If NK, China, and Russia united against America, who would win a war?

[Skroe]

The carriers would be the first to be ordered back into the harbours. They would be prime targets, they could attack each of those carriers with thousands of cruise missiles and the cost of such an attack would still be a tiny fraction of net worth of what was lost by a destroyed carrier.

None of the countries in questions have "thousands" of cruise missiles. At least not in the way you mean. A more accurate number would be "mid-hundreds". And most of them are garbage.

And US carriers would be spread widely, not pulled back to port.

Also US Aircraft Carriers are so huge, and so heavily armored, they could take direct impacts from conventional missiles. That is, if they hit at all. A ballistic missile or cruise missile would need a complex kill chain to hit a carrier. Easy to disrupt.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not true, Russia's planes have been extensively tested, you can find well tested pieces of them all over the middle east XD

Uh-huh.
https://warisboring.com/russias-su-5...d-outnumbered/

The Russian air force will start to take delivery of initial production versions of the Sukhoi Su-57 PAK-FA fifth-generation fighter starting in 2018. Those initial aircraft will mostly be used for training.

The Russians expect to complete development of the initial version of the PAK-FA in 2019.

“The T-50 or the Su-57 plane is to be rolled out. It will start arriving for troops from next year. Pilots will be learning to operate it,” Col. Gen. Viktor Bondarev, commander of the Russian Aerospace Forces said in an interview with the Rossiya 24 T.V. Channel according to the TASS news agency.

Bondarev’s statement does not match up with previous statements made by United Aircraft Corporation, which has stated it would deliver 12 Su-57s in 2019.

“In 2019, we should begin the delivery of a pre-production batch of [T-50] planes,” United Aircraft Corporation chief Yuri Slyusar told TASS.

It is not clear how many PAK-FA aircraft the Russians will ultimately buy. The Russians are less than enthused at buying the initial version of the Su-57 because the stealth fighter is currently powered by interim Saturn AL-41F1 afterburning turbofans producing 32,500 pounds of thrust each. That is a slightly modified version of the same engine in the existing Su-35S Flanker-E, which uses many of the same systems that the Su-57 will.

Indeed, with exception of stealth, the new Flanker offers much of the same capabilities as the Su-57. Thus, the Russians are unwilling to spend money on a system that offers only a marginal increase in performance, in their view. The Russian Aerospace Forces would rather wait for the more capable second iteration of the Su-57.

The Russians intend to buy more of the second, improved version of the Su-57, which will feature a new engine and other enhancements. The Russians are continuing to develop the next-generation Saturn izdeliye 30 engines for the T-50. There are few details available about the izdeliye 30 engines, but the new powerplant is expected to deliver 24,054 pounds of dry thrust and 39,566 pounds of afterburning thrust.

The new engine is expected to make its first flight installed onboard the PAK-FA in the fourth quarter of 2017 and should be ready for use in 2025. The Russian air force could buy as many as 160 of the next iteration of the Su-57 — but that number is likely to be subject to revision depending on the Kremlin’s financial situation.

Meanwhile, Russian industry is already looking ahead to the sixth-generation follow-on to the Su-57. Like the U.S. Air Force and the Navy, the Russians are looking at a wide range of concepts including manned-unmanned teaming, directed energy weapons and hypersonics. The Russians are also looking at novel radar and electro-optical sensor technologies that seem designed to counter stealth.

Russian military modernization is as it always is: more ambition than reality. They say they are building something new. Then they build the same thing they've had for 40 years - the SU-27 - in a new skin. And they don't build many of them, because they're poor.

[ParanoiD84]

The one with most experience, the us.

Also good luck invading the us where everyone is armed.

[caervek]

Ok, and if you are convinced Russia and China would kick our asses, I can't really convince you otherwise. The only thing you have is body count and in a conventional war without Nukes even that means next to nothing.

Read the post you're replying to again, slowly.

Uh-huh.

You too.

[Skroe]

They have never ever been tested in actual warfare, unless you count millions of dollars worth jets bombing sandmen armed with AK-47s actual warfare. The thing with what appears on paper as all-powerful and invincible weapons may just not stand up to reality.

The US used carriers extensively in World War II, Korea, Vietnam and the Gulf War.

The biggest disadvantage the carriers have is that the multirole airplanes they carry have far less range than their mid-Cold war specialized predecessors. The addition of 10 F/A-18 sized drones per carrier air wing in the 2020s will fix that. The first type of drone, with MQ-25 Stingray, will be a tanker. Imagine F-35Cs and F/A-18Es being able to refuel by drone tankers that loiter to extend their range. Imagine a variant that carries missiles being used as "clip" by the F-35... the f-35 paints the target and the drone fires.

That's what the Navy imagines.



The forum should make a running list of the things in this video China and Russia aren't remotely close to having, to just underscore the ongoing stupidity of this question.

[Flarelaine]

America has 10 aircraft carriers....10.

Each aircraft carrier group has enough fire power to end most countries.

Best technology by far. The air superiority wouldn't even be a contest, and if you take nukes out and just look at who can bomb who...USA isn't going to lose that battle...but a war like this would kill more people than all previous wars combined.

Enough firepower to end most countries. Most. Not enough to take China out, though. Enough to send it reeling, probably, but China is HUGE and they know how to dig in and weather the storm.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Read the post you're replying to again, slowly.

Yes, and you are talking about proof of Chinese and Russian fighters on Youtube I assume, and I am saying that technology is no match for the U.S even with China and Russia combined, the only thing they beat is on is man power on the ground.

[Puri]

None of the countries in questions have "thousands" of cruise missiles. At least not in the way you mean. A more accurate number would be "mid-hundreds". And most of them are garbage.

And US carriers would be spread widely, not pulled back to port.

Also US Aircraft Carriers are so huge, and so heavily armored, they could take direct impacts from conventional missiles. That is, if they hit at all. A ballistic missile or cruise missile would need a complex kill chain to hit a carrier. Easy to disrupt.

Sure, but it's not like the war would start instant. They would have time to prepare, and without any doubt the first step for both sides would be trying to devastate as much as possible with conventional unmanned missiles, especially considering how comparatively cheap they are to produce.

[Skroe]

Read the post you're replying to again, slowly.



You too.

I stand corrected.

But yes, you're correct. The only thing Russian military hardware has accomplished in modern times is being the victim of Western hardware.

The scariest F-35s in the world are the European ones armed with MBDA Meteor missiles, rather than the US AIM-120D. Let's see a dumb Flanker airshow maneuver their way out of danger from two of those.

[Themanintobuildafire]

Enough firepower to end most countries. Most. Not enough to take China out, though. Enough to send it reeling, probably, but China is HUGE and they know how to dig in and weather the storm.

That is why I said MOST. There is a reason countries shit themselves when the US moves a carrier group near their coasts.

Also the dude thinking a missile would take it out, outside of a nuke, no way. I suggest watching some documentaries on aircraft carrier groups and their defenses are pretty good.

[Wildtree]

Good golly.. guys, get a fucking life.
Really..
Better so, get something to do that sends you in a crisis region where grenades might or might not fly over your head and you have to wade through ruins..
Then come back and hypothesize about war and who may or may not win.

If anything threads like this (since the question comes up times and again) raise the more important question:
Why are people obsessed with war?

Possible answer: Because they're fucking sociopaths?
Idk. I never wanted to know who has the bigger dick, whose military has more oomph..
I always wondered why people don't learn from history and still wanna go to war.
There's no winner in war, period. There are always only losers.

[Skroe]

Sure, but it's not like the war would start instant. They would have time to prepare, and without any doubt the first step for both sides would be trying to devastate as much as possible with conventional unmanned missiles, especially considering how comparatively cheap they are to produce.

Do you know how long it takes to "prepare"?

The current US capacity for making the Tomahawk Cruise missile is about 120 per year. That's one plant working two 8 hour shifts. A full "war time" rate of production would be two plants, three 8 hour shifts, for about 300 per year. Our inventory stands at about 3000. That's far and away the most numerous and most productive.

Furthermore both Russia and China have an immense geographic disadvantage.

The majority of Russia's arms industry is located around Moscow and straddling the border of Ukraine. This is because during Soviet times, Ukraine was the heart of the Soviet Military/Industrial complex, to the degree that even post-breakup Russia was dependent on Ukrainian factories for critical arms part (and still is). After the break up, Russia moved some facilities just across the border, but not all.

China, similarly, has placed most of it's military industrial complex along the coast.

By contrast the US's defense industry, mostly for political reasons, is extremely distributed. Final assembly is done at one site typically, but unlike Russia or China, the suppliers for that assembly is international in nature.

For Russia or China to strike the US's ability to manufacture weapons, they'd have to attack from either the Mid-Atlantic or East Pacific, which they wouldn't be able to get close to. By contrast, the US could irrevocably wipe out Russia's critical arms infrastructure with a single flight of B-2s from Turkey (Russia's soft underbelly has always been it's weakness). And China's could be destroyed by two of our Ohio-class cruise missile submarines surfacing off the coast. China has nothing like that to retaliate. Russia does, but they'd never get through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap to do it, and that would just be the east coast.

One of the biggest advantages the US has against Russia and China is that in a non-nuclear scenario we possess to halt their ability to supply themselves in ways they can't do in kind.

[Flarelaine]

Also US Aircraft Carriers are so huge, and so heavily armored, they could take direct impacts from conventional missiles. That is, if they hit at all. A ballistic missile or cruise missile would need a complex kill chain to hit a carrier. Easy to disrupt.

What odds would you give that one of these Russian swarm missiles gets lucky?

[Sharein]

I don't know (or care) who'd win, but I know who will lose;

Humanity.

[caervek]

Yes, and you are talking about proof of Chinese and Russian fighters on Youtube I assume

Wow, you really read it twice and still failed to understand? Well anyway it was pointing out that there are pieces of Russia's planes lying all over the middle east where western planes left them. Their tech is no match for America's.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Good golly.. guys, get a fucking life.
Really..
Better so, get something to do that sends you in a crisis region where grenades might or might not fly over your head and you have to wade through ruins..
Then come back and hypothesize about war and who may or may not win.

If anything threads like this (since the question comes up times and again) raise the more important question:
Why are people obsessed with war?

Possible answer: Because they're fucking sociopaths?
Idk. I never wanted to know who has the bigger dick, whose military has more oomph..
I always wondered why people don't learn from history and still wanna go to war.
There's no winner in war, period. There are always only losers.

I'll take because people are stupid for 500 Alex.

All points are right on.

[Skroe]

Good golly.. guys, get a fucking life.
Really..
Better so, get something to do that sends you in a crisis region where grenades might or might not fly over your head and you have to wade through ruins..
Then come back and hypothesize about war and who may or may not win.

If anything threads like this (since the question comes up times and again) raise the more important question:
Why are people obsessed with war?

Possible answer: Because they're fucking sociopaths?
Idk. I never wanted to know who has the bigger dick, whose military has more oomph..
I always wondered why people don't learn from history and still wanna go to war.
There's no winner in war, period. There are always only losers.

This question (the OP's) comes up three times a year and it's always stupid, because it makes extremely wrong fundamental assumptions (like China would defend North Korea in a war, or China and Russia would defend each other) for what amounts to a scenario worthy of Call of Duty.

Fundamentally all three country's have hugely different goals and equip accordingly.

The US is intent on remaining the world's only hegemon, and isolated in North America from where most of the human race and human economic activity is, requires a large navy, large air force and mobile, expeditionary military to project power into Eurasia, where it has worked since World War II to prevent the rising of a rival hegemon. It's "win condition" would be that continuing to be the case.

Russia is mostly a land power, whose interests lie principally in Europe and securing neutral buffer states along its near abroad. It has little interest or need in military forces comparable to the US or power projection in the same way. It's "win condition" is establishing Russian hegemony on it's border states and keeping the EU weak.

China is an emerging power whose interests lie mostly in establishing hegemony within 1500 miles of it's coastline and pushing the US back to Guam, and eventually back to Hawaii. It's win condition would be doing that, while prying South Korea out of alignment with the US. It is also bordered by Russia and India, and has an interest in those country's not emerging as regional power rivals.

This question is essentially the "starcraftization" of geopolitics. Essentially, how do three different "races" with different "build trees" beat each other in some kind of world where there is nothing but a giant ocean and all three on three different island. In truth, all three want fundamentally different things and have to equip and strategize accordingly.

The only thing ever learned from this question is how crappy certain Russian and Chinese hardware is. But it's just a bad one from the outset.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Wow, you really read it twice and still failed to understand? Well anyway it was pointing out that there are pieces of Russia's planes lying all over the middle east where western planes left them. Their tech is no match for America's.

That's not what I wanted it to say. So aren't I a reader.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know (or care) who'd win, but I know who will lose;

Humanity.

We have a Winner. Please share this wisdom.

[VyersReaver]

I forgot how people on English-speaking forums love to bash Russia.

Oh wait, I didn't. Every. Time.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Do you know how long it takes to "prepare"?

The current US capacity for making the Tomahawk Cruise missile is about 120 per year. That's one plant working two 8 hour shifts. A full "war time" rate of production would be two plants, three 8 hour shifts, for about 300 per year. Our inventory stands at about 3000. That's far and away the most numerous and most productive.

Furthermore both Russia and China have an immense geographic disadvantage.

The majority of Russia's arms industry is located around Moscow and straddling the border of Ukraine. This is because during Soviet times, Ukraine was the heart of the Soviet Military/Industrial complex, to the degree that even post-breakup Russia was dependent on Ukrainian factories for critical arms part (and still is). After the break up, Russia moved some facilities just across the border, but not all.

China, similarly, has placed most of it's military industrial complex along the coast.

By contrast the US's defense industry, mostly for political reasons, is extremely distributed. Final assembly is done at one site typically, but unlike Russia or China, the suppliers for that assembly is international in nature.

For Russia or China to strike the US's ability to manufacture weapons, they'd have to attack from either the Mid-Atlantic or East Pacific, which they wouldn't be able to get close to. By contrast, the US could irrevocably wipe out Russia's critical arms infrastructure with a single flight of B-2s from Turkey (Russia's soft underbelly has always been it's weakness). And China's could be destroyed by two of our Ohio-class cruise missile submarines surfacing off the coast. China has nothing like that to retaliate. Russia does, but they'd never get through the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap to do it, and that would just be the east coast.

One of the biggest advantages the US has against Russia and China is that in a non-nuclear scenario we possess to halt their ability to supply themselves in ways they can't do in kind.

Incredible break down for a silly question. Not sure why it's a question. We spend Trillions on this shit.

[Findlyn]

That's not what I wanted it to say. So aren't I a reader.

- - - Updated - - -



We have a Winner. Please share this wisdom.

He was joking, in that they were 'tested', and blown the fuck up. Hence being in pieces all over the middle east.