That is how we envisioned it in the early Cold War, but missile tech is such that a carrier can be sunk from hundreds of miles away, and our aircraft are very lacking in the air launched AShM department. It would entail flying into SAM range to fire a few small subsonic non-maneuvering missiles at a heavily defended…

Judgingby the swells, a VERY strong headwind

There is now secret to aircraft carriers. The reason no one besides U.S. has invested very heavily in carriers has nothing to do with if they can figure them out, but who needs them. Until recently, the U.S. Has been the only country interested in projecting power around the world, hence, we have been the only country…

I have yet to see anyone, including the U.S. Release a promo that wasn't heavily choreographed.

Yah, U.S. Forward deploying carriers is just for domestic consumption to make Congress feel we are doing something.

I am not getting any notifications from anyone right now

How many months does it take to bring 10 carriers into the same area, and how long can they stay there, and what can they actually do against a modern enemy besides a saturation attack. The only air launched AShM we currently possess is the Harpoon, which has to be inside SAM range of their more modern ships to…

And their new carriers a said to be floating out in March (which I am a little dubious about).

An aircraft carrier is a great force projection tool, but it is very lacking combating other ships. The anti-ship role falls mainly to our cruisers, destroyers, and submarines.

They are building 2 of the Type 001A currently. Based on the Kuztensov Class, but equipped with at least one catapult, AWACS, modern propulsion, and modern sensors.

The Type 001A carriers will have a steam catapult farther back. the Su-33 is not a bad aircraft at all, and the J-15 has newer avionics, better engines (at least more powerful), and a lighter and stronger airframe than the Su-33s Russia uses. Though the specifics are classified, the J-15 can take off with a lot more…

It is technically a heavy tank because it is has the armor, speed, and firepower to match the description, even if people don’t like the term. Heck, we also have light tanks again nowadays like the ZTQ or the upcoming PL-01. The distinction is becoming necessary again because of how varied MBTs are getting, some are…

Yah, here in Arizona, the rocks can be softer than the soil

Actually, in WWII, the tanks were indeed over engineered, but suffered from terrible build quality. The German tanks would had such shotty quality that many times, the armor would shatter instead of dent, optics had cracks in them, etc. they were designed by the best engineers, but built by prisoners and pretty much…

People claim the T-90 is a bad tank because the downgraded export T-72 that it was based on performed poorly when driven by poorly trained crews so the T-90 must suck to, but the Abrams cannot be judged by the performance of other Abrams tanks...

The Chally 2 bugs me, because Of that rifled barrel. And it also bugs me that they call it a Main Battle Tank, when it is really a heavy tank by every definition

So true. The German tanks in WWII could not compete with American or Soviet tanks.

Actually, if you look at the ships that have been introduced and phased out over the decades by the USSR/Russia, the vast majority are conventionally powered. There are quite a few nuclear ships and subs, but many of them have been scrapped or properly shut down already

Same. and Air Force one would be an An F/A-18F

Yah, if I understand correctly, the Mi-35 is the modernized export variant of the Mi-24, and the Mi-35M is the domestic version of the Mi-35. Kind of like the whole Su-30 > Su-30MKI > Su-30SM thing.