http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/why-the-us-navy-should-fear-chinas-new-093b-nuclear-attack-16741
>Is China’s new Type 093B nuclear-powered attack submarine on par with the U.S. Navy’s Improved Los Angeles-class boats?
>At least some U.S. naval analysts believe so and contend that the introduction of the new People’s Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) submarines is an indication of just how quickly Beijing is catching up to the West.
>“The 93B is not to be confused with the 93. It is a transition platform between the 93 and the forthcoming 95,” said Jerry Hendrix, director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security—who is also a former U.S. Navy Captain. “It is quieter and it has a new assortment of weapons to include cruise missiles and a vertical launch capability. The 93B is analogous to our LA improved in quietness and their appearance demonstrates that China is learning quickly about how to build a modern fast attack boat.”
>>30434498
OH MY GOD The Chink navy caught up with a class of boat designed in 1971. Fall of the West imminent.
Haha got you now white piggu.
>itsfuckingnothing.jpeg
>>30434560
688i are mid 80s, though.
i only fear chinese-built stuff if i have to use it.
if this is the same china that cant move a fucking division without 80% of the mechanized breaking down...
>>30434670
32 years behind instead of 45. I'm worried now.
>>30434715
688i is already pretty good-tier in terms of acoustic stealth. Not to mention that this new chinese sub has VLS launched missiles as well like the Virginia.
In terms of acoustic stealth, China has now actually caught up with the Russians, who only achieved 105-110db with their newest nuclear attack submarine.
>>30434498
Nothing China or Russia can produce would threaten the US military. They're both about 30 years behind playing catch-up.
They have a new sub? Cool we have 40 that are superior and are tactically proven.
0/10
>>30434498
>/the-buzz/
>Why the US Navy Should Fear China's-
Dropped. Done. Not even clicking on the link.
The ONLY things they have of note are those fucking Sanic-fast missiles (which are admittedly pretty impressive) and a shit-ton of hackers. Everything else is a copy of '90s (or earlier) tech, with success levels varying from "congrats, you copied it, now to advance two more decades" to "you should've just bought from Russia".
>>30434820
>you should've just bought from Russia
And this, my friends, is why India will forever suck and forever send back their aircraft engines to Russia just for regular overhaul.
The chinks arent so stupid. Better reverse engineer/copy/develop a mediocre system themselves that is reproducible, than to buy a (monkey version) cat in a bag from Russia.
Same applies to other vassal-tier nations as well. Like South Korea and Japan, who still need to be provided with the Aegis package from the US to build their destroyers. Or the engine-parts for maintenance of their F-15s.
>nationalinterest
>>30434743
688i have VLS cells
>>30434706
>if this is the same china that cant move a fucking division without 80% of the mechanized breaking down...
It's not.
>>30434853
China has yet to reverse engineer good aircraft engines.
>>30434853
their people don't even have the blueprints for toilets, what makes you think they'll build an engine domestically?
>>30434913
Actually, it is kinda a combination of reverse engineering and independent development.
The WS-10 turbofan, for example, which now powers over 200 J-11B Flankers in the PLAAF, is based on the CFM-56 civilian aircraft high-bypass turbofan core that they have acquired by operating, well, civilian aircrafts powered by these engines. Now, they used that core and further developed it into a military low-bypass turbofan with afterburning stages. It was a troubling development that took 20 years, but now, they have something that is equivalent to the GE F110, which powers both F-15 and F-16.
Ironically, the GE F-110 is also a development from the CFM-56, which makes China's WS-10 a distant relative to the US turbofan.
>>30434498
You made this same exact thread not three days ago. And you showed your ass. Just give it up.
>>30435008
And, as said, the WS-10 is now powering the majority of China's advanced Flanker variants, including the J-11B, J-11D, J-16 etc. and even single engine fighters like the J-10B with increasing numbers, which indicates that this engine is considered reliable and 'good enough' for mass-service and replacement of the Russian AL-31F, which served as the mainstay before.
So, China indeed acquired/reverse-engineered a 'good engine'.
>>30434670
The 688Is are also two design generations old as far as USN SSNs. That should tell you something.
>>30435035
I remember that noone could actually disprove the efficiency of using SSGNs with long range missiles vs CVBGs.
>inb4 you cant guide the missiles
Nigger, China has a kill-chain that allows their ASBMs to find and hit a carrier at 1200km range. For sure they have the capability to guide 500km ranged missiles against the same target.
>>30435064
>I remember that noone could actually disprove the efficiency of using SSGNs with long range missiles vs CVBGs.
Except for the dozen anons pointing out the significant issue within the killchain with targeting and terminal guidance. Just those two little details. Totally nothing, right?
>Nigger, China has a kill-chain that allows their ASBMs to find and hit a carrier at 1200km range. For sure they have the capability to guide 500km ranged missiles against the same target.
This is what "I have to handwave because I don't know how this machine actually works" looks like, kids. Take notes.
>>30435008
>>30435043
I noticed you didn't mention the WS-10's lifespan that is so short it makes RD-33's look like geezers.
>>30435085
Yet again, the US also utilizes long range anti ship missiles.
But it was explained by them having some sort of space magic that noone else have.
Even not the Russians, who are veterans in long range anti-ship missiles.
And the counter-claim that they suck in targeting because they are supersonic and shit (a doubtful claim), was defeated by the existence of long range subsonic anti ship missiles in China's arsenal, such as the YJ-62.
>>30435108
1500 hours for their latest variants arent exactly short.
Those quoted "30 hours" or "300 hours" came from very early models, which is already encompassed within the term "troubled development".
>>30435064
>500km ranged missiles
500km? Against a CBG? Really? Have fun with the the half dozen ASROCs that drop on your head the second AWACS sees your launch. Of course, since you're not guiding your missiles in to the kill box (incoming ASROCs, LAMPS III choppers, etc, kek) not a god damn one of them makes it through the massive EW cloud, escort decoy emissions, countermeasures, SM-6, SM-2ER, ESSM, deck guns, SeaRAM and Phalanx.
Have fun with that.
>>30435122
>Yet again, the US also utilizes long range anti ship missiles.
Damn straight.
>But it was explained by them having some sort of space magic that noone else have.
Yes. It's called operational deep penetration VLO aircraft with LPI comms, just for one example.
>Even not the Russians, who are veterans in long range anti-ship missiles.
In the cold war, it was extremely rare that they maintained a target grade track on a single carrier for an extended period of time in blue water, and none of those times would have ended well for them if they were transmitting terminal targeting data and thus revealing position. And there was NEVER a time that they could localize all active USN carriers within 100mi at the same time. Read a book. Educate yourself about this shit. Here, start with this:
http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-031.htm
https://www.usnwc.edu/getattachment/e2f92747-f9f1-4987-8db4-7e99874214b2/Maritime-Deception-and-Concealment--Concepts-for-D.aspx
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2014/10/deception-and-backfire-bomber-finale_31.html
Actually learn something before running your cockholster off. It's embarrassing to watch.
>>30435122
Theres a giant difference in doctrine between a force like china or russia who have to volley missiles at max range with no real time target data, hoping a few find & hit targets.
And the US which has long range stealth planes, carrying long range stealth ASM's, who can fire 1 missile and destroy 1 ship
>But it was explained by them having some sort of space magic that noone else have.
? Who else has stealth? Who else is building stealth missiles?
>>30435172
YJ-62
Subsonic, 600km range.
Explain that.
How is it working?
>>30435206
Its for sinking vietnamese/pinoy fishing boats
>>30435172
China isnt Russia. China's space capabilities have neared par with the US since 2011.
China can track flying planes and stream it real time via satellites. China is perfectly capable of finding every carrier in the West Pacific. Not to mention that they will already see them if they leave port anyway.
>>30435215
According to Burgerfat, every long range missile does not work, because you cant see your target over the horizon.
Only the US can, apparently.
Explain.
>>30435131
>1500 hours for their latest variants arent exactly short.
Anon. Really? Even Russian export engines get 3,000 full life span and 1,000 hours MTBO.
The P&W F100-PW-229 in the F-15E (two decade old design now) averages 7 years (3,000+ hours) BETWEEN OVERHAULS.
>>30435226
>China's space capabilities have neared par with the US since 2011.
Nope.
>>30435226
>China can track flying planes and stream it real time via satellites. China is perfectly capable of finding every carrier in the West Pacific. Not to mention that they will already see them if they leave port anyway.
No, it can't. We've already had this conversation about the limitations of LEO RORSATs and GSO photo recon birds in real time tracking. You motherfuckers just do not listen.
>>30434893
so what happened in the last 12 months to change that
>>30435234
Only the US has stealth planes & stealth UAV's and stealth missiles
>>30435267
China's space launch would have reached parity with the US if it wasn't for SpaceX
Luckily the US has some south african migrant who is autistically focused on mars to build some actually cost effective fully reusable launch vehicles.
>>30435273
China's Yaogan, supported with their GSO satellites and OTH radars, large surveillance drones will make the WestPac pretty transparent for them though.
But the US is too proud to admit. They do not even have NOSS in orbit anymore kek.
>>30435301
>Only the US has stealth planes & stealth UAV's and stealth missiles
Again, why do you think "stealth" helps a missile to find its target 900km away?
Nonsense argument discarded. Next.
>>30435301
>China's space launch would have reached parity with the US if it wasn't for SpaceX
In what? Trucking sats into LEO? Thats russian tier.
The USAF has plenty of delta fours.
>>30435267
>>30435339
delta IV heavies cost 400 million dollars a launch
>>30435331
Stealth lets you see your target first, and then track it in real time without being spotted
Guiding the missile in.
>>30435320
>OTH radar
>Weapon quality track
>GSO Sat
>Weapon quality track
Oh, and the cream of your shitpost crop...
>They do not even have NOSS in orbit anymore kek.
Wew lad.
>>30435320
This whole post. Just wow. Why?
The hilarious part about all this is that if the Chicom fiddy centers "win" and convince enough people that they're right, what happens? Congress says, "oh shit" and funds the fuck out of the DoD and NASA, and we all get EVEN MORE shinny awesome toys to play with. Either way, it's a huge fucking win for us.
>>30434498
>Post pro-F-35 posts on National Interest forums
>they ban you
>never respond to your emails asking for an explanation
>>30435358
>Stealth lets you see your target first, and then track it in real time without being spotted Guiding the missile in.
Of course, but a 'missile seeing a target' will still require it to be near the target. Near, as in at least 50km, which is the radar horizon for any low-flying plane/missile etc.
And getting your missile into the 50km area of the prospective target is the difficulty here.
And actually, there isnt any special features/techniques. You find your target via satellite and/or recon plane/UAV and you have your off-board sensors providing targeting data to your missiles and that's it.
No special magic.
>>30435358
>delta IV heavies cost 400 million dollars a launch
And? (This is ignoring the fact that the delta 4 medium is just fine for 99% of applications)
>>30435387
OTH can provide weapon quality tracks.
After all, they were used as part of the ABM/anti-bomber defenses of Russia and the US, and lately China.
Next.
>>30435387
>>They do not even have NOSS in orbit anymore kek.
>Wew lad.
http://www.satobs.org/noss.html
>The NOSS 1-7 triplet remained in formation into 2007, but by 2012 none of the first generation NOSS remained in formation.
AMERICA
WEAK
>>30435422
And SpaceX currently launches a larger payload for 62 million
Which will drop rapidly with reuse, and will drop more with their next fully reusable super heavy vehicle.
The cost of these surveillance satellites are driven by launch costs, even high quality camera's don't cost hundreds of millions.
>>30435412
>but a 'missile seeing a target' will still require it to be near the target.
It doesn't need to see the target when the F-35 is tracking it from 100 km away, feeding real time data to the missile.
The idea that sea skimming super sonic missiles can find & hit targets in a real environment is fantasy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8H00lAboMs
Taken by the Jilin-1 satellite.
China knows where your carriers are.
>>30435449
>OTH can provide weapon quality tracks.
No. Read a book.
>After all, they were used as part of the ABM/anti-bomber defenses of Russia and the US, and lately China.
Not for fucking target tracks, you moron. Read a fucking book.
>>30435449
OTH radars are primarily used for early warning. All they really do is warn you a missile may have launched which hopefully gives you enough advance warning to react.
>>30435477
Yes but can they even reach them?
>>30435463
>but by 2012 none of the first generation NOSS remained in formation.
Do you realize the first NOSS generation was launched 40 fucking years ago? They stayed in formation for 31 years. The US is on Gen 3 now?
>>30435463
>First gen NOSS
Do you want a spoiler?
Too bad /k/ does not have em, so im going to have to just ruin the suprise.
>NRO is already on the 3rd gen of NOSS.
>>30435477
Oh no, a satellite image of a naval base that's been decomissioned for the last 20 years. And can't possible be found on Google maps. Terrifying.
>>30435477
>Taken by the Jilin-1 satellite.
With a still photo. Which is not even in the same room as a real time weapons track.
>>30435465
>It doesn't need to see the target when the F-35 is tracking it from 100 km away, feeding real time data to the missile.
Similiarily, Chinese missiles do not need to see the target over the horizon when LEO and GSO satellites pinpoint the rough location of the carrier group by their wake alone, and a high altitude UAV or AWACS provides exact targeting data from 500km range.
also
>100km
A Chinese EOTS system can track the F-22 from 110km away
>The idea that sea skimming super sonic missiles can find & hit targets in a real environment is fantasy.
The YJ-18 is a subsonic sea-skimmer. It only turns supersonic the last 50km before the target.
>>30435465
And?
It was never about cost for the USAF, It is for nasa.
>>30435548
Watch the video.
They are tracking an airliner from space. With this, even B-2 bomber groups sent out against Chinese targets can be tracked and preemptively shot down by detonating an airburst EMP bomb near them via ballistic missiles.
>>30435561
>A Chinese EOTS system can track the F-22 from 110km away
Maybe from the tail at full AB? Dubious claims are dubious.
We know not to trust every release from chinese firms, unless you belive in magical 1000mm RHA penning (after ERA) top attack man portable AT missles
>>30435465
China doesn't need to defeat the F-35.
China just has to defeat the carrier.
Sink the carrier and all the F-35's go down with it.
>>30435590
>what is air-friction
>>30435561
>a high altitude UAV or AWACS provides exact targeting data from 500km range.
Which AWACs sees and either SM-6 or SM-3 or F-35s/F-18s facefuck. Oh, I'm sorry are we in magic land? Are we pretending the CSG isn't defending itself?
>>30435561
>Imlpying an enemy AWACS is ever going to get close to a CSG, especially if its radiating.
>Comparing Chinese EOTS against the F-22 instead of the F-35 which has a superior EODAS system.
>>30435596
>>30435561
>If we fire enough missiles, surely we'll hit something!
If these satellites can actually track ships at sea, then they will be shot down
>>30435561
>A Chinese EOTS system can track the F-22 from 110km away
Holy fucking kek. I'd love to see any kind of actual proof for this.
>>30435596
Missiles can't hit what they can't see. Carriers aren't as easy to find as you think they are.
>>30435578
>space based realtime video tracking of all targets in the theatre.
Lel.
>>30435578
What video? That looks like a still photo that happened to catch an airliner.
Even if there was a video, it's not that hard to run a scan track on a known flight path at a given time, anon.
>>30435612
Oh, so you want to give away your location by shooting down an AWACS or drone with your shipboard SAM?
Noice.
I love that from CMANO. It lets me guess the location of the burger-group and proceed to hate-fuck it with my ASBMs and YJ-12/18s by sacrificing a cheap Sea-Harrier UAV.
>>30435578
>Taking out B-2s with ballistic EMP missiles.
The fuck are you even saying.
>>30435607
Not something that can be tracked from 110 km.
>>30435607
Something that generates nowhere near enough heat at M1.2 for it to be detected and picked out of clutter at 110km away, especially when the F-22 is heat dumping to the rear aspect.
>>30435645
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef4_1461508939
>>30435596
>Sink the carrier and all the F-35's go down with it.
What are land based aircraft?
>>30435646
>sams give away your location
Wew lad. If you can see the sam flying as it is launched, then you can see the sam.
In CMNAO if you blind fire ASHMs against a moving target from relevent ranges, you will miss nearly every time.
>>30435646
>I don't understand the concepts of escorts, missile traps, and the fact that CSGs can actually disperse and don't clump together as is shown in PR photos.
>>30435646
>real life naval ops is CMANO
>real life naval commanders will operate like you set your CMANO AI to
>real life naval commanders will operate like you subtly manipulate them to in CMANO to produce your desired result
>your scenario always stands
>>30435684
Where could you launch an F-35 from that would be close enough to reach China without relying heavily on airborne refueling?
Wait, isnt the DF21 a kinetic weapon? That means China has to guide it from launch to terminal to hit a moving target percisely. Nevermind that the plasma shield prevents electromagnetic communication. Nevermind that ballistic missiles haven't been proven by russia nor usa to be usable against a fast moving target. Seriously, DF21 is overrated.
>>30435708
Formosa
>>30435708
Japan and Korea.
>>30435708
Dont talk about me or my son ever again.
>Taken in the SCS :^)
>>30435691
In CMANO, I would wait for a satellite to pass that location, even before waiting for my drone to get shot down.
From experience, it is quite fast. With 30+ Yaogan sats in orbit, PLAN commanders do not even have to wait so long for one or two to pass the location.
>>30435665
>A satellite tracking a pre-planned commercial flight with a predictable path for roughly one minute.
You do know that the US has more than one B-2 and can operate them from multiple bases?
>>30435729
>Nevermind that the plasma shield prevents electromagnetic communication.
tl;dr
They use the plasma resonance as an antennae to connect with the missile
>>30435607
> What is not flying that fast while on CAP.
> What is clouds
>>30435665
>http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=ef4_1461508939
>real time tracking
My fucking ass. Those are video captures on a grid that happened to catch airliners. I bet they aren't even real time. What a crock of shit. This almost as bad as the "satellite proof" that a Ukrainian jet shot down that airliner.
>>30435764
Oh look. Handwavium space magic.
>>30435764
They PREDICT they can use plasma resonance in some way, but as your pic shows, it's still purely theoretical.
>>30435646
Why do they need an SM-6 to do it when an F-35 can throw a pair of AMRAAMs then dive into a cloud.
>>30435561
No need for the J-20 to use EOTS to rekt US stealth planes.
The J-20 is as filled to the brim with radars as it is. It already has wing-mounted VHF arrays.
>>30435746
Great. I've been trying to have a rational discussion with the "scenario stands" fuckwit. Perfect.
I'm out.
>>30435804
>radiating radars
>ever
It's like you're asking to be fucked.
>>30435746
>From experience, it is quite fast. With 30+ Yaogan sats in orbit,
Wew lad. I bet you were dumb enough to set them to all be optical.
>>30435804
>Using VHF against planes with the best passive sensor package ever devised.
It's not going to work for the PAK-FA and it's not going to work for the J-20.
>>30435655
Oh great, not only is he a fiddycent, but he's a fiddycent who believes EMPs are relevent when discussing military operations.
>>30435798
China's new return capsule that just touched ground yesterday, after being launched with their new Long March 7 rocket, actually was equipped with such a system.
>>30435804
>all those radars.
This pleases the ALQ-239.
>>30435849
EMP was useless against vintage analogue systems, but against modern solid-state systems, they are devastating.
Best Thread.
>>30435879
No.
Do you know how EMPs work?
Oh wait, of course you don't.
>>30435879
This is the most asinine post of the thread.
Watch, as he defends said story without a scrap of evidence.
>>30435914
Old transistor technology was proof against EMP attacks, but modern solid state is not. Not even faraday cage helps.
>>30435879
Daily reminder that EMP require hydrogen bombs to produce and if you're going to be throwing hydrogen bombs around then you might as well just use the bomb itself as a weapon.
>>30435956
>Implying the US and USSR weren't aware of EMP for decades and didn't harden critical systems against it.
>>30435956
>Not even faraday cage helps.
Cant make this shit up.
Watch, as he defends said claims without a scrap of evidence.
>>30435956
Great. So you don't know how it works.
PROTIP: A) EMPs only really affect things that are plugged into the power grid. B) Military aircraft (really, military anything) are specifically hardened against EMPs. C) even if it did work, the B2s would merely do an air restart. They certainly wouldn't fall out of the sky.
>>30435852
How convenient.
>>30435008
>tfw the US nearly sold the F-16 to China during the 80s Honeymoon.
>>30436172
Thank god we didnt. The chinese would have cancelled the order halfway though, and reversed engineered it.
>>30435264
Still plenty good for China's technological level. With the introduction of their new single crystal engine blades replacing their directionally solified crystal engine blade, the lifespan will prolong.
Still, in the end, this makes China's airforce largely independent from imports.
>>30434498
>nationalinterest
Stopped reading there
>>30436224
>Still plenty good for China's technological level
No, it isn't. Especially when individuals like yourself claim China is on par with Russia or the West.
>>30435339
Falcon 9 can deliver a payload to the moon, and has sent tons of satellites to GTO. Delta IV is an overpriced turd that is less capable than the Atlas V in every single way, which is why ULA is retiring it. Only the Delta IV heavy can perform roles that cheaper rockets cannot, and once SpaceX stars launching the Falcon Heavy the military will probably switch over to that.
>>30436508
In some fields, China already surpassed the US (quantum research, super-computers). In others not.
Technology isnt working like in some computer game, where you can describe it with some 'level'. Technologyis heterogenous, and even if you are good in one field, you might not be in another field.
Ah, and also China is the first one to deploy GaN radars on a fighter jet (J-20 AESA).
>>30435348
Wow, China's response to America's orbital space plane is a sixty year old Russian bomber that doesn't even have intercontinental range. Fuck they've got us beat for sure.
>>30436539
>In some fields, China already surpassed the US (quantum research, super-computers).
China's new 'record breaking' super computer is simply a brute force collection of significantly slower processors.
>>30436539
J-20 is not even in service, and the transmitter material is not the only thing that matters, not even close.
The F-22 radar just got an upgrade. Same transmitters, nearly twice the range.
US already has export GaN moduals, its not a matter of cant, its a matter of need.
>>30436172
>F-16 with a J-79
Wew lad
>>30436667
I am waiting for it to turn out like how the Byelka in the PAK FA is less powerful than the Irbis in the Su-35.
>>30436659
I hope you realized you just described every single supercomputer that has ever existed
>>30437295
Way to miss the point. The Chinese needed a ration of a couple hundred more processors to performance than the Titan, the previous holder.
>>30437365
Software, yet again, is the key.
Even if the US wanted, they wouldnt be able to replicate the Chinese, as it was tried and failed repeatedly in the West, to write a software that can actually fuze that amount of cores together.
>>30437831
>Even if the US wanted, they wouldnt be able to replicate the Chinese, as it was tried and failed repeatedly in the West, to write a software that can actually fuze that amount of cores together.
Do you think if you just keep repeating bald-faced lies that have already been debunked, they'll suddenly become true? Why do you even try this bullshit?
>>30437949
Show me an US supercomputer with 10 million cores working perfectly in synch.
Show me.
Or get the fuck out.
>>30437831
>Software, yet again, is the key.
>the PRC is the only place in the world where people code at a high level
fucking kekimus maximus
>>30437971
see
>>30437959
Fuck it.
Show me one with 3 million cores, like the Tianhe-2
Do it.
Or shut up.
>>30437959
Why would we need to? Past a certain point all that extra processing is just heat up the cooling towers. It's the same damn thing as the Three Gorges. Chinese people are so deeply insecure about their place in the world and their technological legacy that they have to dickwave in the most asinine of ways. It's fucking exhausting just to watch.
>>30437959
>>30437985
While you at it; show me an US quantum communications test satellite.
Because that's what China will launch next month.
>>30438013
Whatever you say. 33 Petaflops of the Tianhe-2 and the 93 Petaflops of the Taihu are useful for faster calculations for nuclear warheads. Because China wants them faster, and doesnt want to wait month for a new miniaturized warhead, but only days.
Size and scale matters.
Going to sleep now. I consider Americans BTFO.
Craw at me in the new thread, burgerfats.
>>30438042
>Whatever you say. 33 Petaflops of the Tianhe-2 and the 93 Petaflops of the Taihu are useful for faster calculations for nuclear warheads. Because China wants them faster, and doesnt want to wait month for a new miniaturized warhead, but only days.
Do you actually understand how any of that works? Do you have any clue about the fact that it takes far, far longer to set up the burn, to draw up your algorithms than it does for a modern supercomputer to crunch your work? Have you ever been within 10 miles of an actual supercomputer?
>>30434743
>105-110db
That's pretty loud, anon.
>>30438072
My personal favorite is the idea that L-band radar can produce a resolution useful for targeting if you have enough computing power behind it.
I thought this was a naval thread.
This is one of the kekest threads /k/ has seen in a while.
>>30434498
Why does the US allow trade with China? I mean if they're such a big problem why are we doing business with them?
>>30435064
>China has a kill-chain that allows their ASBMs to find and hit a carrier at 1200km range.
No. They don't. They have a bunch of vaporware, gobs of wishful thinking, and battalions of paid shitposters.
If you do the math using the overly optimistic figures that the Chinese published, you still come up with a hit probability of 0.6%. Yes, 6/10s of 1%. Then, if you factor for the number of hits it would take to sink a carrier, you come up with about 1200 ASBMs need to be launched to sink 1 carrier. That's about the same cost as a carrier, so you could say you need to spend a carrier to sink a carrier. That cost goes even higher if the target carrier is using any countermeasures other than simply sailing at 30 knots.
>>30435122
>And the counter-claim that they suck in targeting because they are supersonic and shit (a doubtful claim), was defeated by the existence of long range subsonic anti ship missiles in China's arsenal, such as the YJ-62.
That makes no sense. It's like saying oranges don't exist because you don't have apples.
What if MH370 was shot down by a CHinese satellite
>>30435578
>preemptively shot down by detonating an airburst EMP bomb near them via ballistic missiles.
Targeting aircraft with ballistic missiles. Right.
>>30439454
They'd have done a much better job trying to shoop in a Ukrainian jet.
>>30434498
is this going to end up like the war with Japan, and the cold war, where the west vastly over-estimates the capabilities of the enemy?
Bumping
This thread is comedy gold
>>30435646
>CMANO
This thread would have gone a lot easier for you if you had mentioned at the outset that it was about a video game. A lot of anons, myself included, were under the impression that you thought you were discussing real-world capabilities and issues.
Hey, did you ever play any of the original Warcraft games? That shit was fun as hell. From your posts, I can tell you're one of those kids who doesn't like to lose. If you ever come across any of the legacy Warcraft modules, the cheat codes to remember are all that glitters and today is a good day to die.
I dunno what CMANO cheat codes there are, but I'm sure you already have a handle on that.
>>30435226
You know the satellites you use to find carriers and other warships aren't geostationary, right? You know they're subject to windows of overflight, counter detection and - without burning valuable manoevring fuel - predictable orbits?
>>30439615
>NASA and Airforce tracking chicom sats
>calls battlegroup and tells them they will be in range in 10 minutes
>they launch their SRBOC
>Trollface.jpg
>>30439643
Yup, or sail out of predictable detection windows
>>30435764
>They use the plasma resonance as an antennae to connect with the missile
Completely, egregiously, and hilariously wrong.
They propose to research the possibility of using tuned plasma resonance to overcome the communications blackout.
You know what that means? They want to try communicating with hypersonic missiles via Morse code. Data transfer rates that make stenography look fast.
I'm calling it now, it'll be 5 years before they get past simple binary and 20 before they achieve 8 bit modulation.
>>30439570
>is this going to end up like the war with Japan, and the cold war, where the west vastly over-estimates the capabilities of the enemy?
I fucking hope so.
> Western military spending produces ridiculously epic weapon systems.
> Opfor trash-talking forces them into an economic contest which they lose when they can't back up their trash-talk with actual weapons.
>>30439539
Fuck, it worked for Belka, it'll work for China.
>>30438181
My favorite is the idea that the US can make it work with UHV-band, because their new E-2D has it.
Again, handwaveium solution because of freedom space magic.
>>30440956
>anything I don't understand is lies!
There's your problem.
>>30441052
>anything I don't understand is lies!
Same to you in regards to Chinese equivalents.
>>30441089
You don't understand the physics behind L band, do you?
>>30441108
You dont understand the physics behind UHF and VHF band, do you?
>>30441089
For a second I thought those were 1000s of tiny ass rockets.
I was really happy.
>>30439643
>burn fuel to adjust orbit
>nasa does some math
>fuel completely wasted, orbit re-mapped in an hour
>>30434498
>comes to forum with Americans
>"China will kill you!"
What did you expect?
>>30441112
Didn't your last thread get shut down?
>>30441182
No, why?
>>30441225
There was another shill thread a few days ago that got wiped after ~150 posts.
The mods are probably cracking down.
>>30440956
My favorite is your strawman that the E-2D can do it, when it has never been claimed.
>>30441112
Which are L-band, which you don't actually understand how they are unable to provide targeting information.
>>30438042
Even the best supercomputer wont help you roll out a new design nuclear warhead.
It can help you with SELP and mods to an existing primary, but with a clean sheet design, you have to have a testing program.
>>30442452
Thank you Oppenheimer for your input.
However, logic and reasoning is useless against the Mandarin orange menace.
>>30442629
> Mandarin orange menace
Holy shit my sides.
>>30442452
Opp, do you have a reading list of books that could help an anon become more literate on the topic of nuclear strategy? I was also looking for a good book to learn more about modern radar.
>>30442452
Oh please """"Oppenheimer"""" your don't know anything about nukes. Glorious China will rise and there is nothing that you western dogs can do about it.
>>30442694
This is a reading list that Opp has posted before.
On Thermonuclear War By Herman Kahn
On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larsen and Kerry Kartchner
The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Third Edition by Lawrence Freedman
Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig
Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age by Francis J. Gavin
Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan
Prevention, Pre-emption and the Nuclear Option: From Bush to Obama by Aiden Warren
Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy by Thérèse Delpech
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy by Charles L. Glaser
Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes
Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang
Building the H Bomb: A Personal History By Kenneth W Ford
>>30442782
Thanks
>>30435708
>I've never heard of Japan
Christ the chink firewall is getting out of hand
>>30442930
Japan wont survive the 1st hour after war began. The entire 1st island chain along with all US bases and friendly countries, to be exact. The US has to ferry their forces from Alaska.
>>30443929
You mean the entire 1st island chain would not survive the first hour.
>>30442452
Which is exactly what China will do.
China already has warhead miniaturization enabling them to put 10+ MIRV on a DF-41. That's a good platform for further development. And those super-computers help them.
But conventional super-computers are old news. China would probably be the first one to pioneer quantum computing.
>>30444004
>quantum
>China confirmed to kill us all with singularities.
>>30443929
So, you're saying that China is going to start a nuclear war by nuking a bunch of non-nuclear countries?
>>30438017
>>30435477
>>30435578
Do it, faggot
>>30435463
>literally the same fucking post I shot down last week
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Ocean_Surveillance_System#Third_generation
Y'know these fiddycenter shill posts are coming up often enough that I'm finally fucking tired of them. Hiro's Japanese, so he ought to have a natural hate of China, right? Think we could get him to IP-range ban China and/or popular Chinese proxies for us?
>>30435746
MY SCENARIO STANDS
>>30435828
>>30435815
I've got the game myself and the satellites do seem to work... well, perfectly. A US Keyhole satellite was able to positively ID a bunch of warships that was *significantly* distant from its course track; like, several hundred nautical miles west of the satellite's ground track.
tl;dr either CMANO currently overmodels satellite sensors a bit or you really really need to take weather effects into account before you start using satellites. Currently the game doesn't support varied weather fronts so you can't hide your ships by keeping them under a squall, for instance.
>>30435879
>EMP
>against an aircraft originally designed as a high-low deep-penetration nuclear strike bomber
anon
>>30437831
>Silicon Valley can't out-code a bunch of slant-eyed chinks
k
>>30440956
>>30441734
First, I don't think the E2-D actually uses L-band.
Second, the weapons used to engage those contacts have their own air-search radars to acquire the target in terminal attack, such as the SM-6.
>>30443929
>Japan wont survive the 1st hour after war began
how
>>30440221
Dont forget about the burst missiles. Glory to Yuktobania!
>>30435301
What is this bad and dumb meme. The Delta IV heavy is better/bigger than anything the chinks and slavs have, and NASA is building an even bigger rocket....
The USA is still the only country capable of putting large payloads on the moon or mars.
The Chinese military has, and will, always be fucking terrible. Can't wait for a significantly smaller, but not shitty, Japanese military murders a few million chinks again.
>>30448616
Pretty much every other slanted eye nationality hates the fuck out of Japan.
When will you guys realize that China declaring war on the US would be economic suicide for both countries
>>30451145
After TPP it's just suicide for China.
>>30444004
>China would probably be the first one to pioneer quantum computing.
China is way behind the ball on this, the US has a firm lead in both theory and actual engineering.
>>30444004
lol China's only supercomputers are built the old school way, brut force. They aren't an advanced people, they can't even build their own chips or OS that's worth a damn.
It's like when people pretended clockspeed mattered the most.......
>>30435977
I remember a story saying the USSR was the only one to build against EMP, and by extension take itsmilitary seriously. US didn't care because they never really intended for conflict - all a big PR show.
>>30438993
US integration means US can cut off money and markets.
Look at Russia when they thought it was safe to integrate with EU/US... bam, sanctions, economy goes down.
>>30451682
Wew lad.
>>30451693
>Look at Russia when they thought it was safe to integrate with EU/US... bam, sanctions, economy goes down.
This is more due to them being an oil export economy.
>>30439614
> Comparing CMANO to Warcraft - or any other video game for that matter.
The Naval War College wants to have a word with you.
>>30448533
KH-11 and IMINT sats of similar technology have long demonstrated the ability to high-fidelity image targets well off the course track.
Example: http://www.americaspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/KH-11-best-SHIPYARD.jpg
This is one of the famous leaked photos of the Nikolayev shipyard, taken from a KH-11 in 1985.
>>30434498
It's a threat because occasionally they will break down and sink to the bottom of the ocean floor due to shit quality control and eventually their reactors will go critical and leak radioactive material into the ocean.
>>30452179
>KH-11 and IMINT sats of similar technology have long demonstrated the ability to high-fidelity image targets well off the course track.
Hold on.
>demonstrated the ability to high-fidelity
Wait...
>ability to high-fidelity
When did high fidelity become a verb?
>Chinese
...and fuck off.
>>30452209
It's very funny how you think you refuted the argument.
>>30452261
It's not as funny as chicoms hating America yet spending so much time talking about it.
>>30452261
Not him, but im not sure there was an arguement.
>>30434498
Lemme know when the Chinese build better boats than the Russians.
The Chinese still can't build better boats than what America and the USSR put out in the 80s.
Hell, even the new boats from Russia has the navy brass on standby.
https://news.usni.org/2016/06/03/admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-atlantic
muricashills getting seriously rattled bringing in snake oil salesman Elon Musk, F-22+F35>J-20 math, and big dick is NOT better supercomputer arguments.
>>30444004
China's smallest warhead is based of the primary tested in 1992 with CHIC-38. Reports at that time indicated that the primary would be asymmetrical, like the US W88.
The final warhead design was validated with the CHIC-39 to CHIC-44 test series. The yield, based on body- wave magnitude of 5.9, was about 100 kt. This would correspond to a yield of 500 kt or so in a full yield design.
This is consistent with a warhead weight of 500 kg with a yield to weight ratio on par with modern US thermonuclear warhead designs.
So for 10 RV's, thats a throw weight of 5000 kg. Adding in the post boot vehicle, thats another 2500 kg.
Grand total throw weight of 7500 kg.
This is about 50% more than the DF-41 can carry.
China could reduce the weight of the warhead without testing it, but this would require a substantial reduction in yield (less than 100 kt) or reliability (not a good idea).
>>30452172
>appeal to authority
Regardless of who plays, or for what reasons, it's still a videogame. It's marketed and sold as a videogame.
The Fifty Cent party obviously believes that CMANO outcomes are relevant IRL. At some point it'll become painfully obvious that this isn't the case.
>>30453141
>it's still a videogame.
At what point, in your opinion, does software transition from video game to simulation?
In my opinion, it is not a video game because video games must have built in game balance, while Command does not.
>>30453182
>At what point, in your opinion, does software transition from video game to simulation?
I think he's pointing out that CMANO, as a game or simulation, is easily manipulated both to exploit holes and poorly modeled variables in the programming (lack of cloud cover for instance or slight inaccuracies in the characteristics of classified systems) and in unconsciously or consciously setting up the simulation to produce results you wish to see confirmed. For instance, our dear "scenario stands" anon is notorious for setting up ridiculous battle plans and then using them to reinforce his arguments on /k/, usually about the vulnerability of USN carriers or primacy of PLAN aircraft or SAGs. He does this by running the USN assets in unrealistic ways, modern-tactics ignorant ways or outright handicapping the simulation to produce his desired result.
CMANO, just like any other simulation modeled on reality, is only as accurate as both the model and the minds setting it up/running it. Running flawed data through CMANO and then pointing to it as proof amounts to little more than an exercise in confirmation bias and flawed scientific method. The question of whether CMANO itself is good or not is immaterial at that point.
I'm sure the same dangers abound in the field of nuclear conflict modeling and theory.
>>30453141
>appeal to authority
More like "appeal to adults who know their trade and know whether CMANO is a useful tool for testing & analysis in their trade".
> Regardless of who plays, or for what reasons, it's still a videogame. It's marketed and sold as a videogame.
Welcome to your embarrassing ignorance of the software industry.
> The Fifty Cent party obviously believes that CMANO outcomes are relevant IRL. At some point it'll become painfully obvious that this isn't the case.
News alert: Any idiot can use an excellent tool to create crappy results. I can walk over to CERN's collider and pull a bullshit test with completely stupid inputs and produce equally stupid outputs. This doesn't mean the LHC is a bad tool. It just means I fed it crappy data.
Go on now, show us more of your pathetic understanding of professional military analysis.
>>30453970
> I think he's pointing out that CMANO, as a game or simulation, is easily manipulated both to exploit holes and poorly modeled variables in the programming (lack of cloud cover for instance or slight inaccuracies in the characteristics of classified systems) and in unconsciously or consciously setting up the simulation to produce results you wish to see confirmed. For instance, our dear "scenario stands" anon is notorious for setting up ridiculous battle plans and then using them to reinforce his arguments on /k/, usually about the vulnerability of USN carriers or primacy of PLAN aircraft or SAGs. He does this by running the USN assets in unrealistic ways, modern-tactics ignorant ways or outright handicapping the simulation to produce his desired result.
Quite true. Crappy inputs, crappy outputs.
> CMANO, just like any other simulation modeled on reality, is only as accurate as both the model and the minds setting it up/running it. Running flawed data through CMANO and then pointing to it as proof amounts to little more than an exercise in confirmation bias and flawed scientific method. The question of whether CMANO itself is good or not is immaterial at that point.
True. The issue arises because too many idiots, mostly those who disagree with the flawed analysis, attack both the analysis and the tool, failing (or consciously avoiding) to draw the line between the two.
>>30454028
>True. The issue arises because too many idiots, mostly those who disagree with the flawed analysis, attack both the analysis and the tool, failing (or consciously avoiding) to draw the line between the two.
That distinction usually comes with later high-school or early-college scientific education/training. Once people learn how to work a troubleshooting tree and objectively identify issues with their methodology, objective analysis becomes easier and that pants-shitting fear of being wrong gets put on a back burner. Ostensibly.
Unfamiliarity with CMANO probably also plays a part in this. I have it, and while I was excited about it, I still haven't put the dozens of hours into it to really learn how to get it running well.
>>30444004
We are way ahead of you in that regard chink
>>30453970
>Running flawed data through CMANO and then pointing to it as proof amounts to little more than an exercise in confirmation bias and flawed scientific method.
I agree.
But this is not the fault of the software. If properly used, the software can be informative. By dismissing the entire thing out of hand as "just a video game" does a disservice to those would would use it for more informative purposes.
>lack of cloud cover
While cloud cover does not appear visually on the map, it is present in the game.
>>30454028
>The issue arises because too many idiots, mostly those who disagree with the flawed analysis, attack both the analysis and the tool, failing (or consciously avoiding) to draw the line between the two.
Agree.
>>30453182
>At what point, in your opinion, does software transition from video game to simulation?
When it's marketed and sold as similation software instead of gaming software. A lot of games, including the original Warcraft series, had editing functions included. You could build any scenario you could envision. Between the editor and the cheat codes, game balance was pretty optional.
I used to spend countless hours playing the Combat Mission trilogy. Those could have been marketed as historical simulators, but Battlefront chose to target the gaming market.
The dividing line between simulator and game is fuzzy. Chess is a good example.
I'm not saying that games OR simulations don't have a place in a training regimen. However, a lot of anons seem to think that the results mirror reality. Or that reality should mirror gaming results. In a previous era, this was known as mistaking the map for the terrain.
>>30455533
>When it's marketed and sold as similation software instead of gaming software.
>Marketing changes the fundamental nature of the product
wut?
You should probably think more before you post.
>>30453971
>More like "appeal to adults who know their trade and know whether CMANO is a useful tool for testing & analysis in their trade".
So you decide to double down with a second appeal to authority, with even more exposition. You should learn what the term means, and why you're making yourself look like a fool right now.
CMANO has a place as a training aid. Using it for testing and analysis would be amazingly stupid.
>Welcome to your embarrassing ignorance of the software industry.
Here's the link to the vendor. Wow, will you look at that! It's being sold as a game!
http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=1101
> Any idiot can use an excellent tool to create crappy results. I can walk over to CERN's collider and pull a bullshit test
Closing with yet another appeal to authority. You do like your fallacies, don't you?
>>30455533
>When it's marketed and sold as similation software instead of gaming software.
>Wow, will you look at that! It's being sold as a game!
Porsches are marketed as barely legal street cars that you buy and then drive on public roads in excess of 150mph in the US.
Audi R-8s are marketed as for billionaire philanthropist playboys to tool around in when they aren't wearing their flying metal robot suit.
Cold Steel swords are marketed as excellent tools for sectioning hogs, cutting thick ropes and cutting tatami mats.
The Russian military is still marketed as effective and relevant against NATO.
Social Security is marketed as a means of ensuring some form of subsistence in our dotage no matter what.
Cologne is marketed as... actually, I have no fucking clue what's going on with most cologne ads.
Old Spice is marketed to either make you a hilariously absurd yet physically unstoppable manimal or the worlds most amazing ladies' man.
And on. And on.
You see what you did there? Now go sit in a corner and think about what you did wrong.
>>30455552
Gaming and simulation software are targeted at 2 different audiences. There's some overlap between users, but the intended purpose of use is completely different. The primary or majority user pool will dictate the use identification of the product.
Example: guns. Identical function, regardless of whether Jaquiri is using a Hi Point to solve his problems inna hood or somebody uses one exclusively for 3 gun competition.
Functionally identical, wildly different usage, radically different perception.
>>30455977
>Gaming and simulation software are targeted at 2 different audiences. There's some overlap between users, but the intended purpose of use is completely different. The primary or majority user pool will dictate the use identification of the product.
That would be a cogent argument, except for the fact that CMANO is also marketed and used as a simulation. That's just a dumb argument.
>>30455941
holy fucking kek
>>30455941
I think you buried your point in there, somewhere.
Target demographics drive marketing. CMANO is obviously targeted at the gaming segment. Especially the 'Professional Extensions' expansion pack. I'll bet that's a goldmine for the vendor.
That being said, I don't doubt that CMANO is a superb training tool. It's an excellent way for aspiring officers to hone their craft.
However, CMANO is not a teaching tool. Nor is it an analytical tool.
>>30456004
>except for the fact that CMANO is also marketed and used as a simulation
After it had already been released as a game.
>>30456744
>However, CMANO is not a teaching tool. Nor is it an analytical tool.
Explain.
I can use it right now to teach the fundamentals of ballistic missile defense.
>>30456744
Wait.
How is training not teaching?
>>30456744
My mind is pretty blown right now. I can't believe he's still rolling with the "advertising determines product nature" argument, even after it's been pointed out just how ridiculous it is. Ladies and gentlemen of /k/, I give you the face of autism.
>>30456744
To expand my previous point.
I have used it to teach aspects of missile defense, and have used it to analyze different scenarios regarding missile defense.
I would posit that when used properly, it is an excellent tool to teach and analyze.
>>30455533
>A lot of games, including the original Warcraft series, had editing functions included. You could build any scenario you could envision. Between the editor and the cheat codes, game balance was pretty optional.
I don't see how this related to the nature of video games vs simulations.
What was Warcraft, in your opinion, trying to simulate?
>>30455533
>A lot of games, including the original Warcraft series, had editing functions included. You could build any scenario you could envision. Between the editor and the cheat codes, game balance was pretty optional.
I'm sorry. I was unaware that Warcraft was modeled as closely as possible on real world equipment and geography. Where the fuck are my goddamn Griphons? I coulda used a couple of those bitches in the sandbox.
>>30453182
The point is that whatever you classify it it is still irrelevant to real life.
You fuckers are arguing over this stupid software, I want more gook v burger sperging you fucks.
>>30434498
Hell no
>>30456780
Training is reinforcing or expanding upon already-taught fundamentals.
>>30457206
Why do you think that? There are examples in this thread of it being used in practical ways.
>>30456769
Ok, we're going to disagree here. You could use it to TRAIN on the fundamentals of BMD. You won't be able to use it to teach all of the underlying concepts to a group of 7th graders, for instance. However, you could use it as a training aid to train a group of 2nd year physics majors on BMD. They already have the requisite educational underpinnings, they just need training on the application.
>>30438013
>>30437949
>>30436659
BTFO
>>30457588
>You won't be able to use it to teach all of the underlying concepts to a group of 7th graders, for instance.
So a teaching tool is useless if it can't be used to teach all the fundamentals and nuances of a complex topic to people at all levels of education? Are you insane? Is MatLab useless for teaching because it's too advanced for 7th graders? Are advanced coding languages useless for teaching computer science because they're not the best place to start educating coders? Is an F-16 useless as a teaching tool because pilots need to learn on a trainer? This is just fucking illogical and retarded.
The hilariously ironic part of all this is that if Opp were to be forced to give a basic demo of nuclear strategy to 7th graders, setting up a couple of demos in CMANO would be the PERFECT aid to visualize what he's talking about during a presentation.
>>30456849
>What was Warcraft, in your opinion, trying to simulate?
Conflict. That's the underlying theme of virtually all successful videogames. For that matter, that's why we watch football. So we can get our war fix without using up a bunch of resources and killing a bunch of people.
>>30457588
Horrible analogy. Fuck off with the semantics about training not meaning the same thing as being taught or educated.
>>30451170
Uh no, idiot
>>30457588
You could not be any more off base.
I can take a group of interns with English degrees and, using Command, teach them the basics of BMD.
I can start it and a basic level and add new concepts to build them a complete picture of missile defense.
It provides a visualization of the concepts examples of the challenges, and likely outcomes of different scenarios.
>>30456908
Question is, did you ever use CMANO to model an engagement and then base your actions on the outcome of the scenario?
>>30435477
Reserve inactive fleet site, mostly ships waiting to become some other country's property. Eight old Oliver Hazard Perry frigates. The Kennedy at the bottom is destined to be a museum ship.
The real interesting one is the catamaran hulled fast transport that was purchased from a defunct Hawaiian company.
>>30457637
Surely you see a distinction between simulating conflict in a fantasy world or orcs and magic, and simulating conflict between real world weapons systems?
Is JSAF a video game?
How about Kill Chain?
>>30457847
No, but I'm not an O-6 or higher ranked. If I were, I find it very possible that there might be utility in CMANO for spitballing tactical problems, gameplanning strategic options, drawing up presentation aids for briefing superiors or political leash holders, training or demonstrating concepts to subordinates. Is it the most perfect tool on the planet for all these things? No. I'm sure there are better ways for many of the above uses. But that doesn't change the fact that the War College, BAE systems, LM, and several other agencies and DI companies recognized it as useful and employed it in at least a few functions.
>>30457635
I didn't say it was useless. Those're your words. The fact that places like the War College use CMANO is a pretty good indicator that it's not useless.
Let me ask you this- would you use a flight simulator to teach somebody how to fly? Or do you think it's better suited to honing already-learned skills?
CMANO will give you the gist of how things work, which is why it is useful for training, but it lacks a level of detail to be able to honestly claim 'this is how it would go down'.
>>30457945
>I didn't say it was useless.
You said, and I quote: >>30457588
>You won't be able to use it to teach
That was the distinction you were trying to make. Train, but not teach. And it is ridiculous. You do realize that the shit you write above stays there for everyone to see, right?
>Let me ask you this- would you use a flight simulator to teach somebody how to fly?
Modern flight schools already do this. In fact, desk top sims are the first F-35 flying experience pilots transferring in from other jets get. THEY TRAIN AND TEACH THEM ON SIMULATORS. In modern flight training, simulators are used to teach and demonstrate basic concepts all the way through advanced combat maneuvers.
It's mind blowing that you're still arguing this from a position of such deep ignorance.
>>30452902
Is the post boost vehicle the same thing as a warhead bus?
>>30457971
Exactly. CMANO is generally meant to teach you how to manage conflicts from a high level, strategic perspective. It was never really designed with the intention of pitting X ship against Y plane in a WWE cage match.
>>30457971
>but it lacks a level of detail to be able to honestly claim 'this is how it would go down'.
As does any simulation of a system as complex as the real world, much less one as complex as large scale conflict. This, however, does not make it completely useless as a teaching or training tool. As with all tools, from circular saws to fighter aircraft, you have to keep in mind the limitations and most efficient applications for it.
>>30457719
>THIS IS A THREAD I WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN
>>30458017
A teaching tool =/= my scenario stands.
>>30458067
Yes, that's pretty much exactly what I was saying.
>>30457719
You know Oppen, running a class or two on that might not be such a bad idea.
