USA has never had to fight for air superiority nor has it waged war against a foe on equal industrial capacity since...

Top GDP in the world, you tell me.

You have these highly advanced aircraft that can't be detected by radar and require enormous resources to build, can you churn them out like in WW2 or has it all gone to chang?

GDP is not industrial capacity moron, also china is about to overtake you in that btw

>one secret weapon and it ends in a stalemate
This based on the retarded premise that USA has no secret weapons as well.

Anyone that thinks China is anything but a nuclear threat is woefully misinformed about China. Their navy is a fucking joke. They have all this used military shit but got no manuals to operate or even understand how to integrate it into their ships.

The US could park one of its many aircraft carrier fleets off shore of any country, and bomb it back into the stone age.
Who's going to step?
>Russia
>China
Don't make me laugh.

it doesn't matter.
we have a proven track record with our willingness to use nuclear weapons and we have 14 SSBN and any nation capable of sinking our fleet would surely receive the missiles quickly

The economy can be retooled towards war production, as it has been multiple times previously. GDP is enormously important to determining a nations capacity to wage total war.

Even though the question is stupid because with nuclear weapons total war isn't too likely.

In naval combat, US would win... Easily.

In air combat, it would be close between the US and Russia.

In ground combat, Russia / China would win.

America has the numbers, Russia and China have the quality. Who knows what would happen.

The United States keeps the majority of its advanced military tech and production in house as far as I know. They definitely would not outsource it to China.

I would back the industrial capacity of the United States to produce modern jets faster than it could produce pilots if needed.

>I would back the industrial capacity of the United States to produce modern jets faster than it could produce pilots if needed.
I don't doubt that, boeing churns out hundreds of passenger planes a month

> China/Russia
> Quality

dont worry america has only fired like 4 of its top ranking generals and maybe 8 of its mid level generals its not like theres nobody overseeing the war on terror now... right

>Whats going to happen if USA wages war against China or Russia,

do young people not hear about MAD anymore? It's just as relevant now as it was in the 60s when it came close to happening with the Cuban missile crisis.

Checked, and...

this is only a hypothetical situation that a sperglord could dream up, i.e. bereft of any detail or depth. Why the fuck would there ever be a war between any of these states, ever? If there was, conventional operations would be redundant in a matter of hours, as strategic nuclear forces would be deployed and military/civilian command structures would evaporate.

>USA has never had to fight for air superiority nor has it waged war against a foe on equal industrial capacity since world war 2
Addressing this bullshit real quick: Both Germany's and Japan's materiel output was dwarfed by that of the United States, even by 1942.

US would get BTFO

it's top level officers and enlisted would do their job decently

but the US will fall because the majority of the forces are the scum and retards of society. supply chains would get fucked up (paging private jessica lynch) because they won't be able to read maps or follow directions.

while we have better tech, that doesn't mean anything when the girl responsible for fueling the plane loses her shit.

next war will be fought in space anyway

and you bet your ass we got all kinds of secret space weapons just waiting to be used.

you dont actually think we put lasers on ships first after all, do you?

>China would be taken out by island america.
>Russia hasn't fully recovered militarily from the fall of USSR

Russia I meant. They have active battle / combat experience in Syria and Ukraine. US doesn't... The last war(s) America have fought in, they've lost.
Plus, Russian morale is very, very high unlike US morale.

Incorrect. In Viet Nam, the Russians had superior fighter jets, but the US compensated and had better kill rates, and higher survivability when shot down, by having superior training.

>but the US will fall because the majority of the forces are the scum and retards of society

This. Enlisted military employment in the U.S. is almost exclusively reserved for the bottom 10% of your high school class. 30% if you're in a bumfuck, pillaged-economy state.

is that why Tiangong-1 is going to crash back to earth?

china is a giant sweater ready to get pulled apart if someone whispers the single word "PROFIT'". mainlanders are the IRL Ferengi from star trek. they will cut their own throats to make a nickel selling you spider venom as baby formula.

csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2016/0921/Chinese-space-station-to-fall-out-of-sky.-Who-regulates-these-things-anyway

>equal industrial capacity since world war 2.

You didn't get that right.

Nothing have ever compared to US industrial capacity.

War in Iraq and Afghanistan will live in a sort of grey area until history sorts it out. We didn't pull out of Vietnam saying we "lost" but we view it as that now.

Nonetheless 15 years of constant war, however fucked, can't be discounted from combat experience.

>Implying that this hasn't been our military for at least the past century.
>Implying the draft wouldn't be renewed.

What if we had an islamic google in the whitehouse and Clinton leaking all our military intel to the world?

The US military dominance is over. We are just waiting to be toppled both internally and externally.

Lets compare the resources it takes to build a P-51 to an F-22

North American P-51 Mustang:
>Aluminium/alloys
>Steel
>a few gauges
>some vaccume tubes for a radio
>tyers
>glass for canopy
>unskilled factory workers
>life support
>a willing pilot who previously did crop dusting as a profession
>avgas
>purely mechanical reducing complexity
>Merlin engines could be churned out by any automotive engine manufacturer

Lookheed Martin F-22 Raptor
>Aluminium/alloys
>Titanium (expensive)
>Composite Materials (expensive)
>Radar Absorbent materials
>miles of wiring (copper or gold) for avionics
>glass cockpit
>hardy, reliable computers for FBW, avionics, sensor fusion and suitable for combat conditions (EMP/shock resistant)
>RnD
>RnD for stealth
>Air to Air weaponry (an AIM-120 costs as much as a suburban house 300k compared to some .50 cal slugs)
>ejection seat
>turbojets, no explanation required
>JP-8 fuel
>also canopy is infused with gold particles
>hydraulic systems

So tell me, can the US churn out F-22s at the same rate as a P-51?

>America never had to fight for air superiority
I see you skipped classes. They did exactly that on the Pacific theater. Japan was slaughtered in the air.

>russki just spams a bunch of these
>murisharts sink to ocean floor

...

also, skilled labor is needed and intensive training for the pilot

russia is a concern but on every level china is a shitshow. Everyone in any position of authority in any chinese office will have to spend as much time protecting themselves against getting stabbed in the back, purged and replaced as they do actually dealing with the enemy. All china can do well is pay hackers, basically the modern day equivalent of privateering.

Maybe you skipped English classes. Did you miss 'since world war 2' at the end of the sentence?

all of that fancy shit, and all of that money goes into the toilet if some cheeky cunt decides they're going to detonate a nuke in international waters to wipe your fleet.

You didn't nuke a civilian center, their people are fine. They were undergoing an aggressive action against you. What, all bets are off because you sunk a carrier group in the middle of the ocean when it was coming to attack you? No, the only people justifiably pissed would be fishers and greenpeace but the radiation footprint from the bomb itself would be quite small compared to the waste and oil carrier group shat all over when it got squished.

and that super f35 stealth technology? Why not apply that to a mach 10 missile and mate that bitch to a nuke? You just turned an anti ship missile into an anti fleet missile.

What the fuck? Of course it is, I literally showed a comparison which questions a countries capacity to produce WW2 fighters at the same rate as an advanced stealth fighter, CAN YOU ANSWER?

Of course not, P-51 cost us ~$700,000 adjusted for inflation.

F-22 is Over $100,000,000

But I don't see what your point is.

And who the hell had to do it since world war 2?

How can the US produce F-22s at a rate that it will be able to replace losses?

...

Does it need to? It just needs to have more than 0 when the enemy has none left.

So you're working under the assumption that F-22's are going to get shot out of the air at the same rate as P-51's in WWII?

>How can the US produce F-22s at a rate that it will be able to replace losses?

If a war between the usa and anybody came down to that, we would have to use nukes, and the usa, europe, and russia would be destroyed. so it is not going to happen.

what is this, stoner day in australia or something?

F35's will

FWIW, modern defense contracts are inherently bloated. The real cost to produce an F-22 is likely significantly lower than $100mil. If the U.S. was pressed into a precarious conflict, I would assume that increased production as well as closer DoD involvement would reduce the cost somewhat.

Nukes aren't real

...

Better question is if Russia can produce T-50s faster than the US can produce F-22s.

BASED VAN RIPER

>a willing pilot who previously did crop dusting as a profession
lol just make it a drone carrying a couple fuck off cruise missiles w/ inertial navigation and optical guidance. Operating costs a a f-22 intercepting just one probably costs 3x what the p51 was worth.

unless the plane can fly across the whole ocean to attack you it's cheaper to just stack up anti ship missiles and ecm

>Russia and China have the quality.
You having a laugh?

I'm sorry you were born retarded

I can say the same about Tiger tanks and Shermans, Tigers had better armor, cannon and crew but Shermans were produced dime a dozen from automotive factories and a crew shoved inside, who won?

You are assuming the enemy won't replace their losses, China has 10x the industrial base America has so for every shitty J-20 that's blown out of the sky 10 more will take it's place and take down one raptor, if you can't keep up with your losses you've lost the war.

Oppenheimer would tear you apart if you said that to him

A reaper during the opening stages of desert storm was mounted with stinger missiles and came across a MiG-25, guess who won?

This is some classic sperglord rhetoric goddamn

...

not an argument

Whats with the google meme?

>Whats with the google meme?

Cred Forumstards actually think it will become an accepted and recognized racist term which will drive Google crazy.

The reality is that normies will think we are even more retarded than before.

so, now the dust has settled, what was OP endgame? faggotry, or genuine retardation?

Eh, I'm not too worried.
The minute we lose air superiority we're going full nuclear salvo.

Kek kill those fucking googles my dude

reuters.com/investigates/pentagon/#article/part1

The above articles and the 2002 wargames make me doubt that America will ever be able to totally win anything easily or quickly against a modern force. Its military is too big, slow expensive and bureaucratic. But if a modern nation plays by the rules of conventional warfare, fights the way America expects them to fight, then America would eventually win, given enough buildup time.

But Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan as well as the 2002 wargame shows America cannot fight an asymmetrical war, ironic considering that's how they won their independence. So a nation doesn't need billion dollar planes and tanks, it just needs enough SAMs, anti-tank mines, torpedoes and snipers to seriously put a dent in America's fighting/invasion ability. It's why they are so afraid of Iran's, North Korea's and China's missile development.

What will happen is that both countries will find aircraft carriers obsolete, because they can just get missed into oblivion. Soon the war will be a stalemate until new weapons start popping .

Well the resources won't be the hard part to get, it can be mined up in the north here and in the USA

>what is Korea
>what is mig alley
>what is vietnam

Meant to say "missled" into oblivion.

Mig cost twice as much to make and is ten times more costly to operate than a drone.
Just because it happened once doesn't mean it'll happen every time.
>China has ten times
Citation needed.
China couldn't handle Japan in the 30s/40s.

im an american

thought itd be obvious but hey i guess not

>China couldn't handle Japan in the 30s/40s
China wasn't even a cohesive nation-state in the 30's.

modern wars are not going to fought slow enough for production to even matter

its either you have the assets already or you are fucked

>Mig cost twice as much to make and is ten times more costly to operate than a drone.

Still didn't save drone

>Just because it happened once doesn't mean it'll happen every time.

Waiting for that moment

>Citation needed.
>China couldn't handle Japan in the 30s/40s.

You live under a rock

The Navy is completely useless except for bullying shit-tier countries.

America, Russia and China all have Hypersonic missile systems, missiles that fly 10 times the speed of sound.

Naval defense systems, called 'point defense' can handle supersonic missiles, but not hypersonic systems.

If china, Russia or the US ever went to war with each other all of their fleets (above the surface) would be instantly destroyed.

>Whats going to happen if USA wages war against

>China
they'd get rekt big time, China has the industrial base and it's basically on the other side of the ocean. Marine corps were built to take over Island, not continental landmasses, event though China has ahd a rough history with naval landings

>Russia
lol Russia is no industrial competitor. Nukes would fly as soon as it begins

>Millennium Challenge 2002
the point of that exercise WAS to put them in shape with the equipment they'd be supposed to use in a real conflict.
And then REDFOR commander went 'lolfgt this is how's done biotch' and defeated them with sticks and stones (and a good deal of competence).

Still not a matter of industrial might that can be related on a large conflict.

Why did you delete this? You're quite reasonable.

I think personally unless a country is directly threatened with defeat they would be too pussy to use nukes, and if so it would start off low level with tactical nuclear weapons

i remember reading an article where during a joint exercice a french submarine "sank" a few carrier sand it s escort while the whole fleet couldnt do jackshit against it.
the US marine refused to communicate about the results of that joint excercice.

really make me think... i m hungry and still need to eat my desert.

timeline
>nuclear submarine hits battle fleet
>other 6 battle fleets launch marines and aircraft and tom missiles and precision bombers
>USA unleashes the army and Air Force
>instant memes

>good shape

Lmao just drive near any army post.

He has a point, you can't exactly retool an Apple store to produce tanks. Since the service economy GDP != industrial capacity. And considering how much manufacturing left the US, you aren't in good shape in that regard.

We have the factories at home, think Boeing and other companies, our shitty McDonald toy making goes to Chang

People sitting on the fence in the war, perhaps an enemy trade partner or something would get pissed if a nuke was used and join USA side or stop supporting the enemy in some way.

just like we automated cars, we can automate jets, we just don't have the demand

This is exactly why governments continue to support domestic car manufacturing, despite the fact it loses money and requires constant government support and bailouts.

In Australia the Holden factories had all the dies and tooling to switch to APC production if necessary.

Fuck knows how we're going to deal with it now.

Don't need a nuclear sub/would be preferrable. Our Stirling sub "sank" USS Ronaldo Reagan in the middle of its battle group several times over. Pic related, from the exercise.

Aren't we planning to expand defense industry, Whats with Christopher Pyne?

There are stories about Chinese and Russian subs popping up right next to US carriers all the time. Their downfall will be their self-confidence.

You're point the finger at the wrong NATO. The USA is skirt the rest of NATO hides under when they need to attack something with proper air defences. Libya is the most recent example: the Brits and the French would have had a much harder time over there without US SEAD and dismantling their AA network. Libya had a reasonable setup, with improvements based on what was learned in the first Iraq war, and the yanks took it apart like it wasn't there. They're extremely competent in that domain. They would still have to zerg over European Russia though.

You are retarded. It's literally apples to oranges. The necessary replacement rate for modern air superiority fighters is insanely lower than what was used in ww2.
They won't be used deep in enemy territory. Destruction of AA SAM sites will be carried out by cruise missles. The f-35 is a mobile targeting weapons platform that doesn't need to get near - or attack targets. It just sends data to the ships.
The F-22 is a CAP aircraft. It will defend allied aircraft, ships, bases, and divisions from attacking aircraft. You will never just fly a squadron of F-22S into enemy territory looking for airborne targets while there are SAMs active.

Navy guy here, can confirm that subs pop up now and then in front of the big deck ships. Thing is unless the ship (or some ship in the battlegroup) is actively looking for a sub then they have no idea one is out there.

He didn't even specify what was A-O before, the planes or the idea?

As much as i like to shit on US - it doesnt fucking matter. War is about military industrial complex and economy, thats it.

US, even if its whole fleet and army wiped in first year of war is able to mobilize and arm, and reproduce and enlarge the army easily.

Combined with the fact they are on other continent and arent really in danger of invasion, aside from bombing raids - they are "isle nation", giving them huge advantage having no direct border with potential enemies.

No nation atm can potentially hope to win war against US alone - because with every year spent of war, US will become stronger. Not Russia - since we lack population and economical resources even if we go rapid militarization like last years of WW2. Only possibly China, if first years of war dont turn its into chaos and they are able to mobilize the population and industrial complex for military purposes - but their location is too vulnerable compared to US.

Technology, air superiority, number of troops? None of that really matters.

i know.
the point is that carrier are needed to be able to interveen anywhere on earth but the problem are submarine that can single handely sink a whole fleet
The technologie for stealth sub is so good that it s almost impossible to spot one before you realised you are sinking.

Air supériority is where it s at and the US wins hands down imho with the sheer amount of old plane they can throw at an enemy before having to send in the costly toys.

i doubt the USA could win a ground war conventionally, they had to ask for french foreign legion to secure the landing ground in afganistan and irak before going there, the public is too sensitive to accept the death of a few soldiers... until the USA get a bruised ego over a big humiliation and then they would send troop like zerglins.

Nor Russia nor China have fought anyone on an equal level. All 3 superpowers have to test their strengths against hypothetical models, but America's R&D and intellectual capability in this field is far superior to everyone else's.

America Wins: Nuclear armageddon, civilization is over, nuclear power plants begin spewing massive amounts of fallout everywhere.
Russia Wins: Nuclear armageddon, civilization is over, nuclear power plants begin spewing massive amounts of fallout everywhere.
CHYNAAAHHH Wins: Nuclear armageddon, civilization is over, nuclear power plants begin spewing massive amounts of fallout everywhere.

Exactly why do you think ANYONE would not simply take out enemy military bases with nukes?

The point is the way F-22S will be used is patrolling the skies for INCOMING airborne targets. With their superior radar, and their stealth, they will see their target before they are seen and can launch missles while staying out of range of counterattack.
What he should be asking is how well can we realistically defend our weapons platforms that eliminate AA and anti ship weapons

>That one upside down f-16 on the bottom

It's funny actually, notice how the squadron is the Thunderbirds?

Since we are discussing this topic - how well is US prepared for their forces to wage war when sattelits are shot down and communication are jammed, including radars and some electronic equipment.

Atm it seems their doctrine is too relied on network warfare.

And they still aren't.

>Implying migs have been taking out drones in mass
It happened once.
China is a bunch of pussies. It's just a larger more accepted north Korea. Everyone just kind of laughs at them behind their backs and just doesn't fight them when they say they're a major force in the world because we like having cheap shit.
Win your emu war then we might take you seriously in the real world of war.

>Win your emu war
didn't happen, some farmers shot a flock of emus and they scattered

>Launch a nuke and blow up a few thousand sailors.

>Entire country gets incinerated by massive network of ICBMs in fortified underground silos and nuclear equipped ballistic missile submarines that can surface and attack anywhere on the planet within minutes.

Great plan guys.

I think they pretty much assume GPS and euroGPS and GPSski will disappear if there's a war between major powers, and that any idle power will turn on the encryption for theirs. As for general communications, it's hard to block everything everywhere with jamming, esp if the points can see each other.

Its matter of escalation. If for example its US that starts aggression against Russia, we`ll not hesitate to use Nukes against the attacking armies/fleets. On other hand, if US tries to respond in kind - we`d launch ICBMs on US itself.

Our whole defencive doctrine is that of escalation - first tactical nukes, if enemy doesnt learn, than normal, and if retaliates, than threat of proper nuclear war.

On other hand theres zero chance of us attacking first with nukes (though i see zero motive for us to attack anywhere first anyway).

>how do we know they're still in good shape?

This is literally all the USA does.

>One nuclear submarine and an entire battle fleet is dead in the water.
>Implying we don't have submarine escorts to fleets or counter-measures for submarines

wew lad

>Whats going to happen if USA wages war against China or Russia

WW3 and we will use Australia as a forward base to attack China. Get ready Nigel. You'll get dragged into it too and you'll be cannon fodder :)

Just like old times.

Yea? And do you have a ship captain with no butt hole?

YOU CALL THAT A FLEET?

Never heard the term MAD, care to explain?

Thats not quite the point. GPS sattelights dont even need to be shot down - its easy to jam/distort them as they are on the ground in wide areas. Communication and spy ones will be shot down on other hand.

US airforce and ground force are also very interconnected with Link-16 and other mechanics - and those are actually quite easy to jam and we atm have technological superiority over US in jamming and electronic warfare systems (though US plans to catch up in 2026+ since realized that).

So point is - in actual conflict areas: radio communication, targetting systems of missiles, radar systems etc. would be jammed. Plus "direct" jamming of ships/target location by electronic pods on the planes.

Drones are even easier, since they pretty much will be unable to operate in such warzone and we length have plenty of experience just hacking them.

Theres also a point, that military jamming/electronic warfare capacities mean not just "lack of communication", but ability pretty much disable modern enemy systems - be it on planes, ships, vechicles, installations - Aigis system, air defence, or even artillery radar on tanks. Electronic pods on fighters jam amarican AIM-120 missiles rendering them ineffective too etc.

Of course, US also have capacity to shot down russian sattelites, also not very advanced electronic warfare and jamming systems yet - they are just catching up: but essentially both armies should be ready to fight "stone age" war not relying on constant overview of the battlefield and most modern systems - especially if worst case someone goes with EMP.

Because over half their annual budget is spent on military.

you got the last part in reverse.

It's funny that you mention submarines, because there has been an increasing number or reports hinting that they are the new kings of the seas, with modern ASW being wholly inadequate to protect capital ships when faced with contemporary, or even outdated, submarines.

That's a proposed budget, asswhipe.

>So point is - in actual conflict areas: radio communication, targetting systems of missiles, radar systems etc. would be jammed.

a key point here: that's why very good missiles are still using wires to communicate to their command unit: radio communication can be jammed no matter what you do, a wire it's almost impossible you just have to make sure it doesn't break

I usually have to to /k/ to find this much ignorance about warfare

The USAF operates about 270 official satellites and some 30 more unofficial (read: intelligence) satellites. Assuming all of them are shot down, which would take a lot of effort since it's not simply sending off a nuke into space, the US would have a hard time in reconnaissance and triangulating enemy positions.

Another gag about F-22/F-35 "being able to shot down enemy planes from out of reach of their sight and weapons"..

You realize the longest distance air-to-air missiles are actually Russian? P-37(200km) and КC-172(400km) So any shit plane can potentially shot down your super stealthy super aircraft out of its reach if that aircraft is detected (which it would be, since we also have most modern AAM and radar systems aimed specifically at that), and even small profile doesnt help there since rockets can aim on itself and find target when it nears it.

For specific area of conflict you dont have to shot down all of them, just specific ones. Plus, if it were realy total war situations, there are easy ways to making sattelite operations and communications on orbit problematic for all. Not to mention "multipurpose" sattelites on Orbit (which US also undoubtfully have atm too), designed specifically to be able to destroy others (officially though there no "military" sattelites atm(mostly by dispersing microsattelites), but everyone knows that everyone knows both sides prepare for that.

No, you skipped classes.
USA won the pacific theater because of 3 main reasons: Japanese troops where too spread out, Japan got out resourced and couldnt produce equipment and the third and most important one, USA a fuck ton of personnel more than Japan.
Look up the Zeros kill to death ratio.

Different planes from different eras

US didnt had better kill rates. The higher survivability only counts for the "Thuds" who were strong as fuck.
The russians didnt had superior fighter jets(F-4 phantom/century series vs mig19/21) it was disputed also not all the pilots were russians.
And despite "superior training" still got BTFO by jungle gooks.

Elaborate

Typical yankie to start wondering what a man's butt hole is like.

Fact of the matter is that while carriers are needed to project global firepower in modern US doctrine, they're essentially ducks in the water against a remotely advanced adversary.

>China
>Russia
If hilldawg doesn't get into office, we won't have to worry about this.

If she does, you'll be one the first countries China attacks.

...

>zero kill ratio
>12:1
Yeah its easy blowing the fuck out of russian peasent biplanes, but it was already obsolete in 1942.

That's just discretionary spending you mongrel. You're clinically mentally challenged if you legitimately think that >50% of the budget goes to the military.

They're not supposed to be. That's what battlegroups are for, genius. The Navy isn't stupid enough to let a carrier go into a hostile zone on its own.

Satellites are mostly designed to assist with terrestrial warfare. It is far too complex and difficult to make satellites that target other satellites in orbit, actually you'll find it's easier to get rid of satellites from conventional missile strikes on Earth. The most advanced system we have is basically a guided fridge that can be programmed to collide with another satellite. I am more interested in the effect particle-beam weapons can have, as they are more effective in space than from the air or from the ground. That is where a lot of DARPA funding is going towards.

Its too much, honestly.
In WWI and II we were learning on how to wage war and how to kill people, right now we are at the pinacle of that. Them you have different era technology that you need to compare with old timers equivalent, unpolished tatics(see pacific theater mention: american pilots turnfighting a6ms, them they proceed to develop Thach Weave maneuver them BnZ them evolved to 4 finger formation etc etc.)
You can control a country without firing a single bullet nowadays.

They would tear strips off our arse before we even got a boat out of the harbor.

As if we would politely inform our adversary that our stealth fighter bombers have entered their airspace.
You have a point about equipment, but the purpose of these aircraft into strike targets and leave before you can mobilise.

i suggest you get sober then talk

A sub from SWEDEN "sank" the USS Reagan in the middle of its battle group you nigger. That's with all the destroyers, the ASW helis circling (because it's a damn exercise and the battle group was given the advantage of actually knowing for certain there's a sub in the area) and the eother escorts ships maintaining a defensive posture. Plus, see here
It's easy to take an entire battle group by surprise.

Sink shit get nuked bitch

But seriously, you have got have some massive fucking balls to engage in Total War with the US of A

Just ask Europe and Asia

How do we weaponize these emus?

>a6ms were obsolete by 42
>he only says that because of midway
Again get your fucking facts, dont tell half truths.
Zeros didnt became obsolete, the US got their hands on them and did tests, and proceeded to develop maneuvers to counter it.
Japanese couldnt adapt with the N1Ks/other projects because they didnt had supplies.

Did you know when we have air exercises we purposely make our aircrafts easier to "hit" cause C list militaries were getting upset with loosing all the time

Millenial Challenge is a bit of a fucking joke, the commander had an axe to grind - it may have needed to be grinded but the ay he ran it was unrealistic - putting large supersonic anti-ship missiles on non-PGM's/Corvettes for example (all simulated mind you)- shit like putting zubr/moskit on fucking enemy landing craft/riverine craft/speed boats.

We fought an air superiority war in Vietnam the entire time we were there - while we had air superiority, we never achieved air dominance and Nam' was the war where the air force and naval aviation suffered it's worst win/loss ratio - although it was still a positive ratio.

We have a narrow tech advantage (8-15 years) and a training and funding advantage, our problem is going to be losses and attrition, we aren't prepared to lose a Carrier Group, but I'm sure we'll adapt, the issue is modern war is incredibly deadly, UCAV's are easily shot down.

It'll come down to war reserves and manufacturing capacity in the end, which ultimately means strategic nuclear exchange.

In war reserves we may have some advantages - we have a larger Air Force and naval aviation than China or Russia, and more up to date planes (for the most part, some russian shit is flat out better - like some of their heavy lift aircraft), and we have tons of planes in the airplane graveyard, probably more in storage, that could be brought up, quickly modernized, and sent out into the fray.
At some point Gen 4, 4.5, and 5 fighters will start to become scarce, because of attrition (mechanical - airframe and overuse, and being shot the fuck down) and will require rebuilds.
Trainer aircraft will be outfitted with armarments and sent into the fight.

Both sides are well provisioned in smaller arms, but frankly China and Russia have about 100 times more tanks than we do, we at best can re-activate about 1500 M1 Abrams' and probably another few thousand M60 Patton tanks - hopefully we update them to at least M60A3 RISE TTS standard, pref. w/ 120mm gun

Auscucks are just mad they are cucked by the chinks and they havent even attempted to navigate freely in their own waters!! Scared pussies Aaaaahahahahahahahaha faggots

>US, 11 aircraft careers, world's largest and most advanced naval and air force. thousands of M1 Abrams MBs, some of the most well trained and well equipped infantry with incredible logistics and tactical support.
allied to Australia, UK, S. Korea, Japan

>China, 1 severely outdated carrier they bought from Ukraine, millions of under equipped and under trained soldiers, air force comprised of updated pleb tier soviet technology, most of their military is disjointed and difficult to organize
allied to Pakis, Iranians, Stans (pajeet likely would not help China since they're not fond of each other)

>Russia, comparably smaller number of soldiers than US, not every soldier is equipped with latest gear, inferior air force (in numbers and tech).

really the only threat from ruskjes are their tanks, but air power can wipe them out
Also Russia has a stagnate economy and funding such a war would be disastrous.

America is the world power for a reason.

they do readiness exercises literally all the time user. The fuck do you think the fleet does when not on deployment or in the shipyard?

lol that world power who got raped by indochinese rice farmers with meme tier weapons?

America would kick the whole world's ass in a war

while you faggots are using most of your limited resources and money to educate niggers and muslims, we are using the majority of our unlimited resources to make sure we're many steps ahead in weapons

All those infographics showing our naval/air superiority are one thing... think about the secret shit that we have been cooking up since we won WW2 with the help from ayy lmaos

We are itching for somebody real to step up. What we are doing in the middle east is the military equivalent of giving some nerd a noogie in the hallway

We can't wait for someone worthy to fight us, we're honestly bored as shit

Oh yeah, and btw we put a man on the moon and we own not only this whole entire planet, but we own the moon and we also own this solar system

You forgot the part where they killed most of the fauna and flora of the country with napalms and agent orange.

The mighty/worthy indochinese rice farmers are bored too, why don't you try that again?

>Developed manuvers
More like devolped entire aircraft to counter it. The Grumman Hellcat had a 13:1 kill ratio against specifically the zero. Corsair ratio, 11:1. Thats obsolete. When you lose your veteran fighter pilots years before the war ends your aircraft are obsolete.

Wtf would a swede know about modern naval combat? you actually think we show our cards for your dumbass games?

>entire fleet
Modern logistics don't allow for large, grouped up "fleets" unless it's for force projection, i.e. prancing around. Instead you should consider all waters to be controlled by the US at all times.

The enemy might have the upper hand when it comes to willingness to attack civilians but our navy isn't insecure at all.

lmao ''yeah lets kill of the fauna+flora, thats what these gooks get for raping us so bad''

literal meme army + country

Not until 1995 did Vietnam release its official estimate of war dead: as many as 2 million civilians on both sides and some 1.1 million North Vietnamese and Viet Cong fighters.

During the war, the United States lost 58,220 military personnel, in which 47,434 were killed in action while 10,786 died by other causes

>we put man on moon
Yeah after stealing Russian and German scientific research making this possible in the first place.

Also you do know your country and military is owned by Israel and your Jewish overlords who control everything you do.

Nothing more than a string puppet.

You also never won a war since WW2.

>Dutch Education
Holy shit it can't be this bad can it?

russia won ww2 tho?

...

Wow, you went full sperglord.
>never won a war since ww2
Umm try again sweetie

Tell me with a straight face that I'm wrong. I dare you.

Yeah, Russia and Germany are responsible for the moon landing. That's why they've put so many guys onto the moon since we put 12 on the surface and returned them to earth safely

You know, with all those rockets they built that are bigger than the Saturn V with their great science and stuff

We've won some wars since WW2, you might ask Saddam Hussein how's it hanging if you see him around

What the USA has been doing since WW2 is basically police actions anyways, you know damn well nobody on this planet is in the position to challenge us militarily

Or what Sven? You will get your somali bull to kick his ass?

No, you cant take out the maneuvers from that.
USA pilots were strictly told to NEVER dogfight a zero regardless of model.
USA had also a fuckton of advantages such as knowing the enemy codes, supply routes, and all the other jazz.
Hellcats and death whistlers only achieved what they did because of said tatics, bnz tachts weave, etc.
Being outwitted is one thing, being obsolete if another.

China or russia would rape you in land combat lmao, either on their land or on yours

You better fight China soon or the entire world will be speaking Chinese.

This is concerningly small

>>comparing conventional war to counter-insurgency war

>>implying china didn't do worse against vietnam then the US did.

I don't know, you tell me.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_Navy_shipyards

Thats actually a big reason GM and affiliates were bailed out: manufacturing capacity is strategically more important a worker's house or 401k.

You, us, the filipinos, japs, worst korea, india, and even vietnam could be the dopest gang in the world.
NATO can bite a dick, Pacific hegemony with shitposters is where I want my grandchildren to grow up.
youtube.com/watch?v=W-Rxo0BW9R8

You haven't.

>War on Terror was a war
It wasn't. It was more of an excuse to invade a country for its resources, terrorize its population and gain strategic advantages.

Killing Saddam didn't win anything, all it did was stir up a fire in the MIddle-East that spread faster than the common cold which has been raging on since and is the entire reason we have this immigration problem today.

How did Afghanistan treat you?

>USA won WWII
Dont believe the kikes m8.
Brits and Russians won it.
Murricans took the credit.

you're retarded if you think anybody could beat USA in a land war here in the states

Our civilian population is armed to the teeth

It's irrelevant anyways because real weapons/drones/bombs etc exist and we have the best of the best and the means to deliver them anywhere we want

We already have everyone who could fuck with us cornered/surrounded

Ever played a game of risk?

It's very obvious who is winning IRL

Where they really fucked up was dismiss the Iraqi Army.

no war has been conventional since the 20th century, this isnt napoleonic times kid where armies would just meet up

That's just the naval air arm, so it's limited by the carriers of the US fleet

Absolutely, Jamal would beat him up so badly that he stopped sucking mestizo cock and dedicated himself to the somali dick instead.

>USA pilots told never to dogfight the zero
Source that Hueboon you're making things up to defend your meme katana planes. By 1943 Americans had better performing planes (meaning the zero is obsolete), better tactics and better experience.
>outwitted
Yes your right the Flying Tigers were btfo the japs in P fucking 40s.

I'm a bit fuzzy, but didn't the USA give both of those countries money and weapons to stay afloat?

Dear Americans don't let does fools fool you, I served in the IDF, no army is even close to yours, tech and size wise, you are 3 decades ahead of china/russia

At the end of the day it still takes time to build ships, if the war lasts long enough you'll start to see cheapened/downgraded ships being made.
That said Chinese and Russian navies are extremely submarine heavy in comparison.

Russia has 10 less active submarines (SSK, SSGN, SSN, SSBN) than us, and a large amount still in storage - granted some of them are rusted shitheaps, some of them aren't - they should be able to reactivate just under 10 kilos, 2 Typhoons, a handful of akulas, with maybe a delta sprinkled in.
If they can't pump out ladas fast enough, they'll just resort to making improved kilos (most are converted upgrades to kilo, some however were actually made in the late 90's so it's not just a product improvement package).
It's actually smart as fuck that they haven't abandoned Diesel Electric's like the US has, making more nuke boats isn't exactly a speedy proposition for any party involved, meanwhile Diesel Electrics are easy as fuck.
The only western power with extensive Diesel Electric manufacturing is the Germans, and Type 209's/212's are great and all but they aren't exactly fast to churn out either.

Meanwhile the Chinese have around ~ 57 Diesel Electrics alone, and are full steam ahead on production - but they are much lighter on the nuke side than Russia and the US

It's basically going to revolve around how many Diesel Electrics Russia and China can pump out. Also despite alot of Russian/chinese subs being louder/easier to track this isn't necessarily the case with these later diesel electrics when they are on electric drive (looking at a underwater capability of 1-2 weeks here at most tho)

Most of the surface ship war will be on Russia/China's turf - what the US has to worry about is convoy raiding, it's specifically what Russian and Chinese fleets are catered towards

>nor has it waged war against a foe on equal industrial capacity since world war 2.
Neither have China or Russia

China or Russia doesn't have the means for a large scale invasion of the United States.

How would you propose they logistically send troops here? This isn't red dawn where they can covertly move hundreds of thousands of troops through the North or into South America and invade upwards.

Come on man. China and Russian land forces are paper tigers and not useful for anything other than a defensive scenario.

well user, one thing is sure, they have the best logistics, the "intelligence" and the best troop supports and in huge quantity. Can't beat them militarily, the only way is some scifi hacking shit disabling all their communications or making their economy fail.

China havn't fought a war since with Vietnam in the late 70's (pro tip, they lost)

>China or Russia doesn't have the means for a large scale invasion of the United States.

But apparently mexico does?

are those finnish ships waiting for the bus?

>Haiti
>Grenada
>Panama
>Dominican Republic
>first Iraq war
Don't forget the real reason why they won. American oil.

Mexico can't even keep drug thugs in line.

Just from the top of my head Edward M. Young
42 book.
But once you see the specs of the planes and look up what kind of tatics and what kind of combat they were having in the pacific youll realise what im talking about.

Russia has a ton of planes sitting in storage (some are fucked rust buckets) that have so few flight hours it's insane.

And it has upgrade programs for all of those jets, geared towards foreign users.
I'm not so sure we can win the battle of air attrition, esp. when they heavily emphasize air defense to an insane level.

it's not about how we would fight the enemy
it's about how to defeat them without fighting

"give"
Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure.
If it werent for you own profit you woldnt even have stepped on yuro soil.

We outlawed the whole of baathists (the only people with experience in dealing with the problems.) It was a fucking horrible mistake that cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars. It was a price worth paying to punish any uncooperative dictators.

By 2008 we had Iraq as safe as most US cities. The surge worked, the militias were on our side, our local governments were eating out of our hands. What we couldn't control was the outright niggerdom that iraqis engage in when we aren't around.

We left it better than we found it, and they immediately fucked it up wither their savageness. Even liberals here believe that if we have to go back in, we're using russian rules to clean it up.

The Melenium challange meme needs to fucking die.
Firstly, bike couriers are not instantaneous.
Secondly, you can load speedboats with AShMs that weigh more that the boat.
Finally, carrier groups would never ever act locked in.
And that's disregarding the fact that the general ignored the purpose of the exercise (testing C&C stuff) in order to score political points.

>it's about how to defeat them without fighting

>Been in more wars than any other nation

You sure are doing a great job of staying out of conflict.

>implying the Constitution would be of any use in a conflict

Thank you for hueing that I'm right.

yep. Remember, USA beat USSR by basically staring them down like Clint Eastwood

If you want the land to be yours, you'll always have to fight man on man. Its as true today as it was in Napoleon's time.

They can't even afford to redo their tanks. The company making them went bankrupt because of the government scale back in tanks because of the price of oil dropping and shitting on their projected economic growth.
MiGs are pieces of shit.

russia's involvement in the ukraine is a disaster and the usa's goal was never to win the syrian war

>You sure are doing a great job of staying out of conflict.

We're SO SORRY for fighting commies and shitskin terrorists on behalf of the west for the last fuckin century

we apologize for being the greatest superpower Earth has ever seen fighting for GOOD and FREEDOM

sorry bout that

1 word. Vietnam.

The US faced off against multiple countries' aces that were sent to fight in the proxy war. Just because the k/d ratio for the US was 5 to 1 didnt mean they had air superiority on day 1... or even for half the war.

If you actually werent aware of that fact do a little reading. Its an interesting subject that is rarely talked about. Pretty much the entire region and Russia were involved in the air war at certain points. None of them "officially" entered the war though. Sort of like how US never sent Spec Ops into Cambodia and Laos

The only reason it didn't come to an all-out war is because both nations were scared shitless of each other due to the nuclear threat. They saw what nuclear devastation did to Nagasaki and Hiroshima and realized if one country did launch nukes the other would retaliate and pretty much doom half the earth's population.

Maybe if other NATO countries actually did something instead of bitch about shit and expect us to clean up the mess.

You have no clue eurofag

More like cleaning up the mess you're creating yourselves.

Nice proxy Trudeau you fucking leaf bitch. In this country WE win if we kill the enemy

>and we have 14 SSBN and any nation capable of sinking our fleet would surely receive the missiles quickly

Russia has 13 active SSBN's, with 4 more on ready reserve.
And more nukes than us, period.

We play big balls in a shooting war and launch first everything gets nuked.

MAD became obsolete in the 80s and was replaced by NUTS.

>Implying you didn't start shit in the middle east trying to get oil in the 80s

Np.
Despite building everything, the land owner is the one whose name will be engraved.

except that while the staring was going on both were stabbing each others backs(proxy wars, economic warfare, etc).
US outlasted the USSR.

they spend up to 4%, mongool

I'm fairly confident that the Navy has hypersonic point defense that will make the C-RAM look like a peashooter. Why would they show it off though, when all we're fighting are illiterate arab fucks.

>implying usa is a land of the free and fights for freedom
How delusional can you get? You're not even in the top 15 of most free countries on the planet. You only lead the world in number of incarcerated citizens per capita, defense spending and people who thinks angels are real, and literally every war you've fought the last 50-60 years have been for the benefit of Jews and the military industrial complex. Fuck off with that "muh democracy and freedom" meme, it's utterly retarded.
cato.org/human-freedom-index

i am aware of mutually assured destruction.

that's why this whole thread is kinda silly

we all know nobody would/could actually fuck with USA to this day

It'd be real easy to beat Russia now though. China would be pointless, we need the cheap shit those ants build for us for pennies

well if USA wasn't around to be a big scurry tough guy standing between the West and the commies your "country" would probably enjoy the freedoms it has

*probably NOT

One problem with the american defense industry, and this is partly because we are a multi-cultural shitheap, and partly because of Jewish dominance in our defense sector, is just how fucking porous it actually is.

When you have asian american naval officers selling classified information to the Chinese, Israel selling techinical data for the super hornet - a plane they do not even fucking use in the IAF - to the chinese, you have a real fucking problem - and thats just what we know about. We've even had chinese scientists leak defense industry secrets, or people just looking for a easy payment.

We may have an extremely large defense sector, but uniquely now compared to the cold war period we are extremely vulnerable to these kind of leaks.

I'm willing to bet China may have gotten their hands on radar cross section profile data for the F-22 Raptor - manufacture was afterall halted early.

Without those gibs can you honestly say that each country wouldn't have fallen?

You shouldn't talk shit about American military, when Australia relies on the US Navy to protects Australia's trade from IndoChina pirates.

Honestly if we were smart we'd bring back the cold warriors (cold war era generals) if this shit got hot, boot em back into the service, fuck retirement

The Swede gets it

do you guys understand countries like Sweden, Malta, Chile other tiny insect countries on that list exist under an umbrella of American military protection?

Hating on America makes no sense unless you are one of the bad guys

The basic truth is there are evil powers in the world and America is stronger than them. If we weren't so strong you'd very likely be living like a North Korean peasant

Oh yeah, you surely defended everyone from the scary commies, ask Simo how you helped him.
Also the US is responsible for the current immigration crisis, thanks bro, please keep stirring the pot on the middle east, kill Assad and see what happens while you are at that.

Ships in a CSG sit miles apart from each other. Even the most powerful nuclear weapon ever designed, at 100 megatons, would only destroy a single ship.

LOL

>muh commies
At least with them you know where you stand.

Logistics is one thing the US does incredibly, insanely well, this is why the goal of soviet land, naval and air forces was to cut off supply as a priority then encircle.

It's why the soviet navy only had at it's height 4 battle cruisers, 1 large carrier, and 3 V/TOL air craft carrying amphibious assault ships - and a modest number of capable destroyers and cruisers.

And hundreds of submarines.

The goal was to sink REFORGER ships, cut off the atlantic as best they could while they seized europe. They knew they would get fucked in the pacific, but they had the advantage of any land invasion through the pacific has to go through thousands of miles of empty land to get to anywhere really important in russia

tfw when the whole world is on the mcercy of the US

>Implying we won't slap AEGIS on it anyway

The one in the middle looks fine. I didn't know the US had such a fine looking aircraft carrier.

Thats hypothesis territory and i dont have a crystal ball for variables.
Brits where holding pretty well despite the u-boats sinking most of the cargo they bought.
You helped the russians a lot tho, their aviation was a joke till you and the germans lended them 109s and p39s, so were a bunch of other things.
I dont have a crystal ball so, no clue.

there are lots of Russians who would do anything to come to America to work for our minimum wage because it's better here

"On 21 March 2016, after two years of extended lifespan, the Space Engineering Office announced that Tiangong-1 had officially ended its service.[22][3] It was later announced that the station would re-enter and burn up in the atmosphere late in 2017.[23]"

Even the ISS is supposed to eventually deorbit once its lifespan is over.

You're trolling, right? That's the Charles DeGaulle, it's your carrier. Also, the only carrier outside the US to use a catapult. If you want another carrier fast, I hear the Kitty Hawk is on sale.

also, the ISS is not very impressive compared to what USA has done/is doing in space

>Russia
>Quality

If anything Russia and China have the numbers, and yanks have the quality, although British soldiers are better trained ;)

Kek. I see the kitty hawk every day and it looks like hot garbage.

Looks better than most ships her age

Dumbass the USA and any of the major military powers can easily fight asymmetrical wars.

The problem is purely politically. Modern nations hold too much regard to human rights and international conventions. They haven't fought a "total war" since WWII.

Dont talk bad about old people user, guy is a vet.

It currently takes 2 years to train a fighter aviator.
That's a more pressing problem. We should be able to reactivate and quickly upgrade F-4's and F-16A's, should be able to pop out F-16's at an okay rate.

We will run out of aviators well in advance.
You'll start seeing insane shit. Civilian pilots license holders being drafted, basically any ex jet fighter pilot alive, whether still in service flying cargo birds/helos/in a desk job, or dudes plain out retired.
Dropping the standards for flight school, and shortening all flight schools.
You'd see registered airline (those without military experience) pilots get conscripted into flying cargo planes while cargo pilots get rotated into fighter training.

Flying modern combat aircraft is an intensely complicated and specialized skill set

Navies are absolutely essential.

It is the primary source of "second strike" strategy via boomers.

Navy is the only way to get any real projection power (Protip: earth's surface is 70% water). Air power by itself doesn't have enough projection range and staying power.

Nuke strikes are notoriously inefficient against surface fleets - check Operation Crossroads, but that's not to say nukes aren't viable - there are nuke warheads for naval weapons systems cruise missiles, anti ship missile snad torpedoes, the idea being a near miss or interception can still take out one ship.
But no a single nuke, esp one not on a naval weapons system, won't do shit to a fleet. They travel too far apart, and even when close the effect isn't what you would expect.

The type of ship most vulnerable to nukes is a submarine, ie with an underwater detonation

Yet the midway looks pristine in comparison

We can't, period.
We can however make a metric shit ton of F-16's. The line is kept open for a reason, not only because F-35 will never be produced in those kind of numbers, but also because it's a remarkably efficient light fighter

Moment of silence for the Pueblo

Nukes will not lightly be deployed in such a conflict, believe me, there is even an escalation protocol agreed between US and Russia (soviet union back then) in case of conventional war.
The most likely scenario is there would be a truce at some point, or some form of temporary cessation of hostilities.
Neither side wants to be the first to launch.

As for the smaller nuclear powers - Britain and France, believe me we would sell them out in a heart beat to prevent an exchange between US and Russia

>NATO and US vs Russia in Europe

>Japan, South Korea, Australia, US vs China in Asia.

>Israel and US vs Russia and Iran in Middle East.

Is this the ultimate WW3 scenario?

Yes.
The T-50 sacrifices stealth and tech for ease of mass production and costs half that of an F-35, but either way most of the war will be fought with gen 4/4.5 fighters.
Also the F-22 line is closed. That is a big big problem.
You are talking a multibillion stim. package and a serious amount of time to restart production

bullshit.

The EMP from the nuke will make the fleet wortless

That's absolute horseshit and you know it. We've been neutral since the 1900s you haven't fought jack shit for us. And remind me again, how did getting BTFO by some gooks in the Vietnamese jungle protect the west from communism? How does the existence of North Korea (another communist regime you tried to wipe out and failed to do so) threaten our democracy?

Face it, Pablo. Your leaders have fucked you over good and you haven't done jack shit for freedom or democracy. Instead youve been exporting your identity politics and globalism to the rest of the West which is itself a serious threat against the very values, freedom and democracy, you say you stand for. No fuck that, fuck you and fuck America. You're the real threat to us.

Stealth drones (the newest generation) cost nearly as much as an F-35, and current gen UCAV's are hilariously easy to jam and shoot down.

UCAV's will only be useful in an air dominance environment.
We will never achieve air dominance against Russia+China

A reaper costs $16 million
A top of the line MiG-29 (2nd gen airframe - MiG-29M, MiG-35) costs around $29 million.
1st gen airframes cost $11 million in 1998, russia would be able to get 2nd gen airframes below the cost of a reaper, the reason why it isn't now is because slow trickling sales = slow production = higher costs

A brand new Su-25 Frogfoot costs 11 million, has a cannon, and can field IR and Radar guided AAM's and have shot down drones on a number of occasions.

Drones are extremely vulnerable

Honestly give it 20 years at the current rate and we could beat them

Yes and no, a state of war can exist prolonged between major powers that have sunk all of each others transport capacity and shot most of each others airlift capability out of the sky. Hell it can theoritically exist post nuclear exchange.
You can be assured if you get to that point the casualties will be absolutely horrendous, even before a nuke exchange.
Little differences like tech aren't going to matter as much when they can throw sams and fighters at you en masse

Kek. This scenario would destroy USA. You'd better hope it never comes to that. First up, home territorial defence. You need atleast, ATLEAST, three, four carrier groups to protect the west and eaat coast with a decent defence against a sophisticated group of attackers. That gives you 2 aggressive carriers per supposed theatre. If a sub/anti ship missile sank ONE carrier, that's a loss of 10% of your entire naval airforce, and the loss of the centerpiece of the naval group, completely ruining your naval doctrine, and the remaining carrier would most likely have to sit too far out from the shore to be able to mount an efficient air campaign, with fighters not only having to evade Air Defence systems but also be able to make it back to the flatdeck to refuel and rearm. Not to mention the loss of one carrier would be an enormous hit on public opinion who think carriers are the end all and be all of modern warfare (Protip; they aren't, subs are). Even ignoring that, while fighter pilots are famous to be ballsy, I don't think there is much of an actual eagerness to attack a sophisticated adversary whose radar is too modern to let "stealth" aircraft pass by. Once a couple of dozen fighters have been shot down, they too will think twice. Not everyone is afghanistan-tier you dumb yank. Besides they actually have to fight against an enemy whose political reason to fight isn't out-of-the-water retarded either. How many in the US military wants to fight an enemy they know is actually on the good side (Russia)?

tldr; usa will never be able to win more than a pyrrhic victory.

Except subs.

And it wouldn't be instantly, but it'd be goddamned fast, to the point the US is pulling back carrier battle groups in an attempt to save them.

an anyone translate this from arabic?

>USA has never had to fight for air superiority

usa=mangled cocks

You're lucky I can read Spanish so I can even reply to you.

tell me, how do you store food in your neckbeard for such long time?

hamster syndrome or what?

an exercise is an exercise. While carrier battle groups are bretty vulnerable because they revolve around the carrier, if that carrier goes down (it will) you still have to deal with AEGIS cruisers and destroyers and attack subs.

I think after losing a few carriers the carrier battlegroup concept will be laid to rest (in a way), surface ships will operate independently in small squadrons, subs in wolf packs, and carriers will take a step back being reserved for defense of the americas/british isles in range of land based maritime patrol aircraft.
A more vulnerable target even will be Amphibious assault ships (light carriers) you down one you not only down aviation you also down a battalion of marines with their armored vehicles and supplies - technically a juicier target

>Whats going to happen if USA wages war against China or Russia, and these countries are simply better commanded and USA is out matched?
Why do you care user? We are the ones who go without healthcare and if a drunk driving illegal mexcian hits us, have to refuse to give cop our name or else the ambulance ride ends up costing $1,200-$1,600, and if they force you to go (or if you are unconscious and can't refuse), you wake up after 3 days wit a $40 k bill, and that's with decent healthcare through your emplyer and united healthcare.

>tldr; usa will never be able to win more than a pyrrhic victory.

Yeah, but at least you'll be dead too, which is all that really matters.

>war against China or Russia

I don't think you know how much we spend on our military. We could BTFO both countries at the same time. Of course we don't have the manpower to OCCUPY either country, but in terms of destroying their power projection capabilities (destroying their ships, subs, airfields, etc) we would wipe the floor with them.

>US Army

youtube.com/watch?v=PndNRMUmuBE

In WE WUZ II german Army best trained and most disciplined in the world BY FAR and yet they lost against stubborn slavs

Americans morale is shit, relying on technology only

>Muh F-22
>MUH ABRAMS

pic and vid related

Not him, but there is the problem of modern top tier SAM's having ranges in excess of 300 miles.

AWAC's aircraft are going to be of primo importance in these scenarios

implying a war against actual modern armies wouldn't be conventional.

...

At this point, I honestly would not be surprised if the Koreans could get a nuclear missile through to the CA West coast.
Am US military, have been working here in Malta, hot as fuck and boring so have been reading a lot and listening to audio books.

How many people here know that 2 days after JFK's inauguration, the US airforce dropped 2 nuclear missiles in North Carolina and they armed and began the detonation mechanism?

One of them fizzled out, the other one made it ll they way through the detonation process until it was stopped by a 50 cent circuit.

Also, you know that Tom Clancy movie with the nigger "Crimson Tide?" That actually happened, only without the nigger bull and in the USSR during the Cuban missile crisis.

The US Navy was bombarding the Russian sub with depth charges, trying to get it to raise. By random assignment, the fleet commander was on this sub, and so it took a vote of 2 (rather than just the usual 2, the jewish commissar and the captain) to launch.

The fleet commander fought the other two to wait until they could raise and get a message and see in WW 3 had indeed begun ( don't you love race traitors like tom clancy, taking Euro history and sticking niggers into it?)

Japan was better than china in every way concievable and China held out for a decade, that said it's military history as of modern is generally shit but they are improving.

Russia, on the other hand, ate up most of the german military in WW2, despite being technologically inferior.

Russian anti-ship missiles are not a secret weapon. They can sink the entire US Navy within hours.

>US - 58k dead
>N.Vietnsm and Viet Cong - 440k-1.1M dead
>US raped

The war ended because it was an unpopula proxy war, not because Americans were utterly btfo'd. Go ready a history book

>Australia
>Melbourne
Stop posting, Chicom.

How scary is shit like this that the jews kept secret for 50+ years?
theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/20/usaf-atomic-bomb-north-carolina-1961

"A secret document, published in declassified form for the first time by the Guardian today, reveals that the US Air Force came dramatically close to detonating an atom bomb over North Carolina that would have been 260 times more powerful than the device that devastated Hiroshima.

The document, obtained by the investigative journalist Eric Schlosser under the Freedom of Information Act, gives the first conclusive evidence that the US was narrowly spared a disaster of monumental proportions when two Mark 39 hydrogen bombs were accidentally dropped over Goldsboro, North Carolina on 23 January 1961. The bombs fell to earth after a B-52 bomber broke up in mid-air, and one of the devices behaved precisely as a nuclear weapon was designed to behave in warfare: its parachute opened, its trigger mechanisms engaged, and only one low-voltage switch prevented untold carnage."

>US developed maneuvers to combat the zero.
>ONE GUY named Thach with ingenuity tests out his tactic with his wing-man and proves to the board its effectiveness

>since WWII
Bro, we were completely shitting on Japan and Germany in industrial capability.

>t. call of duty underaged kiddo

>They can sink the entire US Navy within hours.
Even as incompetent as the Us affirmative Action is these days, you think they haven't prepared for the chinese.soviet "Carrier killers?"

The real fear is, what happens if that fat little gook launches a nuke at seoul or even the US West coast if he feels like he's about to be forced from power?

Does anyone think the American AA navy could 100% knock it out of the air first try? Meanwhile, we are funneling billions to fucking israel to protect THEM against a nuke, when they fucking deserve one...

Land combat forces still get trained on old school navigation. Land Nav, Vehicle Nav, etc however I do fear it would put a damper on logistical forces navigation to an extent

You also forget that inertial navigation exists, and does not require satellites, and that many GPS guided weapons can use it or a TV guidance as a backup. Ships will guaranteed have these systems, as do aircraft.

There is also triangulation and radar navigation

But yes it will be a shock either way you cut it. But adaptable

>How do we know they are still in good shape?
We're not.
All of our "wars" since WWII have been CIA cleanup missions that backfire and drag on for years/decades. We just send soldiers to stand in fields and get shot in hopes that, someday, The CIAs retarded spy games will pay off for oil sands armaments companies.
Our shitty proxy war system is great for Boeing and Northrop-Grumman though, that's for sure.

>USA has never had to fight for air superiority nor has it waged war against a foe on equal industrial capacity since world war 2.

Read a book.

>How do we know they are still in good shape? One nuclear submarine and an entire battle fleet is dead in the water.

Read a book.

>One 'secret weapon' and it ends in a stalemate.

Explain, idiot.

>Whats going to happen if USA wages war against China or Russia, and these countries are simply better commanded and USA is out matched?

In this hypothetical situation, my guess is that the USA would lose. You retard.

>Look at the 2002 Millennium Challenge if you doubt any of this is true..

Van Riper was a faggot and completely ruined the exercise to stroke his ego.

The most pressing issue for Russian/Chinese forces would be to down spy satellites and any kind of western camera satellite first and foremost, they give the US the capability to spot large troop movements, locate naval fleets, and even fucking submarines if they operate in clear waters at periscope depth.
I'm not saying GPS and comms aren't very important, but if you fail to shoot down surveillance satellites you lose the war before it even gets off the ground

Thank you for the confidence, greatest ally.
Honestly would be fine with you guys if you were an ally and not just a money sink. Its the globalists that are the problem.

oil and armaments companies*

I'm not sure they have.

It's been a long time since the US fought with a competent opponent.

Given the amount of trouble they have with sand and jungle people who are grossly inferior in terms of military procurement-- it seems reasonable to think that more competent foes would cause serious problems for the United States.

I think technology has moved a long way since the last serious naval battles were fought and I think it will take some time for tactics to catch up in a serious fight.

I also question the political resolve of the US to continue fighting once it has been given a serious punch in the face [ie: carrier sunk].

We'll see what we'll see.

I don't know if he plays Cod or not, but that's 100% correct. And the real number of dead NVA/VC was 2 million.

Even the "Tet Offensive" which was said by Kron-kike and the Jew Snake Crimes to have been "an awful embarrassment for the US" was a strategic victory.

As General Westmoreland said, the NYT operated as a "5th column" and did more damage to the US war effort than "20 enemy divisions."

The Vc chose to stand and fight the US in a set piece battle one time-- operation starlite (I know, my old man was commanding a platoon in that battle).

They took over 1,000 kias to 8 for the US. The Americans never lost a battle in vietnam. It was lost by communist jews agitating at the homefront.

And moreover, the vast majority of Americans DID stand with Nixon agains the Judenpresse (his `1972 election victory was the largest in US history).

The Jews always hated Nixon for going after communist as he did (who were all jews).

serious post

i think future "world wars" will devolve into using nukes on navys at the beginning to get a advantage then quick mobilization of the army groups to get as close as possible to enemy cities/territory to avoid the use of nukes and then massive stalingrad/aleppo esque city fighting sorta like china vs japan, small scale nuke action at the beginning to get a naval advantage then tradtional war tactics

>its a another mentally retarded Burger who thinks US fought alone vs North Vietnam and compares highly inflated Burger claims of N.Vietnamese losses counting every cleansed village of civilians and ricefield worker as "enemy combatant" and on top of that slaughtered civilians without mentioning the several hundred thousand lost fighter and hundred thosuand civilian losses on the South Vietnamese side who actually fought the war while Burger joined in late to the party and got out when they got their ass handed by some bush monkeys.

>was a strategic victory.
correction was a TACTICAL victory. Actually would have been BOTH if fucking Kronkike would have shut his old Communist fucking mouth.

They have demostrations in DC where the drat-dodging jews would have huge banners in front of march "Communist revolutionary Movement" and a sea of NVA flags, and the fucking Jews in the Manhattan news would show a mother pushing a baby carriage with a "peace now" sticker.

Another myth about Vietnam is that poor boys went to fight and die, while wealthy men from wealthy families got deferments.

While some did, the proportion of US officer casualties in the vietnam war was higher than in any other war in American history.

What is interesting (can see all this in book "Stolen Valor: a Study of the Men who Fought and Died in the Vietnam War) is that JEWS were repesented at 1/5th (!!!) the number you would expect given their population number percentage.

So, while Americans (rich and poor) went to fight communists, the Jews stayed home and poisoned our women.

That assessment is 100% true, with slight caveat. ASW - Land based maritime patrol aircraft, Helo ASW and screens can still be effective.
The problem is carriers usually operate outside of land based maritime patrol aircraft range.

Modern MPA's- large ones like P-8 poseidon and P-3 Orion, can litter a patch of sea with active radar sonobouys, drop CAPTOR guided torpedo mines which can sit at a predetermined depth and link with the bouys waiting for a contact to engage.
Helo's can't carry the amount these planes can. Neither can carrier aircraft.

The issue with this is realistically you are limited in effective above water ASW to smart mine fields, if you want to be effective and actively hunt, you need a friendly sub with a track

>They took over 1,000 kias to 8 for the US.
>literally made up numbers to justify and excuse heavy U.S. losses to a bunch of bush monkeys
>its true the guys who made them up confirm and its writtin in the history books of the guys who made them up
>how can you not trust the guy who rapes an underaged Vietkong child and then murders her entire family and then claims he killed like 10 Vietkong to explain why he is out of ammunition and the grenades he sold for booze

I know a lot about the war, you're clearly avoiding me, bc you know you'll get your ass handed to you.

Other than the US, the only other Western power fighting was Australia. You motherfuckers suddenly think yourselves the world authority on peace bc the Jews have duped you into this (or maybe you are a Jew or a gook).

You know fuck all about the war. "burgers got their asses handed to them." The Us NEVER LOST A BATTLE in that war, what part of that do you not get?

As for "americans sitting back and doing noting," complete bullshit, the US fought harder than the South vietnamese.

The US lost Saigon when the Jews (I assume your kin) managed to push out Nixon, bc the gooks were absolutely terrified of him and thought he'd have no problem using a nuke on them.

You understand NOTHING about that war, other than, kike that you are, trying to sit there like you are somehow superior.

1) We have never waged a war against someone of equal industrial capacity in the modern era. Germany and Japan combined were outclassed by our industrial capacity alone, let alone that of the USSR and US.

2) Russia and China are never going to war with the US.

>how can you not trust the guy who rapes an underaged Vietkong child and then murders her entire family and then claims he killed like 10 Vietkong to explain why he is out of ammunition and the grenades he sold for booze
citation for this info please? a fucking kike talking out of his ass, trying to rile people up. You are a KIKE. I can tell just by your air if scumbag entitlement.

In 2014, you literally shit fish in a barrel during the invasion, over 1,300 of them women and kids, which you then sold for organs.

A JEW talking about war crimes, while parking his kike ass in GERMONEY. That's fucking rich.

why do I know not to wait for any citation? Or are you going to give me your favorite jewish movie as your source?

Amazing how the jews literally make up things like in "platoon," but we've yet to see even ONE Hollywood movie on the gaza-jew conflict. Why is that?

We have the best everything. Things we don't have the best of, we have the most of. Russia is a shell of its Soviet strength, and China's power is overrated and overblown.

We also have the largest global economy by far. You might not see it now, but if the US mobilized to full scale war mode a lot of countries we do business with but aren't necessarily allies will go dirt poor overnight.

The problem with economic warfare is once actual warfare breaks out it's no longer viable. Governments keep turning out IOU's and the first thing that would happen to the US economy in a world war would be a rapid de-globalization policy. Canada and Mexico would become our only trading partners, overseas economic transportation capacity would be non existent except for lend lease military equipment/ emergency food/etc supplies for governments transported on Merchant Marine ships with US Navy escorts.
.
The whole reason for the Soviet Navy's existence was to cut off western europe from the US - from US troops, supplies, equipment, you name it.
It's why soviets made hundreds of subs, outfitted some of their subs with SAM missiles.
Even if civilian cargo ships try to get coy by hoisting a neutral countries flag that shit won't last more than 5 seconds, the attack subs will clearly know they are exiting US waters.
Anything in the atlantic is in fucking dire danger when a sub can track and hit you with an AShM from hundreds of miles out