US big mad

  • zephyreks [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    Isn’t modern US doctrine that aircraft carriers are the dominant force in the navy? China has limited aircraft carrier capability and lacks the self-sufficiency of nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.

      • UmbraVivi [he/him, she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        1 year ago

        The lesson here is the same one all of you suckers should have learned from watching the financial news this year: the people at the top are just as dumb as you are, just meaner and greedier.

        Amen

      • zephyreks [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        If someone can build a hypersonic missile, someone can also build a hypersonic missile interceptor missile… And you can fit a lot of missiles in a CVBG.

        Sure, the CVBG doctrine only really works against the Japanese (where both babies are fighting over small islands that are far from their respective homelands)… But I don’t think that hypersonic missiles obsolete carriers in that role.

        I do think that that role is useless against China or Russia given that they aren’t really colonial imperial powers with territory around the world, but…

          • sooper_dooper_roofer [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            We don’t even have the technology today to intercept (fixed) ballistic missile trajectory at an acceptable rate

            IIRC the US’ missile interception system has a 40% success rate when the ballistic missile has a known origin and a normal parabolic trajectory

            so yea, that nuke is hitting whether ppl like it or not, even if we went back in time 50 years people would still be able to nuke today’s US, only half as effectively

          • zephyreks [none/use name]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            What even is the turning radius of an HGV? Sure, you’re not constrained by silly things like pilot blackout and whatever, but that doesn’t mean it can zig zag at will.

        • aaaaaaadjsf [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t think hypersonic missile interception is possible, unless the US gets laser weapons working or something like that. Hypersonics are incredibly fast, and Russia’s fighter jet launched hypersonics easily defeated the Patriot air defense systems in Ukraine, when they targeted them. Even intercepting normal supersonic and subsonic cruise missiles is a crapshoot, the iron Dome in Israel gets defeated by homemade rockets at times. Interception technology is very overrated currently.

        • sysgen [none/use name,they/them]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Interceptors are more difficult to make than the missiles themselves, and often are more expensive. They also don’t have 100% interception chance so you need to fire 2-4 just to be sure.

    • GaveUp [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Aircraft carriers are only good for shows of force against vastly inferior militaries where the US can easily enforce complete air superiority

      Otherwise, they’re just a massive sitting defenseless duck against modern anti-ship missiles