US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

etired” Chinese leaders have been pushing similar rhetoric for years even before Obama. As far back as the Clinton administration signs of pacific security issues were brewing. The pivot to Asia would have happened in the early Bush administration if not for 9/11. jingoism is a two way street. China has Antagonized just as much and the two create a feed back loop. Especially when you start Saber rattling.

Click to expand...

Antagonized as much?. Last time I checked, Chinese interests were quite simple: Taiwan is part of China. That the US keeps trying to subvert this despite everybody being aware it will cause a reaction is exclusively of the US own doing.

Maybe if you'd cut the crap, things would simmer down but then the US wouldn't get to pretend everything happens in a vacuum and not that everything happening lately is a result of fucking around and finding out.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

It fails at every level to accept that the US security is why nations like South Korea haven’t had an active war

Click to expand...

While causing wars and strife everywhere else. You don't get to claim the "wins" only.

Also, the US is responsible for several of the massacres around South Korea and Asia in the name of anticommunism and "security". Can't have wars if you genocide the "enemy" before it has a chance to fight back, right?

TerraN_EmpirE said:

, that the main reason why conventional conflicts are a rarity is application of the international rules based order centered around the US and it’s alliance.

Click to expand...

They aren't rare, though. They just happen in areas the US doesn't give two shits about most often than not. And where it does, you pretend everything is A Ok, like Yemen but then whine when the conflicts spills over and end with refugees being drowned by European Coast Guards or shot at by the Border Patrol in Mexico.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

Fortunately no one here have the power to start one, my point is when you make such a statement you have closed your mind to any compromise

Click to expand...

My country has been on the receiving end of the "Pax Americana" a few times, even if lightly compared to some of the other countries in the region. I'm not interested in compromise with the US and its balkanization would be a net gain for the world.

TerraN_EmpirE said:

“retired” Chinese leaders have been pushing similar rhetoric for years even before Obama. As far back as the Clinton administration signs of pacific security issues were brewing. The pivot to Asia would have happened in the early Bush administration if not for 9/11. jingoism is a two way street. China has Antagonized just as much and the two create a feed back loop. Especially when you start Saber rattling.

Click to expand...

I see you never read the PNAC document. Going into Iraq was always the plan. It was supposed to be Iraq and North Korea both but because of 9/11 and the fact Bin Laden was in Afghanistan they had to go into Afghanistan instead of North Korea. Then after Iraq and North Korea the main objective was supposed to be Iran and later China.

Does anyone know how much does each Dark Eagle HGV (LRHW) missile/unit cost?

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Does anyone know how much does each Dark Eagle HGV (LRHW) missile/unit cost?

Click to expand...

Each missile costs the equivalent of $40 million or more. The US is looking at ways to reduce these costs for the LRHW as well as the IRCPS - the latter costs in the $90 million.

Developments in propulsion to lower costs:

IRCPS:

Dark Eagle Price:

There's also the CRS estimate, putting the price of each LRHW missile at $106 million:

If the US puts this into service in Europe then Russia will likely respond by producing the RS-26 Rubezh and introducing it into service.
China already has DF-17.

gelgoog said:

If the US puts this into service in Europe then Russia will likely respond by producing the RS-26 Rubezh and introducing it into service.
China already has DF-17.

Click to expand...

They will likely be deployed. With the withdrawal of the INF treaty, the US Army has developed 3 ground-launched weapons that will be deployed to ground forces by 2025:

PrSM – 500/700 km
LRHW - 3000 km
OpFires - 1800 km

They still had the SLRC cannon with a 1600 km range as a project, but it was canceled this year. The missile component until 2025 would consist of:
1 - GMLRS-ER: 150 km
1- PrSM: +500 km(supersonic semiballistic);
3- SM-6 Block IB: 1000 km against surface targets(semi-ballistic missile probably reaching hypersonic speed);
2- Tomahawk V: 1800 km(subsonic cruise missile);
5 - Opfires: 1800 km(hypersonic boost glide)
4- LRHW: 3000 km (hypersonic boost glide type)

Today the US Army is limited to:
M30/31 90 km
ATACMS 300 km

This is due to the fact that the Americans and Russians were limited to having land-launched missiles at a maximum 500 km range and over 5500 km range. With the departure of the INF, the reactivation of the 56th Artillery Command in Europe, they will throw into this unit the recent developments to contain the Russians in Europe and also China in WestPac.

B-21 Raider to be unveiled today

Livestream of B-21 unveiling. Starts in 19 hours