fe33ce No.567201
https://archive.fo/5mWqW
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2018/03/28/chinese-flotilla-transits-south-china-sea-satellite-imagery-shows/
>The U.S. military has warily watched the steady growth of China’s military and its expansion into the South China Sea, where its anti-access/area denial strategy seeks to shoo America and other outsiders out of the country’s watery backyard.
>This week, the country’s naval forces produced its latest coming out party of sorts, as scores of ships steamed with an aircraft carrier along a vital trade waterway, according to satellite images first obtained and reported on by Reuters.
>The images, provided by Planet Labs, an earth imaging company, show Chinese ships moving in a straight line off the island of Hainan in the South China Sea.
>Reuters reported this week that the movements were part of what the Chinese navy said were combat drills that comprised part of annual exercises.
>The Chinese Liaoning carrier group just steamed through the Taiwan Strait last week, the Taiwanese defense ministry said, according to Reuters
>Taken Monday, the images appear to show dozens of ships and submarines flanking the carrier in a line formation.
>“It’s an incredible picture,” Jeffrey Lewis, a security expert at the Middlebury Institute for Strategic Studies, was quoted as saying by Reuters. “That’s the big news to me. Confirmation that, yes, the carrier participated in this exercise.”
>The size and scope of the deployment was unusual, security expert Collin Koh told Reuters.
>“It does seem they are keen to show that elements of the South Sea Fleet are able to routinely join up with the carrier strike group from Dalian in the north,” said Koh, of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
>Koh said the Chinese flotilla appears to include a large oiler for refueling as well as smaller corvettes, in addition to the standard destroyers, frigates and boats that would travel with a carrier, according to Reuters.
>While the movement showcases the Chinese navy’s ability to deploy, it remains to be seen where the force stands in terms of actual combat readiness, Koh told Reuters.
>Monday’s display of maritime might came after news Friday that the U.S. Navy destroyer Mustin conducted a freedom of navigation operation, or FONOP, where it steamed within 12 nautical miles of a South China Sea artificial island built by the Chinese.
>The FONOP, first reported by Reuters, involved the Mustin traveling near Mischief Reef in the Spratly Islands.
>China has sought to extend its reach into the South China Sea by constructing artificial islands and military bases.
>Meanwhile, the United States has called out the development’s potential infringement on the free flow of trade.
>U.S. military officials said the activities were allowed under international law and that forces regularly operate in the region.
43d79e No.567236
>>567201
In B4.
>N-no goyim, that's a lie China won't be at parity with the USN in 2020.
2 carriers at the sea, 1 in construction and possibly another prep work under way.
Yet we continue to pretend that the PLA isn't lying when they say they will only have ONE in 2025!
43d79e No.567252
>>567236
Oh wait slash that.
TWO are in construction and the THIRD is expected to go into sea trials soon…
Type 001: Liaoning (Ex soviet-Varyag) active, used as a school ship.
Type 001A: Shandong, sea trials or active (the one in the pic) 1:1 copy of the Varyag.
Type 002: About to be ready for sea trial. A bigger version, no ski ramp, steam catapults.
Type 003: in construction. Even bigger, with EMALS.
97e9ba No.567282
>>567236
>China
>parity
>USN
>2020
Don't be fucking ridiculous, USN tonnage is greater than the combined tonnage of thirteen next largest nations, China included.
Even if every shipyard in the world, American included, built warships nonstop to donate to China it still wouldn't be able to reach parity in six years.
At best they can reach parity in the South China Sea, but then all USN has to do is assign another CVGB to that area.
986941 No.567298
probably be a medium sized conflict like Korea or Vietnam fairly soon
75ea42 No.567302
>>567201
>Carrier
>year 2018
>anything but multibillion target for the guided missile
43d79e No.567307
>>567282
The USN has (active + building) 96 reel surface combatant (22 Tico, 3 Zum and 71 AB, 11 carriers.
And two dozens of LCS that are as big as frigates but armed as gunboat/cutters…
China has (active + building) 57 frigates, 34 destroyers, 7 cruisers, 4 carriers.
And a gazillion of corvettes/gunboats (like 200).
And that's the minimum they will definitely have in 2020.
Because for example the cruisers? they have one but they're building them 6 PER 6.
The first one took them a year and half to complete and since they've a put out new hull around every three months. So they will have 6 in 2020 but nothing is there to stop them making another batch, and since they will probably make production gains they might cut 1y, 6m to 1y, 3m.
Same shit with the carriers, the Type 002 is almost done, once it's pen is free nothing is there to stop them making another one…
That's what mass production actually looks like, China put a class hull out at seas essentially every quarter.
97e9ba No.567308
>>567307
So USN has the fleet size of 13 largest fleets combined, and is building more and larger ships than China… but somehow China will have parity?
In what fucking world…
4c99cd No.567309
>>567302
Or a torpedo from a sub.
97e9ba No.567313
>>567309
Why not both?
Missile carries torpedo, drops it in range of target, both missile and torpedo simultaneously.
945cee No.567314
>>567201
So how long till the US accidentally rams it with a cargo ship?
4c99cd No.567322
>>567313
Is there any advantage to this over firing a full spread of torpedoes?
97e9ba No.567323
>>567322
Torpedos have a range of a dozen kilometers or so and are very slow. Flying them over gives far more range and speed.
Having a second threat in the missile also means the ships crew is distracted and may not respond in time to the torpedo.
73fde4 No.567329
>>567307
Even with current production numbers, China won't have parity. But current production numbers are a bubble, propped up by a devalued currency, below-market wage prices, and various other economic fuckery on the government's part. The growth China is experiencing is not sustainable, and it will collapse on its own before too long.
43d79e No.567345
>>567308
>and is building more and larger ships than China…
No they don't.
Ok Type 055 cruisers are a bit smaller than Zumwalt (and bigger than Ticonderogas) but have actually more firepower since they mount more VLS than even an AB.
Hey remember the stale meme on how China doesn't have the supply ships for long projection, well since last time we had this conversation (a few months), 2 Type 901 fast combat support ship have come out (with 6 more in construction). At 55kt they're the biggest ship of their class dwarfing the four Supply-class of the USN (at 50kt). (BTW 2 of those are in reserve because the USN estimate it will not engage more than one CSG in combat operation in the Pacific… and China is gonna have 8 of those).
Speaking of projection after years of preferring multipurpose Amphibious Transport Dock and Mobile Landing Platform (for obvious reasons tied to local geography) and LSL that are mostly operated by the army and therefore fall of the map (like those 10kt coast guard ships), the LHD they're making (a bit late, once done they make 3 more probably so they won't be there for 2020 but 2025) is about the same size as a Wasp.
And the type 003 aircraft carrier they've started to laid down in January is designed as a 100 000t, nuclear powered with electromagnetic catapults vessels…
>>567329
>Even with current production numbers, China won't have parity. But current production numbers are a bubble, propped up by a devalued currency, below-market wage prices, and various other economic fuckery on the government's part. The growth China is experiencing is not sustainable, and it will collapse on its own before too long.
Or so people have said for the last 10 years and yet the Chinese shipyards keeps vomiting hulls at a pace not seen since WWII and the tech for them is growing at about the same pace.
73fde4 No.567348
>>567345
>Or so people have said for the last 10 years
That's how Keynesian booms work, there's an artificial period of growth followed by a crash. The immense growth that China is seeing (which is also the funding used for its military, through taxes) is in nonproductive ventures that don't have long-term potential. If it wasn't for the retarded US economic policy of more regulations, higher corporate tax, etc., continuing to keep us uncompetitive compared to China, the crash would have happened sooner.
897369 No.567365
How significant could the contribution of the USN reserve fleets be to this balance of naval power?
97e9ba No.567368
>>567345
There are 22 ticonderogas, whereas 0 of these ships in service.
43d79e No.567376
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
>>567368
Sure Chen, it's all in my head.
ee7f35 No.567405
ITT:
"Frog" trusts Chinese numbers
97e9ba No.567416
>>567376
You're missing the point, by a LOT.
43d79e No.567426
>>567405
I'm not. The Chinese are downplaying it as fuck.
>>567416
No you are you say they have 0.
I post a vid of the first launched last summer, when we're speaking of the insane rate the pop out ship.
They have one at sea and 6 in construction, as in hulls laid down workers working on them 24/7.
Also you don't realize how fucking obsolete and old the Ticos are.
The Obongo admin slashed their upgrade early on meaning only 8 received a mid-life upgrade (10+ years ago…).
They're slated for retirement NEXT YEAR, with the USS Bunker Hill in January and one every 6 months after that leaving only the few that were upgraded. The USN is trying to get 4 and upgraded right now, but it's not officially on the budget, to be able to keep 11+1. If they fail to do so the USN will simply have no more cruisers on a short term.
So right when Chinese prod' will start to kick in the deliveries, the Chinese fleet will grow of 2 cruisers every time the US loses 1.
Meaning that by 2020 you will have 18 Ticos and 7 type 055 but by 2025 the USN will have maybe 11 Ticos (8 sure) and the PLAN anywhere from 7 to 21.
But hey everything is great, there is nothing to worry about.
97e9ba No.567438
>>567426
I said they have 0 in service, and they don't. They launched one and are constructing a few.
>They have one at sea and 6 in construction,
And will they construct twenty of them by 2025? You are starting to grate on my nerves.
43d79e No.567454
>>567438
>Basic maths anger me.
Oh so you're not actually asian, just retarded.
The one they have, they made in 18 month, which isn't even that fast.
They made the Shandong, a fucking aircraft carrier, in 25 months.
Ticos were made in 15 months (13 towards the end, because the more you make the faster you go). But Ticos were made in 3 slots and they made 27 in 11 years.
If you have 6 slots at 18 months, how many can you make in 7 years?
A shitload.
24b4d5 No.567473
IS the US navy complacent as in need a good busing on their nose?
97e9ba No.567475
>>567454
They launched 1, are making 5, and 8 is the total planned for this class of ship. Oh also they're the equivalent of Arleigh Burkes not Ticonderogas, we have 65 of those. The number 65 is much larger than the number 8.
Your pipe dreams just won't happen.
>They made the Shandong, a fucking aircraft carrier, in 25 months.
It's a wholly Russian design, and they gutted all the things that make this design viable. As it stands it might not even be as capable as a Wasp LHD.
897369 No.567491
Factoring in ineptitude I'd say even if there was 1:1 ship parity between the two the US would still come out on top.
73fde4 No.567494
>>567473
The entire US military is, anon. We regularly embarrass ourselves trying to fight goatfuckers in a desert, what do you think is going to happen if an actual war breaks out?
b796b3 No.567498
>>567491
Don't kid yourself. China has enough cargo ships to sink the entire Burger navy.
77ac85 No.567507
>>567494
Is the US even psychologically ready for a major war against a non-guerrilla army?
By the increasing number or PTSD cases among rank and file soldiers during the latest desert skirmishes I'd say no but then again I'm no expert so if someone's got any input on this I'd love to hear it.
Also the friendly-fire rates during Desert Storm are worrying to say the least.
73fde4 No.567511
>>567507
We'll definitely suffer in the beginning, as decades of feminist infiltration of the training doctrine, and Lockheed incompetence and overspending take their toll, but once the extraneous bits are cut off, and what remains is tempered in the fires of war, I think the US will turn out okay in the long run. We've got a more than ample supply of blind patriots who will volunteer for the military the moment war breaks out, and that should serve to replace the casualties of the initial incompetence. Wartime will cause the competent to get promoted once again and will drive the political generals out. Once Lockheed's iJets™ start falling out of the sky, the newly-promoted competents will give them the boot, and we'll see the contracts for new materiel become a little more honest. It will take time, and we'll suffer at first, but the military that comes out of that fiasco will be up to the task.
Or maybe I'm being far too optimistic and the initial bloat and incompetence causes all of us to lose and die horribly. Either way at least the F-35 will be gone.
83f7c4 No.567512
>>567511
Where will the factories come from though? This isn't 1940 where the US had the world's largest stock of mass production firms.
73fde4 No.567517
>>567512
The US still has a pretty strong manufacturing base. Although we import a fair amount, we still have the second-largest export sector after Chyna. And while the productivity of it has been diminished somewhat by mass regulation, our export sector is based far more on real wealth and a free market than the chinks's, which is propped up by devalued currency and government-stimulated malinvestment.
77ac85 No.567519
>>567511
The only problem I see with that is that I don't think the war would last long enough for those reforms to take place, considering at may last months or even weeks. Obviously this is just speculation but the current track record of 21st century warfare implies that year/s long wars will be a rarity in the near future.
897369 No.567526
>>567519
>may last months or even weeks
That's what they said about the last two world wars.
575e0f No.567527
>>567511
Im skeptical the war would go on long enough for the military to straighten itself out like you would think.Even if it did go on long enough im skeptical we would make the necessary changes in time to not be defeated. A Vietnam type situation in Korea or Iran cold almost certainly mean defeat for the US.
77ac85 No.567529
>>567526
Military technology and doctrine, as well as people's receptiveness towards long wars has changed since then, Vietnam being the prime example.
73fde4 No.567532
>>567527
Hence the spoiler. We might just end up like the frogs in WWII.
3c68c2 No.567543
>>567519
>21st century warfare implies that year/s long wars will be a rarity in the near future
But we're speaking of major powers getting at each other, not little states and guerrilla fighters.
d90571 No.567602
I smell cold war II wafting in, does anyone else?
d4d069 No.567613
>>567602
Lad if you are just now smelling it I hope for your sake your house never catches on fire you won't have a chance.
03327b No.567626
>>567507
>>567519
>>567529
Are Argentinians usually this stupid?
3c2c49 No.567632
>>567626
Yes. Blacks typically have a very low IQ.
b42ddd No.567657
>>567302
Pic for some inexplicable reason unrelated.
Why haven't the Russians modified some of their MiG-31 for anti-vessel role? Mach 3 anti-ship missiles with mach 3 aircraft would do a good combo and unlike its predecessor, the MiG-25, the MiG-31 has also top-notch low level penetration speed at mach 1.3.
b42ddd No.567659
>>567308
In the same world where they own the Piraeus port I guess.
64b89a No.567660
>>567602
>he's just now realizing we're doomed
Didn't Ukraine or Syria tip you off? You should've recognized this by 2016, at the very latest. Judging by historical precedent, I wouldn't be surprised if Trump roped all of us into a shooting war with Iran or Lebanon to secure a second term.
03327b No.567665
>>567602
>I smell cold war II wafting in, does anyone else?
lol
43d79e No.567666
>>567475
>Oh also they're the equivalent of Arleigh Burkes not Ticonderogas,
>13kt ton ship with 136 VLS with THAAD equivalent and 800km range ASM.
>Same as 8kt ship with 96 VLS with SM-3s and obsolete as fuck harpoons.
Yeah, ok you're retarded, to the ignore list you go.
>>567602
>>567660
>>567613
Not a cold one.
Our propaganda machine is preparing public opinion to a war against Russia for some time now, Russia and China have been shoring up their economies infrastructure wise (SWIFT, etc), Russia is heavily preparing for a land war and meanwhile China is preparing for a maritime war, both with immense efforts while under budgetary strain and are literally in quasi-war time production mode to try to close in what is seemed as the most urgent gaps.
>>567657
>MiG-31 for anti-vessel role?
Because it's the Su-24 job which is infinitely cheaper than a MiG-31? And also the job of the Tu-22M that can properly do a saturation strike?
c2de5c No.567667
20aaa0 No.567673
>>567667
Implying I can read frog
I'm sorry, I'm neither a negro, nor an Arab.
>I'm sorry, the correct answer was Turkey.
But why? The West will probably confront Turkey militarily only over the Kurds, on a limited scale (i.e., at worst only an 'intervention'). The damned roaches don't even know whether they want to be on the NATO side, or on the Russian side. They alternate sides and policies every other year to appease one side/ piss off the other. Of all the candidates out there for an invasion (as opposed to an 'intervention' or 'airstrike' etc.) in the ME I would say Turkey was the least likely one.
b42ddd No.567680
>>567666
>Because it's the Su-24 job
World's most shot down interdictor since 'nam. even roaches with sidewinders can shoot them down
>Tu-22M that can properly do a saturation strike
Fair point but still slower with much inferior climb rate and way more vulnerable to fighter patrols.
Foxhounds with Kh-31P would be much better for a quick response strike against armed scouting vessels and frigates with potential Hornet protection. The only aircraft in Russian inventory capable of doing that is Su-34 and it's still inferior at intervention time and running out of AMRAAMs' and Aegis' no escape zone.
97e9ba No.567701
>>567666
>13kt ship with 112 VLS with S-300/Patriot equivalent and a modified Kh-65SE nowhere close to tomahawk in performance, which has an inferior radar and no torpedo tubes whatsoever
fixt. I like how you tell these little lies and hope no one notices.
>>567657
>Why haven't the Russians modified some of their MiG-31 for anti-vessel role?
That is picrel the platform for launching the hypersonic maneuvering scramjet warhead.
MiG-31 takes it to altitude and goes supersonic.
The booster vehicle (modified iskander solid rocket booster) takes it to about mach 10.
Warhead then separates and the scramjet onboard the warhead sustains that speed through extremely high g maneuvers which prevent shootdown.
Then it goes clean through a ship, no explosives needed… although it can carry a nuke.
76b210 No.567711
>>567666
>both with immense efforts while under budgetary strain and are literally in quasi-war time production mode to try to close in what is seemed as the most urgent gaps.
but authoritarians can't do that without collapsing themselves.
0be8e4 No.567719
>>567322
Torps are subsonic and very slow. Any vessel can detect the launch or it's cruise phase. Once a torpedo is detected you know roughly from where the enemy fired it, and can start engaging whoever fired it after defeating the torpedo.
Missiles move much faster and can even go supersonic. If you fire a torpedo-missile at supersonic velocity towards a target and have it drop into the water before CIWS can engage it you essentially conceal your own launch location, because the sound of the launch won't reach the enemy vessel before the torpedo-missile impacts the water and begins moving towards the enemy.
Of course missile launches can be detected via radar, so there is a tradeoff there, but never the less a missile can get far closer to the target than a torpedo can before the enemy has any time to react.
It's the best of both worlds, but also with unique disadvantages. You now basically double the required volume per missile/torpedo for one.
64b89a No.567787
>>567667
>France thinks it's relevant so they send an envoy to secure peace between Kurds & Turkey, then the PKK says France will back them up in Manbij while Macron denies it
I'm sorry you're retarded, but Turkey was not the correct answer.
8effef No.567903
>>567701
>sustains mach 10 through extremely high g maneuvers
I call bullshit in that one.
d90571 No.567907
>>567660
>>567613
Perhaps i was caught up hoping for the best-case scenario, everyone dogpiles on norks.
>>567701
NASA developed two air-launched unmanned technology demonstrator platforms, the x-43 scramjet, which achieved mach 9, and the x-51 waverider, which achieved sustained mach 5 flight for a little over two minutes. the x-43 was designed in 2003-4, and the waverider in 2010. Both fell a little short of their stated goals, though; the x-43 being meant to break mach 10 and the x-51 meant to fly for at least 300 seconds. Theres a chance we have some secret operational supersonic cruise missiles.
9ef8c1 No.567909
>>567907
It's unlikely anyone will go after the DPRK any time soon. While their nuclear devices are primitive and would most likely end up being intercepted and doing minimal damage, the political fallout of one hitting Seoul would be immense. That's not to mention how it could potentially galvanize Russia & China to enter a hot war or how it doesn't benefit Israel at all. I'm betting on some shenanigans with Lebanon, since Israel has been intimating another war with them but after the debacle that happened last time, should doubt their ability to win on their own. It will probably be sold on the premise that Hezbollah is a scary terrorist faction that hates the greatest ally, holds the Lebanese people hostage and dictates government policy. In other words, Taliban 2.0.
97e9ba No.568001
>>567903
An artillery shell handles 15000g, and a much more fragile conventional missile can do 50g. This thing is somewhere between those two numbers, likely around 100g.
>>567907
Nah we copied scramjet tech from east block documents in 1990s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramjet_programs#Russia
They basically taught us how to do scramjets properly, most of our developments before that were artillery shells.
8effef No.568003
>>568001
I doubt the ability to do any meaningful maneuver at that speed, not its ability to survive the g-load of such maneuver.
97e9ba No.568008
>>568003
Do you have a reason for this doubt or just doubting it for fun?
0be8e4 No.568028
>>568008
>mach 10
> = 3430 m/s
Any sort of meaningful maneuver becomes "high g" at that point.
97e9ba No.568036
>>568028
No shit, I'm not talking about Macross style maneuvers, this is the real world.
It was shown doing slalom around several picket ships with interception missile ranges ~100-200km, essentially avoiding interception. Which at that speed would be around 50-100g continuous (minutes), this is not an instantaneous turn.
(3430^2)/100000=78g
43d79e No.568098
>>567909
It has nothing to do with nukes.
It has to do that all the "West" armies, at the end of WWII when countless combat veterans (that did make most of the volunteers forces send by Europeans/Commonwealth countries) were available and an insane disparity of firepower (the Far Eastern Air Force Bomber Command stopped bombing operation several times because they literally couldn't find anymore shit to blow up), simply couldn't win against NK + Chinese literal hordes starving peasants.
Nothing has changed, if anything the insane manpower qualitative edge and the great firepower advantage the UN enjoyed at the time has been seriously reduced.
Maybe if NK didn't had nukes we could do a limited airstrike thing (and watch Seoul burn), but we simply don't have the power to deal with NK + Chinese reinforcements.
934223 No.568114
>>568098
>kg of HE/km²/h
It's so incredibly beautiful.
73fde4 No.568118
>>568098
>Chinese reinforcements.
To what degree is this still an issue genuinely curious? China has already said they'd sever ties with the norks if they attacked anyone (but would defend them if they were attacked), to me it seems like the only reason they're maintaining ties at all is to save face in a sort of contrarianism against the West. If this is in fact the case, why would the Chinese send anything more than a token amount of support to Best Korea, just to show they haven't given them up, before de facto writing them off? North Korea has been a strain on Chinese diplomacy, and a constant drain on resources for decades now. Why not take this opportunity to allow the West to get rid of this problem for them?
96d4a1 No.568123
>>568118
They key word is attack. If the other side fires the chinks don't have a problem defending their satellite state.
f43f42 No.568124
>>568098
>us couldn't win against china and norks in the 50s
>that's why South Korea exists today
also
>China
>Being a threat to anything
Its just going to be chosin but with 20mm vulcans instead of quad .50s. How much money are you getting payed to post this horse shit in every thread?
73fde4 No.568125
>>568123
Sure, but how far will they go? I don't doubt they'd do something, if for no reason to save face with their rivals in the West, but just because they'll do something doesn't mean they're going to commit a sizable portion of their military to the defense of North Korea. Like I said before, China's relationship with NK has only cost them resources over the years, with negligible return. Diplomatically, it almost always causes complications, and even when it doesn't cause complications, it's never a boon to the Chinese, it just fails to be a detriment. Because this relationship has no practical benefit besides saving face with the West, there's no need for the chink's defense of North Korea to be a fully-committed, win-this-at-all-costs defense. It seems a lot more sensible to me that, should the norks be attacked, it goes something like this: Publicly, China decries NATO's aggression and makes a big fuss about defending their allies. Privately, they give NK the bare minimum aid to look like they're doing something, when in reality every soldier sent in aid has already been written off as a casualty. They only sent anything at all to keep up appearances, and see the NATO/UN action as a way to get rid of an "ally" that's been nothing but a liability to them.
96d4a1 No.568128
>>568125
They'd go as far as to keep NATO off their borders much like the last time around.
73fde4 No.568131
>>568128
So NK does serve a purpose to the Chinese in that it's a buffer state preventing NATO from establishing direct access to any Chinese borders. All right, that actually makes a fair bit of sense. Same reason, broadly speaking why Russia seized Crimea after NATO tried to expand into the Ukraine.
97e9ba No.568133
>>568125
>how far will they go?
A democratic state can't play chicken with a totalitarian dictatorship. They are capable of going ridiculously harder in war than our own country, because our people would never allow that kind of behavior. The Chinks can deploy chemical and biological weapons on civilians, and all we could do is huff and puff in response.
The nuking of hiroshima and nagasaki was a fluke because the public didn't know about nukes yet. If it had, 90% of the population would lose their shit and demand the politicians who suggested be fired, the politicians would then lose their spine…. and nothing would happen. The only way we'd use nukes is in a secret first strike no one knew about… and if the politicians weren't worried about repercussions because:
A) their term was up anyway
B) they managed to create a position for a dictator of NATO, and placed themselves in that position, right before abdicating as president
Granted the second option is a nightmare scenario, but it is possible. In fact I think Obama was trying to do that, rather ineptly, before being kicked out.
dd41aa No.568136
>>568133
>a dictator of NATO
>In fact I think Obama was trying to do that
Could you be any more Russian?
97e9ba No.568139
>>568136
Well I could be eating borscht right now, but I'm eating salty grits with sour cream.
How do you explain his installing tsars in every position, placing hundreds and hundreds of people loyal to him in unelected, unaccountable bureaucratic positions, and last of all interfering in the presidential election and even an elected presidents administration!
96d4a1 No.568143
>>568131
Crimea was more of a fuck you to NATO in regards to Kosovo not to mention Ukraine was being a fucktard over muh gas prices.
f43f42 No.568145
>>568133
I don't think you understand the fucking fury the American people are capable of when we are attacked directly. The public would have nuked the japs without a second thought because of Pearl harbor. We fucking killed all the Iraqis who had nothing to do with 9/11 because of 9/11. If an American installation is attacked, there will be hell to pay.
73fde4 No.568148
>>568143
You don't think keeping a friendly port in the Black Sea out of NATO hands played a major factor?
97e9ba No.568154
>>568148
Well considering their ground based anti ship and anti air missiles now cover that stinking pond and not a single of our ships or aircraft can overfly it…. I'd say it had a say in their decision making process.
97e9ba No.568159
>>568145
Chem weapons are used in Syria and neither the government nor rebel forces have WMDs to fend us off with. So why exactly haven't we punished them with nukes? It's not going to happen in North Korea either, they can contrive some "Southern aggression" and freely nuke the Sorks and no one here will have the courage to strike back.
9ef8c1 No.568162
>>568145
>Amerimutt barking intensifies
Your government won't do shit when Turkey pushes east of Manbij and "accidentally" kills US personnel shielding the Kurds, and we both know it.
f43f42 No.568163
>>568159
Because the people that got gassed weren't Americans or a sovereign American ally you fucking retard. If south Korea is attacked we have an actual TREATY that says we will defend them. Unlike random sand niggers.
>>568162
Will you do anything? Of course not. You are just another retard who will screech at us to do something about someone killing someone else and then scream at us for intervening. I'm pretty sure the fact that we aren't assisting Turkey in their little incursion would tell them that we definitely wont forgive them killing US troops.
97e9ba No.568169
>>568163
That sounds like a massive cop out, especially after all those red lines.
Korea isn't a NATO member, there is no way we'd risk a war with China over them. Even if we won, we'd lose all our industrial production capacity which is in china, and we'd lose a CVBG or two as well. It's morally wrong to do that to America, it's tactically stupid, it's politically unacceptable, and as for strategy… the entire CVBG strategy hinges on a massive bluff, that the carriers are undefeatable. Showing they're not would basically make our navy useless, the largest and most expensive branch, just as we're undergoing a depression that makes the Great Depression look like a recession.
It's not going to happen.
9ef8c1 No.568170
>>568163
>I'm pretty sure the fact that we aren't assisting Turkey in their little incursion would tell them that we definitely wont forgive them killing US troops.
Sounds like you're running scared from the roaches to me.
97e9ba No.568172
>>568170
Situation in Turkey is a bit delicate.
Obama tried to assassinate the Turkish president and carry out a coup, to place a Muslim Brotherhood plant in power.
Trump is desperately trying to keep Turkey in NATO right now, so killing a few CIAniggers is acceptable.
3724bf No.568191
On a serrious note. Chinese CAGs are going to get slaughtered if they operate between Japan an Mainland China. Mainly cause many of the new craft be built for long area denial and not actually air superiority.
>Also implying PLAN isn't a meme worse than the chairforce
At least the chairforce has fought in an actual war.
b37c81 No.568192
>>567201
Considering all of the problems that the US military has in general, and especially when you look at the US Navy. I hate to think about how dreadful the situation would be the minute that we're dragged into any kind of war with the other superpowers.
Speaking of allies, if that thought isn't bad enough, I'd hate to think about how the Bongs would cope. From I've heard their Royal Navy is completely fucked and their military, in general, is currently operating on a shoestring budget, at least from what I've heard. I wonder how Japan's "military" is shaping up to be?
9ef8c1 No.568193
>>568191
To be fair, all the PLAN needs to do is deploy cargo ships and the USN is fucked. For those few vessels this masterful ruse doesn't work on, buzzing them with SU-24s will force the crews to surrender pretty quickly.
3724bf No.568195
>>568193
You imply the PLA knows what it's doing. They dont.
4b0a69 No.568196
>>567512
Most of those factories that have been closed down can be reopened/repurposed in as little as 3 months probably an average of about 7 months if the job isn't rushed/botched. I know the steel mill the next city over has security/scrubbers through all the time because they're just waiting for the prices to skyrocket enough to justify reopening the facilities, not abandoning it.
3c68c2 No.568201
>>568098
>Maybe if NK didn't had nukes we could do a limited airstrike thing (and watch Seoul burn)
Which is why we never did it, dumb frog.
4b0a69 No.568203
>>568118
Norks serve a purpose as a satellite nation. You should interpret the Chinese as having said "we will take them over ourselves if someone else if gonna do it, but we're not just gonna let anyone take them over unless they have an internationally legal reason to do so."
73fde4 No.568204
The militaries of all the major powers are pretty fucked, the US more than others because of the sheer size and expense of it. If actual war breaks out there will be a lot of pain felt on each side as their multibillion white elephants are knocked out by missile swarms, and there will in turn be much kvetching from Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed as militaries realize the entire military needs drastic changes in doctrine and equipment in order to be remotely functional. For this reason there's never going to be a full-on war, just more low-intensity conflicts where we waste trillions ineffectively lobbing cruise missiles at goatfuckers in tents, while the lugenpresse makes sure everyone back home is aware of what a massive threat these illiterate goatfuckers are to them, and why it's absolutely necessary to spend more money developing weapons that fail to kill them. Fuck, next thing we'll probably see is honest-to-god Floating Fortresses.
a030bb No.568230
>>568133
>A democratic state can't play chicken with a totalitarian dictatorship.
a030bb No.568231
>>568193
>implying the IJN won't rebuild
f43f42 No.568235
>>568169
>>568170
>>568192
>>568193
I don't think any of you fucks actually realize how much worse off the rest of the world is militarily. But again you are just following the same lemming trend of "If its a western piece of tech then its automatically the worst thing ever" and "If its made by MUH BASED COLLAPSED COMMIE EMPIRE then it HAS to be real and live up to all of its stats!" despite every single time we have seen NATO equipment fight pact equipment it has been a completely one sided slaughter with the pact getting their ASSES handed to them. Russia lost big time in Afghanistan to US made stinger missiles. China lost big time to Vietnam despite the NVA getting nearly wiped out by their disastrous Tet offensive. Russia lost an entire motor rifle brigade in Chechnya and resorted to sinking their last functioning Kara class cruiser in the Ukraine to block off the harbor BECAUSE IT DID NOT FUNCTION. Meanwhile all's you have to say is "LE CARGO SHIP MEME! XDDDD" and "LE SERBIAN F117 SHOOT DOWN!" despite the fact that pact military disasters in peace time are the Kursk fucking exploding and killing everyone on board because their DSRV was a piece of garbage that couldn't dock to rescue the survivors.
We have a treaty that specifically states we will assist south Korea, Japan and Taiwan in the event of an attack. Sitting by and letting China do anything will destroy any credibility we would have anywhere in the world, this committing suicide. China would be committing suicide by attacking any of those three countries because they REQUIRE the US to buy their plastic crap or else their ENTIRE ECONOMY AND COUNTRY will collapse overnight.
And as for the CONSTANTLY parroted "carriers are obsolete because of muh mach six gorrillan super missiles" line I hear in every single thread and always spoken by retards that always seem to fucking forget that one: aircraft carriers have AIRCRAFT that FLY AROUND CONSTANTLY. And two: THAT YOU NEED TO LOCATE THE FLEET BEFORE YOU CAN HIT IT. They always assume that there is no AWACS, no combat air patrol, and that the redfor fleet automatically knows the position and bearing of the carrier at all times. You can have the biggest, fastest warp 10 lizard missiles ever known to man, but they are WORTHLESS if you cannot locate the fleet AND live to launch them which are things that constant AWACS and combat air patrol make very difficult.
Each and every one of you idiots are ether being payed as members of the 50 cent army to spew this obvious misinformation, or just have a retarded rape/cuckold fantasy about being "liberated by muh glorious reds!"
3724bf No.568242
>>568235
You do realize that post-cold war we found out we couldn't pen some soviet (supposedly).
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/russias-t-72-tank-over-40-years-old-still-the-backbone-the-23280
I'm hesitant cause there's only two sources. Last I checked the Air to Air missles in Soviet BVR engagements were much better than the US but not anymore.
Your argument of the Chinese economy being collapsed overnight is not really going to happen. However, a offshore blockade is much more effective as the oil supply in China is only three days in reserve.
>MUH BASED COLLAPSED COMMIE EMPIRE then it HAS to be real and live up to all of its stats!
You also forgot to mention that Chinese media claims the type90A can pen a Abrams Which is bullshit cause the US would be rushing to replace those tanks then
We are forgetting to discuss the doctrinal issues/ production present within the Chinese systems to the US one. The USN originates from the era of wooden ships and we've been fighting with Carriers as long as they've existed. The PLAN was actually just a bunch of swimmers and fucking bamboo rafts in originality. Have you wondered why China hasn't made anything larger than a destroyer aside from these three carriers? They can't. At least we can fucking build ships we need. I guarantee you that the other carriers in production are going to have major issues that make the F-35 look good in comparison. Hell, the Chinese build missles better than fucking aircraft and ships cause they've been doing it longer!
>China lost to vietnam
No shit. That's what the cultural revolution(tm) does to your army when you have no QC and the NCOs can't read a fucking map and use a compass.
What killed the Soviet union wasn't the shitty military. What killed it is that as communists, somehow they forgot that the most important battle is the economic one. Even in the 60-70 where I believe Soviet Deep Battle was to a degree more effective assuming we don't go zhukov battering ram style the reason they lost was Breshnev's parity in arms fucked the Soviet economy over.
YOU CANNOT WIN A MODERN WAR IF YOUR NATION CAN'T FEED YOUR OWN PEOPLE
73fde4 No.568246
>>568235
>anyone who criticizes the US military must be a slavboo
It's possible to be aware of the shortcomings of a powerful military as it slowly slips into decadence without immediately assuming that empire's rivals must be militarily superior. Most people are aware that late-stage Roman military was a joke compared to the height of the empire, but few of them use this information to assume that this must have been because the barbarians tribes encroaching from the north were master logisticians with a perfectly-designed military.
>always seem to fucking forget that one: aircraft carriers have AIRCRAFT that FLY AROUND CONSTANTLY.
Most arguments have some awareness of this and assume you're firing massed AShMs instead of making just a single 360noscope shot.
>THAT YOU NEED TO LOCATE THE FLEET BEFORE YOU CAN HIT IT.
A fair point, but this is true of any vessel, not something unique to carriers. No one's suggesting that all supercarriers in the world are going to be instantly targeted and shot by AShMs the moment war breaks out. Just that, ceteris parabus, a large, slow target like a carrier is going to be far more vulnerable and far more difficult to replace than a greater number of smaller, more nimble units. This isn't even unique to carriers, it's a rule that applies over nearly all aspects of the military because offensive capability has scaled much faster than defensive capability since the Middle Ages. Modern advances in materials science are making this a little less one-sided but the overall trend is still very much the same. As such, building small and fast units works out better; not only does evading being hit work otu much better than slapping on thicker armor, it's far easier for an industrial economy to churn out large numbers of smaller vessels to replace losses than invest ludicrous amounts of resources into a few slow-ass sitting targets.
9ef8c1 No.568247
>>568235
>Amerimutt barking intensifies to autistic screeching
Even the Turkroaches are laughing at (((Trump))) now, and this is the best you can do? Pathetic.
0a88b0 No.568257
>>568235
> the NVA getting nearly wiped out by their disastrous Tet offensive.
>NVA
>Tet Offensive
b63517 No.568305
>>568235
You seem to forget that the arguments against aircraft carriers are based on the arguments against an overreliance on air force. You can hide the CVBGs as much as you want, the aircraft they carry still has to fly right up to the enemy to engage them, which will lead to at least some losses. Now, do it again and again, and you will find yourself in a war of attrition where your equivalent of a rifleman is a pilot with hundreds of hours of training who flies a multi-million dollar jet aircraft that needs thousands of dollars just to fly for a single hour.
8effef No.568345
>>568235
>still having your head this far up into your ass comforting yourself into false sense of security with the excuse of half century old communist incompetence
Here's a tip of a hard cock readied for all the Westerners' anuses it's not the Russians and the Chinese that are marxists today. How long do you think can militaries, research and heavy industries keep up with diversity quotas and feefees instead of functionality becoming their primary goal?
73fde4 No.568353
>>568345
>it's not the Russians and the Chinese that are marxists today.
Honestly, it's everyone to a greater or lesser degree. Russia isn't culturally Marxist but most of the major industries are nationalized. China has its "economic development zones" but it's still very much a communist country, and even the EDZs are subject to vast amounts of government scrutiny. That being said I'd give the Russians the advantage in the short run; the US may or may not edge them out if the higher ups realize how fucked the doctrine soon enough and actively work to fix shit. If it takes too long for this to happen then it's too little too late.
8effef No.568356
>>568353
> if the higher ups realize how fucked the doctrine soon enough and actively work to fix shit
You do realize that the (((higher ups))) are actively working on our physical extermination, right?
73fde4 No.568359
>>568356
I don't like to attribute to malice what is explained by stupidity. Some certainly have that goal in mind, others are have just been deluded into thinking the current doctrine works, and haven't considered the alternative because there's never been a reason for them to.
83d664 No.568376
>>568235
>forgot to turn caps lock off after coming over from facebook
>"LE CARGO SHIP MEME! XDDDD"
>"LE SERBIAN F117 SHOOT DOWN!"
>MUH BASED COLLAPSED COMMIE EMPIRE
You're acting like a child. Even if this shit's ironic, you should still off yourself. Yeah, nah, I ain't reading that sperg fest.
3724bf No.568397
>>568376
Ooooh. Rare flag??
>>568353
Incorrect, view china as sort of the British East Indian company. It sure as hell isn't communist because the (((state owned))) are actually just kelpocracies. The second the strong man falls the entire companies that stoood behind them falls. Case in point Hainan Airlines.
>EDZs are subject to vast amounts of government scrutiny.
Source please, I'm actually quite sure it's the other way around because my father works in one
73fde4 No.568400
>>568397
>The second the strong man falls the entire companies that stoood behind them falls. Case in point Hainan Airlines.
Cult-of-personality state-owned enterprises sound pretty communist to me.
86d5e7 No.568404
>>568397
>Rare flag??
Not really. It's far from the first Chadian post I've seen on here.
f43f42 No.568412
>>568246
Again, the Russians purposefully sank their last Kara class cruiser to create a naval blockade. I think they are probably in a worse off state than we are if they resort to that level of tactics. You also forget that carriers have more than a handful of fighters on them. And that there will be more than one AWACS plane in the air at a time. It will always be more difficult to hide from airborne radar than ground level radar because of the curvature of the earth.
>>568305
Redfor relies on corvettes with missiles on them which again, need to get within the attack range of carrier planes to launch. Their rifle men in the conflict would be ships with 60 men crews. Much more costly than one or two men aircraft in an attrition war.
b63517 No.568415
>>568412
>Redfor relies on corvettes with missiles on them which again, need to get within the attack range of carrier planes to launch.
They have no reason to attack the carrier if the planes from the carrier come to them anyway. And if their defence against enemy aircraft is good enough that attacking them with planes is suicidal, then the aircraft carrier is indeed just an expensive bluff. In this scenario the enemy's rifleman is an AA battery that is inherently cheaper to deploy and maintain.
180366 No.568423
>>567313
That's gotta be the gayest looking missile I've ever seen
8bd862 No.568463
>>568412
In terms of the damage it can do, a Tarantul corvette is more heavily armed than a Kara cruiser, that ship was decomissioned and obsolete since 90s. The ship was also in danger of being captured by Ukrainian forces, in fact potential capture of weapon systems (some WMD) is why the entire Crimea situation happened.
>need to get within the attack range of carrier planes to launch
Their surface fleet is there for taking out our LHDs and preventing a beachhead. The supercarriers would be targeted by aircraft, there are whole schools of tactics on how various aricraft are meant to locate the carrier, fire, and escape before CAP is on their ass.
9b6455 No.568488
>>567348
>Chinese economy will crash soon goyim!
Yeah, another lie that the jews have been repeating for the last few decades. Strange how it hasn't happened yet, hm?
f43f42 No.568494
>>568415
Any plan where you get shot at is a pretty shitty one, wouldn't you agree? You also forget that with total air coverage comes submarine supremacy because maritime patrol would be impossible for redfor to carry out with fighters everywhere.
>>568463
If the Kara were obsolete, then why are they hanging onto one that nearly burned to the ground in port 2014 instead of just scrapping it? Why would a supposed world power navy have their ships burn to the ground in port and sit a crispy hull for years now with no action taken?
How on earth are planes supposed to find a carrier before AWACS finds them and dispatches interceptors?
73fde4 No.568499
>>568488
Oh no, you're correct. Truly the blocks of empty, unused office buildings being constructed is a sign of prosperity and wealth, and not at all artificial stimulus of productive sectors.
8dec53 No.568537
>ITT knownothings speculate on the production capacities of countries which have not had their wartime production capacities put to the test since world war 2
You have no idea how a war between any two major nations will pan out and if you think you do it's only because of your innate narcissism that you think you can predict the future.
43d79e No.568663
>>568118
>>568125
>>568131
It's a major strategic issue for China.
Just like Russia was never going to surrender Ukraine without fighting, China is never going to surrender NK without a fight.
The nature of the fight is to be determined, but what people forget is that Beijing, their capital is at a 10 hours drive from the North Korean border. They will NOT let the US + united korean army park their tanks there.
If NK is attacked they will defend them just as they would China.
If NK attack they would invade NK under the pretense of keeping the peace or something and create a buffer zone.
Which is why the idea of doing anything to NK is ludicrous.
Even if tomorrow there is a meteorite strike and NK entire regime collapse, there will never be a hostile to China (and/or friendly to NATO) regime in North Korea as long as Beijing can help it, including militarily.
With Chinese liberalization I'd be more worried about SK becoming much more neutral (and then re-unifiying with NK, with China agreement) and turning away from the US…
1fa60c No.568669
>>568494
>why Why
Because dismantling a ship costs a lot of money.
>How
Well if you're dumb enough to keep an AWACS overlying every carrier, they don't need to spot the fucking carrier. Just fly towards the giant flashlight that is an AWACS dish.
2109e6 No.568670
>>568499
>implying any more of a bubble than the (((western))) banking system
Global economics are a glorified ponzi pyramid and China seems to steadily climb at the top of it.
c900d8 No.568671
>>568494
>Any plan where you get shot at is a pretty shitty one, wouldn't you agree?
Sending waves of planes to bomb a well prepared country into submission will be the same as initiating a cavalry charge against entrenched machine gun nests. Mark my words.
>You also forget that with total air coverage comes submarine supremacy because maritime patrol would be impossible for redfor to carry out with fighters everywhere.
Must I repeat my words again and again? So be it.
The arguments against aircraft carriers are based on the arguments against an overreliance on air force.
You can go on about submarines all day, but you still didn't address this.
66471b No.568672
>>568670
You are correct, central banks in the West are also manipulating interest rates and as a result creating bubbles. However, there is a spectrum of central bank kikery. The United States Fed is messing with the money supply and causing credit expansion, for instance, but the dollar is left as a floating currency, whose exchange rate is determined by the market. China is engaging in credit expansion while simultaneously keeping its exchange rate fixed, undervaluing their currency. The chinks are also nationalizing industries to a far greater degree than we are. So yes, the West is creating bubbles as well, but China is pursuing multiple and more severe market distortions, which is causing a larger bubble.
43d79e No.568697
>>568235
Wow this is your brain on MSM propaganda.
>Russia lost big time in Afghanistan to US made stinger missiles.
No they didn't.
It impaired air operation for around 3 months, the time for the soviets to come up with countermeasures (change tactics and gears) and then didn't impaired them further, which is pretty standard for a new type of threat hitting a battlefield, neither good or bad. In total they shot 26 helicopters and 11 fighters bombers.
The CIA blew things off way out of proportion (to completely ridiculous numbers IE more soviet aircraft were downed by stingers per the CIA reports than soviet aircraft actually were even present in those years or even to what they later admitted to have delivered) to increase their funding and the help to those nice bearded fellows and then the MSM pretended they had win the war (despite the fact it's Gorbatchev announcing the USSR was going to leave Afghanistan that led to US giving out a small amount of missile, largely to test them), we all know how that story ended. The soviets lost more plane to their own SA-7 than to Stingers.
Even commercial airliners are fitted with countermeasures specifically capable of defeating stingers these days because the last version, in use in the US army, is from 1995.
Remember what compact electronics looked like in 1995?
Meanwhile Russia has been fielding for years MANPADS that comes with a fucking 360° man mobile radar station, because yes it's current year and we can make some that small! A fucking Patriot battery doesn't come with a 360° radar…
BTW soviet soldiers death in Afghanistan were around 9,500 in 11 years… which was peanuts for the Red Army (it's 3 405 for the coalition in 14 years… with widespread body armor and light years better medevac. It was 58 220 for the US in vietnam!).
The soviet war in Afghanistan is the EXACT SAME WAR we fought. A non-war with a bunch of beardies roaming the countryside that sometime may overrun a checkpoint maybe a FOB take potshots at patrols and IEDs. It can last forever. But ultimately politicians decides fuck that noise and call back their army (that's what happened in 1985 for the soviets and in 2014 for the US. If the afghan gov' collapse before 2021 the US would have done worse than the soviets! Do you want to take that bet?)
And if you think we don't loses planes in Afghanistan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aviation_accidents_and_incidents_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan
>China lost big time to Vietnam despite the NVA getting nearly wiped out by their disastrous Tet offensive.
Ever though maybe it's because the NVA absolutely wasn't wiped out by the Tet offensive but the US army, having gotten so close to be overrun, may have exaggerated the enemy losses a bit?
In your version if the NVA was so weak of the fuck did they overrun the ARVN so easily?
>resorted to sinking their last functioning Kara class cruiser in the Ukraine to block off the harbor BECAUSE IT DID NOT FUNCTION.
Well yeah ships decommissioned for years that are being scrapped tend to not function…
Wtf is that even coming from? Karas were old per soviet standards…
No one denies that the first Chechen war was a giant mess… No one also denies that the Russian army has been seriously overhauled since and has effortlessly dominated in all it's recent engagements, including a full on mechanized war with a NATO trained army in 2008…
bf16e7 No.568722
>>568235
>But again you are just following the same lemming trend of "If its a western piece of tech then its automatically the worst thing ever" and "If its made by MUH BASED COLLAPSED COMMIE EMPIRE then it HAS to be real and live up to all of its stats!" despite every single time we have seen NATO equipment fight pact equipment it has been a completely one sided slaughter with the pact getting their ASSES handed to them.
This cannot be repeated often enough, thank you anon. Many of these lemmings aren't really lemmings but shills and false flagging Russians/Chicoms though.
Another thing: both Russians and Chinks have tried emulating the US military since about Desert Storm, roughly speaking. OTOH nobody tries emulating the "classic" Soviet or Chinese military.
73fde4 No.568735
>>568722
>both Russians and Chinks have tried emulating the US military since about Desert Storm, roughly speaking. OTOH nobody tries emulating the "classic" Soviet or Chinese military.
You're not wrong dubsman, but the fact that the US military has been competent in some areas doesn't change the fact that it's a complete shitshow in others.
1fa60c No.568739
3724bf No.568747
>>568739
>>568722
Leafbro you remember how 2nd arty in China got renamed to strategic rocket forces? Along with that was the creation of JOC structure emulating US Joint command.
bf16e7 No.568750
>>568739
>In what way?
Have you been living under a rock for the last 25-30 years? In literally every way.
000000 No.568756
Whomever hides behind fishing vessels, using them to block incoming missiles, wins.
t. Tom Clancys' Fleet Command battle simulation expert
24b4d5 No.568759
YouTube embed. Click thumbnail to play.
How dangerous would it be for American aircraft in China during ww3?
3724bf No.568772
>>568759
Not much. PlA doctrine empathizes range superiority for stand off. They leave the actual AA to middle batteries.
The issue is the fact the Chinese air force would get massacred in any fight. Hats why they be been pushing the anti carrier ballistic middle meme for so long.
43d79e No.568774
>>568747
You do realize that the entire modernization of the US army is the carbon copy of the Russian inter-arm brigade/regiments that they have had since… before WWII.
But somehow it's the others that are copying you because they changed the name of the artillery command that was using only strategic rockets and missiles into "strategic rockets corps".
Wow.
Hey, did you know that the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces were created in 1959?
And the US equivalent was created in… 1984.
How dare the Chinese copy you!
19a051 No.568776
>>568759
>How dangerous would it be for American aircraft in China during ww3?
Not at all. PLAAF would lose their entire inventory in a week, if they were stupid enough to try, and the PLAN would be dead in the water. Hell, they probably wouldn't even leave portage in a war against America. All the meme weapons in the world couldn't protect them, and they know it. It'd be like Gulf War 3.0, which is why Trump should just invade them already, rather than fighting a stupid and costly trade war. If you doubt the USAF, just look at this image and repeat after me: "Praise Lockheed Martin for delivering me from Putin." If you want to meme, just ask yourself whether an F-35 has ever been shot down. The answer's no, and they'll never get shot down because Russians and Chinese are awful at building both jets and missiles.
2109e6 No.568790
>>568776
Texas go home, you're drunk.
000000 No.568796
>>568776
Aircraft 1 performs a split S, so it can go immediately to guns on them. Crew and plane comes first.
3724bf No.568813
>>568774
Yes. I do. US took a lot straight out of the works of Isserson/T. Especially the factor of depth and the essence of a complex maneuver warfare designed to stage mass breakthrough and encirclement US Operational doctrine in WWII was pretty shit.. I dare say that the Soviet Deep Operation is still better than the American version today assuming that the ruskies don't resort to Zhukov style battering-ram tactics like they did at Kursk, Rhzev, and Moscow.
The renaming was just surface changes. The main thing was the creation of join command, with someone that's not the leader of the CPC as head. That's a MAJOR shift from the previous extremely top down strategy of the previous generation and shows that Xi is somewhat competent.. Xi also redrew the military districts into four to reduce corruption actually just to purge people. If you can read Chinese one of the recent white papers debated the transition which AFIAK Xi approved from a "defensive people's war" anticipating a US invasion of the mainland, to what I quote roughly, "The denial of enemy air assets via long range aviation. Hence the J-20.
You also have to remember that Xi was best buddies with the military right after ascension so he could purge everyone. So he's basically ceding some control over the military in return I foresee a Great Purge 2.0
Obviously a a Chinese jet 1v1 will loose to the US. But the question is, can the us afford to, and keep the public complacent enough to fight a protracted war of attrition against a population many times larger, and with a significant minority in the US?
What will hurt the PLA is that they have never fought a true offensive war to develop their own method of battle. China's various mountain ranges and general lack of plains inland aside from the coast is a significant barrier. Also, the Chinese military has serious infighting issues. Like I mean ones that make the Greeks at Mazikert look bad in comparision.
9ef8c1 No.568835
>>568813
>the question is, can the us afford to, and keep the public complacent enough to fight a protracted war of attrition against a population many times larger, and with a significant minority in the US?
You tell me, bro. You're the guys who thought it was a good idea to declare an endless war on religious militant cells you're funding, arming and training.
e3313c No.568850
>>568488
The Chinese don't invest into their companies for long term growth, they save up money to leave China for other countries. So the whole thing is artificially propped and the only thing keeping it going is how incestuous the whole world economy is.
3724bf No.568864
>>568835
You got the ameriball pic with the lines:
When you support a terrorist group to
… etc?
3724bf No.568879
>>568872
Many thanks my brother in arms.
24b4d5 No.568925
Does the US navy need a good bruising to fix some issue?
73fde4 No.568928
>>568925
Any military that hasn't seen any serious conflict for a few years is going to have some kinks in its doctrine and materiel taht won't be discovered until it actually goes to war. And while the lugenpresse may try to convince you otherwise, taking potshots at illiterate goatfuckers with 50 year old weaponry doesn't count as a serious conflict.
9ef8c1 No.568931
>>568928
>taking potshots at illiterate goatfuckers with 50 year old weaponry doesn't count as a serious conflict.
Are you telling me this old man & his granddad's jezail arenn't representative of the kind of threat posed by Russia or China? I dunno, strelok. Seems pretty farfetched to me. I'm sure concentrating doctrine around this hajji will work out fine in the long run.
2f41f2 No.568956
>>568697
>>China lost big time to Vietnam despite the NVA getting nearly wiped out by their disastrous Tet offensive.
>Ever though maybe it's because the NVA absolutely wasn't wiped out by the Tet offensive but the US army, having gotten so close to be overrun, may have exaggerated the enemy losses a bit?
>In your version if the NVA was so weak of the fuck did they overrun the ARVN so easily?
What the fuck are you two talking about? The Tet Offensive was launched by the Vietcong, not the NVA which was the original poster's mistake, and you can't accept that to be true in some sort of weird theoretical argument. However North Vietnam was bombed to hell and back in the run up to the 1973 peace treaty and ARVN failed in 1975 due to the lack of American air support thanks to Nixon being embroiled in Watergate and the 1970s oil crisis preventing their tanks from actually being functional.
The Sino-Vietnamese War simply showed that the PLA's 1950s tactics that were used to some degree of success in Korea were no longer feasible and China is making all the investments into technology to address this. Whether it will be successful is another matter.
945cee No.568982
>>567302
It's more for projecting power over niggers.
>>568931
>Those black squares on the Baitbrams
Can't unsee now.
43d79e No.568996
>>568956
>What the fuck are you two talking about?
If the Vietcong were "almost wiped out" during the Tet offensive and the NVA was bombed "to hell and back" how the fuck did they ran over the ARVN that should have outgunned and outmanned them 5 to 1?
And how did they do so in less than 2 months in what was a probing attack that worked so well they ended up in the capital?
Because while the vietcongs and NVA did took some losses in those events it wasn't anything near crippling and the US forces were greatly exaggerating about it.
In particular the US chair force, the most useless and expensive army ever built that always report to be "widely effective" (="it made a big boom when it hit the ground! GIVE US MOOOOOREEE") but it always turns out after the war that bedsides killing civilians and turning up a lot of dirt they don't really do anything to military forces…
As a result all of the senior leadership and countless experimented field commanders were still in play, commending experimented troops that had supposedly all died equipped with even better gear than before (because, no the B-52 raids did utterly nothing to their supply lines) which completely took the ARVN by surprise and then, because of said experience they exploited tactical victory on an over level and outmaneuvered the retreating ARVN quickly despite not being ready for a full scale offensive.
It's too fucking easy to say "co-congress slightly reduced the funding, so that's why the ARVN disintegrated over night", the truth is the US military widely exaggerated how big the dent they were making into viet commies, because if they came out of a battle with 1500 US servicemen dead and didn't killed 15000 commies instead of the 2500 maybe 5000 they actually did kill (which aren't bad figures by any stretch of the imagination for one versed in military history), it looks bad to the general public and worse, politicians.
353eb3 No.569100
>>568996
Vietcong is not the NVA. VC was an insurgency against the dictatorship in the South that ended up being funded by the North. After Tet failed NVA regulars began facing off against American forces.
43d79e No.569176
>>569100
I know.
But you won't answer me, if one was destroyed in the Tet offensive and the other in the bombings of North Vietnam, how the fuck did they completely overwhelmed the ARVN in less than 2 months, less than a year after the last bombing raid?
Answer: Because neither of them were nearly as destroyed as the US military reported.
Why? Because after the failure of the Tet offensive, the commies leadership decided that the vietcongs were put to better use building a vast logistical network and that the better trained and equipped NVA was to do the fighting, while the locals VC would supply them with intel, shelter, food, ammo stocks, etc… Which is what allowed the NVA to slip, largely unnoticed, deep into Vietnam and maneuver quickly and decisively.
That's why the US in the last years saw less VC and more NVA… not because the VC were destroyed (which is silly if they stopped to think about it for more than a minute) but because there was a switch in strategy after their poor performance in battle.
Look at the maps of the commies offensive in winter 1974-1975 and realize that nearly all attacks didn't came from areas held by the NVA, but largely deep from within Vietnam itself.
First area to fell was Phuoc Long, not even 75 miles form Saigon hundreds of miles of the first occupied territory, immediately after they lost the southern most parts of the Mekong delta that was supposed to be secured and is literally the furthermost place from North Vietnam of even Combodia, how the fuck did they get there? Answer: the VC never died, they just stopped attacking, which lulled the ARVN into a false sense of security and started building bunks for the NVA soldiers.
That's how SHTF so fast and the inability to understand that strategy change, concealed by the beliefs in their own propaganda, is what cost the US Vietnam.
Self delusion has always been a major problem in governments and it has always been a major problem in the US foreign policy.
It's not wrong for a state to make propaganda, all states engage in it at some degree, but there is something very wrong when political leaders believe their own state propaganda.
Which is why we're going at full steam toward CW2/WW3, because despite NATO being objectively at it's absolute weakest, NATO leaders are deeply convinced of their military supremacy.
246d1d No.569187
>>568697
Got links to those manpads with radar?
That sound very interesting.
Not that you can fit a good radar with good countercountermeasures in a man portable package and still have space left for a missile.
246d1d No.569232
>>569225
Neat. No radar of any kind in it.
But multi-spectral seekers do sound like a modern thing to do.
It can use data from air defense radars, but does not include any kind of active or passive radar of it own.
Just a multi-spectral heatseeker.
>>The Verba's primary new feature is its multispectral optical seeker, using three sensors - ultraviolet, near infrared, and mid-infrared - as opposed to the Igla-S' two.
1fa60c No.569243
>>569232
They even have radar for machine guns and grenade launchers which helps them see targets in darkness or fog.
I wouldn't put it past them to have a small radar a person could carry which could relay data to a separate Verba system.
28db83 No.569254
>>569232
>Neat. No radar of any kind in it.
2:26 1L122 low weight portable radar.
The radar being man portable doesn't mean it's the same guy carrying the launcher that carries it.
It also mean that since it can be fed data from a connected radar it can probably be fed data from any radar…
That's why Russian is such a fucking nightmare.
Nearly all parts can operate at various level independently but if you have to fight the whole thing it's a blob monster of layers upon layers of radars and missiles that can communicate with each others.
Meaning you basically have to destroy everything in one swoop (which nigh impossible) or you will never have air supremacy and have to run big air penetration raids every time you need something blown up.
246d1d No.569259
>>569243
Nothing published on that front. (Man portable air surveillance)
Physics are also a bitch, to get more resolution from radars with small apertures you need to go up in frequency, but then getting power and receiver sensitivity becomes harder.
And it attenuates even worse in the air when moisture and literal oxygen atoms start absorbing it. ¨
So expensive, deaf and low range.
As for Fara I think americans even had some man portable monitoring radars in korea, so the idea is not that far fetched. Can't find the references right now but the early Fara's in the nineties ware reportedly shit with unusable sensitivity.
Unfortunately it was a bit too ambitious for the russian domestic manufacturers back then with the technology available to them.
I do hate how it is almost impossible to date russian equipment in pictures. A soviet radio filled with tubes from 1962 and something modern from last week look exactly the same on the outside.
A gray hammerite painted box with bunch of circular multipin connectors.
>>569254
The MANPAD referenced was having:
>>Meanwhile Russia has been fielding for years MANPADS that comes with a fucking 360° man mobile radar station, because yes it's current year and we can make some that small!
Was 9m336 Verba. It did not include a radar, much to my disappointment.
1L122-1E is 150kg and 1L122-2E is 900kg.
http://www.almaz-antey.ru/en/osnovnaya-produktsiya-voennogo-naznacheniya/malogabaritnye-radiolokatsionnye-stantsii-1l122e/
http://roe.ru/eng/catalog/air-defence-systems/radar-and-electro-optical-equipment-for-air-target-detection/1l122-1e/
Certainly portable, but not man portable.
And yep as stated on the article linked by >>569225 it can be linked with some radar systems. "Any radar system" might be stretching it a bit.
Russians do have rather high levels of survivability for their systems.
But let's not kid ourselves that you can hide a a properly usable air defense system in the bushes.
1fa60c No.569283
>>569259
Come on man, he posted a pic.
As for Fara it detects structures at 5km, vehicles at 4km and personnel at 2km, with a CEP of 20 meters. Twelve watts power.
246d1d No.569292
>>569283
Gah. Fuck. Am I really that blind?
Oh well, portable by a team. None humps a 150kg hunk of junk for any length of time.
I do wonder how they power it, "800W peak" is not that little.
9f6d16 No.569318
>>569176
Was ARVN not utterly shit as well? Like Iraq post US withdrawal tier?
1fa60c No.569321
>>569292
I think one person carries the collapsed tripod, computer, and reader, while the other person carries the dish. The dish looks like it folds like an accordion. Probably splits to 75kg and 75kg, which is easier to deal with. A launch computer and five missiles is another 70kg.
Considering Russians move in squads as the smallest unit, instead of fireteams… not a huge problem.
>>569318
Turns out literally throwing money at random homeless people so they'll join your "friendly" force, means they actually suck when combat comes.
28db83 No.569446
>>569259
>"Any radar system" might be stretching it a bit.
I really don't think it is.
The way this works is that the Manpads are connected to a fire control module (vehicle or man portable) and it's this planning module that gets information from the small search radar, that planning module is connected to an AD CP (which may have proper radars connected to it), itself connected to the AD HQ which is connected to biggest radars they have but is connected to everything and act as a data hub.
That's how Russian AD already worked, all they did is that not only do they get a much more powerful Manpads (and the Igla-S were already top shelf, they already had dual-spectral seekers which is what is fitted on french Mistral and US Stingers which aren't multi-spectral despite the FAS claim, because it's way enough to prevent any jamming to shootdown planes. The tri-color seekers are probably to defeat a stealthy drone CM or something of that type.) and worse they get to integrate them into their AD network, which makes them far far more of a threat (that's the reason why you often see manpads on ships for CIWS, because once connected to the ships AD systems those things become waaaaaayyyy more potent).
>>569292
From the brochure of the export version (likely gimped as usual).
Main tasks:
detect, position, and track aircraft, cruise missiles, and unmanned aerial
vehicles;
conduct identification friend-or-foe interrogation;
automatically transmit track data to automated control systems.
The design of the small-sized radar ensures:
prompt delivery to the points of destination, including those in hard-to-reach
and mountainous areas;
automatic survey control and orientation relative to North using the GLONASS
and GPS satellite navigation systems;
automatic operation with minimal crew involvement (automatic target detection,
acquisition, and tracking, and automatic data transmission via wire and radio
links);
long and safe stay of the personnel in the immediate proximity of the radar
(transmitters have a low-power ranging signal safe for personnel).
Coverage area:
range, km: 1 – 40
azimuth, deg: 360
elevation, deg: -5 – 45
altitude, km: 10
air target speed, m/s: ± 700
Target positioning accuracy in a jam-free environment (RCS=1 m2 ):
range, m: 100
azimuth, deg: 0,5
elevation, deg: 1,5
Clutter rejection, dB: 55
Data update rate, s: 2 or 4
Power supply voltage, VDC: 22 – 30
>>569318
>Was ARVN not utterly shit as well? Like Iraq post US withdrawal tier?
Kind of, but their biggest mistake was they overextended themselves under the false sense of security provided by the apparent decrease in guerrilla operations, which when SHTF lead to an attempt at a general withdraw, which was attacked and ambushed from everywhere which shatter them completely (with a leadership that fled entirely instead of trying to salvage the situation finishing them).
But that's actually worsen the case of the US military.
>Funds, arms and train people for years, often decades.
>All the gear is US made, all the soldiers are trained by US NCOs, all the specialists and officers go to US military schools, all the supply lines are handled by US contractors/DoD.
>Suddenly not the US military fault when they turn out to be shit???
b208ad No.569457
>>569446
I think it's clear at this point that the US gets into these wars to milk money for the military-industrial-political complex and not for meaningful gain.