Military status and tech and is our money spent wisely

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by grahler, Sep 23, 2017.

  1. grahler

    grahler Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    118
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Location:
    ca
    It's very tough to say if long range missiles could hit a carrier doing 25-30 knots from long range plus we do have anti missile tech.
    They are faster than subs.
    The Nimitz class carriers are nuclear so refueling is not an issue.
    I think the big prob in NK would be reconnaissance. How would we know where to strike to ensure we take out the important stuff? Seems kinda like a black box. I have to believe though that our military capability extends beyond what I can find on you tube. If that's not the case I am a little worried.
    @stump
    I would say IF action is taken, it should be totally merciless and all out in NK.
    I am no strategist militarily nor do I know the best way to do it. I should think we would plan it out so that we have stuff launching from SK Guam subs missiles Japan bombing runs tomahawks nukes empty maybe nothing from US Mainland unless needed. Coordinate a massive massive attack.
    I am not saying now is the time, but if and when the time comes hold nothing back in our arsenal and if that means nukes over ground forces then nuke the sobs if it saves American lives. The only reasoning against this would be if our arsenal is so limited that this would leave us too vulnerable.
    It's not acceptable for a country like NK who kills so many of its own in concentration camps to be threatening us and building icbms with nukes.
    Ideally you would have to secretly contact Russia and China and make a deal so they don't start ww3.
    Basically IMO if a decision is made to use military force anywhere that should mean no mercy.
    Like with a terrorist attack on US soil I would respond by saying this is the country we blame and inflict tenfold damage on them. I wouldn't have forces on the ground and million dollar planes taking out 1980s Toyota trucks with machine guns on them in the middle of nowhere.

    I do wonder on the f35 if we are not getting too tech reliant and maybe creating things that are so expensive and difficult to maintain that they become ineffective.
    I saw the reports of two seat trainer f16 taking them out...
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
  2. Native NV Ducker

    Native NV Ducker Mod-Duck Hunters Forum, Classifieds, and 2 others Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    17,147
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2003
    Location:
    Sula, MT
    Try to stay on your own topic....

    Sure you did....

    The F-22 and F-35 are built around stealth. They will kill you before you even know you are there. The 'dogfight' reports (gun kills) are of little consequence. 'Man' is the limiting factor in a knife fight. 9g's is about all a man can take without blacking out. So it doesn't matter if the plane can pull 12g's, since the pilot will be unconscious by then anyway. Till we go to drones, anyway.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/watch-one-f-22-five-f-15s-2017-3

    As to cost, that is political. They could have all been built cheaper. Gotta feed the builders, so the donations keep coming in.
     
  3. hobbydog

    hobbydog Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,154
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    There are so many soft targets in this country and abroad that if anyone really wanted to take it to us we wouldn't know how to respond. Hacking, power grids, dams, large crowds, IEDs, dirty bombs done by enemies without countries or borders.

    I think the military has found it's level of technical vulnerability, kind of like a Peter Principal. We have promoted technology to its level of incompetence.
     
  4. grahler

    grahler Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    118
    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2012
    Location:
    ca
    Ah...The link above is reassuring.
    Hadn't seen that...Clubbing baby seals...one plane easily counters five...
    Any thoughts as to why we don't make more f22?
    Too expensive?
     
  5. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,506
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    I don't know. Seems like an unnecessary and hazardous step. Maybe someone with Naval aviation knowledge will help.
     
  6. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,506
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    carriers are becoming more and more vulnerable.

    The nuke sub has only one offensive option. The carrier has many.
     
  7. stump

    stump Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,989
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Location:
    Port Orchard WA.
    They launch fully loaded and refuel for extended missions.
     
  8. The Other David

    The Other David Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    15,506
    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2000
    25 million (or however many there are) will swarm across the borders to China and South Korea. It will be a humanitarian nightmare. We want to replace the leadership, not destroy the country.
     
  9. stump

    stump Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    1,989
    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Location:
    Port Orchard WA.
    Subs have numerous offensive options. Depending on their depth and what the target may be.
     
  10. Native NV Ducker

    Native NV Ducker Mod-Duck Hunters Forum, Classifieds, and 2 others Moderator Flyway Manager

    Messages:
    17,147
    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2003
    Location:
    Sula, MT
    Yes. top of my head, 400 mil per? I think the original program had them listed at about $125 mil per.
    Depends on the mission, but, yes, fairly typical. Planes can carry X-amount of weight on take off. Do you want that in weapons, or fuel. Fuel we can get after liftoff.
    Now, a pure fighter, or CAP mission, weapons are not that heavy, so more fuel.
     

Share This Page