forfeited the tournament.

    The US can clearly contain China at sea. No one, and I mean NO ONE, is talking about a land war against China. There is no need for it for one, and no place to launch it from for another. That you even comment on it shows how utterly unqualified you are to add to this discussion.

    China is nowhere near being able to "immunize" the SCS, give it a break.

    Hate to break your bubble, but it is still a unipolar world.

  10. #110
    Quote Originally Posted by Kellhound View Post
    Block 1C is obsolete, and if the Navy followed normal protocol, the missile used was one of the oldest ones in inventory.

    Plus, the USN showed earlier this year it already has a MACH 3.5+ missile capable of sinking a 3000 ton warship with one hit.
    Plus you know, we now have Rail Guns as well.

  11. #111
    Quote Originally Posted by hydrium View Post
    Plus you know, we now have Rail Guns as well.
    Only pre-production articles are being fitted on a test ship.

    If the shit really hit the fan, of course everything would be on the table, but in these threads we've generally tried to draw a very bright line between what military forces (of various countries) have now, will have relatively shortly, and will have beyond a horizon like 2024.

    Like every single F-35A has a big empty space behind the fusalage where the lift fan goes in the F-35B. The Air Force _is_ going to load a solid state laser into that area next decade. It's been one of the biggest plans with the F-35 for years. And that laser is being built. But the F-35 realistically will rely principally on air to air missiles for many years to come regardless, and it's not like the first F-35s that are sent to Asia Pacific will have such lasers. Beyond 2024? Probably.



    http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/loc...mba-1635210849


    Operational rail guns won't be fitted on any ship until the last of the three Zumwalt-class Destroyers, the DDG-1002 Lyndon B. Johnson, which will get one. The other two Zumwalts may be retrofitted eventually, but only the Zumwalts, the Ford class carrier and the forthcoming Flight IIIA Areligh burkes have powerplant capable of producing the energy needed to fire them. That said, every Navy ship planned or being built operate at a net-energy surplus (as opposed to a deficit as is historically the case), precisely FOR this reason. The Zumwalts for example, have turbine generators that produce 78MW of electrical power. The Flight IIIA Burkes will produce 12. The existing Flight IIAs produce closer to 8.

    Interestingly thougn, it may be all unncessary. The Rail gun program has produced not just a gun, but also a projectile, the Hypervelocity Projectile. It turns out the Hypervelcity projectile can be fired from existing MK 45 guns, the Zumwalt's AGS and 155mm artillery. The Hypervelocity projectile is far faster than the older rounds. The only difference between it being fired from a Mk45 5" guns, which are on 22 cruisers and 69 destroyers, and a Rail gun is speed and range (up to 41 nautical miles versus up to 100 nautical miles). Anyway here they are.



    The development of the HVP has somewhat damped the rail gun urgency because the speed advantage may not be worth the cost of retrofitting the fleet with them, when the HVP can be produced and introduced in place of existing ammunition.

    One of the key original purposes of a rail gun was to have it fire ammunition that was inert (that had no explosives or fuel inside of it, even for propulsion). That it would destroy it's target based on kinetic energy. That way any ship with it would be less vulnerable to secondary explosions during battle (granted, they are also planned to carry cruise missiles for decades to come). But the HVP has a high explosive warhead, and that would be what these first generation production rail guns utilize, negating the purpose of that. Thus the rail gun became about speed and range, rather than about making warships less vulernable to blowing up.

    From that perspective, the HVP is the much bigger deal, because any 5" or 6" gun out there, be it a Navy destroyer or an Army Paladin howitzer, can fire it.

    Unsurprisingly, with the military's laser focus on munitions the past 4 years, they're moving very quickly to introduce them before 2020.

    https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/R44175.pdf

    The budget request contained $96.4 million in PE 63114N for power projection advanced
    technology. Of this amount, $15.4 million was included for the Navy’s electromagnetic
    railgun prototype.

    The committee remains supportive of the Navy’s program for developing and deploying
    an electromagnetic railgun. The committee recognizes the growing imperative for the
    Navy to field this type of weapon, not only to increase capabilities for naval surface fire
    support and ballistic missile defense, but to also decrease the cost exchange model when
    comparing the railgun to conventional missiles or guns. However, the committee is
    increasingly concerned that the shift in emphasis to the hypervelocity projectile by the
    Strategic Capabilities Office has left the Navy with a funding gap in developing the
    requirements and design for a common mount, which is a necessary prerequisite to
    getting this capability into operational use. Therefore, the committee directs the Secretary
    of the Navy to provide a briefing to the House Committee on Armed Services by
    February 15, 2017, on the plan and milestone schedule for demonstrating and deploying a
    common railgun mount for sea- and land-based applications.

    The committee recommends $106.4 million, an increase of $10.0 million, in PE 63114N
    to support the development of a common mount for the sea-based and land-based
    electromagnetic railgun. (Page 61)
    The CRS produces the best stuff.

  12. #112
    Deleted
    I almost want China to start a war and decimate a tonload of people, maybe then retarded egalitarian westerners will understand that sharing technology and global "equality" isn't such a great idea afterall.

  13. #113
    Quote Originally Posted by Moadar View Post
    Wheres that shoddy "aircraft" carrier they bought unfinished from the Russians? You know the one that can't even have aircraft land or take off from it.
    They don't need to build carriers.... they are building islands.
    Quote Originally Posted by Friendlyimmolation View Post
    When an orc eats an orc, two orcs rip out of the orcs stomach, they eat each other and a brand new orc walks through the door, and then his chest explodes and 20 full grown orcs crawl out of his body. They then eat each other and the bodies until there are 3 orcs left. The mystery of the orc reproduction cycle.

  14. #114
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Rafoel View Post
    They don't need to build carriers.... they are building islands.
    Knowned fixed postion in a war with precision weapons....

  15. #115
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasulis View Post
    The greenhorn Chinese military in 1979 was facing battle-hardened & experienced Vietnamese army which had just won two major confrontations (with U.S. and Pol Pot). Not to mention the lack of air support. The result was not surprising.

    Back then Vietnam had experienced senior commanders and junior officers. Throughout the decades, this highly experienced leadership has waned as a result of a lack of direct threats. Not to mention lack of funds to upgrade their military technology. The result of a repeat engagement may not be quite so predictable this time.
    Vietnam lost to the US militarily. They only won politically. Big difference.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kuntantee View Post
    I am not sure why nukes suddenly count. If you nuke China, China will nuke you. Is nuclear exchange what you desire, or small skirmishes, battles in pacific?

    Everyone needs to chill the fuck out, and force their narrative to conventional warfare.
    Ok, fine. The US has 10 super carriers with 5 new ones being built of a newer design. China has 2 broke piece of crap obsolete carriers. The US Navy has more fighters then all of China's military combined. China has very very very few allies while the US has many. China has no way of force projection but the US does. The US Navy compared to China's Navy...well...the chinese can't even compete.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Teflonsavior View Post
    The same United States that can't even hold Afghanistan and Iraq?
    Actually yes we can. First the US has not gone all out in a war since WW2. We aren't bombing their city's into submission while killing tens of thousands of civilians in a single bombing run.
    We had Iraq finished. It was all about staying there and maintaing a few bases and troops to help prop up the new iraqi government and its new military but instead of that Obama had ALL US troops leave. Then he trained and supplied ISIS with weapons yet called them the "moderate muslim rebels" who were fighting asaad. Then when ISIS started taking turf what did Obama say "They are the JV team".
    Afghanistan is mountains upon mountains and it has many places you can hide. The goal isn't and never was to "kill everybody" because we could of done that over a decade ago. The goal was regime change with a policeforce and military of their own to maintain it with the hope of denying terrorists a base to recruit without fear of being destroyed. I love it when armchair warriors make comments on shit they are totally and 100% ignorant on. Wear a helmet before you leave your desk.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Socialhealer View Post
    planes and ships are much easier to destroy, than some terrorists hiding in the mountains and around civilians.
    and this right here. But since CoD is as far as he will ever get....

  16. #116
    Quote Originally Posted by ringpriest View Post
    There's nothing like the smell of foolish overconfidence in the morning! Or is it jingoism? It's so hard to tell the difference until thing are actually burning..."Navy's Harpoon Missile Misses Target During Test Fire" (July 21, 2016)

    "The Navy's venerable Harpoon anti-ship missile certainly looked majestic as it fired from the USS Coronado. But the missile crashed into the sea shortly afterward, resulting in a failed launch at the RIMPAC 2016 multinational exercises."

    Perhaps if the US asks nicely, the Chinese will refrain form starting a war until the US finishes selecting, buying, and operationally deploying a new, high-tech, functional, anti-ship missile? (It's probably won't take much more than a decade - surely the PLAN will be content to twiddle its thumbs and train for that long.)
    Yes, because the largest most advanced fleet in the world (which the chinese watch and attempt to copy) needs to be worried about a fleet with obsolete ships and 2 broke down carriers. The US Navy has more aircraft then all of the chinese military does. The US Navy has 10 supercarriers and 5 more of a new design being built. We invent and the Chinese try to steal it. The fact that you think the Chinese are even comparable is hilarious. You remind me of the people back in the day that claimed we couldn't defeat the Iraqi's in the early 2000's and yet we were in baghdad after just 3 weeks.

    Keep thinking that the Chinese have a chance though.

  17. #117
    Herald of the Titans PickleballAce's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    In hysterics
    Posts
    2,752
    Trying to explain the concept of Total War to a continent of people that have cucked themselves into submission so hard they couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag is a fool's errand. You're better off trying to discuss fashion or petite cars.
    Last edited by PickleballAce; 2016-08-07 at 06:44 PM.

  18. #118
    Quote Originally Posted by Him of Many Faces View Post
    not really.

    the US has one, maybe two aircraft carriers + their support fleets within "a matter of hours" of china. that's a formidable force but i'm sure it's not overwhelming force to the chinese forces.

    Now ofcourse if tensions rose the US can sent more forces there in anticipation of a conflict, but they really can't sent more then 3 carrier groups due to obligations elsewhere.

    Logistics also wouldn't be on the US side, and china would most likely get first strike advantages. Sure chinas stuff is older not knife to a gunfight older.

    heck just the mobilization required on the US part to sent more carrier groups there would probably cause another economic crisis, especially if they had to pull carriers out of their standard maintenance shifts.
    We used 5 Carriers to strike at Iraq is 2003. 5 Carriers (even 3) is more then what the Chinese can muster. Russia too has no projection of power and 1 carrier that breaks down a lot. The Chinese are just now creating a joint strike command because they have been watching and copying us on how to fight. They still have a LOT to learn and they have ZERO experience in warfare- especially Naval warfare.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Tommi View Post
    Really? They might end up targeting their own ships with US record of friendly fire XD
    Yes, because a US carrier or warship could be mistaken for an enemy craft, huh?
    The US military probably has more friendly fire incidents because shit happens in war and the US consists of basically the entire fighting force in Iraq/Afghanistan. Last I checked after the invasion only the US actually did any major combat actions in Iraq/Afghanistan while the rest of NATO was merely support.

  19. #119
    Quote Originally Posted by Xires View Post
    Ok, fine. The US has 10 super carriers with 5 new ones being built of a newer design. China has 2 broke piece of crap obsolete carriers. The US Navy has more fighters then all of China's military combined. China has very very very few allies while the US has many. China has no way of force projection but the US does. The US Navy compared to China's Navy...well...the chinese can't even compete.
    None of these bars China nuking NYC, or some other metropolis on a nuclear exchange.

  20. #120
    Deleted
    There will definitively be a war in the 21st century. I mean a big one. There is no way it won't happen.

    - overpopulation
    - depleting resources
    - global warming (this will eventually lead to over 1 billion climate refugees).
    - it is already slowly starting. the world is shifting
    - there hasn't been a huge war in a very long time
    - there are always cycles. people who believe that we will live peacefully forever are stupid.
    - I know it sounds silly for many people who currently live on earth, but they know nothing. (most) people have never experienced a world war.

    It is estimated that the population of the world reached one billion for the first time in 1804. It would be another 123 years before it reached two billion in 1927, but it took only 33 years to rise by another billion people, reaching three billion in 1960. Thereafter, the global population reached four billion in 1974, five billion in 1987, six billion in 1999 and, by some estimates, seven billion in October 2011

    What most of you people don't know is that western countries (like the US) are very very afraid of nuclear attacks. Not in the sense that any second someone could nuke them, but in the sense that they want to hinder countries/people to have them/build them.

    Also people need to remember survival of the fittest. War doesn't necessarily mean everyone is nuking each other.

    I know some stubborn people might think I sound crazy, but wait till 2099 and you see who was right (I will probably be dead by then lol :P )

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •