[NYYS]

You seem to be trolling more than usual, Yankee.

funny how me trolling is the exact same as you posting normally

[Monthu]

The laws of physics apply the same wherever in the world you happen to be. If you want a stealthy plane, in this case a fighter, it has to be a generic stealthy shape when combining maneuverability with stealth.

Yeah? Then why doesn't it look more like a YF-23? You know why?
Because they knew our design worked, therefore was deemed logical to copy.

[Typhoon]

^ Come on the PAK-FA has been compared to and declared a copy of every 5th generation fighter under the sun and some of the previous generations as well, yet its got design features that none of the others posess. It follows the heritage of stealth aircraft back to the F-117 but that does not mean that it is not an unoriginal design.

[Igor Antunov]

Yeah? Then why doesn't it look more like a YF-23? You know why?
Because they knew our design worked, therefore was deemed logical to copy.

US also knew mig-25 design worked (but construed it incorrectly thinking it was something else) and the response was the F15.

Quite frankly, you're failing to convince me.

[MB.]

nm

[Monthu]

Quite frankly, you're failing to convince me.

Okay, carry on, the PAK-FA looks nothing like the F-22, class dismissed.

[Cookie Monster]

The conventional ICBM is a hot topic. Even when developed and adopted, I don't think it's likely that ICBM's will be used in the early stages of a conflict. You have to consider the fact that for an enemy it's hard to determine whether the ICBM in use has a conventional or nuclear payload. Use of ICBM's means risking nuclear war.

Moreover you have to consider the economics of warfare. No country is likely to use so many long range missiles against a single carrier in a single event. Sure it could bring a carrier down, but you are using multi-million dollar assets here. Moreover you want to keep some in spare for later use. So yes a volley of 100 long range missiles could bring a carrier down, but such a scenario is not likely to occur.

[Igor Antunov]

You have to consider the fact that for an enemy it's hard to determine whether the ICBM in use has a conventional or nuclear payload. Use of ICBM's means risking nuclear war.

This isn't an ICBM, it's a mid-range ballistic missile. Makes for a common strategic conventional weapon. Saddam used them against israeli cities and didn't get nuked. He could have loaded them up with biological/chemical agents for all the israelis knew.

Moreover you have to consider the economics of warfare. No country is likely to use so many long range missiles against a single carrier in a single event. Sure it could bring a carrier down, but you are using multi-million dollar assets here.

Far cheaper than building a carrier to counter that carrier. And 1000 such missiles is not out of the question. Russia and the US have 300+ ICBM's each, and those are 15,000km range toys, this is just a theatre range ballistic weapon. 100 of these per carrier was a ridiculous overkill hypothetical on my part, Less than 10 would probably be enough considering the speeds, ability of the missile to change course rapidly and multiple warheads per missile involved. The most impressive anti ballistic missile system would have huge issues with a mere 20% success rate against such a target.

[Cookie Monster]

This isn't an ICBM, it's a mid-range ballistic missile. Makes for a common strategic conventional weapon. Saddam used them against israeli cities and didn't get nuked. He could have loaded them up with biological/chemical agents for all the israelis knew.

Others were mentioning conventional ICBM's the use of which is problematic because it's seen as a strategic weapon and nuclear powers aren't too keen seeing it on their radar. Obviously you won't get nuked for using Scud's. Although Israel was considering retaliation attacks but the US had to put some pressure to prevent that from happening.

Far cheaper than building a carrier to counter that carrier. And 1000 such missiles is not out of the question. Russia and the US have 300+ ICBM's each, and those are 15,000km range toys, this is just a theatre range ballistic weapon. 100 of these per carrier was a ridiculous overkill hypothetical on my part, Less than 10 would probably be enough considering the speeds, ability of the missile to change course rapidly and multiple warheads per missile involved. The most impressive anti ballistic missile system would have huge issues with a mere 20% success rate against such a target.

You obviously don't need a carrier to counter a carrier. In fact it would be counter productive if you don't have the resources nor the geopolitical incentives to build a dominant blue navy. Yes carriers are quite vulnerable against anti-ship missiles. In fact carriers, especially supercarriers, are vulnerable ships that cannot venture outside their battle group. But they excell in power projection thus are not likely to disappear because of anti-ship missiles. But I do think they might be replaced, due to technological invocation and economic incentives, by lighter carriers or frigates capable of launching and retrieving naval UCAV's or perhaps even submarines capable of launching UCAV's.

[MB.]

Those things will never replace aircraft carriers because fleet admirals won't serve on your silly jeune ecole navy of escort boats and submarines.

[Cookie Monster]

I think eventually the large aircraft carriers will see their end due to technological innovation and economic need.

[Godstud]

Definitely, Cookie Monster. This is a reason why many aircraft carriers in other countries have shrunk or even been deemed obsolete. They are extremely expensive to maintain, and the US is the only country in the world with a big enough military budget to be able to afford such extravagant spending.

[Rilzik]

So what about the newer SM-3 missiles? We have a new one and another one expected out in 2015.

According to wiki in 2009 we started working on developing radar specifically for anti ship and ballistic missile threats.

Retaliation might make it not worth it but couldn't we just blow up the three satellites that are used to give the DF-21D it's range and ability to target moving ships?

[Godstud]

Seeing how these anti-satellite missiles are launched from F-15s, it seems entirely reasonable that in a situation like this, the first task would be to take out the satellites and render the missile tracking useless. The missile attack would, in theory, only happen once.

[Rilzik]

Right but china could do the same and US forces I would imagine are much more dependent on them especially in China's home turf. I wonder if we can't hit this anti-ship missile if we would take out their satellites and then hope our missile defense is capable enough to defend our satellites.

Which also brings up the question of how ready the US military is for the losing or at least interrupted satellite/communications.

Which brings up another point, as horrible as it would be, we would finally see the full ability of US offensive cyber warfare, thought to be the best in the world (though we vulnerable defensively). Not implying that China doesn't have formidable capabilities as well.

[MB.]

US/NATO is not going to lose satellite communications. USAF aerospace command is the world leader in robust space command & control, space defense, and missile/BMD. No other country even comes close to challenging let alone surpassing US joint space assets.

[Rilzik]

I guess, the only satellite I know anything about are GPS, and there are like 30+ of them. Although By communication I meant more electronic/network communication and by now I am sure Chinese intel has a few key systems or bottlenecks pick out that could be exploited.

[Igor Antunov]

space defense

Examples? I am not aware of any satellite defense systems in place. And they need not cripple your communication capabilities worldwide, just over and around China herself. That is doable.

[MB.]

Hardened satellites? Distant orbits? ECM? Stealth Technology? Maybe if you did some research, read a book or two, you might have some idea what you're talking about.

[Igor Antunov]

Hardened satellites?

No way it could survive even an indirect strike.

Distant orbits?

Lasers.

ECM?

Cloaking?

Stealth Technology?

Ties in with ECM systems, totally inadequate. Your main and most extensive communications constellation is the GPS network, and everybody knows where each member satellite is at any moment.

And it would be so easy to blind or destroy all and any satellites venturing over a country using ground based lasers.