This thread is disintegrating. people come in here and make claims about X system being able to counter Y system and don’t even both to research the most basic things. This is the whole point of the thread people make childish assumptions based on there blind propaganda and are clueless.
Ill note some of these childish assumptions.

1. People don’t even know that only a HAND FULL OF CHINESE MISSILES ARE ICBMS. The assume that all of the 400 Chinese nukes can reach the United states. They don’t realize that the United states in a short time will have far more ballistic missile defenses, than the Chinese have Intercontinental ballistic missiles Further more the short range missiles will be easily countered by patriot ThAAD Aegis and god knows what ever else missile defense will be deployed in 10 years. These assumptions are odiously partisan and childish GROW UP!.

2. They don’t even realize that in the last few months the U.S.A.F tested 2 different types of new space vehicles. with the one above burning in orbit.
Further more the U.S. defense secretary let it slip that conventional ICBMs are in the works. Conventional ICBMs launched from U.S. Nuclear subs pose a serious threat to Chinese air defenses and command and control.

3. Assuming that your in the same league as the U.S. and Russia in nuclear capability is a Joke, even the U.K. has better sub launched ICBM capability than you.

4. Assuming that the The U.S. has never trained against an advanced IADS.
and Further assuming that the U.S. patriot is less capable. Not even realizing that the Chinese have never defended against modern SEAD forces. At least the Russians have been in a conflict and have combat experience.

5. Assuming that The United states will stay away if Taiwan is attacked.
Like I said before your nuclear forces are a Joke. The U.S. fears Russian Nuclear subs. China’s are probably give the crew ear damage from how loud they are.

This is the irony, every,U.S. opponent has assumed the same thing and payed dearly for it. Perhaps we should feel lucky that other countries leaders are so daft. Your no different from Iraqi in the early 90s we neither fear you or respect you for your ignorance and as soon as we stop buying your cheap crap your done. BTW I wasn’t going to be so harsh but your arrogance brings the harshness out of people. Now where is that book you spoke of I need to go to the restroom and could use some paper.

1. Like I said before nearly any U.S. cruiser will be able to shoot down Chinese missiles by 2020. Again you keep making the assumption that your on the same level military and tech wise with the U.S.! you also assume that your in the same class as the Russians with Nukes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIM-161_Standard_Missile_3

2. I don’t need to read your stupid book. and I’m sure I could find healthy use for the pages. How can you teach me anything when you don’t even know the difference between a SRBM and a ICBM?

3. The U.S. is developing Long range High alt cruise missiles and conventional ICBMs
USN and USAF Take another look at conventional ICBM’s

Both services are revisiting an on and off proposal to modify ICBM’s to carry conventional warheads. Its an interesting concept as we have discussed before here and Lockheed is working on a kit that would allow near GPS accuracy on its warheads. Even with its impressive CEP the Trident D5 would need to be more accurate for pinpoint conventional strikes. However the 30 minute responce time would give the US a really rapid responce to any crisis.

Issues such as advanced warning to other countries etc would have to be worked out. The Russian and the Chinese would understandable by nervous If the detected a ICBM launch heading in their direction conventional or not
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread290408/pg1

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/darpa-plans-test-for-hypersonic-prototype/

The Pentagon’s far-out science arm is planning an April test flight for a prototype of a hypersonic weapon that — in theory — could cross the Pacific Ocean in under two hours.

In a solicitation issued late last week, Darpa said it was looking to charter a U.S.-flag vessel to help collect telemetry for the upcoming test of a Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 (HTV-2). According to the solicitation, an unpowered HTV-2 will be launched on a booster rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base in

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/02/darpa-plans-test-for-hypersonic-prototype/#ixzz0uXmRYSmj

http://www.spacenews.com/military/042610darpa-loses-contact-with-hypersonic-vehicle.html

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Defense Department’s first test flight of a new hypersonic glider ended abruptly as communications with the vehicle ceased mid-flight, a setback in the Pentagon’s pursuit of a highly precise long-range strike weapon.

The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA)’s Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV)-2 program is one of three designs in the running to serve as the basis for the Conventional Prompt Global Strike weapon the Pentagon wants to build in order to hit a target anywhere in the world within an hour with a non-nuclear munition. The first of three planned HTV-2 flight tests took place April 22.

The delta-wing-shaped carbon fiber aircraft was launched to the edge of space aboard a Minotaur 4 rocket that also was making its maiden flight. The Lockheed Martin-built HTV-2 craft separated properly from the rocket’s faring and began a screaming glide over the Pacific Ocean intended to cover some 5,700 kilometers in less than half an hour. Nine minutes into the flight, contact with the vehicle was lost, and the cause of the failure is still under investigation, according to an April 23 DARPA press release.

Plans to launch the second HTV-2 craft in early 2011 have not changed, DARPA spokeswoman Johanna Jones said April 26. The second craft will fly a faster and more demanding flight profile.

The administration of U.S. President Barack Obama has made clear its intention to maintain the nation’s strategic deterrent while reducing its dependence on nuclear weapons. As such, the New START nuclear arms reduction agreement signed with Russia on April 8 will not constrain any current or planned conventionally-armed ballistic missiles, according to an April 8 fact sheet posted on the U.S. State Department’s website.

The Defense Department for several years has sought a new non-nuclear weapon that can carry out precision strikes anywhere on the globe. One recent effort to place conventional warheads on submarine-launched Trident D5 missiles was scuttled by Congress over concerns that they could be mistaken for nuclear-armed ICBMs.

The Air Force and Army are each designing different options for Conventional Prompt Global Strike with funding from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Congress appropriated a total of $165.6 million for the projects this year, and the Pentagon has requested $239.8 million for 2011 and a total of $1.7 billion through 2015, budget documents show.

The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center is leading one development program called the Conventional Strike Missile. In addition, the Air Force will pick up where DARPA leaves off with HTV-2. In 2008 the service tapped Lockheed Martin to build a third HTV-2 aircraft that will carry a conventional weapon in a flight test.

“Right now we’re in demonstration mode, but the signs I’m reading tell me we will probably move forward ultimately with a conventional strike missile program,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Tom Sheridan, commander of the Space and Missile Systems Center, said in an April 14 media briefing at the National Space Symposium. “The demonstration we’re being asked to do, that we’re working on at this point in time, is to take an HTV-2 and then to put a conventional warhead in the front end of it and launch that downrange and plan to be able to hit a specific point with the munition.”

When the contract for the third HTV-2 craft was issued, Lockheed Martin was required to have it ready for flight testing in 2010. Defense Department spokeswoman Wendy Snyder was unable to say when this test is now planned to take place.

The Army Space and Missile Defense Command is leading a competing effort called the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, which also would use a hypersonic glider to deliver a conventional payload, but would have a shorter range than HTV-2 and thus have to be forward-deployed. The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon has not yet been flight tested, and Army spokesman John Cummings could not provide any details about the test plan.

Regardless of the type of payload delivery vehicle that is chosen for Conventional Prompt Global Strike, the system will need booster rockets. Orbital Sciences Corp.’s Minotaur family of space launch vehicles, which are based on excess ICBM motors, are a likely candidate for the weapon, according a government source.

Another option the Pentagon may consider are the Athena rockets Lockheed Martin and Alliant Techsystems recently announced they plan to reintroduce. The companies said in March that upgraded versions of the solid-fueled rockets originally developed in the 1990s will be made available to launch small satellites.

In January, Lockheed Martin responded to an Air Force solicitation for small launch vehicles and identified the Athena rockets as a viable platform for Conventional Prompt Global Strike, company spokeswoman Joan Underwood said in an April 20 e-mailed response to questions. Lockheed Martin believes Athena can sufficiently “accommodate the required payload mass and volume and provide ample range capability,” she said.

Russia actually has pretty massive numbers of S-300 systems. SOC’s guide kind of shows that. S-300PS and S-300PM systems are highly mobile, and as such can be moved around if necessary.

The whole WW3 Russia is attacked on all borders scenario is non-sense. Any small, near the border conflict with a big power would mean that the best assets would be moved around if necessary, probably within 1-3 days start to finish.

Slightly “old” Tunguska, TOR-M1 and BUK systems are far far far from “incapable” – in fact, quite the opposite.

What throws success into further doubt for the US is that they have never faced advanced SAMs and enemy air forces in such great numbers.

I wasnt the guy saying that Russia had the resourses to hit
U.S. bases + fight the unavoidable war with NATO. That was you and your ilk.

and how many sub launched ballistic missiles does China have? do they have enough to make a difference? post accurate numbers please or don’t post at all.
I post facts why cant you do the same?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-31
15 Chinese DF-31
0 DF-41
20 DF-5 The Df-5 is liquid fueled and takes 20-30 minutes to ready.
China has a larger number of short range and medium Range Icbm. but we will eave those out since you claim that CHIna is the U.S. equal in an exhange

And you really think this pathetic amount of ICBms will be able to get through SM-3 equipped ships and ThAAd systems by 2020?
The most likely scenario would be that U.S. allllies and bases get nuked, but China is a wasteland. The U.S. survives but China does not.

Now please, unless your posting accurate facts no more nuclear talk.

If B-2s strike 1st the Russians are screwed. The Russians cannot not beat us in a conventional or Nuclear exchange. you keep trying to make this argument that the only wars in the future will be Nuclear. you sound like a 10 year old kid.
The argument never even mentioned nuclear weapons until you kept pushing the issue. The U.S. could destroy 1/2 of Russians strategic weapons by sending stealthy B-2s to strike 1st and amassing Missile defense systems.
Please no more talk of nuclear exchanges stay on topic. the Topic is respecting U.S. Military air power.

All of this is moot anyways.

War between the US and Russia or China would be fought with nukes, not aircraft.

In that case, both sides would lose.

No lets go with that since he wants to keep throwing out Russia. So now Russia has to fight the entire USAF and the entire NATO command on and Alaskan and a European front? you said earlier Russia has 50 bombers? do you think 50 is enough to keep France Germany the U.K. Poland etc etc off of there backs while still trying to hit U.S. bases.? You keep bringing up Nukes. Are you telling me that you freely admit that Russia has no conventional deterrent for the U.S.
The only way you can beat the U.S. is to Nuke us 1st? You still havent even mentioned how you will deal with the heavy Bomber threat. with B-2s behind the lines in Russia.

How will you launch aircraft if they have no airbases to launch from that are in range of the enemy? :rolleyes:

You do realize that Alaskan F-22s practice war time runs from Alaska to the far east with tanker support right? also you for got that I named about 5 other platforms in my 1st day of the war list BESIDES JUST Raptors.
Its not 1 platform its a surge of Kick the door in strike packages.