5 ms·

I generally find that the US lags in weapons technology whose biggest utility lies in countering American superweapons - carriers and stealth fighters. I think

I generally find that the US lags in weapons technology whose biggest utility lies in countering American superweapons - carriers and stealth fighters. I think it's quite understandable why this is the case - imagine spending hundreds of billions on carrier procurement, and simultaneously developing a weapon that more or less renders them obsolete. The situation has changed in that there's news that the Russians and Chinese have overtaken the US in this field, as well as the Chinese started fielding similarly high-end carriers of their own, creating a legitimate target for US hypersonics.

rootusrootus 4y ago
It seems more likely that Russia and China are still decades behind the US but considerably more willing to hype up technology they don't actually have. China has made some progress but they are a long ways behind. Russia, well, ... Ukraine is demonstrating how stagnant their military capability has become. I kinda wonder how many of their nukes would actually fly right now if they were crazy enough to push the button.
- CSMastermind 4y ago
  My impression was that Russia's failures in Ukraine mostly stemmed from failures in their logistics and doctrine rather than their technology.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > My impression was that Russia's failures in Ukraine mostly stemmed from failures in their logistics and doctrine rather than their technology. Also lack of proper spending priorities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJkmcNjh_bg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJkmcNjh_bg And corruption: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4
  - JumpCrisscross 4y ago
    > Russia's failures in Ukraine mostly stemmed from failures in their logistics and doctrine rather than their technology Russia’s reactive armour had egg cartons in place of explosive. The same oligarchs are delivering these weapons. Meanwhile, Moscow’s “smart” weapons missed entire airfields.
- mrits 4y ago
  It seems likely that no one in Russia knows how many working nukes they have.
  - trasz 4y ago
    And if any of them still work.
boilerupnc 4y ago
Innovator’s Dilemma in action :-)
jandrewrogers 4y ago
When developing advanced military capabilities, the US usually runs offensive and defensive programs in parallel. Beyond the "what if our enemy had this" aspect of the conversation, having a good model of what an advanced defensive system might look like informs design choices on the offensive side. Too many people conflate the US deeming a weapons technology relatively ineffective given the (classified) capability matrix of their other systems with them not having the technology. Hypersonic endo-atmospheric guided missiles, for example, is an area where the US has deep design expertise going back several decades. They were designing and testing hypersonic guided missiles for battlefield(!) use in the 1980s.
- jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
  This is entirely correct. A basic example is how the US doesn't prioritize SAM systems to the same degree as Russia. This doesn't mean the US isn't capable of producing similar or even superior systems at volume, it's just that it doesn't make sense given the overwhelming scale of the US Air Force. Likewise there's a similar relative de-emphasis on some forms of artillery. Now after shaking off decades of counter insurgency warfare and pivoting to address a multipolar world instead it's not surprising they want to change up the mix. It doesn't mean there's some dire technology or capability gap fundamentally however. Military stuff is entire operational systems vs other operational systems, yet nearly all these forum warrior conversations treat it as some sort of swipe left or swipe right pairwise comparison of two pieces of specific equipment.
jandrese 4y ago
Why would the someone develop anti-stealth fighter weapons when their opponents aren't flying stealth fighters? Same with carriers. Nobody else has a serious carrier fleet anymore.
- greedo 4y ago
  China has two based on old Soviet designs for VSTOL aircraft, and is building a "Nimitz" style CVN with apparent plans to build a significant number.
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
The new Chinese carrier needs a takeoff ramp and isn't even nuclear powered. Paper tiger.
- trasz 4y ago
  Perhaps because China is focused on defensive capabilities, not offensive?
  - greedo 4y ago
    Has nothing to do with offensive/defensive capabilities (which is really a straw man). They simply are proceeding with their carrier development in an incremental fashion, learning as they go. Almost every weapon or weapon system can be described as defensive or offensive, depending on the motives of the person discussing said systems.
    - trasz 4y ago
      What’s would be the defensive purpose of a nuclear aircraft carrier? The offensive part is obvious - makes a whole lot of difference when you are invading someplace on the other side of the world, which is what US Navy is optimized for.
      - greedo 4y ago
        You can defend international sea lanes (so shipping can go through), you can defend your territorial waters, etc etc etc. Defense is in the eye of the beholder.
        trasz 4y ago
        And how exactly is nuclear propulsion necessary for any of this? Because it it makes a whole lot of difference when there are no allied harbors nearby, ie you are on the other side of the world, ie you’re invading someone again.
jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
You are simply mistaken on this topic, probably due to only reading click bait or nationalistic articles on the topic. Carriers are by no means obsolete, and ballistic missile defense is one of the things the Navy prioritizes heavily, and has done, for ages. Even for the DF-21 a carrier strike group is a tough nut to crack. China's carriers are still a couple generations away from being at parity to the US fleet. Sensationalized bait headline articles are not a good source for learning about this stuff. https://twitter.com/RickJoe_PLA https://twitter.com/RickJoe_PLA writes for the large media brands with some regularity, and is strict about sticking to a substantive factual basis for everything.

rootusrootus 4y ago

It seems more likely that Russia and China are still decades behind the US but considerably more willing to hype up technology they don't actually have. China has made some progress but they are a long ways behind. Russia, well, ... Ukraine is demonstrating how stagnant their military capability has become. I kinda wonder how many of their nukes would actually fly right now if they were crazy enough to push the button.

CSMastermind 4y ago
My impression was that Russia's failures in Ukraine mostly stemmed from failures in their logistics and doctrine rather than their technology.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > My impression was that Russia's failures in Ukraine mostly stemmed from failures in their logistics and doctrine rather than their technology. Also lack of proper spending priorities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJkmcNjh_bg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJkmcNjh_bg And corruption: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  > Russia's failures in Ukraine mostly stemmed from failures in their logistics and doctrine rather than their technology Russia’s reactive armour had egg cartons in place of explosive. The same oligarchs are delivering these weapons. Meanwhile, Moscow’s “smart” weapons missed entire airfields.
mrits 4y ago
It seems likely that no one in Russia knows how many working nukes they have.
- trasz 4y ago
  And if any of them still work.

boilerupnc 4y ago

Innovator’s Dilemma in action :-)

jandrewrogers 4y ago

When developing advanced military capabilities, the US usually runs offensive and defensive programs in parallel. Beyond the "what if our enemy had this" aspect of the conversation, having a good model of what an advanced defensive system might look like informs design choices on the offensive side. Too many people conflate the US deeming a weapons technology relatively ineffective given the (classified) capability matrix of their other systems with them not having the technology. Hypersonic endo-atmospheric guided missiles, for example, is an area where the US has deep design expertise going back several decades. They were designing and testing hypersonic guided missiles for battlefield(!) use in the 1980s.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago
This is entirely correct. A basic example is how the US doesn't prioritize SAM systems to the same degree as Russia. This doesn't mean the US isn't capable of producing similar or even superior systems at volume, it's just that it doesn't make sense given the overwhelming scale of the US Air Force. Likewise there's a similar relative de-emphasis on some forms of artillery. Now after shaking off decades of counter insurgency warfare and pivoting to address a multipolar world instead it's not surprising they want to change up the mix. It doesn't mean there's some dire technology or capability gap fundamentally however. Military stuff is entire operational systems vs other operational systems, yet nearly all these forum warrior conversations treat it as some sort of swipe left or swipe right pairwise comparison of two pieces of specific equipment.

jandrese 4y ago

Why would the someone develop anti-stealth fighter weapons when their opponents aren't flying stealth fighters? Same with carriers. Nobody else has a serious carrier fleet anymore.

greedo 4y ago
China has two based on old Soviet designs for VSTOL aircraft, and is building a "Nimitz" style CVN with apparent plans to build a significant number.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

The new Chinese carrier needs a takeoff ramp and isn't even nuclear powered. Paper tiger.

trasz 4y ago
Perhaps because China is focused on defensive capabilities, not offensive?
- greedo 4y ago
  Has nothing to do with offensive/defensive capabilities (which is really a straw man). They simply are proceeding with their carrier development in an incremental fashion, learning as they go. Almost every weapon or weapon system can be described as defensive or offensive, depending on the motives of the person discussing said systems.
  - trasz 4y ago
    What’s would be the defensive purpose of a nuclear aircraft carrier? The offensive part is obvious - makes a whole lot of difference when you are invading someplace on the other side of the world, which is what US Navy is optimized for.
    - greedo 4y ago
      You can defend international sea lanes (so shipping can go through), you can defend your territorial waters, etc etc etc. Defense is in the eye of the beholder.
      - trasz 4y ago
        And how exactly is nuclear propulsion necessary for any of this? Because it it makes a whole lot of difference when there are no allied harbors nearby, ie you are on the other side of the world, ie you’re invading someone again.

jasonwatkinspdx 4y ago

You are simply mistaken on this topic, probably due to only reading click bait or nationalistic articles on the topic. Carriers are by no means obsolete, and ballistic missile defense is one of the things the Navy prioritizes heavily, and has done, for ages. Even for the DF-21 a carrier strike group is a tough nut to crack. China's carriers are still a couple generations away from being at parity to the US fleet. Sensationalized bait headline articles are not a good source for learning about this stuff. https://twitter.com/RickJoe_PLA https://twitter.com/RickJoe_PLA writes for the large media brands with some regularity, and is strict about sticking to a substantive factual basis for everything.