Replies

One thing I could bet a good wad of cash on is that the US definitely must have some next-gen technology that would curl the short hairs of China, and has some next-next-gen concept that would make many of us think of sci-fi novels. The US technological base is literally overwhelming, to the point that to even conceptualize it (as it is, and particularly as it will be) brings about nigh hyperbole and conceptualization similar to magic ....because it is that good! No armed force in the world can destroy massed armies like the US can ...not even Russia comes close (and they can be quite good at annihilating massed armies). This is one reason no terrorist will ever face the US on open ground ...it would be a one ticket trip downstairs, fast. Now, there has been a focus on fighting low intensity (read Afganistan) and mid intensity conflicts, which require Predator drones, LCS ships, and the like over Raptors and other high intensity war materiel. However, the US still retains a major technological edge over all near-peer nations (the EU, Japan, China, Russia, etc), and even though it is giving up on that edge (eg skewing towards the JSF rather than the Raptor), the US most probably has capabilities we do not know of yet. For instance, the F117A Stealth Fighter and the B2 Spirit were flying for a LONG time before the public was aware of them (I am convinced a lot of 'UFO sightings' were some chap seeing the B2 flying, which would make any rational thinker question some deep held beliefs if you did not know what it was).

The only problems I foresee for the US are 2:

i) The US has been too victorious too often against nations that do not warrant much celebrating. It is like the LA Lakers beating the Rwandese highschool girls basketball team. This may make some perceive that winning is a 'right' rather than a product of money, brains, training, technique and equipment. I have read FReeper comments on why the Predator UCAV and the A-10 are more necessary over the 'useless' Raptor, yet without air superiority the Predator and Raptor are useless (a quip I heard once by some cold war warrior was that if the Soviets had invaded through the Fulda Gap, the argument between Apache pilots and Warthog pilots was which one of them would go down first). Beating up on Iraq and the other countries I listed in my other post should NOT give false confidence. China would be a different slab of pork, and while the US would not lose it would receive a butcher's bill that would make the media make Viet Nam look like child's play.

ii) My second problem is at the other end of the spectrum, and appears incogruent with my first issue. This problem is that, even though I am a strong proponent of technology, I am cognizant of the problem of cost and numbers. The costs keep going up, and the numbers keep going down. This can bring a serious problem some decades down the line - for instance, while the Indian-Russian PakFa is totally an anti-China weapon (unlike what some here think, that it is anti-US), let's imagine for the sake of it there were a thousand of them against 183 Raptors. A Raptor is better than the PakFa concept, but the PakFa concept (with its supercruise and kinematics, fuel fraction, sensor suite, new weapons and limited stealth) is better than any other plane out there (eg F15/16/18, Typhoons, Rafales, etc ....I would add F-35, but that would only bring an argument, so I won't ....but I would add it...). 183 Raptors are not enough. Anyways, the costs are going uo, and the numbers are going down. What's the problem? Well, I could wax poetic and bore you with my long posts, or I could simply direct you to the shirt science fiction story 'Superiority' by Arthur C Clarke and you can see what the problem might be.

Google it and read it - you will probably find it interesting.

Now imagine China with stealthy JXX fighters (which are not even as good as the PakFa, but are even more numerous), Aegis like destroyers (that are not as good as the Burke, but are planned to be more and NOT as far dispersed), a whole lot of AIP DE submarines (that are not as advanced as the Virginias, but only operate in littoral waters and have long range supersonic missiles), and so on. The US would not lose, for the next 4 decades at least, but it would get its nose bloodied. A US Aegis ship sunk, the media picking up the story, the US public being as polarized as it is now (where it is 50:50, meaning any Dem prez will have half the country against him/her, and any Pub prez also has 50% against as well) and the war is lost. China would not have to win ....or for that matter EVEN fight!!!! All it needs to do is develop the capability to bloody the nose of the US, and no American president from either party woild step in to save Taiwan (directly). People call Obama weak, and he is, but not even a resurrected Reagan or a Palin would send American boots! If the US did nothing to China during the Korean war, it would now step in when China is now much stronger (old saying ...the besttime to kill a crocodile is when its in its egg. Change that African saying to Dragon to make it apply to China). Anyways, read the story. Have a blessed day.

We probably already have several different platforms which are way beyond the Raptor. I would not be surprised if some of them were not based on the F-23 platform.

On another note, we probably have hypersonic stuff that can leave the atmosphere under its own power and re-enter.

We probably have like you say, things that conceptualization of it borders on the magic to the layman.

I was aware of the scramjet back in 1981.

just my take

I got to read that Arthur Clarke short story you mentioned! My two favorites of all time were ‘childhoods end’ and ‘rendezvous with rama’

Best regards friend

ps; I am having a hell of time getting a logon to Pravda, I cant find a screename that has never been used. I like their blog dialogs.