By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - USA vs the World

gomezc on 18 June 2009
starcraft said:
Only one poster in this thread (as far as I can see) has mentioned easily the most critical point:

Blue-Water Navies.

The United States has far and away the most powerful Navy in existence. It's nearest competitor is Britain, and Britain is not even close. Britain is currently undergoing an aircraft carrier overhaul that will replace their three outdated and (relatively) ineffective aircraft carriers with two more powerful and extremely effective supercarriers.

But lets look at that for a moment. For arguments sake you could say that Britain's current aircraft carriers are around as effective as an Enterprise Class US carrier (they aren't really, but it's as close a comparison as you can make). The US Navy only has ONE Enterprise class carrier in commission (ironically called the USS Enterprise). Then the US Navy has ten, TEN, Nimitz class carriers in commission, all of which would annihilate the capabilities of the current British carriers and EASILY match the abilities of the future British supercarriers. This is ignoring the fact that the USA is currently building the Gerald Ford class carrier, the most advanced carrier in history, and has two more on back order.

For people asking why all this is important, consider something. All of the Russian and Chinese planes. All of the Russian and Chinese tanks. All of the Russian and Chinese personnel. All of the Russian and Chinese ships. How exactly do you envisage them getting to America? The USA's carrier fleets would annihilate almost all transport ships, destroyers, frigates and cruisers LONG before they ever made it too the US coast. This is simply because WHEREVER those ships happen too be, the USA has MORE and BETTER ships, but most importantly has the ability to have HUNDREDS of planes in the sky ANYWHERE in the world at relatively short notice. Then even if the Russian and Chinese ships made it near the USA (they wouldn't), how long could they sustain themselves there? Not long. At all. They are almost universally brown water navies now and for a long time in the future.

This is ignoring the fact that those planes are already superior to the planes of any adversary they face ANYWHERE. Take the F-22 Raptor for example that only came into service recently. At the moment the US Military has only ordered around 140 of these (and too be fair, I don't know how many are allocated to aircraft carriers), but they are more powerful than ANY fighter not just existing now, but PLANNED by ANY country.

Bill Clinton once stood on the deck of a US Aircraft Carrier and said the following:

"when word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: where is the nearest carrier?"

He said this because carriers are the life-blood of any sustained war in a distant land, and the earliest defense against any war coming too your land. I will acknowledge that if Russia and the China declared war on the United States, the USA may struggle to defend it's allies. Europe would have to deal with Russian ICBM's (even the non-nuclear ones are formidable) and South Korea/Japan potentially with Chinese/Russian invasion. But even then, Japan and South Korea aren't helpless by any stretch of the imagination, they just have no projectile power more than a certain distance from their borders.

A war with Russia and China would be economically devastating for the United States, and they would loose hundreds of thousands of military personnel. But in this fictional world where nuclear weapons are taken off the table, the United States military would CRUSH it's two adversaries, and history would look upon it as the greatest, quickest, most one-sided slaughter of a war ever.

Those people foolishly using Iraq and Afghanistan as examples need their heads checked. There is only two reasons the US invaded those countries. One, it has a conscience. It wasn't simply going to bomb them back to the stone age, say too hell with the civilian casualties, and forget it. Two, America views a presence in the middle-east as strategically important to secure oil. But in the super-power war people are talking about? The US population would have no desire whatsoever to land troops on foreign land. They would want the stupid countries that dared to attack them FLATTENED with every bomb their Navy and Air Force could muster. THEN as someone said earlier it is possible the US would commit marine and the Army too take the capitals and a couple of key cities to force and symbolically retrieve a surrender.

Ah, thank you for your kind acknowledgement.  To add on, we're also close to launching the new F-35 Lightning series of fighter jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, including vertical take-off F-35 II B variant jets which I am particularly interesting in seeing implemented.  They will be the most formidable fighting jet series in the world. 

I must agree that carriers are definitely a force to be reckoned with.  Being in one is nice enough.  You wouldn't believe the amnenities we have on here like mini-stores to provide for our needs, buffet-style cafeteria, etc.  It makes being away from home for several months not as bad (though being away from the wife always is straining) but I am more than proud to serve with the most powerful Navy in the world.



Around the Network
starcraft on 18 June 2009
gomezc said:
starcraft said:
Only one poster in this thread (as far as I can see) has mentioned easily the most critical point:

Blue-Water Navies.

The United States has far and away the most powerful Navy in existence. It's nearest competitor is Britain, and Britain is not even close. Britain is currently undergoing an aircraft carrier overhaul that will replace their three outdated and (relatively) ineffective aircraft carriers with two more powerful and extremely effective supercarriers.

But lets look at that for a moment. For arguments sake you could say that Britain's current aircraft carriers are around as effective as an Enterprise Class US carrier (they aren't really, but it's as close a comparison as you can make). The US Navy only has ONE Enterprise class carrier in commission (ironically called the USS Enterprise). Then the US Navy has ten, TEN, Nimitz class carriers in commission, all of which would annihilate the capabilities of the current British carriers and EASILY match the abilities of the future British supercarriers. This is ignoring the fact that the USA is currently building the Gerald Ford class carrier, the most advanced carrier in history, and has two more on back order.

For people asking why all this is important, consider something. All of the Russian and Chinese planes. All of the Russian and Chinese tanks. All of the Russian and Chinese personnel. All of the Russian and Chinese ships. How exactly do you envisage them getting to America? The USA's carrier fleets would annihilate almost all transport ships, destroyers, frigates and cruisers LONG before they ever made it too the US coast. This is simply because WHEREVER those ships happen too be, the USA has MORE and BETTER ships, but most importantly has the ability to have HUNDREDS of planes in the sky ANYWHERE in the world at relatively short notice. Then even if the Russian and Chinese ships made it near the USA (they wouldn't), how long could they sustain themselves there? Not long. At all. They are almost universally brown water navies now and for a long time in the future.

This is ignoring the fact that those planes are already superior to the planes of any adversary they face ANYWHERE. Take the F-22 Raptor for example that only came into service recently. At the moment the US Military has only ordered around 140 of these (and too be fair, I don't know how many are allocated to aircraft carriers), but they are more powerful than ANY fighter not just existing now, but PLANNED by ANY country.

Bill Clinton once stood on the deck of a US Aircraft Carrier and said the following:

"when word of crisis breaks out in Washington, it's no accident the first question that comes to everyone's lips is: where is the nearest carrier?"

He said this because carriers are the life-blood of any sustained war in a distant land, and the earliest defense against any war coming too your land. I will acknowledge that if Russia and the China declared war on the United States, the USA may struggle to defend it's allies. Europe would have to deal with Russian ICBM's (even the non-nuclear ones are formidable) and South Korea/Japan potentially with Chinese/Russian invasion. But even then, Japan and South Korea aren't helpless by any stretch of the imagination, they just have no projectile power more than a certain distance from their borders.

A war with Russia and China would be economically devastating for the United States, and they would loose hundreds of thousands of military personnel. But in this fictional world where nuclear weapons are taken off the table, the United States military would CRUSH it's two adversaries, and history would look upon it as the greatest, quickest, most one-sided slaughter of a war ever.

Those people foolishly using Iraq and Afghanistan as examples need their heads checked. There is only two reasons the US invaded those countries. One, it has a conscience. It wasn't simply going to bomb them back to the stone age, say too hell with the civilian casualties, and forget it. Two, America views a presence in the middle-east as strategically important to secure oil. But in the super-power war people are talking about? The US population would have no desire whatsoever to land troops on foreign land. They would want the stupid countries that dared to attack them FLATTENED with every bomb their Navy and Air Force could muster. THEN as someone said earlier it is possible the US would commit marine and the Army too take the capitals and a couple of key cities to force and symbolically retrieve a surrender.

Ah, thank you for your kind acknowledgement.  To add on, we're also close to launching the new F-35 Lightning series of fighter jets for the Air Force, Navy and Marines, including vertical take-off F-35 II B variant jets which I am particularly interesting in seeing implemented.  They will be the most formidable fighting jet series in the world. 

I must agree that carriers are definitely a force to be reckoned with.  Being in one is nice enough.  You wouldn't believe the amnenities we have on here like mini-stores to provide for our needs, buffet-style cafeteria, etc.  It makes being away from home for several months not as bad (though being away from the wife always is straining) but I am more than proud to serve with the most powerful Navy in the world.

Man that must be insane.  I once toured a US Aircraft Carrier when it docked in Sydney.  But I was so young that all I can remember is the awe-inspiring size of it. 

I just looked up aircraft carrier stats for the Russian and Chinese Navies.  Russia has none, but supposedly has 2-4 on order, and is hoping for 6 carrier battle groups in twenty years time.  However, serious questions appear to exist as too the funding of these projects, not too mention the liklihood that they would not be as advanced as US carriers of the day, or carry planes as advanced as US carriers.

China has none, but appears to be planning three.  However they have never built any before, so it'll be interesting to see what comes of the plan.  Best case scenario, is they have a carrier in 2015.  Either way, no country is threatening the USA for a LONG time.  Given US improvements over the time period, I would wager that in twenty years, even if China and Russia met EVERY Navy target they are making (hint: they wont), the US military could still defeat them in a conventional war.  Though obviously if such a war were too be fought, it's in the US interest for it too happen sooner rather than later.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Avinash_Tyagi on 18 June 2009

Depends on where the war is fought Starcraft, if its fought in Asia, where it probably will be, our Blue Water navy and even aircraft carriers, will be largely ineffective



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

starcraft on 18 June 2009
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Depends on where the war is fought Starcraft, if its fought in Asia, where it probably will be, our Blue Water navy and even aircraft carriers, will be largely ineffective

On the contrary, all that would ensure is that mainland USA receives even less damage than it otherwise would have.  Indeed, the whole point of Blue-Water navies is that they allow wars to be fought overseas instead of on your home turf.  This means that all collateral damage is theirs, not yours.

US carriers sitting a couple of hundred miles off of China's coast would be able to strike at the vast majority of the coast and mainland.  Once air superiority is established, the US Navy's AWACS and Air-refuelling fleet will exponentially increase the range and strike capabilities of the fleet
(even if satellites were down).  This is ignoring the fact that the USA has the largest, most advanced fleet of amphibious ships in the world, each capable of carrying 2200 Marines and their full arnament of vehicles and equiptment (in turn, the most advanced soldiers and vehicles anywhere).  Once the coast had been flattened and air superiority established, the US could quite feasibly occupy just a small strip of coast, hold it, and launch even deeper operations.  But honestly, I wouldn't see the need except to force an earlier surrender.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Avinash_Tyagi on 18 June 2009
starcraft said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Depends on where the war is fought Starcraft, if its fought in Asia, where it probably will be, our Blue Water navy and even aircraft carriers, will be largely ineffective

On the contrary, all that would ensure is that mainland USA receives even less damage than it otherwise would have.  Indeed, the whole point of Blue-Water navies is that they allow wars to be fought overseas instead of on your home turf.  This means that all collateral damage is theirs, not yours.

US carriers sitting a couple of hundred miles off of China's coast would be able to strike at the vast majority of the coast and mainland.  Once air superiority is established, the US Navy's AWACS and Air-refuelling fleet will exponentially increase the range and strike capabilities of the fleet
(even if satellites were down).  This is ignoring the fact that the USA has the largest, most advanced fleet of amphibious ships in the world, each capable of carrying 2200 Marines and their full arnament of vehicles and equiptment (in turn, the most advanced soldiers and vehicles anywhere).  Once the coast had been flattened and air superiority established, the US could quite feasibly occupy just a small strip of coast, hold it, and launch even deeper operations.  But honestly, I wouldn't see the need except to force an earlier surrender.


The few fighters that can be fielded by our aircraft carriers, would never be able to achiever air superiority over China, Starcraft, that's why I was stating they'd be ineffective, a hundred or so F/A-18's are not going to be able to achieve air superiority over China's more than 2000 fighters



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

Around the Network
Tyrannical on 18 June 2009
Avinash_Tyagi said:
starcraft said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Depends on where the war is fought Starcraft, if its fought in Asia, where it probably will be, our Blue Water navy and even aircraft carriers, will be largely ineffective

On the contrary, all that would ensure is that mainland USA receives even less damage than it otherwise would have.  Indeed, the whole point of Blue-Water navies is that they allow wars to be fought overseas instead of on your home turf.  This means that all collateral damage is theirs, not yours.

US carriers sitting a couple of hundred miles off of China's coast would be able to strike at the vast majority of the coast and mainland.  Once air superiority is established, the US Navy's AWACS and Air-refuelling fleet will exponentially increase the range and strike capabilities of the fleet
(even if satellites were down).  This is ignoring the fact that the USA has the largest, most advanced fleet of amphibious ships in the world, each capable of carrying 2200 Marines and their full arnament of vehicles and equiptment (in turn, the most advanced soldiers and vehicles anywhere).  Once the coast had been flattened and air superiority established, the US could quite feasibly occupy just a small strip of coast, hold it, and launch even deeper operations.  But honestly, I wouldn't see the need except to force an earlier surrender.


The few fighters that can be fielded by our aircraft carriers, would never be able to achiever air superiority over China, Starcraft, that's why I was stating they'd be ineffective, a hundred or so F/A-18's are not going to be able to achieve air superiority over China's more than 2000 fighters


Thats where "Star Wars" comes in. Shooting down ICBMs is just it's public purpose. I'm sure it can just as easily shoot planes down too. :)



Yet, today, America's leaders are reenacting every folly that brought these great powers [Russia, Germany, and Japan] to ruin -- from arrogance and hubris, to assertions of global hegemony, to imperial overstretch, to trumpeting new 'crusades,' to handing out war guarantees to regions and countries where Americans have never fought before. We are piling up the kind of commitments that produced the greatest disasters of the twentieth century.
 — Pat Buchanan – A Republic, Not an Empire

Avinash_Tyagi on 18 June 2009
Tyrannical said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
starcraft said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Depends on where the war is fought Starcraft, if its fought in Asia, where it probably will be, our Blue Water navy and even aircraft carriers, will be largely ineffective

On the contrary, all that would ensure is that mainland USA receives even less damage than it otherwise would have.  Indeed, the whole point of Blue-Water navies is that they allow wars to be fought overseas instead of on your home turf.  This means that all collateral damage is theirs, not yours.

US carriers sitting a couple of hundred miles off of China's coast would be able to strike at the vast majority of the coast and mainland.  Once air superiority is established, the US Navy's AWACS and Air-refuelling fleet will exponentially increase the range and strike capabilities of the fleet
(even if satellites were down).  This is ignoring the fact that the USA has the largest, most advanced fleet of amphibious ships in the world, each capable of carrying 2200 Marines and their full arnament of vehicles and equiptment (in turn, the most advanced soldiers and vehicles anywhere).  Once the coast had been flattened and air superiority established, the US could quite feasibly occupy just a small strip of coast, hold it, and launch even deeper operations.  But honestly, I wouldn't see the need except to force an earlier surrender.


The few fighters that can be fielded by our aircraft carriers, would never be able to achiever air superiority over China, Starcraft, that's why I was stating they'd be ineffective, a hundred or so F/A-18's are not going to be able to achieve air superiority over China's more than 2000 fighters


Thats where "Star Wars" comes in. Shooting down ICBMs is just it's public purpose. I'm sure it can just as easily shoot planes down too. :)

"Star wars" doesn't work though



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

starcraft on 18 June 2009
Avinash_Tyagi said:
starcraft said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Depends on where the war is fought Starcraft, if its fought in Asia, where it probably will be, our Blue Water navy and even aircraft carriers, will be largely ineffective

On the contrary, all that would ensure is that mainland USA receives even less damage than it otherwise would have.  Indeed, the whole point of Blue-Water navies is that they allow wars to be fought overseas instead of on your home turf.  This means that all collateral damage is theirs, not yours.

US carriers sitting a couple of hundred miles off of China's coast would be able to strike at the vast majority of the coast and mainland.  Once air superiority is established, the US Navy's AWACS and Air-refuelling fleet will exponentially increase the range and strike capabilities of the fleet
(even if satellites were down).  This is ignoring the fact that the USA has the largest, most advanced fleet of amphibious ships in the world, each capable of carrying 2200 Marines and their full arnament of vehicles and equiptment (in turn, the most advanced soldiers and vehicles anywhere).  Once the coast had been flattened and air superiority established, the US could quite feasibly occupy just a small strip of coast, hold it, and launch even deeper operations.  But honestly, I wouldn't see the need except to force an earlier surrender.


The few fighters that can be fielded by our aircraft carriers, would never be able to achiever air superiority over China, Starcraft, that's why I was stating they'd be ineffective, a hundred or so F/A-18's are not going to be able to achieve air superiority over China's more than 2000 fighters

You're kidding right?  The 150-200 fighters that could be fielded from just two US Carriers are going to be more than capable of handling most of what the Chinese Air Force throws at it.  Ultimately that 2000 planes statistic is misleading, in the same was as the million man army of North Korea is misleading.  The air force of China is not nearly as sophisticated as that of the United States.  Aside from having planes that have lesser performance, and missles of lessor performance, Chinese planes would also lack the sophisticated AWACS network the USA can field.

Furthermore, the Chinese do not have any true fifth generation fighters.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Avinash_Tyagi on 18 June 2009
starcraft said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
starcraft said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Depends on where the war is fought Starcraft, if its fought in Asia, where it probably will be, our Blue Water navy and even aircraft carriers, will be largely ineffective

On the contrary, all that would ensure is that mainland USA receives even less damage than it otherwise would have.  Indeed, the whole point of Blue-Water navies is that they allow wars to be fought overseas instead of on your home turf.  This means that all collateral damage is theirs, not yours.

US carriers sitting a couple of hundred miles off of China's coast would be able to strike at the vast majority of the coast and mainland.  Once air superiority is established, the US Navy's AWACS and Air-refuelling fleet will exponentially increase the range and strike capabilities of the fleet
(even if satellites were down).  This is ignoring the fact that the USA has the largest, most advanced fleet of amphibious ships in the world, each capable of carrying 2200 Marines and their full arnament of vehicles and equiptment (in turn, the most advanced soldiers and vehicles anywhere).  Once the coast had been flattened and air superiority established, the US could quite feasibly occupy just a small strip of coast, hold it, and launch even deeper operations.  But honestly, I wouldn't see the need except to force an earlier surrender.


The few fighters that can be fielded by our aircraft carriers, would never be able to achiever air superiority over China, Starcraft, that's why I was stating they'd be ineffective, a hundred or so F/A-18's are not going to be able to achieve air superiority over China's more than 2000 fighters

You're kidding right?  The 150-200 fighters that could be fielded from just two US Carriers are going to be more than capable of handling most of what the Chinese Air Force throws at it.  Ultimately that 2000 planes statistic is misleading, in the same was as the million man army of North Korea is misleading.  The air force of China is not nearly as sophisticated as that of the United States.  Aside from having planes that have lesser performance, and missles of lessor performance, Chinese planes would also lack the sophisticated AWACS network the USA can field.

Furthermore, the Chinese do not have any true fifth generation fighters.

Over China they wouldn't need the same level of AWAC network.

the F/A-18 isn't a fifth gen fighter either, that's the plane that the Navy uses on their aircraft carriers, China has SU-30MKK's and SU-27's the SU-30MKK is on par with the F/A-18 and the SU-27's aren't that far behind, I think you have an overinflated idea of what the US air power can do.



 

Predictions:Sales of Wii Fit will surpass the combined sales of the Grand Theft Auto franchiseLifetime sales of Wii will surpass the combined sales of the entire Playstation family of consoles by 12/31/2015 Wii hardware sales will surpass the total hardware sales of the PS2 by 12/31/2010 Wii will have 50% marketshare or more by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  It was a little over 48% only)Wii will surpass 45 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2008 (I was wrong!!  Nintendo Financials showed it fell slightly short of 45 million shipped by end of 2008)Wii will surpass 80 Million in lifetime sales by the end of 2009 (I was wrong!! Wii didn't even get to 70 Million)

starcraft on 18 June 2009
Avinash_Tyagi said:
starcraft said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
starcraft said:
Avinash_Tyagi said:
Depends on where the war is fought Starcraft, if its fought in Asia, where it probably will be, our Blue Water navy and even aircraft carriers, will be largely ineffective

On the contrary, all that would ensure is that mainland USA receives even less damage than it otherwise would have.  Indeed, the whole point of Blue-Water navies is that they allow wars to be fought overseas instead of on your home turf.  This means that all collateral damage is theirs, not yours.

US carriers sitting a couple of hundred miles off of China's coast would be able to strike at the vast majority of the coast and mainland.  Once air superiority is established, the US Navy's AWACS and Air-refuelling fleet will exponentially increase the range and strike capabilities of the fleet
(even if satellites were down).  This is ignoring the fact that the USA has the largest, most advanced fleet of amphibious ships in the world, each capable of carrying 2200 Marines and their full arnament of vehicles and equiptment (in turn, the most advanced soldiers and vehicles anywhere).  Once the coast had been flattened and air superiority established, the US could quite feasibly occupy just a small strip of coast, hold it, and launch even deeper operations.  But honestly, I wouldn't see the need except to force an earlier surrender.


The few fighters that can be fielded by our aircraft carriers, would never be able to achiever air superiority over China, Starcraft, that's why I was stating they'd be ineffective, a hundred or so F/A-18's are not going to be able to achieve air superiority over China's more than 2000 fighters

You're kidding right?  The 150-200 fighters that could be fielded from just two US Carriers are going to be more than capable of handling most of what the Chinese Air Force throws at it.  Ultimately that 2000 planes statistic is misleading, in the same was as the million man army of North Korea is misleading.  The air force of China is not nearly as sophisticated as that of the United States.  Aside from having planes that have lesser performance, and missles of lessor performance, Chinese planes would also lack the sophisticated AWACS network the USA can field.

Furthermore, the Chinese do not have any true fifth generation fighters.

Over China they wouldn't need the same level of AWAC network.

the F/A-18 isn't a fifth gen fighter either, that's the plane that the Navy uses on their aircraft carriers, China has SU-30MKK's and SU-27's the SU-30MKK is on par with the F/A-18 and the SU-27's aren't that far behind, I think you have an overinflated idea of what the US air power can do.

Why would the Chinese need less AWAC's support?  It's not about knowing where the terrain is, it's about knowing where enemy planes and SAM sites are.

MOST (I grant you, not all) of China's air force consists of ageing Soviet-era planes.  In much the same way as a MIG is a theoretically capable plane, the reality is that constant upgrades to technology and better maintenance in US planes has resulted in once-equivelant planes facing vast real-world performance differences.  That is the reality of the majority of the US air force versus China's.  Also, unless I am very much mistaken, the USA's fifth generation fighters are carrier-capable.  I am sure in the event of a war they would be placed onto carriers.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS