Re: The End of the Carrier Age?
Actually, the mounting US losses would generate so much political pressure at home, that the US wouldn't be able to carry out such a confrontation far enough, to see the end of the tunnel. And this is the realistic grand scheme of things ----- military operations cannot be executed in a vacuum without politics. But this is off-topic, which is the reason that I haven't brought it up so far.
Heh, bring in economics, U.S. economy drops like butter without China, neo-cons take the helm, public opinion polls show a pro-war movement, etc etc. For some reason, anybody that's anti-U.S. thinks they can 'win' by pulling a Vietnam, which is impossible as well, many things. But, off topic.
And you are assuming that only one initial wave of attack would have destroyed most of the counter-strike capabilities in China, for which it wouldn't happen, not even close. At the very least, China is too geographically diverse with the high-valued assets all spread out. And China would already have noticed even when such an air campaign is in the process of being assembled, let alone getting ready to strike. Once MRBMs and AShBMs have been launched to destroy the US airbases and the CVN flight decks, the superbugs would be out of picture, and the US wouldn't be able to continue with more waves of attack for a long time.
Ha. You are so blind. Russia to North. Afghanistan, to the West. SoKo and Japan, to the East. Australia, to the South. China is surrounded and U.S. forces are proliferating all over the area. China's response? AShBM. You should remember that it was you who brought up the idea of the DF-21Ds being launched after the superbugs/prowlers/growlers have been launched. Therefore, they are indeed still in the picture, and can face and defeat the majority of what it meets in the air.
Because this isn't the military and we don't need loyal followers here?
Course not, but this is a Chinese-Defense forum, if you're just going to blab and then let me blab and have this blab-off then no one really learns anything and all this is done is wasted time.
You underestimated the weapons capacity needed for the superbugs to take up such a task.
You underestimate the U.S.N./U.S.A.F.
The superbugs have to be destroyed before they need to be replaced. One is connected to the other. My interpretation wasn't off-based. But you are pulling numbers out of thin air again and again. The superbugs can only carry 8 AA missiles each time. And those are all they can use after MRBMs and AShBMs, have been launched to destroy the US airbases and the CVN flight decks.
To be fair, I was going after a nice, even, round number. You can pretend that the superbugs went into some Hollywood-dogfight with the J-10s if you want. Your assumption, is of course, that each superbug is invaluable, and if destroyed, becomes useless. I am stating, that if in such a scenario, that a superbug is to be destroyed, more will take it's place. While in China, per J-10 destroyed, it is unlikely that even the dragon's factories can produce much more J-10s, after the Chinese IADS has been circumvented and the factories destroyed by a long-range semi-stealth missile from a B-2.
Maybe you enjoy how the other "yes-men", have been entertaining you and wouldn't try to investigate more probable outcomes. First, several years ago China has already announced to switch from minimal deterrence to limited deterrence, and you can expect at least the western half of the US be thoroughly nuked in a counter-strike. Second, MAD scenarios would drag Russia into the nuclear exchange, for which I don't have to elaborate further. Third, your best hope is to be immediately vaporized, instead of having to sustain a slow death from wide-spread radiation contamination. It wouldn't matter if you were to survive from a bunker, when the atmosphere, soil, and underground water, are all contaminated with for example, Cs-137 with a half-life of 30 years or even worse, the deadly Pu-239 with a half-life of 24,200 years. Now, do you still fantasize of "winning" a nuclear war?
Ahh...this again. I have already told the guy who suggested, why China's nuclear deterrence is a flop. Nuking Russia will get China nuked. Russia is best in a world where China doesn't exist. A MAD scenario will not be so, as China, even though they've officially "switched" to a "limited" deterrence, really doesn't have anything that is comparable to the strike capability of our Nuclear force. Like so, in a neo-con U.S.A., it's really irrelevant if you nuke our major cities, because, well, at least we know you're all dead.
Let's just say that you probably haven't been reading what I wrote either, since you are so concerned of whether people are listening to you........
Great, not even being original anymore. Like I've said, you revert back to old arguments when your present ones flop, you accuse the other side of the deeds that he has accused you to circumvent investigation into your deeds, lets be quite honest, you've been leading this discussion because I let you lead it to show you how flawed your thoughts are. Like I've said before, grand scheme of things, AShBM v.s. Carrier, Carrier wins, U.S.A. v.s. China, U.S.A. wins, accept that or not, one thing is true, that this is off topic, why you don't listen to me, I don't know, if you're going to say I don't listen to you, you're proving my point.
You didn't answer my rhetorical question. If ASAT Missile can hit head on an 2 m3 object travelling at 18000 mile/hr. How hard it is to hit 400m long Carriere travelling at 35 knot using the same technology?.
ASAT =/= AShBM. The former uses a Thermal seeker, the Latter uses an ARH seeker. Just because the one before me can do the same doesn't mean the one after can also.
