"Or spend billions more than could ever be matched developing a specific solution." I'm speaking about strategy and the best is to develop solutions US are not aware of or not taking serioulsy. Like a ballistic missile with sub munitions agaisnt air bases and aircraft carriers.It is clearly false to think that US can know all characteristic of weapons or systems kept secrets. US can fund only systems that are understood widely in USA as a menace.If a specific country develop secretly antiUS weapons, US will not react in time. US are very vulnerable to: Vulnerability: lever of action C4ISR: ASAT, anti satellites terminal and antiAWAC weapons, EMP weapons, software viruses Aircraft conventional bases with huge support: ballistic missiles with conventional MIRV, stealth cruise missiles Aircraft carriers: ballistic missiles with conventional MIRV, supersonic antiship, ultra long range torpedo with periodic radio datat transmissions,(like 400 km) , OTH radars, CAPTOR like mines, AIP subs, cheap SSN (small SSN very silent using low power nuclear reactor like a powerfull AIP), non conventional missile, toperdoes and mines delivery (stealth surface effect plane, stealth small corvettes and attack boats) Reliance on PGM: JDAM mobile jammer, numerous decoys to waste US smart ammuntions SEAD to preserve air power: ground jammer for US aircraft radar, multiple decoys to protect ground radar against HARM and passive means SAM and air warning Stealthiness: multistatic radar, numerous IR trackers Tanks: diversified antitank means includind top attack smart munitions and smart mines and IED, IR thermal band jamming, IR thermal band blinding by jammer Helicopter mobility: small UAV dedicated to attack helos US BVR advantage in air combat: sophisticated jamming and multiple expandable smart decoys, IR medium range missile (mica IR like) with HMD. US logistic tail: affordable ballisitic missiles with submunitions, MRLS like artillery US reluctance to losses: medias offensive, very good (night combat proficiency included) and well equiped and motivated mass infantery, automatic night google laser tracker and blinder, very mobile artillery, counterbattery radars, signature reduction infantery combat gear, massive use of dog carrying mines, massive use of special forces. etc... Then at the end it is good to have WMD in case of US using nukes: nukes MIRVed IBDM with stealth warheads and numerous decoys, suitcasee bombs, bio weapons, giant submarine H bomb to make tidam wave on US coast.

read nukes MIRVed ICBM of course.I'm tired.

I have only recently started understanding the advanced concepts of underwater warfare, and am by no means as well versed as many, but of what I have learned it seems to me the air quality would be a greater limitation during peacetime operations than the battery power supply for a Collins SSG. I am starting to wonder if peacetime operations and all the operational standards that come with peacetime actually tell us what is possible with a diesel like the Collins.

"I have only recently started understanding the advanced concepts of underwater warfare, and am by no means as well versed as many, but of what I have learned it seems to me the air quality would be a greater limitation during peacetime operations than the battery power supply for a Collins SSG. " I don't know for Collin class specifically.But air renewal system in modern SSK are similar to those used in SSN.So it is really a problem of energy for underwater endurance.Normally a SSK can stay underwater 2 days at very low speed.As Collins are big SSK, I would not be surprised they can stay 3 days at 5 knts. Top fuel cell provide 850 watt hour per kg.So a new generation 1200 tons SSK could have a 120 ton fuel cell providing 300 KW maximum power during 340 hours so 14 days at 10 knts submerged or 40 days at 6 knts.

Still laughing Herc: "At this time to me it appears that only Russia can scale up with homemade weaponry" Well, Russian have to improve yet quality of their systems regarding electronic and system engineering, not to mention training ! Top military proficiency needs years of training (top officers, subs , combat planes, tank..).Russia is quite deficient in modern C4ISR today for conventional forces.And it is an euphemism ! Russia GDP is inferior to France with 2,5 time population.Do you know that? In fact 4 countries can rather easily scale up conventionaly to military checking US current (or even 50% increased ) deploiement: France, Japan, Germany then Russia (by order). Japan or Germany have no nukes yet but could deploy hundred of fission enhanced nukes within a two years range with ICBM in Japan case and nuclear armed stealth cruise missile for both on top modern AIP SSK.And H bomb warhead within a 5 years period. UK is too dependant of US and France to scale up in short notice.R&D take years.They have a very big problem with Trident as they have lost competency in building ballistic missiles among other things.Not to mention they have no indigneous design/production for AToA/SAM active radar missiles (meteor/ASTER), cruise missiles (Storm Shadow), tank firecontrol, towed sonar ... (all of these equipements are produced and maintained in R&D ... in France LOL) China is yet too much backward on military technology like India.They can produce 200 subs, they would be too noisy and deficient and an easy match for US. US conventional militarily Checking capability by order: 1: France : full range total vital equipment set indigneously produced and maintained, good GDP and war industry capability scaling up, good number of well trained officiers and NCO 2: Japan : almost full range total vital equipment set indigneously produced and maintained (SSBN,SSN and H bomb design lacking, F2 to be improved), VERY good GDP and war industry capability scaling up (the best in this set of nation), good number of well trained officiers and NCO (less than France or germany except for navy) 3: Germany : almost full range total vital equipment set indigneously produced and maintained (SSBN,SSN and H bomb and ICBM design lacking, Eurofighter to be fully produced in germany but they have tech and bluprint), VERY good GDP and war industry capability scaling up (the second best in this set of nation after Japan), good number of well trained officiers and NCO 4: Russia: full range total vital equipment set indigneously produced and maintained but backward other nation in electronic, average GDP and war industry capability scaling up (quality problems/productivity), good number of poorly trained officiers and NCO 5: UK : full range of basic technologies but a good part of total vital equipment set need to be indigeously produced and maintained which would need 5 years to reconstitute , average GDP and war industry capability scaling up (heavy industrial base below France or Russia), good number of well trained officiers and NCO China or India are YET poor on technology, full range industry capabilities, and quality of officers regarding top technologies.They rank at the same level of Italy which have still better technology and industry capabilities.

The current stateless-dirtbag-terrorist plan is the only hope. If it gets out that you're trying to check us, it's checkmate for you, buddy. We could possibly be checked for a few moments...maybe hours. Untill we're positive of the return address.

I don't want to geek this party out...but I am a little offended that this entire discussion has almost totally ignored my profession. I usually like to sit these pissing contests out since the commments eventually start to just be cut and pastes of what other people have said and why they are wrong. This instance is an exception since I feel that I have valuable contribution to add, even if all it does is make everyone think in another dimension. That being said...I'm a Crow in training for the USAF. My days are spent behind black doors dealing in ways to understand an exploit the enemy's EOB to our advantage. I feel that this entire discussion has completely disregarded the US's undeniable superiority in electronic and information warfare. Remember, the best way to ensure victory is to know your capabilities and also to know your enemies capabilities. This entire discussion has centered on missiles, aircraft, ships, subs, etc. I agree that those are generally much sexier topics of discussion. However, lets think of beeps and squeaks for a moment. We have dedicated systems flying everyday to learn how enemy systems work and the learn ways to defeat them. For instance, if we are speaking of China...remember that little EP-3 incident? What do you suppose they were doing? Between ARIES, Rivet Joint, Combat Sent, Cobra Ball, we have some pretty sophisticated eyes learning all about enemy systems. Once the Crows and Ravens are done collecting...the intel guys and gals find ways to make it junk. I realize I am being pretty vanilla with this post...but most of the US capabilities in information and electronic warfare are not something we discuss in public. Even what is not class material, is not really something we advertise. Besides...who really wants to hear me talk about pulse duration, pulse repetition frequency and interval, agile beams, AESAs, home on jam, strobe on jam, side lobe cancellation, inverse gain, raster scans....etc. Anyways, just take into account that many countries have missiles, guns, planes, ships, and subs that could hurt us in a vacuum...but we work as an integrated unit. It's hard to kill what you can't see because you are electronically blind. I'd be happy to hear what you all think of the electronic dimension of this discussion.

if you read my former posts here you will see that I mentionned them and classify powers on this dimension also. USA are clearly above other powers by the numbers of device it deploy today but not much more technologically adavanced than France or UK in ELINT. France for exemple have ELINT satellites, equivalent of RC135 and ARIES, ELINT dedicated pod for reco (ASTAC), offensive power jammers etc..but in more limited numbers.I could add 30 worlwide ELINT stations network, plus ELINT/SIGINT ship etc.... And in ELINT, US assessment is that France is close to US. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp/aE/index.html Check France. But we could scale up.

Adding these two VITAL links to understand: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp/aE/E2Q.htm http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/army/docs/astmp/aE/E2J.htm Since france has increased its funding since, we can assume (as a 2004 official french report says), US-French technology gap is still the same and within a 2 years range except for AESA PRICE MMIC module (where our PRODUCTION technology is 5 years behind with modules 2/3 times more expensive in France in X band).

I did read the previous posts and have found that the EOB has been mentioned in passing, but I found the exploration of the subject small. In part, I know this is due to the lack of real information available to the public. While I too love FAS, they by no means have a firm grasp on the electronic capabilities of any countries of the world, let alone the US. For instance, to suggest that any sat system, French or US, could compete with Rivet Joint, Combat Sent, or Cobra Ball is a mere pipe dream. There is no system in the world that can compete in the world of sigint, comint, misint, etc with any of the RC variants, especially sat systems. Sat systems will always be secondary to manned systems. I don't question the rest of the world's ability to build very capabale electronic warfare systems. There is no doubt that the French, and even more so our friends in Israel have advance knowledge in the world of EA and EP. However, no where else in the world is there the emphasis on training and use of the electronic dimension. There is a reason why the Germans, Canadians, and NATO send their EWOs to my squadron to train. We've even had the French, the Aussies, and the Brits here at one point in time...but there are none here now. My point was simply when choosing to decide what would be needed to knock America off the top of the hill...it can't be done with planes, ships, subs and missiles alone. There is the new dimension of warfare, that the DoD officially recognizes now...the information and electronic dimension. As far as weblinks to electronic equipment...use the grain of salt. As for me...I think I'll stick with what the RJ, Sent, and Ball guys bring back for us to play with and just read the web when I'm bored.