Superpower status, is it worth it?
The only problem with preemptive striking is it could redraw the lines of battle. A neutral country might side with the country they saw as the victim. If you have a world with complex alliances set up, this could be a big problem. If, however, you assume that everyone is on a side, I don't see why a sucker punch would be bad, except that it could encourage the other side to also push the limits of acceptable war.
-
The Beatles
- Fear me for I am root
- Posts: 6285
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:12 pm
Volkov:
I stand by that, unless you'd like to further discuss it. None of the latter three were representative powers of the world at the time of their height. In the USSR's case perhaps this was because it was overshadowed by the USA.
The Beatles wrote:The three empires I mentioned were [successful] bastions of civilized/free world during their reign. I do not think that China, Spain or the USSR have any competition in that matter.
I stand by that, unless you'd like to further discuss it. None of the latter three were representative powers of the world at the time of their height. In the USSR's case perhaps this was because it was overshadowed by the USA.
:wq
"representative powers" is not neccesarily the same as "bastions of civilized/free world"... it all depends on who you're representing. I'd say spain most likely represented european viewpoints towards native people, if to a somewhat extreme point. But hey, you could say we represent capitalism to its extreme too.
"They did not equal the Romans in any way shape or form. The Chinese had an empire at that time, but the geographical extent wasn't as big the Romans, and they had no subject peoples that they had conquered. In addition, their army wasn't particularly impressive. In short, the Romans would have pwned their candy asses."
I am going to have to comment on this previous statement, or it wouldn't do Han China justice to be called "candy asses".
The Han Dynasty (which existed during the same period as the Republic/Empire of Rome) rivaled the Romans in every shape and form.
Their army was actually quite impressive. The Romans had particularly weak cavalry. A good example of this would be the battle of Carrae. 40,000 Roman Legions vs 10,000 Parthia Horse Archers and 1,000 Cataphract (heavy cavalry). Romans were routed. On the other hand, the Han had very strong cavalry armed with spears and bows. The chinese were particularly adept in their crossbows. Their crossbows were semi-automatic, known as the Nu. They fire about 5, the bolts are in a small rack, the operator must pull some kind of a trigger to get the next bolt up. The one that fires 10 bolts continuously is called the 诸葛弩(zhu ge nu *westerners translate it into cho ku nu, sounds familiar?*) In Han China, crossbowmen were arranged in 3 ranks, in alternate fire (front rank - fires; rear rank reloads; middle rank advances). Doing so ensures a consistant barrage. These crossbowmen are protected by a shield wall of heavy infantry from melee attacks. In a battle against the Romans, the legionnaires would be pummeled with crossbow bolts from afar, while Han horsemen would flank or attack the legions from the rear. Infantry-wise, Han outnumbered the Romans. During the Han Dynasty, they had managed to smelt iron. This would have given the Hans an upper hand in combat and armor. Longer swords wielded by the Hans would have played a role against the short swords used by legionaries.
Besides, the Chinese had their arts of war. If the best Roman general was matched up to the best Chinese general of the Han dynasty, I would say that the Han army would win. The Roman army would be outmanoeuvered, trapped, be assailed day and night and suffer nervous break down. Night attack tactics were studied to the art of perfection in the Han army. I believe that the Han would cream the Romans using the same tactic, especially when the Romans rarely encountered such tactics before. And night attacks were just one of the many tactics used.
And lets look at the empires, population-wise. In AD2, a census put Chinese population at 57,671,400 while the estimated population of Roman Empire at the same time was only 7 million. The Chinese could field armies of a million troops, while the Romans, at their height, had 250,000 legionaires and a equal number of auxiliaries.
You can't compare how great an empire is by the number of people they conquered. (Han china also conquered its surrounding neighbours, amongst them the Koreans and the Vietnamese) Most of Roman's enemies were technologically inferior and had less people.
Han China had the most advanced Seige and Missle weapon at the time, Rome has no known mobile seige during Han dynasty time. And, as mentioned earlier, Han had much superior calvary which is key to break up Roman infantry formations.
On the other hand, the Huns provide a good comparison of the two empires. The Huns were pushed out of western China and beyond by the Han to open and protect "silk road". After that, the Huns rampaged through Europe. Rome was at the verge of being defeated before Attila died.
During Han times, the Chinese distinguished themselves in making scientific discoveries, many of which were not known to Westerners until centuries later. The Chinese were most advanced in astronomy. They invented sundials and water clocks, divided the day equally into ten and then into 12 periods, devised the lunar calendar that continued to be used until 1912, and recorded sunspots regularly. In mathematics, the Chinese were the first to use the place value system, whereby the value of a component of a number is indicated by its placement. Other innovations were of a more practical nature: wheelbarrows, locks to control water levels in streams and canals, and compasses.
I realize I might have bombarded your minds on Han china's impressive army, but you cannot name the great empires without mentioning China; seeing as it still stands today after 5000 years of history. The fact is, I wouldn't have commented if the ignorance didn't seep out of some of the comments. I've just recently done some reading on Han China, and you are the misfortunate ones to have to read through all of this
I am going to have to comment on this previous statement, or it wouldn't do Han China justice to be called "candy asses".
The Han Dynasty (which existed during the same period as the Republic/Empire of Rome) rivaled the Romans in every shape and form.
Their army was actually quite impressive. The Romans had particularly weak cavalry. A good example of this would be the battle of Carrae. 40,000 Roman Legions vs 10,000 Parthia Horse Archers and 1,000 Cataphract (heavy cavalry). Romans were routed. On the other hand, the Han had very strong cavalry armed with spears and bows. The chinese were particularly adept in their crossbows. Their crossbows were semi-automatic, known as the Nu. They fire about 5, the bolts are in a small rack, the operator must pull some kind of a trigger to get the next bolt up. The one that fires 10 bolts continuously is called the 诸葛弩(zhu ge nu *westerners translate it into cho ku nu, sounds familiar?*) In Han China, crossbowmen were arranged in 3 ranks, in alternate fire (front rank - fires; rear rank reloads; middle rank advances). Doing so ensures a consistant barrage. These crossbowmen are protected by a shield wall of heavy infantry from melee attacks. In a battle against the Romans, the legionnaires would be pummeled with crossbow bolts from afar, while Han horsemen would flank or attack the legions from the rear. Infantry-wise, Han outnumbered the Romans. During the Han Dynasty, they had managed to smelt iron. This would have given the Hans an upper hand in combat and armor. Longer swords wielded by the Hans would have played a role against the short swords used by legionaries.
Besides, the Chinese had their arts of war. If the best Roman general was matched up to the best Chinese general of the Han dynasty, I would say that the Han army would win. The Roman army would be outmanoeuvered, trapped, be assailed day and night and suffer nervous break down. Night attack tactics were studied to the art of perfection in the Han army. I believe that the Han would cream the Romans using the same tactic, especially when the Romans rarely encountered such tactics before. And night attacks were just one of the many tactics used.
And lets look at the empires, population-wise. In AD2, a census put Chinese population at 57,671,400 while the estimated population of Roman Empire at the same time was only 7 million. The Chinese could field armies of a million troops, while the Romans, at their height, had 250,000 legionaires and a equal number of auxiliaries.
You can't compare how great an empire is by the number of people they conquered. (Han china also conquered its surrounding neighbours, amongst them the Koreans and the Vietnamese) Most of Roman's enemies were technologically inferior and had less people.
Han China had the most advanced Seige and Missle weapon at the time, Rome has no known mobile seige during Han dynasty time. And, as mentioned earlier, Han had much superior calvary which is key to break up Roman infantry formations.
On the other hand, the Huns provide a good comparison of the two empires. The Huns were pushed out of western China and beyond by the Han to open and protect "silk road". After that, the Huns rampaged through Europe. Rome was at the verge of being defeated before Attila died.
During Han times, the Chinese distinguished themselves in making scientific discoveries, many of which were not known to Westerners until centuries later. The Chinese were most advanced in astronomy. They invented sundials and water clocks, divided the day equally into ten and then into 12 periods, devised the lunar calendar that continued to be used until 1912, and recorded sunspots regularly. In mathematics, the Chinese were the first to use the place value system, whereby the value of a component of a number is indicated by its placement. Other innovations were of a more practical nature: wheelbarrows, locks to control water levels in streams and canals, and compasses.
I realize I might have bombarded your minds on Han china's impressive army, but you cannot name the great empires without mentioning China; seeing as it still stands today after 5000 years of history. The fact is, I wouldn't have commented if the ignorance didn't seep out of some of the comments. I've just recently done some reading on Han China, and you are the misfortunate ones to have to read through all of this
-
Gen. Volkov
- I'm blue, if I was green I would die.
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Boringtown, Indiana
Unfortunately you have grossly underestimated the Romans. You may have just gotten done studying Han China, but I have just gotten done studying the Roman empire. I would really rather prefer not to have to go through the points you made one by one, as it was a rather long post. But it seems I have too.
Attila ravaged Europe during the 5th century AD. 4 centuries AFTER the end of the Republican period. Your comparison is not valid.
In short, I say again, the Chinese would have gotten pwned by the Romans, who were the more experienced conquerors, more experienced warriors, and were better led than the massive conscript Chinese armies.
Also, the Chinese conquered surrounding civilizations yes, but unlike the ones the Romans conquered, they were less advanced, the Romans conquered first everyone on the Italian peninsula, then the Greeks, then the rest of the Hellenistic world. None of those peoples were less advanced than the Romans. Also, by the end of Augustus' reign, the imperial census put the Roman empire at 50-100 million people. The fact that the army was small did not mean that didn't have the manpower. It was to relieve the burden on the people of the empire. They had had an army 700 thousand strong. Han China would have been pwned by the Romans, and was not equal in any way shape or form.
The Battle of Carrae is NOT a good example. The Romans were very effective against cavalry, which other engagments proved time and again. That particular battle was with a very tired legion that had been marching out for the spring campaign with a general at the head who was perhaps not the best one for that situation. If you look at the numerous other Roman battles involving cavalry, you will find that it did not trouble them as much as one might think. The Romans had archers and slingers that could have given as good as they got with the crossbowmen. Their most powerful ranged weapon was the roman javelin or "pilum" which, in addition to killing people, had a soft iron heads that fouled shields. So the crossbowmen no longer have shields to protect them. Additionall the Romans were very adept at defending themselves from projectile attacks. So that eliminates the crossbowmen from the equation, leaving the horsemen, and Romans by that time had a cavalry force that could have countered the Han one. And the Romans had had iron for a long long time when the Han just learned how to smelt it. The point of the Roman gladius is to jab from behind that big pocking shield they carry, which they would have used to fend off the longer chinese swords whilst the shorter ones punched through the Chinese armor.Their army was actually quite impressive. The Romans had particularly weak cavalry. A good example of this would be the battle of Carrae. 40,000 Roman Legions vs 10,000 Parthia Horse Archers and 1,000 Cataphract (heavy cavalry). Romans were routed. On the other hand, the Han had very strong cavalry armed with spears and bows. The chinese were particularly adept in their crossbows. Their crossbows were semi-automatic, known as the Nu. They fire about 5, the bolts are in a small rack, the operator must pull some kind of a trigger to get the next bolt up. The one that fires 10 bolts continuously is called the 诸葛弩(zhu ge nu *westerners translate it into cho ku nu, sounds familiar?*) In Han China, crossbowmen were arranged in 3 ranks, in alternate fire (front rank - fires; rear rank reloads; middle rank advances). Doing so ensures a consistant barrage. These crossbowmen are protected by a shield wall of heavy infantry from melee attacks. In a battle against the Romans, the legionnaires would be pummeled with crossbow bolts from afar, while Han horsemen would flank or attack the legions from the rear. Infantry-wise, Han outnumbered the Romans. During the Han Dynasty, they had managed to smelt iron. This would have given the Hans an upper hand in combat and armor. Longer swords wielded by the Hans would have played a role against the short swords used by legionaries.
And you would be wrong. Julius Caesar was perhaps one of the greatest generals who ever lived. The Romans just plain fought more than the Chinese as well, and that experience would tell in any battle. The Romans had their own art of war that was very effective, and was well versed in night tactics. In addition, the Romans were very well versed in siegecraft, and built fortified camps every night. So you Han army would be attacking a smaller but much more capable force, and at night, they would be inside a well fortified camp able to hold off many times their own number. They had encountered those tactics before, and if you think they hadn't, then you obviously don't know as much as you think you do.Besides, the Chinese had their arts of war. If the best Roman general was matched up to the best Chinese general of the Han dynasty, I would say that the Han army would win. The Roman army would be outmanoeuvered, trapped, be assailed day and night and suffer nervous break down. Night attack tactics were studied to the art of perfection in the Han army. I believe that the Han would cream the Romans using the same tactic, especially when the Romans rarely encountered such tactics before. And night attacks were just one of the many tactics used.
The first part you are just full of it. By this time Romans had perfected the art of siegecraft. And as I mentioned before, the Romans are perfectly capable of handling cavalry.Han China had the most advanced Seige and Missle weapon at the time, Rome has no known mobile seige during Han dynasty time. And, as mentioned earlier, Han had much superior calvary which is key to break up Roman infantry formations.
On the other hand, the Huns provide a good comparison of the two empires. The Huns were pushed out of western China and beyond by the Han to open and protect "silk road". After that, the Huns rampaged through Europe. Rome was at the verge of being defeated before Attila died.
Attila ravaged Europe during the 5th century AD. 4 centuries AFTER the end of the Republican period. Your comparison is not valid.
In short, I say again, the Chinese would have gotten pwned by the Romans, who were the more experienced conquerors, more experienced warriors, and were better led than the massive conscript Chinese armies.
Also, the Chinese conquered surrounding civilizations yes, but unlike the ones the Romans conquered, they were less advanced, the Romans conquered first everyone on the Italian peninsula, then the Greeks, then the rest of the Hellenistic world. None of those peoples were less advanced than the Romans. Also, by the end of Augustus' reign, the imperial census put the Roman empire at 50-100 million people. The fact that the army was small did not mean that didn't have the manpower. It was to relieve the burden on the people of the empire. They had had an army 700 thousand strong. Han China would have been pwned by the Romans, and was not equal in any way shape or form.
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
I'm inclined to agree with volkov, just because the romans did so much more fighting than the chinese. I would look at it kinda like persia and the greek states.. although again I realize its more complicated than I say here... I would assert than the infighting among greek states was a major reason for their victory over the Persians.
If you fight, you get better at it.
If you fight, you get better at it.
-
Nuclear Raunch
- The Wanderer
- Posts: 950
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:30 am
Here's my info for the 154 missile loadout Wiki the abbreviated version is 7 Tomahawks fit in each VLS, with 22 VLS on the ship 22 X 7=154. Not sure how many Harpoons fit in each VLS tube, but I'm pretty sure you can fit even more of those than you can Tomahawks.
China has no Mig -29's, however there are unconfirmed reports that they do have 24 Mig-31's. Mig-31 has a range of 1,630 miles, just for fun we'll include the Mig-29 with a range of 930 miles, and both the SU-27 and the SU-30. So their best ranging planes are the SU-27 and the SU-30 with 1,900 miles.
It is roughly 6,000 miles for them to fly from Manchuria to the West Coast. That means they need to get air to air refueling 6 times in a single flight for them to be able to provide fighter cover with the SU-30, 14 times for a Mig-29, 8 times for the Mig-31. I'm assuming air to air refueling completely fills their tank up, haven't checked that.
All these in flight refuelings would have to be done over the Pacific Ocean, which brings me to my next point, where are those tankers gonna take off from? They need an island airbase midway, or they need to make a tanker that is capable of receiving air to air refueling and have the tanker receive fuel to extend it's range to be able to refuel the fighters near the West Coast. See what I'm saying about the logistics problem of fighter air cover?
China has no Mig -29's, however there are unconfirmed reports that they do have 24 Mig-31's. Mig-31 has a range of 1,630 miles, just for fun we'll include the Mig-29 with a range of 930 miles, and both the SU-27 and the SU-30. So their best ranging planes are the SU-27 and the SU-30 with 1,900 miles.
It is roughly 6,000 miles for them to fly from Manchuria to the West Coast. That means they need to get air to air refueling 6 times in a single flight for them to be able to provide fighter cover with the SU-30, 14 times for a Mig-29, 8 times for the Mig-31. I'm assuming air to air refueling completely fills their tank up, haven't checked that.
All these in flight refuelings would have to be done over the Pacific Ocean, which brings me to my next point, where are those tankers gonna take off from? They need an island airbase midway, or they need to make a tanker that is capable of receiving air to air refueling and have the tanker receive fuel to extend it's range to be able to refuel the fighters near the West Coast. See what I'm saying about the logistics problem of fighter air cover?
I know the voices in my head arn't real but they usually have some pretty good ideas.
-
Gen. Volkov
- I'm blue, if I was green I would die.
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Boringtown, Indiana
*Blink* Did you even bother to read what I said about coming in over the pole? But ignoring that, the fighters could easily be fitted with drop tanks, and in addition, this assumes some future date where China attacks us, meaning they could have gotten an island in the mid pacific somewhere for a base. But ignoring that, and even assuming that they have to cross the pacific, a tanker has alot longer range than any fighter and could feasibly fly with them until they got close enough to get there on their own, and then once the mission is done, meet them out at sea and refuel them, and return with them on the way back. And tanker's can recieve air to air refueling. Silly I know, but they can do it in case of emergency. It's much less of a problem than you think, since the bombers would require refueling to get here as well. The longest ranged bomber in anyone's inventory only has a range of 10,000 miles, which is not enough for a round trip flight across the pacific.
The Tomahawk and Harpoon are about the same size. So that's 154 Harpoons assuming everything works right, and the missile boat is not detected before it launches them. There are still only four. You can't cover the coasts with only 4 subs. Besides, those boats are not made for the mission we are talking about. We're talking attack subs here, because they have the better detection equipment and are much quieter, and much more numerous, and attack subs have 6 tubes to fire Harpoons out of, 4 VLS and 2 torpedo tubes. So that's 6 total missiles, if they get real lucky, 12 before they are blown to bits. And if they all get through, that is enough to take out the carrier, unfortunately it is unlikely that they will all get through, leaving a damaged carrier and a dead sub. Or if the carrier BG gets lucky, a dead sub and and undamaged carrier.
The Tomahawk and Harpoon are about the same size. So that's 154 Harpoons assuming everything works right, and the missile boat is not detected before it launches them. There are still only four. You can't cover the coasts with only 4 subs. Besides, those boats are not made for the mission we are talking about. We're talking attack subs here, because they have the better detection equipment and are much quieter, and much more numerous, and attack subs have 6 tubes to fire Harpoons out of, 4 VLS and 2 torpedo tubes. So that's 6 total missiles, if they get real lucky, 12 before they are blown to bits. And if they all get through, that is enough to take out the carrier, unfortunately it is unlikely that they will all get through, leaving a damaged carrier and a dead sub. Or if the carrier BG gets lucky, a dead sub and and undamaged carrier.
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
-
Nuclear Raunch
- The Wanderer
- Posts: 950
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:30 am
I didn't include drop tanks because I figured any additional fuel they would store would be burned in a dogfight. Afterburner's not exactly known for being fuel efficient 
I would also like to point out that not only does China not have a Pacific Island, they also own a grand total of 20 air tankers (nowhere near enough). If China does somehow aquire an island and more tankers, and they then load the island up with tankers, bombers, and fighters we can safely assume it's going to set off a few red flags with our Defense Department at which point we can take several steps to protect us. Constant AWACS, surveillance ship just offshore from the island etc...
As far as tankers flying with the attacking force goes, all the attacking aircraft would have to drastically reduce their speed which is just gonna increase fuel consumption. They don't carry anywhere near enough fuel for them to be able to do that. They carry enough fuel to top off a couple tanks and that's it. BTW their tankers are just modified Badgers.
There's 4 of those subs to take on 0 carriers, I have my money on the subs
Seriously though, it's not like they have to cover the whole coast, all they have to do is check to see where the carriers are and place the subs in the way. And as far as the fast attack subs are concerned, I'm not sure what class you were looking at that only had 4VLS and 2 torpedo tubes, but virtually all American subs still in service have much better armaments than that. Our most common sub is the 688i, which has 12 VLS and 4 tubes.
Oh, and it's doubtful that a resting Ohio class is any louder than a resting fast attack sub, it's designed specifically for that. Sensor suites are admittedly inferior to fast attack (only 2 convergence zones away) but it's not like carriers are the quietest ships around. The sensors on the Ohio are the exact same as the original 688's. That's still as good as anyone elses hunter killer subs.
I would also like to point out that not only does China not have a Pacific Island, they also own a grand total of 20 air tankers (nowhere near enough). If China does somehow aquire an island and more tankers, and they then load the island up with tankers, bombers, and fighters we can safely assume it's going to set off a few red flags with our Defense Department at which point we can take several steps to protect us. Constant AWACS, surveillance ship just offshore from the island etc...As far as tankers flying with the attacking force goes, all the attacking aircraft would have to drastically reduce their speed which is just gonna increase fuel consumption. They don't carry anywhere near enough fuel for them to be able to do that. They carry enough fuel to top off a couple tanks and that's it. BTW their tankers are just modified Badgers.
There's 4 of those subs to take on 0 carriers, I have my money on the subs
Seriously though, it's not like they have to cover the whole coast, all they have to do is check to see where the carriers are and place the subs in the way. And as far as the fast attack subs are concerned, I'm not sure what class you were looking at that only had 4VLS and 2 torpedo tubes, but virtually all American subs still in service have much better armaments than that. Our most common sub is the 688i, which has 12 VLS and 4 tubes.
Oh, and it's doubtful that a resting Ohio class is any louder than a resting fast attack sub, it's designed specifically for that. Sensor suites are admittedly inferior to fast attack (only 2 convergence zones away) but it's not like carriers are the quietest ships around. The sensors on the Ohio are the exact same as the original 688's. That's still as good as anyone elses hunter killer subs.
I know the voices in my head arn't real but they usually have some pretty good ideas.
-
Gen. Volkov
- I'm blue, if I was green I would die.
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Boringtown, Indiana
You don't fly on afterburner for the whole way. In fact, no plane can do it. The regular cruising speed of every modern fighter excepting the F-22 is below Mach 1. The tankers would have no trouble keeping up with the strike package. 20 tankers is more than enough. You know how many we had in the air at any one time during all of desert storm? 15. Besides that, all your projections are assuming we KEEP the same military budget. If we cut to a bare bones defensive force, we lose most of the capabilities you are talking about. We won't have enough to maintain the subs. No constant AWACS, a modest air force, and about half the current number of satellites. And of course we would lose all of our surface Navy, which includes survelliance ships. And I know their pocking tankers are pocking Badgers, what does that have to do with the price of beans?
And as I've said, this is assuming some time in the future, because no one would dare attack us militarily right now. So 4 subs vs. 0 carriers is not a valid statement.
No, but if we can't track the carriers all the way because of a lack of satellite coverage, how are we supposed to position the subs? I agree with you that no one could launch a successful military attack on us right now and have any hope of succeeding, but this is a hypothetical situation where China has grown militarily, and we have shrunk drastically. I'm jsut saying that the only way to adequately defend ourselves is to maintain the current force levels in everything except surface ships maybe. But if China gets carriers, we're screwed. And if we just elect to maintain instead of advance, people WILL catch up. And then we won't have the most badass fighter ever. We won't have our subs that are better than everyone else's, we won't have an Army with machines better than anyone's. It's just not feasible to cut the budget and expect to stay on top. We cut the budget, lose our edge, and then we are invaded, because we can no longer adequatly defend ourselves against the new weapons out there.
About the subs, I may have been a bit off on the number's of VLS tubes, but that's still only 14 missiles, 28 tops, nowhere near the 154 you were talking about. An Ohio class sub is not much louder than a Los Angeles class, but it's sensory capabilities aren't as good, and they are nowhere near as good as most western nations hunter-killers. Also, Ohio class subs are not made to operate in littoral areas, they are deep sea boats. All the clutter and noise of the littorals confuses there sensors. In addition, the Chinese do have subs, right now, capable of taking out the Ohio class subs. All diesels yes, but diesels are actually quieter and much better suited to littoral areas than our nukes, they just can't stay down as long. But there are snorkels, and people are working on lengthening the amount of time they can stay down. They could simply send those in ahead of the carriers and take out the 4 Ohio class subs. Which leaves the Los Angeles class. Again not suited for littoral work and nukes, but they do have much better sensory capabilities and can take out diesel boats. But there would be an exchange rate, which would leave some holes for the carrier to slip through. And the Carrier BG is not defenseless against subs, it has it's own subs, and they can use sonobuoys and air launched torpedos to take out subs as well. And a carrier BG is not limited to not using it's active sonar like a sub is. So that would pick out enemy subs in pretty sharp contrast.
And as I've said, this is assuming some time in the future, because no one would dare attack us militarily right now. So 4 subs vs. 0 carriers is not a valid statement.
No, but if we can't track the carriers all the way because of a lack of satellite coverage, how are we supposed to position the subs? I agree with you that no one could launch a successful military attack on us right now and have any hope of succeeding, but this is a hypothetical situation where China has grown militarily, and we have shrunk drastically. I'm jsut saying that the only way to adequately defend ourselves is to maintain the current force levels in everything except surface ships maybe. But if China gets carriers, we're screwed. And if we just elect to maintain instead of advance, people WILL catch up. And then we won't have the most badass fighter ever. We won't have our subs that are better than everyone else's, we won't have an Army with machines better than anyone's. It's just not feasible to cut the budget and expect to stay on top. We cut the budget, lose our edge, and then we are invaded, because we can no longer adequatly defend ourselves against the new weapons out there.
About the subs, I may have been a bit off on the number's of VLS tubes, but that's still only 14 missiles, 28 tops, nowhere near the 154 you were talking about. An Ohio class sub is not much louder than a Los Angeles class, but it's sensory capabilities aren't as good, and they are nowhere near as good as most western nations hunter-killers. Also, Ohio class subs are not made to operate in littoral areas, they are deep sea boats. All the clutter and noise of the littorals confuses there sensors. In addition, the Chinese do have subs, right now, capable of taking out the Ohio class subs. All diesels yes, but diesels are actually quieter and much better suited to littoral areas than our nukes, they just can't stay down as long. But there are snorkels, and people are working on lengthening the amount of time they can stay down. They could simply send those in ahead of the carriers and take out the 4 Ohio class subs. Which leaves the Los Angeles class. Again not suited for littoral work and nukes, but they do have much better sensory capabilities and can take out diesel boats. But there would be an exchange rate, which would leave some holes for the carrier to slip through. And the Carrier BG is not defenseless against subs, it has it's own subs, and they can use sonobuoys and air launched torpedos to take out subs as well. And a carrier BG is not limited to not using it's active sonar like a sub is. So that would pick out enemy subs in pretty sharp contrast.
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
Volkov,
“Unfortunately you have grossly underestimated the Romans. You may have just gotten done studying Han China, but I have just gotten done studying the Roman empire. I would really rather prefer not to have to go through the points you made one by one, as it was a rather long post. But it seems I have too.�
Perhaps not. I am a fan of Rome, also. You do not think you appreciate the magnitude of the Chinese dynasties.
To Augustus, fell the difficult task of retaining much that Caesar had created, but on a permanent peacetime footing. He did so by creating a standing army, made up of 28 legions, each one consisting of roughly 6000 men. Additional to these forces there was a similar number of auxiliary troops. That comes down to approximately, 336,000 men. So, the part where you wrote, “They had had an army 700 thousand strong.� is completely false.
“The Romans had archers and slingers that could have given as good as they got with the crossbowmen. Their most powerful ranged weapon was the roman javelin or "pilum" which, in addition to killing people, had a soft iron heads that fouled shields.�
Chinese crossbows are deadly in range of 365 metres. This means, within 365 metres, the bolt can pierce armour. And piercing flesh is not a problem. I repeat once again, that during the Han dynasty, the Chinese crossbows were semiautomatic and could fire up 10 bolts continuously. Also, they would fire in volleys, like the Europeans did way later in the Napoleonic Wars. At 365 metres, the bolts surpassed the distance of any Roman archer/slinger. Roman armor and shield would have been easily penetrated by these volleys.
Now on the subject of pilums… Roman archers/slingers never carried pilums to battle. Plus, their ‘killing’ range could not rival that of Chinese crossbowmen. Instead, in the 2nd century BC, the hastati (or lightly armed skirmishers at the front) were the only ones who carried these 4-foot long javelins.
Realistically speaking, these were only used as harassment fire and could never be thrown even close to 365 meters long. In fact, I seriously doubt that the pilum was Rome’s most powerful ranged weapon… *laughs*, give them more credit than that. The pilum to designed to be a short and light javelin, thrown at the enemy before engaging. The pilum was designed so that, it bent on impact and could not be returned by the enemy.
“So the crossbowmen no longer have shields to protect them.�
… that was implied. I doubt the crossbowmen had, or needed shields shooting from that range. I mentioned earlier the heavy infantry who stood in front of the crossbowmen. Chinese heavy infantries and light infantries take action together. A bunch of light infantries which are pikemen with very long poles and a blade attached to it. (Sort of like a poleaxe and spear). As well as the heavy infantries have nice enough armour and shield. Armed with curved cutlass (Broadsword, Chinese ones) and axe. Some use hammers. Swords are wider than Roman gladius.
“The point of the Roman gladius is to jab from behind that big pocking shield they carry, which they would have used to fend off the longer Chinese swords whilst the shorter ones punched through the Chinese armor.��
Understood, but with the arrows raining down on them, few Romans could get close enough to jab. Furthermore, you give Chinese infantry too little credit. Then again, I do not think you’ve studied Han China.
“So that eliminates the crossbowmen from the equation�
That was quick. Archers and ‘pilums’ are not the counter for the crossbowmen.
“Romans by that time had a cavalry force that could have countered the Han one.�
I seriously doubt that. The Romans were very much an infantry army. As far as cavlary opponents, Roman performance was also sometimes less than sterling. The core of Roman Army was infantry and when they faced armies heavy with, or based on cavalry, they often encountered deep problems. One classic case of course is Hannibal, but the Parthians and light Dacian cavalry combined with heavy Sarmatian cavalry gave the legions more than a run for their money.
Pre-Marius, each legion had only around 300 cavalry. Made up from the richest citizens who could afford the horses. The Roman cavalry was normally used as a screen or long distance scouts and, whilst socially prestigious, were rarely significant in battles.
It was the Chinese who invented stirrups for cavalry units. These gave the cavalry the force to break through unit formations. The Han cavalry carried bows, quite similar to the Huns. Also, the cavalry to unit ratio was pretty high, as opposed to the Romans.
�The first part you are just full of it. By this time Romans had perfected the art of siegecraft. And as I mentioned before, the Romans are perfectly capable of handling cavalry.�
The Romans did not perfect the art of siegecraft. I mentioned earlier that the Romans usually did not fare well against mass cavalry.
“Attila ravaged Europe during the 5th century AD. 4 centuries AFTER the end of the Republican period. Your comparison is not valid.�
So, since the mighty Rome empire was ravaged by the Huns during the Empire Period: 27 BC to AD 476, the comparison is not valid. You should know that Han China was also not at China’s height… China’s 'peak time' was the Tang dynasty, which was established sometime after the end of the three kingdoms era. Yet, the Hans pushed the Huns westward into Europe. That is saying something.
I cannot stress enough that Han's technology and economic capability far outweighs Rome (e.g. a Han peasant was actually owning more wealth than a Roman aristocrat) In term of war-time capability, Han holds the absolute technological advantage again. (e.g. full body heavy armours that can not be penetrated by pilums are given to every soldier, mass production of swards at one time instead of being manufactured one by one. The materials for chinese swords are superior. Han china was able to mass produce swords with pearlite interior with martinsite edges, giving it the flexibility and hardness/sharpness needed.).
� And you would be wrong. Julius Caesar was perhaps one of the greatest generals who ever lived.�
Credit where credit is due. Caesar’s conquest of Gaul was a great feat. He may be one of the great generals in history. The Han Dynasty cannot be compared to the Gaulish tribes.
“So you Han army would be attacking a smaller but much more capable force, and at night, they would be inside a well fortified camp able to hold off many times their own number. They had encountered those tactics before, and if you think they hadn't, then you obviously don't know as much as you think you do.�
Okay… Its not my Han army… Anyhoo… a fortified camp is nice, but don’t kid yourself, they won’t always have a fortified camp to sleep in. Anybody could come up with night tactics. But applied properly, it is deadly. Of course, I did not name all of the tactics/strategy, (go ask Sun Tzu and Zhu Ge Liang) and most likely, they did not encounter them all before.
“The Romans just plain fought more than the Chinese as well, and that experience would tell in any battle.�
Any battle… with the Chinese? *laughs*, this whole argument is based upon the What-ifs of history. Plus, you cannot be sure that the Romans were more experienced. In reality, Rome and Han China would have never fought.
“In short, I say again, the Chinese would have gotten pwned by the Romans, who were the more experienced conquerors, more experienced warriors, and were better led than the massive conscript Chinese armies.�
You underestimate the brilliance of ancient Chinese generals during war. 6 schools of militarism (only Sun Tzu left to present time), 36 strategies, psychological warfare..etc are all common knowledge and practices to Chinese generals. On the other hand, I don't see Roman or Western military ever achieved such level. And, another false western conception being that all Chinese armies are conscripts. Surrounded by dangerous neighbours such as the Huns, there is no question that the Han had a professionally trained and experienced army, as well as, if there is need, a massive list of conscripts.
Yes, the Romans were very experienced conquerors… This also contributed later to their downfall. The Chinese have been a relatively peaceful civilization for thousands of years. They never saw the need, or the want, to go conquer others. It is their principle and part of the reason they have lasted so long.
As far as ‘pwning’ goes, rea listically speaking, it depends on who is the attacker/defender, where are they fighting, numbers,supply lines, generals, strokes of luck, etc. There would be no real pwning, if these two civilizations clashed. Stalemate? Maybe. Costly? Definitely.
I merely pointed out the advantages that the Han might have over Rome… You, in your own ways, did the same…
“was not equal in any way shape or form.�
I cannot help but feel like what I say to you goes through one ear and out the other. I hope you will not counter my counter-counter-counter-arguments. This thread will just became more off-topic. Sorry Nuclear Raunch.
“Unfortunately you have grossly underestimated the Romans. You may have just gotten done studying Han China, but I have just gotten done studying the Roman empire. I would really rather prefer not to have to go through the points you made one by one, as it was a rather long post. But it seems I have too.�
Perhaps not. I am a fan of Rome, also. You do not think you appreciate the magnitude of the Chinese dynasties.
To Augustus, fell the difficult task of retaining much that Caesar had created, but on a permanent peacetime footing. He did so by creating a standing army, made up of 28 legions, each one consisting of roughly 6000 men. Additional to these forces there was a similar number of auxiliary troops. That comes down to approximately, 336,000 men. So, the part where you wrote, “They had had an army 700 thousand strong.� is completely false.
“The Romans had archers and slingers that could have given as good as they got with the crossbowmen. Their most powerful ranged weapon was the roman javelin or "pilum" which, in addition to killing people, had a soft iron heads that fouled shields.�
Chinese crossbows are deadly in range of 365 metres. This means, within 365 metres, the bolt can pierce armour. And piercing flesh is not a problem. I repeat once again, that during the Han dynasty, the Chinese crossbows were semiautomatic and could fire up 10 bolts continuously. Also, they would fire in volleys, like the Europeans did way later in the Napoleonic Wars. At 365 metres, the bolts surpassed the distance of any Roman archer/slinger. Roman armor and shield would have been easily penetrated by these volleys.
Now on the subject of pilums… Roman archers/slingers never carried pilums to battle. Plus, their ‘killing’ range could not rival that of Chinese crossbowmen. Instead, in the 2nd century BC, the hastati (or lightly armed skirmishers at the front) were the only ones who carried these 4-foot long javelins.
Realistically speaking, these were only used as harassment fire and could never be thrown even close to 365 meters long. In fact, I seriously doubt that the pilum was Rome’s most powerful ranged weapon…
*laughs*, give them more credit than that. The pilum to designed to be a short and light javelin, thrown at the enemy before engaging. The pilum was designed so that, it bent on impact and could not be returned by the enemy.“So the crossbowmen no longer have shields to protect them.�
… that was implied. I doubt the crossbowmen had, or needed shields shooting from that range. I mentioned earlier the heavy infantry who stood in front of the crossbowmen. Chinese heavy infantries and light infantries take action together. A bunch of light infantries which are pikemen with very long poles and a blade attached to it. (Sort of like a poleaxe and spear). As well as the heavy infantries have nice enough armour and shield. Armed with curved cutlass (Broadsword, Chinese ones) and axe. Some use hammers. Swords are wider than Roman gladius.
“The point of the Roman gladius is to jab from behind that big pocking shield they carry, which they would have used to fend off the longer Chinese swords whilst the shorter ones punched through the Chinese armor.��
Understood, but with the arrows raining down on them, few Romans could get close enough to jab. Furthermore, you give Chinese infantry too little credit. Then again, I do not think you’ve studied Han China.
“So that eliminates the crossbowmen from the equation�
That was quick. Archers and ‘pilums’ are not the counter for the crossbowmen.
“Romans by that time had a cavalry force that could have countered the Han one.�
I seriously doubt that. The Romans were very much an infantry army. As far as cavlary opponents, Roman performance was also sometimes less than sterling. The core of Roman Army was infantry and when they faced armies heavy with, or based on cavalry, they often encountered deep problems. One classic case of course is Hannibal, but the Parthians and light Dacian cavalry combined with heavy Sarmatian cavalry gave the legions more than a run for their money.
Pre-Marius, each legion had only around 300 cavalry. Made up from the richest citizens who could afford the horses. The Roman cavalry was normally used as a screen or long distance scouts and, whilst socially prestigious, were rarely significant in battles.
It was the Chinese who invented stirrups for cavalry units. These gave the cavalry the force to break through unit formations. The Han cavalry carried bows, quite similar to the Huns. Also, the cavalry to unit ratio was pretty high, as opposed to the Romans.
�The first part you are just full of it. By this time Romans had perfected the art of siegecraft. And as I mentioned before, the Romans are perfectly capable of handling cavalry.�
The Romans did not perfect the art of siegecraft. I mentioned earlier that the Romans usually did not fare well against mass cavalry.
“Attila ravaged Europe during the 5th century AD. 4 centuries AFTER the end of the Republican period. Your comparison is not valid.�
So, since the mighty Rome empire was ravaged by the Huns during the Empire Period: 27 BC to AD 476, the comparison is not valid. You should know that Han China was also not at China’s height… China’s 'peak time' was the Tang dynasty, which was established sometime after the end of the three kingdoms era. Yet, the Hans pushed the Huns westward into Europe. That is saying something.
I cannot stress enough that Han's technology and economic capability far outweighs Rome (e.g. a Han peasant was actually owning more wealth than a Roman aristocrat) In term of war-time capability, Han holds the absolute technological advantage again. (e.g. full body heavy armours that can not be penetrated by pilums are given to every soldier, mass production of swards at one time instead of being manufactured one by one. The materials for chinese swords are superior. Han china was able to mass produce swords with pearlite interior with martinsite edges, giving it the flexibility and hardness/sharpness needed.).
� And you would be wrong. Julius Caesar was perhaps one of the greatest generals who ever lived.�
Credit where credit is due. Caesar’s conquest of Gaul was a great feat. He may be one of the great generals in history. The Han Dynasty cannot be compared to the Gaulish tribes.
“So you Han army would be attacking a smaller but much more capable force, and at night, they would be inside a well fortified camp able to hold off many times their own number. They had encountered those tactics before, and if you think they hadn't, then you obviously don't know as much as you think you do.�
Okay… Its not my Han army… Anyhoo… a fortified camp is nice, but don’t kid yourself, they won’t always have a fortified camp to sleep in. Anybody could come up with night tactics. But applied properly, it is deadly. Of course, I did not name all of the tactics/strategy, (go ask Sun Tzu and Zhu Ge Liang) and most likely, they did not encounter them all before.
“The Romans just plain fought more than the Chinese as well, and that experience would tell in any battle.�
Any battle… with the Chinese? *laughs*, this whole argument is based upon the What-ifs of history. Plus, you cannot be sure that the Romans were more experienced. In reality, Rome and Han China would have never fought.
“In short, I say again, the Chinese would have gotten pwned by the Romans, who were the more experienced conquerors, more experienced warriors, and were better led than the massive conscript Chinese armies.�
You underestimate the brilliance of ancient Chinese generals during war. 6 schools of militarism (only Sun Tzu left to present time), 36 strategies, psychological warfare..etc are all common knowledge and practices to Chinese generals. On the other hand, I don't see Roman or Western military ever achieved such level. And, another false western conception being that all Chinese armies are conscripts. Surrounded by dangerous neighbours such as the Huns, there is no question that the Han had a professionally trained and experienced army, as well as, if there is need, a massive list of conscripts.
Yes, the Romans were very experienced conquerors… This also contributed later to their downfall. The Chinese have been a relatively peaceful civilization for thousands of years. They never saw the need, or the want, to go conquer others. It is their principle and part of the reason they have lasted so long.
As far as ‘pwning’ goes, rea listically speaking, it depends on who is the attacker/defender, where are they fighting, numbers,supply lines, generals, strokes of luck, etc. There would be no real pwning, if these two civilizations clashed. Stalemate? Maybe. Costly? Definitely.
I merely pointed out the advantages that the Han might have over Rome… You, in your own ways, did the same…
“was not equal in any way shape or form.�
I cannot help but feel like what I say to you goes through one ear and out the other. I hope you will not counter my counter-counter-counter-arguments. This thread will just became more off-topic. Sorry Nuclear Raunch.
-
Gen. Volkov
- I'm blue, if I was green I would die.
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Boringtown, Indiana
Considering you just pretty much ignored/modified what I said so heavily, and I'm pretty sure I know who you are now, I am not going to attempt to counter your arguments, because you will not listen, and it will be pointless. Now go away Vengerak.
And you can understand if I feel the same way.I cannot help but feel like what I say to you goes through one ear and out the other.
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
-
Nuclear Raunch
- The Wanderer
- Posts: 950
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:30 am
Etch: No apologies needed, it's interesting stuff. While I would agree that Zhuge Liang would whip Ceasar's ass he was around in the three kingdoms era, much later than the time you guys are talking about. Sun Tzu, if he actually existed, was long before the time in question.
Volkov: You misread, I know they won't use afterburner on the way over there but they will in dogfights. They will have to travel super slow on the way in because tankers just can't keep up with any modern jet's cruising speed. 20 of our tankers wouldn't be sufficient for that much refueling, there's no way in hell 20 of their tankers would. The point of them being Badgers? They arn't real tankers, they're old bombers that got converted and arn't really that great at it. They don't hold very much fuel at all combined with their own fuel limitations make it all but useless to try to use them for strategic strikes. Like I said, they are useful for topping off a few planes and that's it.
It would just be a matter of prioritizing our cuts. Definately gotta nix most of the surface Navy, most of our tanks etc should be set aside, intel is an extremely vital part of defense, I'd definately keep the satellites, a couple surveillance ships etc... One of the biggest things is the contracts campaign contributors get. If a part costs $10 to make it's not at all out of the ordinary to charge $300 for it, as long as you keep those politicians happy. Trust me, that massive defense budget has absolutely nothing to do with defense. It's the very thing Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address, politicians throwing exorbitant amounts of taxpayers money to defense industries in exchange for a little kickback.
And again, a 90% cut is not a "bare bones defense", it's a healthy, robust, second largest in the world defense budget. Nobody else has a problem surviving with that, why should we? It's not like that's just enough to maintain,it's more than enough to advance as well. People with much less budgets than ours are able to advance, so should we.
As far as being invaded goes, no military analyst in their right mind would consider even the remotest possibility that China could successfully invade us. Supplies must travel 6,000 miles of ocean (daunting enough) then consider that water is hunted by the world's most advanced subs, the target country has a huge arsenal of missiles that can be launched by air, land, or sea, the citizens are armed and fiercely patriotic when pushed and you have a recipe for a major disaster. There is no way in hell an invasion could work.
About the subs, the Ohio class uses almost the exact same sensors as the Los Angeles class. Ohio class has a few improvements (since it did come out later) but that's just to improve it's short-medium range performance, they both still top out at 2 convergence zones (70 miles) Despite it's size the Ohio is the quietest boomer in the world, much quieter than most attack subs.
Diesels are only quiet while on battery power, and it's not like they can send out a couple subs and say "go find and kill those Ohio's and report back to me" and expect any kind of results other than laughter. It's worse than trying to find a needle in a haystack. You would literally have better luck hiding an Easter egg in Texas and asking someone to ty to find it. Excuse me, hiding 4 Easter eggs and telling someone to find all 4.
By the way, we have more than just the Los Angeles class subs floating about. We have a couple generations since then, the latest being the Virginia class which is being produced as we speak.
Active sonar has a very short range, and while helicopters work well there's simply to much space to cover for them to be able to catch it all. The range of American sonars and missiles makes it extremely difficult for enemys to contend with.
Volkov: You misread, I know they won't use afterburner on the way over there but they will in dogfights. They will have to travel super slow on the way in because tankers just can't keep up with any modern jet's cruising speed. 20 of our tankers wouldn't be sufficient for that much refueling, there's no way in hell 20 of their tankers would. The point of them being Badgers? They arn't real tankers, they're old bombers that got converted and arn't really that great at it. They don't hold very much fuel at all combined with their own fuel limitations make it all but useless to try to use them for strategic strikes. Like I said, they are useful for topping off a few planes and that's it.
It would just be a matter of prioritizing our cuts. Definately gotta nix most of the surface Navy, most of our tanks etc should be set aside, intel is an extremely vital part of defense, I'd definately keep the satellites, a couple surveillance ships etc... One of the biggest things is the contracts campaign contributors get. If a part costs $10 to make it's not at all out of the ordinary to charge $300 for it, as long as you keep those politicians happy. Trust me, that massive defense budget has absolutely nothing to do with defense. It's the very thing Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address, politicians throwing exorbitant amounts of taxpayers money to defense industries in exchange for a little kickback.
And again, a 90% cut is not a "bare bones defense", it's a healthy, robust, second largest in the world defense budget. Nobody else has a problem surviving with that, why should we? It's not like that's just enough to maintain,it's more than enough to advance as well. People with much less budgets than ours are able to advance, so should we.
As far as being invaded goes, no military analyst in their right mind would consider even the remotest possibility that China could successfully invade us. Supplies must travel 6,000 miles of ocean (daunting enough) then consider that water is hunted by the world's most advanced subs, the target country has a huge arsenal of missiles that can be launched by air, land, or sea, the citizens are armed and fiercely patriotic when pushed and you have a recipe for a major disaster. There is no way in hell an invasion could work.
About the subs, the Ohio class uses almost the exact same sensors as the Los Angeles class. Ohio class has a few improvements (since it did come out later) but that's just to improve it's short-medium range performance, they both still top out at 2 convergence zones (70 miles) Despite it's size the Ohio is the quietest boomer in the world, much quieter than most attack subs.
Diesels are only quiet while on battery power, and it's not like they can send out a couple subs and say "go find and kill those Ohio's and report back to me" and expect any kind of results other than laughter. It's worse than trying to find a needle in a haystack. You would literally have better luck hiding an Easter egg in Texas and asking someone to ty to find it. Excuse me, hiding 4 Easter eggs and telling someone to find all 4.
By the way, we have more than just the Los Angeles class subs floating about. We have a couple generations since then, the latest being the Virginia class which is being produced as we speak.
Active sonar has a very short range, and while helicopters work well there's simply to much space to cover for them to be able to catch it all. The range of American sonars and missiles makes it extremely difficult for enemys to contend with.
I know the voices in my head arn't real but they usually have some pretty good ideas.
-
Gen. Volkov
- I'm blue, if I was green I would die.
- Posts: 2342
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:47 pm
- Location: Boringtown, Indiana
*Sighs* Nuke, I know all this. Quit lecturing. As I've said repeatedly, this is based on some future scenario where China is on the ups and we have cut our spending. Right now, as I said repeatedly, no one in their right mind would attack us.As far as being invaded goes, no military analyst in their right mind would consider even the remotest possibility that China could successfully invade us. Supplies must travel 6,000 miles of ocean (daunting enough) then consider that water is hunted by the world's most advanced subs, the target country has a huge arsenal of missiles that can be launched by air, land, or sea, the citizens are armed and fiercely patriotic when pushed and you have a recipe for a major disaster. There is no way in hell an invasion could work.
About the subs, the Ohio class uses almost the exact same sensors as the Los Angeles class. Ohio class has a few improvements (since it did come out later) but that's just to improve it's short-medium range performance, they both still top out at 2 convergence zones (70 miles) Despite it's size the Ohio is the quietest boomer in the world, much quieter than most attack subs.
Diesels are only quiet while on battery power, and it's not like they can send out a couple subs and say "go find and kill those Ohio's and report back to me" and expect any kind of results other than laughter. It's worse than trying to find a needle in a haystack. You would literally have better luck hiding an Easter egg in Texas and asking someone to ty to find it. Excuse me, hiding 4 Easter eggs and telling someone to find all 4.
By the way, we have more than just the Los Angeles class subs floating about. We have a couple generations since then, the latest being the Virginia class which is being produced as we speak.
Active sonar has a very short range, and while helicopters work well there's simply to much space to cover for them to be able to catch it all. The range of American sonars and missiles makes it extremely difficult for enemys to contend with.
Do you even know what a convergence zone is? Because I don't think you do. A convergence zone is a layer of water that reflects back acustic waves and makes it possible for one sun to hide from another.It does so because it's a place where a clold layer of water meets a warm layer of water. It really doesn't have all that much to do with distance unless you are talking vertical distance. The ability to detect ships across convergence zones refers to the ability to pick up a ships acoustic signature past the scattering effect of a convergence layer.
I did not misread, you misread what I said. The cruising speed of a modern jet fighter is about 650 mph, or just under mach 1. The cruising speed of a tanker is 550 to 650 mph, depending on type, a Badger bomber conversion would have a cruising speed of 650 mph. So the fighters would not have to slow down. Do you know how much fuel a tanker carries? Quite a bit. Plenty to refuel a flight of fighters, especially if said fighters didn't have to fly across the pacific, but instead took a route over the pole. And Badger's could carry a decent enough bomb load, they aren't horrible at their job, otherwise they wouldn't have been used. And the KC-135 is a conversion as well. 20 of them would be capable of refueling the fighters necessary for the bombers to get through. More than enough.Volkov: You misread, I know they won't use afterburner on the way over there but they will in dogfights. They will have to travel super slow on the way in because tankers just can't keep up with any modern jet's cruising speed. 20 of our tankers wouldn't be sufficient for that much refueling, there's no way in hell 20 of their tankers would. The point of them being Badgers? They arn't real tankers, they're old bombers that got converted and arn't really that great at it. They don't hold very much fuel at all combined with their own fuel limitations make it all but useless to try to use them for strategic strikes. Like I said, they are useful for topping off a few planes and that's it.
It would just be a matter of prioritizing our cuts. Definately gotta nix most of the surface Navy, most of our tanks etc should be set aside, intel is an extremely vital part of defense, I'd definately keep the satellites, a couple surveillance ships etc... One of the biggest things is the contracts campaign contributors get. If a part costs $10 to make it's not at all out of the ordinary to charge $300 for it, as long as you keep those politicians happy. Trust me, that massive defense budget has absolutely nothing to do with defense. It's the very thing Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address, politicians throwing exorbitant amounts of taxpayers money to defense industries in exchange for a little kickback.
And again, a 90% cut is not a "bare bones defense", it's a healthy, robust, second largest in the world defense budget. Nobody else has a problem surviving with that, why should we? It's not like that's just enough to maintain,it's more than enough to advance as well. People with much less budgets than ours are able to advance, so should we.
As too the second part, while alot of that is true, no one is making advancements like we are on less than we are making now. We could still advance on less, but it woudl require massive collaboration like the Europeans, and progress would be alot slower. And that's for tiny little countries anyway. For a nation our size it WOULD be a bare bones defense. So in short, you are wrong. We could spend less, but not a significant amount, not if we wish to remain the world leader and be able to cope with any new threats that may arise. Oh and guess what else goes if we slash the budget? The missiles. Those are expensive as hell to maintain. We lose many of our nukes if we start slashing the budget.
It is said that when Rincewind dies, the occult ability of the human race will go UP by a fraction. -Terry Pratchett
-
The Beatles
- Fear me for I am root
- Posts: 6285
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:12 pm
Kiss, when defining a superpower, we could really get bogged down in semantic differences. What to you is a superpowr, is not one to me. So I will avoid the term, regretting to have used it at all, and say what I want to say more unambiguously.
The Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the United States of America shared certain traits that no other political entities in history have shared. These are
1. Their near-global or global military, social, and technological influence.
2. Their global legacy in the present day.
3. Their influence for the better [subjective, I know, but a moral basis is common to mankind] on an area or areas nearly global, external to themselves.
You will notice that the USSR and China fail criterion 3 and Spain fails criterion 1. This is just my conception of world events, and it is needless to dispute it except if you feel I have actually wrongly assessed what I am talking about. Henceforth I will avoid the term superpower, perhaps abbreviating my criteria to "global power by my definition above" for the sake of clearness.
Volkov: you did not answer Echthelion's points (which seemed to me to hold some merit), merely dismissing him and raising an unrelated point as to who he is. (If you are in fact Jack, then hi dude, long time no see.) So one of you should really start a new topic in which to discuss this, or one of you should cede the point to the other. But in its current state, this is an entirely unsatisfactory and anticlimactic conclusion to a debate that promised interesting to us spectators.
Nuke and Volkov: this is a rather technical discussion. To raise a related issue, don't you think that the USA's "superpower" status is perhaps unavoidable, as a legacy? That perhaps if the USA retreated to the ranks of ordinary countries, it would promptly be politically compromised?
Or are you just debating exactly how much military is necessary to adequately guard it...?
The Roman Empire, the British Empire, and the United States of America shared certain traits that no other political entities in history have shared. These are
1. Their near-global or global military, social, and technological influence.
2. Their global legacy in the present day.
3. Their influence for the better [subjective, I know, but a moral basis is common to mankind] on an area or areas nearly global, external to themselves.
You will notice that the USSR and China fail criterion 3 and Spain fails criterion 1. This is just my conception of world events, and it is needless to dispute it except if you feel I have actually wrongly assessed what I am talking about. Henceforth I will avoid the term superpower, perhaps abbreviating my criteria to "global power by my definition above" for the sake of clearness.
Volkov: you did not answer Echthelion's points (which seemed to me to hold some merit), merely dismissing him and raising an unrelated point as to who he is. (If you are in fact Jack, then hi dude, long time no see.) So one of you should really start a new topic in which to discuss this, or one of you should cede the point to the other. But in its current state, this is an entirely unsatisfactory and anticlimactic conclusion to a debate that promised interesting to us spectators.
Nuke and Volkov: this is a rather technical discussion. To raise a related issue, don't you think that the USA's "superpower" status is perhaps unavoidable, as a legacy? That perhaps if the USA retreated to the ranks of ordinary countries, it would promptly be politically compromised?
Or are you just debating exactly how much military is necessary to adequately guard it...?
:wq
-
Members connected in real time
