• Munrock ☭@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    53
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Has anyone else noticed that Western Liberal Armchair Generals seem to consistently just ignore hypersonic missile technology when they make proclamations about how a Great Power War would pan out?

    Like it’s just not a thing to them. And there seems to be tacit agreement among themselves to not bring it up while they suck each other off about hypothetical wars.

    But when you throw “hypersonic missile” into one of their circle jerks they all go flaccid and get really really angry with you. That’s how you know it’s a legit game changer.

      • olgas_husband@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        honest question doesn’t aircraft carriers serves mostly to bully small and underdeveloped nations?

        like, something that size and slow, seems like a easy target for any decent navy or air force

          • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            27
            ·
            1 year ago

            Also want to point out that this is almost all theoretical doctrine. There hasn’t really been peer-level fleet combat since WW2 so realistically we can only guess at what kind of doctrine and weapons work and which don’t.

          • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            19
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Against an enemy using conventional naval forces and tactics aircraft carriers are king.

            What do you mean by “conventional naval forces” here? WW2 dreadnought? Or something like this, specifically with anti-ship missiles to kill carrier groups?

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Not really true, Swedes of all people proven several years ago that even farily cheap conventional submarines can be very dangerous to US carriers, and lots of navies have those.

            If you’re going for a “decent navy” plan, there is hardly any better use for your money than ordering few Kilo II subs or similar.

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                We are not talking about any conquering here though. And btw you can’t conquer anything with a carrier either, it’s pure racket weapon.

                  • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    Yeah but also on very small scale since each LHA can carry 1687 marines without heavy support. And there are 9 of them currently, so using just them and other ships for support they can conquer some islands or make a shore landing at most. That make them also mostly a terror weapon, like the XV - XIX century raids colonizers did. Not a serious conquering like in Iraq.

              • huf [he/him]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                you cant conquer things with weapons, that’s not how you occupy/hold land. the only thing that works is boots.

          • WashedAnus [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            10
            ·
            1 year ago

            All you need is a lot of cheap, shitty missiles on a lot of cheap, shitty platforms. Three dudes on one dinghy will get got by the .50 cals, 25mm, and Phalanxes (they learned from the Cole in the Gulf of Aden). Lots of dudes on lots of cheap, fast boats with the cheapest, most basic anti-ship missiles will take out any modern surface navy ship. The IRGCN swarm tactics will work.

        • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes, US military is geared for that, the fact revealed by the ammunition and supply debacle in the Ukraine war.

          Carriers are used for the good old gunboat diplomacy.

          And it’s not only even hypersonic missiles that are danger to them. Quite long time ago Swedish navy proven during the NATO maneuvers that competently used non-nuclear submarine can sink the carrier too. There’s also strange coincidence between Iran proving they have working supercavitating torpedoes and USN reluctance to sail the carriers into Persian Gulf. Btw NATO still don’t have such torpedoes too while USSR had them since 1977.

        • Addfwyn@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is the US’s MO for their wars. To be fair, that has been the vast majority of conflicts they have engaged in so it makes a certain degree of sense. They are the world’s playground bully.

      • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Ukraine War is showing a lot of issues with how the U.S. would take a fight to any peer country’s shores. Carriers have never been more vulnerable and there was that recent report about how we’d need to restart conscription to keep up with the casualties of such a war.

        If I were a State Department ghoul this would drive home the importance of having heavily-militarized vassal states who can act as a forward base and do as much of the dying as we can get away with. Hopefully that plan is becoming increasingly obvious to the people and leaders of those vassal states as well.

        • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          this would drive home the importance of having heavily-militarized vassal states who can act as a forward base and do as much of the dying as we can get away with.

          That’s literally what Ukraine is doing. So I’d argue the ghouls knew that as far back as 2004 when they did the Orange “revolution”

      • Munrock ☭@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re never slow to proclaim that Taiwan is basically an “unsinkable aircraft carrier” to them, but still enshrine the sinkable aircraft carriers as some unbeatable game changer.

    • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But when you throw “hypersonic missile” into one of their circle jerks they all go flaccid and get really really angry with you

      And claim Russia and China don’t Akschually have them, while Pentagon totes does

    • CannotSleep420@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      But when you throw “hypersonic missile” into one of their circle jerks they all go flaccid and get really really angry with you.

      You underestimate the gullibility of burgers. I’ve brought up hypersonic missiles to otherwise “apolitical” friends and they just started going on about how a patriot missile system shot one down in Ukraine and how hypersonics aren’t shit.

    • Fishroot [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      kind of like how at the beginning of the war Liz from trueanon made a comment on Russian Missile technology and people shit their pants

      She might not be a weapon specialist but her dad worked with Aeronautic wing of the US military industrial complex

      • Shrike502@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Liz from trueanon made a comment on Russian Missile technology and people shit their pants

        Could you elaborate, please? What did Liz say? What was the reaction?

        • Fishroot [none/use name]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It was that short episode they did when the invasion started.

          Liz basically said the war sucks and Europe doesn’t really have the capacity or the economy to fight it and that Russia has hypersonic missiles that might be far more advanced than the missiles arsenal NATO possessed

          some people really took issue with the statement basically saying that this is not needed and that they fall into the Russian imperialist narrative

    • hypercube [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      strange kinda thing to pontificate about - can’t imagine a Great Power War panning out in a way that doesn’t involve most of us getting turned into bone and ash within the hour, and then the new Great Power War will be between shirtless mutant furry dudes with big bits of rebar