I like to wonder what a war between all the super powers would look like, then I remember it would be over in 45 minutes.
Hypersonic missiles
- Thread starter Smokescreen
- Start date
- Status
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by thastinger
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
If you really want to look at the great Russian technology go back just to the 80s and Chernobyl.
Ziiiiiiing!
They also had a MIG that was supposedly capable of hitting the SR-71's cruising speed. However, if achieved, the engines required a complete rebuild upon return.
Foxbat, never claimed to hit SR-71 speeds but it was built as an interceptor for our bombers. 2.8 was its normal max speed but it had a reserve capacity to go slightly more than 3, not the fuel to do it but the possibility technically existed for it to do so in very short bursts.
Yup, that's the one. Supposedly it could achieve Mach 3.2 (the SR-71's cruising speed) but at severe risk of damaging the engines.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Originally Posted by JohnnyJohnson
If you really want to look at the great Russian technology go back just to the 80s and Chernobyl.
Ziiiiiiing!
They also had a MIG that was supposedly capable of hitting the SR-71's cruising speed. However, if achieved, the engines required a complete rebuild upon return.
Foxbat, never claimed to hit SR-71 speeds but it was built as an interceptor for our bombers. 2.8 was its normal max speed but it had a reserve capacity to go slightly more than 3, not the fuel to do it but the possibility technically existed for it to do so in very short bursts.
Yup, that's the one. Supposedly it could achieve Mach 3.2 (the SR-71's cruising speed) but at severe risk of damaging the engines.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
bubbatime, your ideas "appear" to make sense on the surface. But here in reality, they do not. You seem to think that the aircraft carrier is just some big, dumb, slow, defenseless floating island, but it's not even close to what you've imagined. There are a whole lot more layers to the onion of "taking out" an aircraft carrier than you simplify it to.
This is correct. The carrier task force with Aegis equipped technology knows who is around for hundreds of miles.
Technology is advancing. Drone swarms are the latest in battle strategies. The new Space Force which many laugh at is a step in the right direction
bubbatime, your ideas "appear" to make sense on the surface. But here in reality, they do not. You seem to think that the aircraft carrier is just some big, dumb, slow, defenseless floating island, but it's not even close to what you've imagined. There are a whole lot more layers to the onion of "taking out" an aircraft carrier than you simplify it to.
This is correct. The carrier task force with Aegis equipped technology knows who is around for hundreds of miles.
Technology is advancing. Drone swarms are the latest in battle strategies. The new Space Force which many laugh at is a step in the right direction
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by bubbatime
Well, a bunch of goat herders armed with WW2 bolt action rifles defeated a Russian super power in 1989. Using skill, determination, a will to fight, and sometimes luck, an inferior component can beat, or outlast, a much superior force.
Due solely to politics.
Every war since WWII has been a protracted mess because usually the "superpower" is, understandably, unwilling/unable to use the means necessary to end the conflict quickly. Look at Vietnam for example, it was quite possible to just nuke the works and end it. The same goes with Iraq. This isn't done not because of ability, but because it's not socially acceptable and would invite significant push-back from other nations; it's not "right", despite being technically feasible.
It's a complex topic where just things like the level of resources willing to be committed, the acceptable social costs, such as civilian casualties...etc weigh heavily on what the rest of the world sees as a response or engagement.
There is a marked difference between an all-out global conflict and these small tribal wars. In the former, very little will be left on the table, in the latter, there is only so much the people will be able to stomach and so yes, in these cases, sometimes a wholly inferior force can outlast the willingness for the opposer to engage. That should not be confused with ability.
Well, a bunch of goat herders armed with WW2 bolt action rifles defeated a Russian super power in 1989. Using skill, determination, a will to fight, and sometimes luck, an inferior component can beat, or outlast, a much superior force.
Due solely to politics.
Every war since WWII has been a protracted mess because usually the "superpower" is, understandably, unwilling/unable to use the means necessary to end the conflict quickly. Look at Vietnam for example, it was quite possible to just nuke the works and end it. The same goes with Iraq. This isn't done not because of ability, but because it's not socially acceptable and would invite significant push-back from other nations; it's not "right", despite being technically feasible.
It's a complex topic where just things like the level of resources willing to be committed, the acceptable social costs, such as civilian casualties...etc weigh heavily on what the rest of the world sees as a response or engagement.
There is a marked difference between an all-out global conflict and these small tribal wars. In the former, very little will be left on the table, in the latter, there is only so much the people will be able to stomach and so yes, in these cases, sometimes a wholly inferior force can outlast the willingness for the opposer to engage. That should not be confused with ability.
Originally Posted by bubbatime
Also, I've read many military books, manuals, training guides, etc, and almost all of them say to never underestimate your opponent. We have for years and years underestimated the opponent, because everyone told us how good we are, we have the best technology, we have the best planes, etc. Well, a bunch of goat herders armed with WW2 bolt action rifles defeated a Russian super power in 1989. Using skill, determination, a will to fight, and sometimes luck, an inferior component can beat, or outlast, a much superior force.
That's been true since the Revolutionary war. The British were an empire. They just eventually gave up and went home. Same with Vietnam and the French and the US.
Also, I've read many military books, manuals, training guides, etc, and almost all of them say to never underestimate your opponent. We have for years and years underestimated the opponent, because everyone told us how good we are, we have the best technology, we have the best planes, etc. Well, a bunch of goat herders armed with WW2 bolt action rifles defeated a Russian super power in 1989. Using skill, determination, a will to fight, and sometimes luck, an inferior component can beat, or outlast, a much superior force.
That's been true since the Revolutionary war. The British were an empire. They just eventually gave up and went home. Same with Vietnam and the French and the US.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
bubbatime, your ideas "appear" to make sense on the surface. But here in reality, they do not. You seem to think that the aircraft carrier is just some big, dumb, slow, defenseless floating island, but it's not even close to what you've imagined. There are a whole lot more layers to the onion of "taking out" an aircraft carrier than you simplify it to.
How do you stop mach 4-5 missiles? Do we have anything that can counter that? Lasers seem like an option, but I dont think that stuff is in prime time yet.
bubbatime, your ideas "appear" to make sense on the surface. But here in reality, they do not. You seem to think that the aircraft carrier is just some big, dumb, slow, defenseless floating island, but it's not even close to what you've imagined. There are a whole lot more layers to the onion of "taking out" an aircraft carrier than you simplify it to.
How do you stop mach 4-5 missiles? Do we have anything that can counter that? Lasers seem like an option, but I dont think that stuff is in prime time yet.
Originally Posted by PimTac
Drone swarms are the latest in battle strategies. The new Space Force which many laugh at is a step in the right direction
This. I think drones, thousands of them, is THE future of warfare. Overwhelm the defenses with drones and then mop up the rest with ground forces.
Can even pilot them back home with a bunch of 18 year olds.
Drone swarms are the latest in battle strategies. The new Space Force which many laugh at is a step in the right direction
This. I think drones, thousands of them, is THE future of warfare. Overwhelm the defenses with drones and then mop up the rest with ground forces.
Can even pilot them back home with a bunch of 18 year olds.
I see some cool stealth tech on the pylon from time to time. We are absolutely testing wild looking stuff.
A review of iSP (specific impulse) , exhaust discharge velocity and energy density is in order. There is no magic, fuels have limited capability and hypersonic toys are incredibly thirsty.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by bubbatime
Well, think about this. The United States has used the backbone of the aircraft carrier since 1940 to project power worldwide. The aircraft carrier put the battleship out to pasture. Everyone knows that whoever controls the skies, wins.
The Chinese, Russians, and everyone else have had decades to brainstorm ideas and ideas to mitigate and counter the threat, of the United States aircraft carrier. They all know that they cant compete with ships, they cant compete with air craft carriers, and they cant compete with planes. If US goes to war with Russia, or with China, do you think their military planners are just going to allow the threat of the US aircraft carriers to exist? I can guarantee that the FIRST thing they do is take out the aircraft carriers. A GOOD submarine crew could do it. Or a high speed supersonic missile. Or a tactical nuke that would take out the entire carrier battle group. Four tactical nukes could take out four carrier groups, and then bam, instantaneously, the war doesn't look so good for the Americans.
The day is soon approaching that the aircraft carrier group is put out to pasture, old, obsolete, like the battleships. Their will be new weapons, new technologies, that can just kill these carrier battle groups, or at least cripple them.
Also, Ive read many military books, manuals, training guides, etc, and almost all of them say to never underestimate your opponent. We have for years and years underestimated the opponent, because everyone told us how good we are, we have the best technology, we have the best planes, etc. Well, a bunch of goat herders armed with WW2 bolt action rifles defeated a Russian super power in 1989. Using skill, determination, a will to fight, and sometimes luck, an inferior component can beat, or outlast, a much superior force.
Your assessment of use of nuclear weapons leads in flat out nuclear war. Not going to happen. "Hypersonic" cruise missiles makes a carrier strike group strike from longer ranges but it does not completely take them out of the battle. As carrier based aircraft increase range and capability this negates the cruise missile threat to an extent. I understand the phycological need to feel the US military is somehow not ahead if our near peers by a large margin in technology and capability.
Well, think about this. The United States has used the backbone of the aircraft carrier since 1940 to project power worldwide. The aircraft carrier put the battleship out to pasture. Everyone knows that whoever controls the skies, wins.
The Chinese, Russians, and everyone else have had decades to brainstorm ideas and ideas to mitigate and counter the threat, of the United States aircraft carrier. They all know that they cant compete with ships, they cant compete with air craft carriers, and they cant compete with planes. If US goes to war with Russia, or with China, do you think their military planners are just going to allow the threat of the US aircraft carriers to exist? I can guarantee that the FIRST thing they do is take out the aircraft carriers. A GOOD submarine crew could do it. Or a high speed supersonic missile. Or a tactical nuke that would take out the entire carrier battle group. Four tactical nukes could take out four carrier groups, and then bam, instantaneously, the war doesn't look so good for the Americans.
The day is soon approaching that the aircraft carrier group is put out to pasture, old, obsolete, like the battleships. Their will be new weapons, new technologies, that can just kill these carrier battle groups, or at least cripple them.
Also, Ive read many military books, manuals, training guides, etc, and almost all of them say to never underestimate your opponent. We have for years and years underestimated the opponent, because everyone told us how good we are, we have the best technology, we have the best planes, etc. Well, a bunch of goat herders armed with WW2 bolt action rifles defeated a Russian super power in 1989. Using skill, determination, a will to fight, and sometimes luck, an inferior component can beat, or outlast, a much superior force.
Your assessment of use of nuclear weapons leads in flat out nuclear war. Not going to happen. "Hypersonic" cruise missiles makes a carrier strike group strike from longer ranges but it does not completely take them out of the battle. As carrier based aircraft increase range and capability this negates the cruise missile threat to an extent. I understand the phycological need to feel the US military is somehow not ahead if our near peers by a large margin in technology and capability.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Due solely to politics.
Victory in any war can occur only through the other side eventually making the political decision to stop fighting.
A "total war" strategy will not work, it becomes perceived as a genocide (because, well, it is a genocide) and generates widespread sympathy for their side from previously uninvolved third parties.
Due solely to politics.
Victory in any war can occur only through the other side eventually making the political decision to stop fighting.
A "total war" strategy will not work, it becomes perceived as a genocide (because, well, it is a genocide) and generates widespread sympathy for their side from previously uninvolved third parties.
Last edited:
Originally Posted by mk378
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Due solely to politics.
Victory in any war can occur only through the other side eventually making the political decision to stop fighting.
A "total war" strategy will not work, it becomes perceived as a genocide (because, well, it is a genocide) and generates widespread sympathy for their side from previously uninvolved third parties.
Thank you for common sense.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Due solely to politics.
Victory in any war can occur only through the other side eventually making the political decision to stop fighting.
A "total war" strategy will not work, it becomes perceived as a genocide (because, well, it is a genocide) and generates widespread sympathy for their side from previously uninvolved third parties.
Thank you for common sense.
Originally Posted by bubbatime
Well, think about this. The United States has used the backbone of the aircraft carrier since 1940 to project power worldwide. The aircraft carrier put the battleship out to pasture. Everyone knows that whoever controls the skies, wins.
The Chinese, Russians, and everyone else have had decades to brainstorm ideas and ideas to mitigate and counter the threat, of the United States aircraft carrier. They all know that they cant compete with ships, they cant compete with air craft carriers, and they cant compete with planes. If US goes to war with Russia, or with China, do you think their military planners are just going to allow the threat of the US aircraft carriers to exist? I can guarantee that the FIRST thing they do is take out the aircraft carriers. A GOOD submarine crew could do it. Or a high speed supersonic missile. Or a tactical nuke that would take out the entire carrier battle group. Four tactical nukes could take out four carrier groups, and then bam, instantaneously, the war doesn't look so good for the Americans.
The day is soon approaching that the aircraft carrier group is put out to pasture, old, obsolete, like the battleships. Their will be new weapons, new technologies, that can just kill these carrier battle groups, or at least cripple them.
Also, Ive read many military books, manuals, training guides, etc, and almost all of them say to never underestimate your opponent. We have for years and years underestimated the opponent, because everyone told us how good we are, we have the best technology, we have the best planes, etc. Well, a bunch of goat herders armed with WW2 bolt action rifles defeated a Russian super power in 1989. Using skill, determination, a will to fight, and sometimes luck, an inferior component can beat, or outlast, a much superior force.
A bunch of goat herders who had already been engaged in civil war for a great period of time (hardly just a bunch of goat herders) armed with blowpipe missiles, stinger missiles, and more.
The opponent has not been underestimated. Russia is a poorly put together house of cards that cannot sustain a war against the world for an extended period of time. Russia and China have gone out of their way to ensure they have few actual loyalties to them in this world.
They both have enough history of being very bad neighbors that pretty much everyone is going to align against them as a matter of self-preservation.
This detail helped lead Russia to a devastating loss against a nation they never even engaged in battle with. They collapsed from the mere act of preparing for battle.
Geographically and politically, there are no valid Russian or Chinese footholds in the American continents. We have plenty of allies on their doorsteps. War with the US would be a stupid thing for them that can't possibly end well.
This is why war of this scale has been unheard of since WW2. The saber Rattlers know that the best case scenario is to proudly preside of tremendous graveyards and piles of rubble.
Well, think about this. The United States has used the backbone of the aircraft carrier since 1940 to project power worldwide. The aircraft carrier put the battleship out to pasture. Everyone knows that whoever controls the skies, wins.
The Chinese, Russians, and everyone else have had decades to brainstorm ideas and ideas to mitigate and counter the threat, of the United States aircraft carrier. They all know that they cant compete with ships, they cant compete with air craft carriers, and they cant compete with planes. If US goes to war with Russia, or with China, do you think their military planners are just going to allow the threat of the US aircraft carriers to exist? I can guarantee that the FIRST thing they do is take out the aircraft carriers. A GOOD submarine crew could do it. Or a high speed supersonic missile. Or a tactical nuke that would take out the entire carrier battle group. Four tactical nukes could take out four carrier groups, and then bam, instantaneously, the war doesn't look so good for the Americans.
The day is soon approaching that the aircraft carrier group is put out to pasture, old, obsolete, like the battleships. Their will be new weapons, new technologies, that can just kill these carrier battle groups, or at least cripple them.
Also, Ive read many military books, manuals, training guides, etc, and almost all of them say to never underestimate your opponent. We have for years and years underestimated the opponent, because everyone told us how good we are, we have the best technology, we have the best planes, etc. Well, a bunch of goat herders armed with WW2 bolt action rifles defeated a Russian super power in 1989. Using skill, determination, a will to fight, and sometimes luck, an inferior component can beat, or outlast, a much superior force.
A bunch of goat herders who had already been engaged in civil war for a great period of time (hardly just a bunch of goat herders) armed with blowpipe missiles, stinger missiles, and more.
The opponent has not been underestimated. Russia is a poorly put together house of cards that cannot sustain a war against the world for an extended period of time. Russia and China have gone out of their way to ensure they have few actual loyalties to them in this world.
They both have enough history of being very bad neighbors that pretty much everyone is going to align against them as a matter of self-preservation.
This detail helped lead Russia to a devastating loss against a nation they never even engaged in battle with. They collapsed from the mere act of preparing for battle.
Geographically and politically, there are no valid Russian or Chinese footholds in the American continents. We have plenty of allies on their doorsteps. War with the US would be a stupid thing for them that can't possibly end well.
This is why war of this scale has been unheard of since WW2. The saber Rattlers know that the best case scenario is to proudly preside of tremendous graveyards and piles of rubble.
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Originally Posted by mk378
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Due solely to politics.
Victory in any war can occur only through the other side eventually making the political decision to stop fighting.
A "total war" strategy will not work, it becomes perceived as a genocide (because, well, it is a genocide) and generates widespread sympathy for their side from previously uninvolved third parties.
Exactly. Well-put.
Originally Posted by OVERKILL
Due solely to politics.
Victory in any war can occur only through the other side eventually making the political decision to stop fighting.
A "total war" strategy will not work, it becomes perceived as a genocide (because, well, it is a genocide) and generates widespread sympathy for their side from previously uninvolved third parties.
Exactly. Well-put.
Originally Posted by bubbatime
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
bubbatime, your ideas "appear" to make sense on the surface. But here in reality, they do not. You seem to think that the aircraft carrier is just some big, dumb, slow, defenseless floating island, but it's not even close to what you've imagined. There are a whole lot more layers to the onion of "taking out" an aircraft carrier than you simplify it to.
How do you stop mach 4-5 missiles? Do we have anything that can counter that? Lasers seem like an option, but I dont think that stuff is in prime time yet.
If it is traveling on a steady course at a steady speed, it is just simple math - plot an intercept course and shoot it down with a contemporary missile.
Originally Posted by SubieRubyRoo
bubbatime, your ideas "appear" to make sense on the surface. But here in reality, they do not. You seem to think that the aircraft carrier is just some big, dumb, slow, defenseless floating island, but it's not even close to what you've imagined. There are a whole lot more layers to the onion of "taking out" an aircraft carrier than you simplify it to.
How do you stop mach 4-5 missiles? Do we have anything that can counter that? Lasers seem like an option, but I dont think that stuff is in prime time yet.
If it is traveling on a steady course at a steady speed, it is just simple math - plot an intercept course and shoot it down with a contemporary missile.
Ships have other defenses as well such as jamming and decoys. They also have CIWS.
I know our carriers are very well-defended. I'm familiar with anti-missile missiles, CIWS, etc. But, they can't stop everything.
In a war scenario, an enemy could just hit one of our carriers with hundreds of ASMs simultaneously. You're not going to stop all of them.
In a war scenario, an enemy could just hit one of our carriers with hundreds of ASMs simultaneously. You're not going to stop all of them.
This is true, but unless one takes out every carrier in service, intact, or under construction, that nation is going to die in a fire.
We lost carriers during WW2. How did that story end for the Japanese?
How many souls aboard a carrier? 6000 or so? Think about the last time the US lost 6000 lives in a single day. I'm not sure that Total War is out of the question if a nation sinks a US carrier.
I'm confident we would witness the first occurrence in history of a Global Alliance turning against a single nation.
We lost carriers during WW2. How did that story end for the Japanese?
How many souls aboard a carrier? 6000 or so? Think about the last time the US lost 6000 lives in a single day. I'm not sure that Total War is out of the question if a nation sinks a US carrier.
I'm confident we would witness the first occurrence in history of a Global Alliance turning against a single nation.
I doubt it would be a NATO vs. xxxxx situation.
I think most of the planet would either get out of the way or support. There was significantly more support after 9/11 than NATO, and the destruction of an aircraft carrier would likely be as bad or worse.
I think most of the planet would either get out of the way or support. There was significantly more support after 9/11 than NATO, and the destruction of an aircraft carrier would likely be as bad or worse.
- Status
