Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Do you think there will ever be World War III in

132 replies to this topic
Hollowpoints
  • Hollowpoints

    Poop like a Derp!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2013

#61

Posted 14 August 2013 - 07:03 AM Edited by Hollowpoints, 14 August 2013 - 07:07 AM.

I can see 3 possible scenarios of WWIII

Scenario 1:
The United States deteriorating from constant government spending, sending us into another economic crisis that makes the stability of all western alliances in question. And With China's increased spending in "defense" and numbers of their armed forces would start to take over Southern Asia and Russia would back them with possible air and naval support. Then they would invade mainland United States and then a showdown between a South Asian Coalition and a mix of Military, Police, and militias from Canada and America.

Scenario 2:
With the US Government and NATO expanding each and everyday, the feeble minded society will conform to any type of power and then politicians will think the sky's the limit. Then more and more NATO and UN countries become corrupt over time until they start to abuse their citizens. Some people would say enough is enough at this point; resorting to an armed resistance against a Coalition of tyrants taking over the world.

Scenario 3:
The civil war in Syria may not be something that catches the attention of sheeple, but like the cold war we thought was over is still among us today. Countries like Serbia, Libya, Syria have always had small, yet useful aid by bigger foreign powers, using them for proxy wars. But what if a situation that wasn't meant to happen by either side that caused a huge incident? Tension would quickly mount. The US and Russia would be on high alert and depending on if they are involved in a proxy war, they would end up going beyond the point of no return.

These are possible scenarios that can possibly happen, will it happen? It never hurts to be vigilant.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#62

Posted 14 August 2013 - 07:34 AM

I saw the word "sheeple" and instantly disregarded everything you said, I'm afraid. Also, I don't think your hypotheses are very likely- aside from the second, which is probably the most likely of them all but still pretty improbable. Recent strategic history has shown us that China is unwilling to be drawn into any kind of limited conflict that isn't directly concerned with their immediate geographical sphere, and their foreign policy is based very much on economic interventionism. I struggle to see a situation in which they'd engage in, or provoke, a protracted conflict of any kind. I do agree to some extent with what you've said about the Cold War never having really finished, though.

Hollowpoints
  • Hollowpoints

    Poop like a Derp!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2013

#63

Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:36 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 07:34)
I saw the word "sheeple" and instantly disregarded everything you said, I'm afraid. Also, I don't think your hypotheses are very likely- aside from the second, which is probably the most likely of them all but still pretty improbable. Recent strategic history has shown us that China is unwilling to be drawn into any kind of limited conflict that isn't directly concerned with their immediate geographical sphere, and their foreign policy is based very much on economic interventionism. I struggle to see a situation in which they'd engage in, or provoke, a protracted conflict of any kind. I do agree to some extent with what you've said about the Cold War never having really finished, though.

In regards to China, they have deployed out of their territorial waters to Somalia for anti piracy operations and have deployed in the past to Vietnam. They are having disputes with Japan over coastal islands, and are using cyber warfare against us currently proves we don't have a good relationship with them. Of course it would be unwise for them to strike while we are still a world power, but we are becoming weaker. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is going to replace most of our older fourth generation fighters, have run into numerous problems and doesn't bring much to the table of innovation. The PLA N are developing a powerful navy that has a functioning air craft carrier and so far our "fifth generation" fighters would have lots of difficulty fighting off the PLAAF which are gaining J-20 Fighter Jets and in a war game, the F-35s lost horribly against SU-33s multiple times.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#64

Posted 14 August 2013 - 10:12 AM

We're talking a very long time ago in relation to the military deployments in the Vietnam border conflict. As for your other points about the various island flash points, there's no real strategic emphasis behind it. They're keeping up claims of hegemony which are unsustainable for nothing other than national pride-they have no intent towards the Spratleys ect because they're fully aware that any offensive actions-military or otherwise- would be a negative sum game which would dramatically harm their international aspirations. As for the questions of whether the US is becoming weaker, I don't honestly think it is. We're seeing a military repurposing away from conventional armed conflict to asymmetrical engagements, but given the current strategic landscape that isn't at all surprising. As for "cyber war", in the context in which you employ it as a term is is neither seeing extensive use nor is likely to in the future. The only large scale utilisation of cyber infrastructure against the US has been for the purposes of commercial and industrial espionage, which whilst obviously troublesome is a great distance from the kind of cyber war people have been harping on about for the last decade. As for the question of aviation powers, I was unaware that the F-35 had seen any symmetrical, dissimilar or asymmetrical wargaming given that it's barely out of prototype phase and absolutely no operational conversion has taken place yet. Got any external sources for this? Worth mentioning that the Eurofighter Typhoon, an aircraft technically inferior to the F-35 in pretty much every measure and largely lacking any discernable radar-signature-obfuscating capability, has persistently topped various 4.5G fighters from the ex-Soviet block and Europe including the variants of the SU-27.

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#65

Posted 14 August 2013 - 10:27 AM

QUOTE (chapapote @ Tuesday, Aug 13 2013, 00:47)

BTW... We've talking about the weight Iran could have in all this, but what about North Korea? It's always giving something to talk about but I'm not sure about its real importance in global politics..

North Korea wouldn't dare to start any war because it would suppose the end of the regime. All they do is threaten other countries trying go get humanitarian aid and getting rid of the sanctions and embargo. In addition, as far I know, the only allied North Korea has is China, and in case of war wouldn't probably support it considering how China has risen largely thanks to the western countries.

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#66

Posted 14 August 2013 - 12:18 PM

QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 04:36)

In regards to China, they have deployed out of their territorial waters to Somalia for anti piracy operations and have deployed in the past to Vietnam. They are having disputes with Japan over coastal islands, and are using cyber warfare against us currently proves we don't have a good relationship with them. Of course it would be unwise for them to strike while we are still a world power, but we are becoming weaker. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is going to replace most of our older fourth generation fighters, have run into numerous problems and doesn't bring much to the table of innovation. The PLA N are developing a powerful navy that has a functioning air craft carrier and so far our "fifth generation" fighters would have lots of difficulty fighting off the PLAAF which are gaining J-20 Fighter Jets and in a war game, the F-35s lost horribly against SU-33s multiple times.

A few key points you are missing.

- China has very little incentive to "strike" the US. We buy their products, we use their labor, they steal our technology, they steal our trade secrets, and they are the largest holders of US debt after the American public. Without the US, China would be fending for itself in many ways.

- Currently (and for some time considering the half-century life span of modern fleets), no Naval strength - the back bone of all expeditionary assaults - in the world comes remotely close to the US. In terms of aircraft carriers - the key element in naval strength - no one comes close either. The US technically has 19 aircraft carriers (10 of them being Nimitz class) and the global runner ups include other NATO nations with one or two carriers. China has one restored carrier.

- The Chinese military's expeditionary capabilities are an absolute joke compared to the US. In fact, in China's national history, they've never led in a large scale offense far abroad.

- China steals everything...
Russian Su-33
user posted image
Chinese J-15
user posted image
American F-35
user posted image
Chinese J-31
user posted image
Eurofighter Typhoon
user posted image
Chinese J-10
user posted image

...Just about every piece of military hardware China is fighting with is a knock-off version of someone else's better assembled hardware operated by better trained personnel. Even the Russians are starting to copy American fighters with the Su PAK FA.

- And don't make me bring the F-22 into this. If air superiority was ever an issue with the F-35 (which it won't be considering F-35s have yet to be deployed and assessed in combat), then a commander would just deploy a squadron of F-22s from one of the hundreds of military airstips around the world that the US would have access to in the event of a world war to gain air superiority in the area. The F-35 is mainly just replacing the F-16 and expanding on that role.

- Brain Drain. A good bit, but not all of China's intellectual, innovative, and technical resources that might help them wage war have gone abroad where they can enjoy more freedoms and far higher pay for their skills. Many of them just happened to end up the United States. I saw this first hand going to middle and high school near the Research Triangle Park in NC. So many Chinese, Indian, and other Asian groups come here with technical skills that outshine the Americans. The local industry pays these folks very well for their dedication and hard work unlike their native countries.

Hollowpoints
  • Hollowpoints

    Poop like a Derp!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2013

#67

Posted 14 August 2013 - 06:17 PM Edited by Hollowpoints, 14 August 2013 - 07:02 PM.

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 10:12)
We're talking a very long time ago in relation to the military deployments in the Vietnam border conflict. As for your other points about the various island flash points, there's no real strategic emphasis behind it. They're keeping up claims of hegemony which are unsustainable for nothing other than national pride-they have no intent towards the Spratleys ect because they're fully aware that any offensive actions-military or otherwise- would be a negative sum game which would dramatically harm their international aspirations. As for the questions of whether the US is becoming weaker, I don't honestly think it is. We're seeing a military repurposing away from conventional armed conflict to asymmetrical engagements, but given the current strategic landscape that isn't at all surprising. As for "cyber war", in the context in which you employ it as a term is is neither seeing extensive use nor is likely to in the future. The only large scale utilisation of cyber infrastructure against the US has been for the purposes of commercial and industrial espionage, which whilst obviously troublesome is a great distance from the kind of cyber war people have been harping on about for the last decade. As for the question of aviation powers, I was unaware that the F-35 had seen any symmetrical, dissimilar or asymmetrical wargaming given that it's barely out of prototype phase and absolutely no operational conversion has taken place yet. Got any external sources for this? Worth mentioning that the Eurofighter Typhoon, an aircraft technically inferior to the F-35 in pretty much every measure and largely lacking any discernable radar-signature-obfuscating capability, has persistently topped various 4.5G fighters from the ex-Soviet block and Europe including the variants of the SU-27.

There is a six part videos Called "f-35 is a lemon"









TECHN9CiAN
  • TECHN9CiAN

    American MuSScle Fan

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Nov 2008
  • United-States

#68

Posted 14 August 2013 - 06:48 PM Edited by the7ftmidget, 14 August 2013 - 06:51 PM.

I believe its only a matter of time before america goes to war with china unless america pays its debt to them, which realistically speaking does not seem plausible. Maybe that war may turn into a world war if more anti-american countries team up to aide china, and america's allies come to its defense... Probably wont happen in my life time, but in our children's it might.

America has been very lucky so far to not have had a war fought at home, but if china invades when the day of debt collection arrives, that luck will run out. I dont think america is prepared to fight at home. So i believe that america might try to resort to nuclear warfare out of desperation if the homefield fight happens.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#69

Posted 14 August 2013 - 07:09 PM

QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:17)
There is a six part videos Called "f-35 is a lemon"

Which is an opinion piece, albeit with a number of experts speaking for it. That said, a number of experts have come out in defence of the F-35 despite the costs of the programme. The primary point of contention with the F-35 isn't capability, it's cost-to-benefit ratio. It's also no more troublesome in terms of groundings, technical issues ect than various other US-led aircraft projects. Remember the F-111? How about the F-14?

Hollowpoints
  • Hollowpoints

    Poop like a Derp!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2013

#70

Posted 14 August 2013 - 07:41 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:09)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:17)
There is a six part videos Called "f-35 is a lemon"

Which is an opinion piece, albeit with a number of experts speaking for it. That said, a number of experts have come out in defence of the F-35 despite the costs of the programme. The primary point of contention with the F-35 isn't capability, it's cost-to-benefit ratio. It's also no more troublesome in terms of groundings, technical issues ect than various other US-led aircraft projects. Remember the F-111? How about the F-14?

You are correct about F-14s and F-111 have had problems in the past, but are the experts that are in favor independent or are they part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or representatives of Lockheed Martin?

GTA36362355
  • GTA36362355

    moving before it's dead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2011
  • None

#71

Posted 14 August 2013 - 07:45 PM

I've been thinking about War since days. Its like I have a feeling that a war is coming. Hope not.

Toke
  • Toke

    Shadow Staff

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2009
  • NATO
  • Contribution Award [Gangs]

#72

Posted 14 August 2013 - 08:01 PM

QUOTE (the7ftmidget @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 11:48)
I believe its only a matter of time before america goes to war with china unless america pays its debt to them, which realistically speaking does not seem plausible. Maybe that war may turn into a world war if more anti-american countries team up to aide china, and america's allies come to its defense... Probably wont happen in my life time, but in our children's it might.

America has been very lucky so far to not have had a war fought at home, but if china invades when the day of debt collection arrives, that luck will run out. I dont think america is prepared to fight at home. So i believe that america might try to resort to nuclear warfare out of desperation if the homefield fight happens.

A war with China would NEVER reach american shores.

Lets say for the say of argument that China somehow destroys the entire pacific fleet, I know its a laughable concept but bear with me. They then would have to invade the Pacific Islands that the US posses in order to provide a logistical chain to even be able to supply a invasion force. By this time it would be fairly obvious that a mainland invasion would be imminent and defenses on the west coast would be beefed up to a near impenetrable level making any potential invasion a foolish act of suicide on the part of the attackers. Couple that with the effects of a full scale military mobilization which would add tens of thousands of tanks, LAVs, APCs aircraft and hundreds of thousands of men and women who will be more than eager to defend the US.

And I know there's alot of anti-government sentiments in the US these days but you can bet your ass that America would surely get off it's collective fat ass and do something about a foreign invader. That's not even taking into account a civilian population that has been arming itself so much that the Taliban would weep in jealousy.

And lets not even talk about all the military alliances the US has all over the world. It would basically be China vs everyone except Russia.

No, no China would never shoot itself in the head like that.

GTA_stu
  • GTA_stu

    -

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 22 Feb 2011
  • United-Kingdom
  • Funniest Member 2013
    Funniest Member 2012

#73

Posted 14 August 2013 - 08:03 PM

Nationalism in aggressive and extreme forms is one of the best ways of creating war. It was huge in the first half of the 20th century, and it was a major factor in causing the two world wars. It's not really a factor in the modern politics of any major power now. Russia is probably the most nationalist of any major power, but even they look tame compared to what we had previously.

The current global conditions aren't really conducive for the starting of a another world war. But so much has changed in just the last 25 years, who knows what could happen in the next quarter of a century. I still think the possibilities of one in the 21st century are really small.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#74

Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:02 PM

QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 20:41)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:09)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:17)
There is a six part videos Called "f-35 is a lemon"

Which is an opinion piece, albeit with a number of experts speaking for it. That said, a number of experts have come out in defence of the F-35 despite the costs of the programme. The primary point of contention with the F-35 isn't capability, it's cost-to-benefit ratio. It's also no more troublesome in terms of groundings, technical issues ect than various other US-led aircraft projects. Remember the F-111? How about the F-14?

You are correct about F-14s and F-111 have had problems in the past, but are the experts that are in favor independent or are they part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or representatives of Lockheed Martin?

Well several, including ones I know personally, are British and are linked neither to Lockheed Martin nor their UK partner BAE Systems.

Hollowpoints
  • Hollowpoints

    Poop like a Derp!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2013

#75

Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:24 PM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 21:02)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 20:41)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:09)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:17)
There is a six part videos Called "f-35 is a lemon"

Which is an opinion piece, albeit with a number of experts speaking for it. That said, a number of experts have come out in defence of the F-35 despite the costs of the programme. The primary point of contention with the F-35 isn't capability, it's cost-to-benefit ratio. It's also no more troublesome in terms of groundings, technical issues ect than various other US-led aircraft projects. Remember the F-111? How about the F-14?

You are correct about F-14s and F-111 have had problems in the past, but are the experts that are in favor independent or are they part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or representatives of Lockheed Martin?

Well several, including ones I know personally, are British and are linked neither to Lockheed Martin nor their UK partner BAE Systems.

Can you provide me links?

Killerdude
  • Killerdude

    And Remember, Respect is Everything!

  • The Yardies
  • Joined: 09 Mar 2012
  • Canada

#76

Posted 14 August 2013 - 09:34 PM

Just imagine, if another world war were to happen, it would probably spark another Technological boom, just like in the first and second.

Thanks to the second world war, we have Nuclear physics, Jets and guided missiles!

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#77

Posted 15 August 2013 - 10:00 AM

QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 22:24)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 21:02)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 20:41)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:09)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:17)
There is a six part videos Called "f-35 is a lemon"

Which is an opinion piece, albeit with a number of experts speaking for it. That said, a number of experts have come out in defence of the F-35 despite the costs of the programme. The primary point of contention with the F-35 isn't capability, it's cost-to-benefit ratio. It's also no more troublesome in terms of groundings, technical issues ect than various other US-led aircraft projects. Remember the F-111? How about the F-14?

You are correct about F-14s and F-111 have had problems in the past, but are the experts that are in favor independent or are they part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or representatives of Lockheed Martin?

Well several, including ones I know personally, are British and are linked neither to Lockheed Martin nor their UK partner BAE Systems.

Can you provide me links?

Why Pilots Prefer the F-35- written by Jim Dunnigan, whose a senior military strategist with no links to Lockheed Martin I can ascertain.
RAND's rebuttal of claims that their analyses of F-35 capability indicated a lack of air-to-air capability

Worth noting in relation to the latter point that their assessment of the F-35 being more likely to be involved in dogfighting that proponents suggest is caveated with the fact it references current missile technology. US air combat is currently disadvantaged by the complete lack of extreme-BVR missile capability after the retirement of the AIM-54 Phoenix. US engagement ranges are limited to about 60nm because the US has failed to design and produce a true 100+nm air intercept missile, unlike Russia and China who both possess various air-to-air arms with ranges of up to 300km, and certain specialist weapons designed for targeting AWACS and C4ISTAR aircraft with ranges of 800km. From the British perspective this is a non-issue. We have the 100+nm ranged MBDA Meteor missile, a variant of which is due to be tested with the F-35, giving it substantially better air-to-air engagement performance than the US F-35s armed solely with AMRAAMs.

D- Ice
  • D- Ice

    Gangsta

  • The Connection
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006
  • None

#78

Posted 15 August 2013 - 06:13 PM

Sadly, wars seem to be as much apart of human history as human beings themselves. I'm willing to bet that wars have always existed and always will.

However, wars always change and evolve. Once swords were invented, people stopped using clubs. Once the Assyrians started making swords from iron, people stopped using bronze. Once firearms were invented, people stopped rellying on melee weapons.
I feel the advent of nuclear weapons has pretty much ruled direct out all-out war between two nuclear powers. And sincemost countries with anystrategic military worth have nukes - I highly doubt there really can be another nuclear war.

War between non-nuclear powers will continue, as will proxy-wars, and limited hostilities between nuclear powers (like India and Pakistan). However the direct, all-out conflicts between major geopolotical powers like in WW2 that people are imagining is likely as archaic and obsolete as the Tommy Guns used then.

Interestingly though, what the focus on lower-intensity proxy-wars means is that far more conflicts are likely expected. A proxy-war is far less costly and dangerous for the powers sponsering them. Russia's conventional military strengths is a completely joke (as far as a non-expert like me can tell), and their economic strength is miniscule compared to the US or the EU. However, they are still able to support Assad in Syria, happily knowing that the West/EU/NATO will never attack them directly at home, as they have a nuclear arsenal.
A similar thing can be said about Iran, with their suspected nclear arsenal. Though they are relying more on their proxy puppets throughout the Arab and Islamic world as deterrants.


Hollowpoints
  • Hollowpoints

    Poop like a Derp!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2013

#79

Posted 16 August 2013 - 01:39 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Thursday, Aug 15 2013, 10:00)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 22:24)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 21:02)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 20:41)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:09)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 19:17)
There is a six part videos Called "f-35 is a lemon"

Which is an opinion piece, albeit with a number of experts speaking for it. That said, a number of experts have come out in defence of the F-35 despite the costs of the programme. The primary point of contention with the F-35 isn't capability, it's cost-to-benefit ratio. It's also no more troublesome in terms of groundings, technical issues ect than various other US-led aircraft projects. Remember the F-111? How about the F-14?

You are correct about F-14s and F-111 have had problems in the past, but are the experts that are in favor independent or are they part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or representatives of Lockheed Martin?

Well several, including ones I know personally, are British and are linked neither to Lockheed Martin nor their UK partner BAE Systems.

Can you provide me links?

Why Pilots Prefer the F-35- written by Jim Dunnigan, whose a senior military strategist with no links to Lockheed Martin I can ascertain.
RAND's rebuttal of claims that their analyses of F-35 capability indicated a lack of air-to-air capability

Worth noting in relation to the latter point that their assessment of the F-35 being more likely to be involved in dogfighting that proponents suggest is caveated with the fact it references current missile technology. US air combat is currently disadvantaged by the complete lack of extreme-BVR missile capability after the retirement of the AIM-54 Phoenix. US engagement ranges are limited to about 60nm because the US has failed to design and produce a true 100+nm air intercept missile, unlike Russia and China who both possess various air-to-air arms with ranges of up to 300km, and certain specialist weapons designed for targeting AWACS and C4ISTAR aircraft with ranges of 800km. From the British perspective this is a non-issue. We have the 100+nm ranged MBDA Meteor missile, a variant of which is due to be tested with the F-35, giving it substantially better air-to-air engagement performance than the US F-35s armed solely with AMRAAMs.

Interesting note, the same RAND source has linked me to an article about the strength of the PLAAF increasing http://www.airforcem.../0212china.aspx

But the RAND report doesn't prove whether the Air to Air capabilities where successful or not, we have yet to have knowledge about the F-35 through unbiased battle simulations. So we have to wait for public results of wargames with the Joint Strike Fighters to be released.

But the cost of the F-35 has risen
http://snafu-solomon...t=1376417960218

They also have considered cancelling sale of this aircraft to the Military(Though that didn't fall through)
http://www.bloomberg...on-options.html

Anyway I'm getting a bit tired so we'll continue this discussion in a few days. Take it easy.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#80

Posted 16 August 2013 - 06:43 AM

QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 02:39)
But the RAND report doesn't prove whether the Air to Air capabilities where successful or not, we have yet to have knowledge about the F-35 through unbiased battle simulations. So we have to wait for public results of wargames with the Joint Strike Fighters to be released.

You claimed a while back that such wargames had taken place, though? Now you concede they haven't?

QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 02:39)
But the cost of the F-35 has risen
http://snafu-solomon...t=1376417960218

They also have considered cancelling sale of this aircraft to the Military(Though that didn't fall through)
http://www.bloomberg...on-options.html

I'm aware of the various issues, but numerous US aviation programmes have had huge cost escalations and technical issues- the F-14 and F-111, F-117, B-2, F-22, E-8 JSTARS to name but a few. Most of these have resulted in an excellent end product.

Hollowpoints
  • Hollowpoints

    Poop like a Derp!

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2013

#81

Posted 16 August 2013 - 08:23 AM

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 06:43)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 02:39)
But the RAND report doesn't prove whether the Air to Air capabilities where successful or not, we have yet to have knowledge about the F-35 through unbiased battle simulations. So we have to wait for public results of wargames with the Joint Strike Fighters to be released.

You claimed a while back that such wargames had taken place, though? Now you concede they haven't?

QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 02:39)
But the cost of the F-35 has risen
http://snafu-solomon...t=1376417960218

They also have considered cancelling sale of this aircraft to the Military(Though that didn't fall through)
http://www.bloomberg...on-options.html

I'm aware of the various issues, but numerous US aviation programmes have had huge cost escalations and technical issues- the F-14 and F-111, F-117, B-2, F-22, E-8 JSTARS to name but a few. Most of these have resulted in an excellent end product.

However F-102, F-104, F-100 where not so successful, they have had similar problems to the F-35 such as how there are similarities to the F-104 with a fatter body and little wings, and now more than ever, we need stealthier fighters because SAM sites are becoming an increasing threat.

And the F-22 has major problems that have yet to be resolved.
They have capped building them at 187 instead of having 800

They are starting to solve the issue of hypoxia symptoms but they have yet to solve the breathing problems. Flight hours have been cut and this aircraft is more difficult to maintain than most aircraft in the air force. But this aircraft has more potential than the JSF program.

There are still huge problems with the F-35 JSF
http://www.defensene...s-Other-Dangers

Side note, yes aircrafts in their infant stages have problems, but until I see that there resolved I will keep an eye out. If I make it into the military, I want to make sure this a trustworthy aircraft that will keep me and my troops safe.

Triple Vacuum Seal
  • Triple Vacuum Seal

    If you ♥ the $, then prepare to die for it.

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 02 Dec 2011
  • United-States

#82

Posted 16 August 2013 - 05:05 PM Edited by canttakemyid, 16 August 2013 - 05:08 PM.

QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 03:23)
QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 06:43)
QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 02:39)
But the RAND report doesn't prove whether the Air to Air capabilities where successful or not, we have yet to have knowledge about the F-35 through unbiased battle simulations. So we have to wait for public results of wargames with the Joint Strike Fighters to be released.

You claimed a while back that such wargames had taken place, though? Now you concede they haven't?

QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 02:39)
But the cost of the F-35 has risen
http://snafu-solomon...t=1376417960218

They also have considered cancelling sale of this aircraft to the Military(Though that didn't fall through)
http://www.bloomberg...on-options.html

I'm aware of the various issues, but numerous US aviation programmes have had huge cost escalations and technical issues- the F-14 and F-111, F-117, B-2, F-22, E-8 JSTARS to name but a few. Most of these have resulted in an excellent end product.

However F-102, F-104, F-100 where not so successful, they have had similar problems to the F-35 such as how there are similarities to the F-104 with a fatter body and little wings, and now more than ever, we need stealthier fighters because SAM sites are becoming an increasing threat.

And the F-22 has major problems that have yet to be resolved.
They have capped building them at 187 instead of having 800

They are starting to solve the issue of hypoxia symptoms but they have yet to solve the breathing problems. Flight hours have been cut and this aircraft is more difficult to maintain than most aircraft in the air force. But this aircraft has more potential than the JSF program.

There are still huge problems with the F-35 JSF
http://www.defensene...s-Other-Dangers

Side note, yes aircrafts in their infant stages have problems, but until I see that there resolved I will keep an eye out. If I make it into the military, I want to make sure this a trustworthy aircraft that will keep me and my troops safe.

I highly doubt any of the problems you've outlined will be of concern once these two aircraft actually have operational service. You are essentially judging a cake before it's baked. In fact, you're judging the whole kitchen by using the faults of these two in-development aircraft projects to anchor your entire argument that the US national security and defense systems face exposure to other military powers. I can't think of any projects as large, vital, and innovative as the F-22 and JSF that haven't run into problems.


There have been talks from the Democrats (mostly the ones without an ounce of military knowledge and/or service) about cancelling the entire order due to high costs and the obstacles. That is all just hot air. These programs have been in the works for decades now. It might even cost more to cancel the program than to continue it at this point. Especially considering the fact these aircraft are in their final stages of development (mostly testing). You're right about the maintanence costs though. This is a huge problem in the defense industry mostly as a result of a system where the US government is the sole beneficiary of cutting development costs. Therefore, the private defense contractors have very little incentive to keep costs down. Interesting report from the 90s I had to write about recently for accounting....

http://ota-cdn.fas.o...eports/9134.pdf

chapapote
  • chapapote

    Homie

  • Members
  • Joined: 17 Jan 2008
  • Spain

#83

Posted 16 August 2013 - 09:32 PM

QUOTE (Toke @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 20:01)
And lets not even talk about all the military alliances the US has all over the world. It would basically be China vs everyone except Russia.

What alliances are we talking about? The EU and Israel are the ones that come to my mind.

RoadRunner71
  • RoadRunner71

    Left to rust

  • Members
  • Joined: 11 Mar 2012
  • None

#84

Posted 16 August 2013 - 09:43 PM Edited by RoadRunner71, 16 August 2013 - 09:54 PM.

QUOTE (chapapote @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 21:32)
QUOTE (Toke @ Wednesday, Aug 14 2013, 20:01)
And lets not even talk about all the military alliances the US has all over the world. It would basically be China vs everyone except Russia.

What alliances are we talking about? The EU and Israel are the ones that come to my mind.

I guess Australia, countries like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Japan, South Korea, as far I know Turkey has been always a big allied (it's part of the Nato since a lot of years ago, if I'm not mistaken) and I guess a bunch more.

Btw, is Philippines allied of the USA?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#85

Posted 16 August 2013 - 10:04 PM

QUOTE (Hollowpoints @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 09:23)
However F-102, F-104, F-100 where not so successful, they have had similar problems to the F-35 such as how there are similarities to the F-104 with a fatter body and little wings, and now more than ever, we need stealthier fighters because SAM sites are becoming an increasing threat.

The F-100 and F-104 were enormously successful. The -101, -102 and -106 not so. But I struggle with your analysis of the F-35 compared to the F-104 (they must be comparable because they're roughly the same shape). As for the question of SAM technology, there's been very little progression in the last three decades in all honesty. The threats faced by combat aircraft today are not materially different than during the 1980s.

Everything else has been covered.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#86

Posted 16 August 2013 - 10:21 PM

QUOTE (chapapote @ Friday, Aug 16 2013, 15:32)
What alliances are we talking about? The EU and Israel are the ones that come to my mind.

well don't forget that "The EU" includes many individual nations.

it's not like the US has just two allies in the world.
you've got the EU, Israel, Japan, South Korea, Egypt, Turkey, etc etc.

China is really a pseudo-ally in a lot of ways.
people think we're actively competing or feuding with China but not as much as the news media would have you believe...

GTA36362355
  • GTA36362355

    moving before it's dead

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 19 Jul 2011
  • None

#87

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:41 PM Edited by Mister Kay, 08 August 2014 - 02:50 PM.

6orQi79.png

A year later, there is definitely a rise in interest for a global war.

universetwisters
  • universetwisters

    Traum - Tagtraum - Am Fenster

  • Members
  • Joined: 26 Feb 2011
  • United-States
  • Best Workshop 2014
    Most Improved 2014
    Funniest Member 2014
    April Fools Winner 2015

#88

Posted 08 August 2014 - 02:48 PM

^ Nice bump, even though half of those are probably from the Cawadoody demographic looking up stuff like Modern Warfare and Battlefield, both of which are about World Wars.

  • GTA36362355 and Payne like this

Payne
  • Payne

    f*ck you!

  • $outh $ide Hoodz
  • Joined: 04 Aug 2014
  • United-States

#89

Posted 08 August 2014 - 03:02 PM

^Ha
On topic: I think the next world war could end in nuclear war.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Skål, jævler!

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#90

Posted 08 August 2014 - 03:26 PM

I don't think you can really draw any conclusion about the probability of something based on its popularity as a Google Keyword.
  • D- Ice and universetwisters like this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users