US defence: Losing its edge in technology?

[Ulmita]

does any other country out there have a railgun?
a UAV drone that can sink a super carrier?

Yes /10 chars

[Traveler Voltin]

Yes /10 chars

a yes with no proof is a blank statement.

[Nadiru]

What i am saying is not assumption. Is analysis which is freely available and news in major sites like this one http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatt.../#5e30c463474b

World is turning multi polar the question not if but how we move forward.

Chinese contributions to global GDP are grossly overestimated, perhaps by as much as 10 years worth of GDP. Why? Because from 2004 onward, China pursued an economic policy designed to stimulate domestic growth at the expense of growth worldwide. By aiming to capture as much foreign demand as possible, the Chinese economy effectively transferred GDP from those states it had a positive balance of trade with. But transference of GDP is not contributing to global growth, rather the opposite.

[ringpriest]

While we all know you have a very dim view of both your country and your countrymen (which makes me wonder why you live here), America has historically embraced conflict when it feels threatened.

What makes you think I live in the US? (Renouncing citizenship is taking a while to get sorted out, not being a quick or simple process, but I intend to have it done well before next Jan 20th.) And while I've known a great many very decent Americans, the fact that Donald Trump is taken credibly as a candidate for President (and that his only real opponent is Hillary Clinton) is damning - any nation letting a figure like Trump near (or become) President deeply deserves every bit of castigation it receives.

Since its creation as an independent state, American has actually been threatened very rarely - and only once has it actively sought direct conflict against even a potential existential threat (if instead you mean, that it screams and leaps when the strings of fear get pulled by its rulers, then yes, it has developed a taste for war, but not of the bitter sort); in general (and certainly in the last century) the United States has demonstrated a strong preference for bullying and (clumsy) geopolitical chess, while eschewing direct conflicts with potential national threats, along with a distinct distaste for military operations that involve visceral costs to the nation.

But I suppose it's just much easier to wallow in jingoism and mutter "America, Fuck Yeah!" occasionally rather than think about what words like justice, freedom, and responsibility actually can, do, and should mean, or what the US government and military actually do (or the practicalities of good government) - and instead believe in magic fusion-powered hypersonic spaceplanes with laser railguns.

[Kellhound]

China is slowing down but it is still growing. I am not sure why you are trying to convince us that the countries with billion(s) of population will not be the next power houses especially when they reach technological equivalency with the west. Everyone knows this and it is discussed openly by almost every single web site out there.

As for the south China sea, your general said that they are not sure of victory. I honestly doubt that in 10 years from now your navy will be able to power project outside China's shores.

Billions of people, poor infrastructure, very bad GDP per capita, corruption, tech that mostly improves via theft, imbalance in population..... The truth is not all roses for them, especially India.

Not sure of victory does not mean there is not a very high likelihood of victory, and 10 years from now China is still not going to even be at parity with the 3rd and 7th Fleets.

[Saiona]

With the amount of money we spend on defense I feel like we should go on the offense lol. It's like in civ if I have a huge military I'm going to use it to my advantage not just let everyone else siphon off me from trading

[Kellhound]

What makes you think I live in the US? (Renouncing citizenship is taking a while to get sorted out, not being a quick or simple process, but I intend to have it done well before next Jan 20th.) And while I've known a great many very decent Americans, the fact that Donald Trump is taken credibly as a candidate for President (and that his only real opponent is Hillary Clinton) is damning - any nation letting a figure like Trump near (or become) President deeply deserves every bit of castigation it receives.

Since its creation as an independent state, American has actually been threatened very rarely - and only once has it actively sought direct conflict against even a potential existential threat (if instead you mean, that it screams and leaps when the strings of fear get pulled by its rulers, then yes, it has developed a taste for war, but not of the bitter sort); in general (and certainly in the last century) the United States has demonstrated a strong preference for bullying and (clumsy) geopolitical chess, while eschewing direct conflicts with potential national threats, along with a distinct distaste for military operations that involve visceral costs to the nation.

But I suppose it's just much easier to wallow in jingoism and mutter "America, Fuck Yeah!" occasionally rather than think about what words like justice, freedom, and responsibility actually can, do, and should mean, or what the US government and military actually do (or the practicalities of good government) - and instead believe in magic fusion-powered hypersonic spaceplanes with laser railguns.

You shall not be missed, thank you for leaving, please never return, even as a tourist.

I am personally hoping Trump's and Hillary's planes collide and they are both killed before the election. It does show how gullible the average American is to manipulation, which is why they can be led to embrace conflict when they FEEL (do you not understand the difference between feeling threatened and being threatened?) threatened. However, most people the world over are simple minded sheep played like violins for the betterment of the ruling elite. The distaste of the cost of war is on the back end, not when people are fired up.

As for your last bit, I actually went to a very liberal school for my Political Science degree. I am willing to bet I have thought about the concepts of justice, freedom, and responsibility, and the acts of the US government/military have performed just as much, if not more, than you have. I, however, understand that a difference in opinion (you do understand that "concepts" are nothing more than opinions, right?) is not the same as lack of understanding or thought.

[caervek]

does any other country out there have a railgun?

France (country where the first one was invented).
Germany (created a design in WW2 for railguns to mount on ships for AA, they were never built but it was this captured design that got the USA into the tech).
Australia (the new Australian National University built one in the 1960's).

a UAV drone that can sink a super carrier?

Bigger question is why would the USA want that when they are the only country that uses super carriers lol, hell only their allies and china use carriers.

[Deleted]

does any other country out there have a railgun?
a UAV drone that can sink a super carrier?

Other countries have proper healthcare systems and other things which might be conceivably be used for some purpose.

Our lack of things which appeal to an infantile power violence fantasy do not trouble us so much.

[Kellhound]

France (country where the first one was invented).
Germany (created a design in WW2 for railguns to mount on ships for AA, they were never built but it was this captured design that got the USA into the tech).
Australia (the new Australian National University built one in the 1960's).




Bigger question is why would the USA want that when they are the only country that uses super carriers lol, hell only their allies and china use carriers.

If it can sink a carrier, it can sink anything.

[caervek]

If it can sink a carrier, it can sink anything.

Can it sink a space station? Then it can't sink everything can it! :P

[Kellhound]

Can it sink a space station? Then it can't sink everything can it! :P

Aircraft launched missiles have shown the ability to hit targets in space with further apogees/perigees than the ISS....

[Ulmita]

Russia is developing a rail gun too.

Soviet Union's answer to carriers came under the name of Kh-22. A very fast and super heavy missile that could wreck a carrier if it was hit by it:

Soviet tests revealed that when a shaped charge warhead weighing 1,000 kg (2,200 lb) was used in the missile, the resulting hole measured 5 m (16 ft) in diameter, and was 12 m (40 ft) deep.[3][4] Soviet Tests showed that Kh-22MA equipped with 1,000 kg (2,205 lb) RDX warhead and with approach speed of 800 m/s (Mach 2.4), used against aircraft carrier warship, will make hole with resulting diameter of 22 m2(240 sq ft), and warhead cumulative jet will burned through internal compartments of ship to the depth of 12 m.[5][6][7][8]

They are now finalizing it's big brother, the Kh-32. With speeds over 5000km/h, range close to 1000km it is almost certain to wreck havoc.

This is the Russian tactics in a nutshell: Swarm the heck out of a carrier group by launching massive amounts of bad ass missiles to it:

The Kh-32 is a development of the Kh-22 missile class which until recently was the main weapon of Tu-22M3 and Tu-22M2 bombers.

"There were over 10 Tu-22M regiments with the Soviet Navy. Each regiment comprised 20 Tu-22M bombers that could carry 40-60 Kh-22 missiles. They were aimed at striking US aircraft carrier groups," military historian Dmitry Boltenkov said.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/military/201...w-missile.html

So in terms in a hypothetical confrontation, Russia will send its planes, ships and submarines to contact a massive missile volley of very scary missiles against a carrier group from a great distance rendering them unable to respond.

Edit: this is the missile's characteristics http://www.deagel.com/Land-Attack-Cr...003339001.aspx

[caervek]

Aircraft launched missiles have shown the ability to hit targets in space with further apogees/perigees than the ISS....

Yes but chances of sinking it are slim, it would prob just smash into Australia Skylab style

- - - Updated - - -

So in terms in a hypothetical confrontation, Russia will send its planes, ships and submarines to contact a massive missile volley of very scary missiles against a carrier group from a great distance rendering them unable to respond.

The big flaw with this is that it relies on the US planes just sitting on the deck playing eye spy or something. A group of Russian bombers carrying Kh-?2 missiles is something the US Navy have been planning for for half a century. Do you know what happened when Iraq sent it's Tu-22s to attack Iran? Before they got near their targets Iran's F-14s set the world record for AIM-54 kills.

Now before anyone points it out I know that the Tu-22 and Tu-22M are actually completely different planes that just have/had the same role, but the US navy will not be countering them with F-14s and AIM-54s.

[Aleksej89]

Who are you competing with?

Your closest competitors are russia and china, and neither of those see profit in global war that will ruin today's capitalism.

And those two competitors put together have less power than even just the USA Navy, or the Airforce, or the Marines.

Only reason USA military is that big is because big private weapon/oil corporations get to earn 9999 billions selling weapons to the country through corrupt politicians.

[oxymoronic]

China is slowing down but it is still growing. I am not sure why you are trying to convince us that the countries with billion(s) of population will not be the next power houses especially when they reach technological equivalency with the west. Everyone knows this and it is discussed openly by almost every single web site out there.

As for the south China sea, your general said that they are not sure of victory. I honestly doubt that in 10 years from now your navy will be able to power project outside China's shores.

cause anybody with a brain can easily figure that more people = more problems in the future. with automation in the future they are going to have hard time coming. maybe if this was 1900 forever you would be right, but that is not the case.

- - - Updated - - -

Other countries have proper healthcare systems and other things which might be conceivably be used for some purpose.

Our lack of things which appeal to an infantile power violence fantasy do not trouble us so much.

its like people forget we have national healthcare now for the poor. its been a while too, you would think they got the message.

- - - Updated - - -

What makes you think I live in the US? (Renouncing citizenship is taking a while to get sorted out, not being a quick or simple process, but I intend to have it done well before next Jan 20th.) And while I've known a great many very decent Americans, the fact that Donald Trump is taken credibly as a candidate for President (and that his only real opponent is Hillary Clinton) is damning - any nation letting a figure like Trump near (or become) President deeply deserves every bit of castigation it receives.

Since its creation as an independent state, American has actually been threatened very rarely - and only once has it actively sought direct conflict against even a potential existential threat (if instead you mean, that it screams and leaps when the strings of fear get pulled by its rulers, then yes, it has developed a taste for war, but not of the bitter sort); in general (and certainly in the last century) the United States has demonstrated a strong preference for bullying and (clumsy) geopolitical chess, while eschewing direct conflicts with potential national threats, along with a distinct distaste for military operations that involve visceral costs to the nation.

But I suppose it's just much easier to wallow in jingoism and mutter "America, Fuck Yeah!" occasionally rather than think about what words like justice, freedom, and responsibility actually can, do, and should mean, or what the US government and military actually do (or the practicalities of good government) - and instead believe in magic fusion-powered hypersonic spaceplanes with laser railguns.

i love how people using the word jingoism

makes me feel all warm inside

[Deleted]

its like people forget we have national healthcare now for the poor. its been a while too, you would think they got the message.

No, you don't. You have a fucked-up messed-up compromise between the state and the private sector.

[Enthusiastic Steward]

No, you don't. You have a fucked-up messed-up compromise between the state and the private sector.

This. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. The Affordable Care Act was:
- Never going to survive getting through Congress in the form it was pitched to the public, the pitchers knew this and pitched it anyway
- Is intended as a first step and is going to require a lot of revision going forward to make it much more practical/workable. Such revision will likely never happen as nobody has much interest in pursuing it now that its passed and nobody is willing to compromise moving forward.

So we're stuck with what is effectively a glitchy incomplete early alpha being passed off as a finished product.

[Kellhound]

Russia is developing a rail gun too.

Soviet Union's answer to carriers came under the name of Kh-22. A very fast and super heavy missile that could wreck a carrier if it was hit by it:



They are now finalizing it's big brother, the Kh-32. With speeds over 5000km/h, range close to 1000km it is almost certain to wreck havoc.

This is the Russian tactics in a nutshell: Swarm the heck out of a carrier group by launching massive amounts of bad ass missiles to it:




So in terms in a hypothetical confrontation, Russia will send its planes, ships and submarines to contact a massive missile volley of very scary missiles against a carrier group from a great distance rendering them unable to respond.

Edit: this is the missile's characteristics http://www.deagel.com/Land-Attack-Cr...003339001.aspx

The Soviets had far more aircraft, far more targeting assets, and a far easier target than Russia has. Forget about Russian surface vessels, they will never survive to get into launch position. The bombers have to launch outside of the range of the CAP, and the CAP always has AEW assets. Plus, they only have 58 Tu-22Ms these days, and no more Tu-16s. That leaves the subs, which will have a hard time saturating a carrier's defenses. As for the Kh-32, any ship equipped for ABM will be able to defeat it at range.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes but chances of sinking it are slim, it would prob just smash into Australia Skylab style

- - - Updated - - -



The big flaw with this is that it relies on the US planes just sitting on the deck playing eye spy or something. A group of Russian bombers carrying Kh-?2 missiles is something the US Navy have been planning for for half a century. Do you know what happened when Iraq sent it's Tu-22s to attack Iran? Before they got near their targets Iran's F-14s set the world record for AIM-54 kills.

Now before anyone points it out I know that the Tu-22 and Tu-22M are actually completely different planes that just have/had the same role, but the US navy will not be countering them with F-14s and AIM-54s.

It would have a higher chance of hitting water than land.

The Tu-22 and Tu-22M are both sub-Mach 2 supersonic bombers, so they are roughly comparable as targets. Aircraft over water are easier to target than aircraft over land, so that is also in the USN's favor.

[Xkiller9000]

um, thats a subscription based article, isnt that copyright infringement by posting it here? just sayin lol