Weapons and Strategy in XXI century

What do you think guys will be the weapons that will make the difference in a suppossed scenario of War between two superpower as Russia an the US.
.
.
.
.I mean, as Panzer tanks were for Germany during WWII, Aircraft Carriers for the US in the Pacific agaist Japan or fighters or the RAF in the defense of London.
.
.
.
All of these "war-technologies" were created for or just befor WWII started.
.
.
.
.
So, what do you think it will be in XXI century war scenario?
.
.
.
.
(USS Hornet in picture)

Attached: USS Hornet_Port.jpg (1426x1075, 80K)

Aircraft carriers will win the day again and the next major military weapon on the chopping block for obsolescence are likely destroyers.

No. Just no.

why not user?

>destroyers.
You fool. Destroyers offer flexibility. They can operate individually and deliver formidable power, or en mass as a larger fleet and serve as a cost efficient multi role capabilities. With the advent of laser and rail gun weapons, they will remain important and dynamic surface warfare contributors. Now go kill yourself for your foolish suggestion.

Because that comes with implication that carriers will become self escorting - they tried mixing carrier and escort during the Cold War. Everyone who did so regretted it.

France, Japan, UK and Russia etc

They either refitted those platforms later to optimise the carrier aspect by removing weapons and the like or switched to a new fully fledged flatdeck design.

Submarines and aircraft.

Even people with carrier hard one understand that they are, and will always be queens. Loosing one in battle is almost unthinkable at this point. It would be a national shock and outrage equal to loosing San Jose, Calofornia. We would survive but what the fuck man, ots a big fucking deal. This isn't ww2 and ww3 wont be ww2 and more than ww2 was ww1 or the Napoleonic was for that matter. We just cannot and will not loose a carrier or put one in a situation where that can happen.

Destroyers and other surface and submerged ships will always have to be in front and suffer the brunt of the losses. Destroyers and frigates are important because we can risk them. Carriers are sacred soil and will be the last to fall in any scenario we end up in.

I see, the main difference between WWII is that now, we don't seem to have any new decisive weapon as Nukes was in WWII...
.
.
.
Why do you think is that? Absence of great wars last 70 years?

>obsolescence are likely destroyers.

just how much fluff do you have between your ears?

>small
>fast
>quickly produced
>less manpower
>ridiculous firepower for size and cost
>can fulfill any role
>Anti ship missiles
>Ground support with missiles and cannon
>anti aircraft
>submarine hunting
>patrolling
>screening

and they're actually useful in peace time because they're a cost effect means to deal with pirates, but have more firepower and crew than a patrol boat.

So aircraft needs aircraft carriers which needs escort vessels.

You need a perfect Trifecta of Aircraft Carrier-Submarine-Destroyer

Attached: dd_hms_hero_h99.jpg (550x386, 31K)

>superpower
>russia
you gotta be above 10T in GDP to be a super power user. slavs arent even top 5

I disagree. Japans GDP was about 8 times smaller than US GDP during WWII and you know the rest of what happen between 1941 and 1945

Can you stop writing like a spastic.

user.... japan got rofl stomped in 6 months.

Japan wasn't anywhere near superpower status you retard.

But faced the US. Anyway, Russia isn't on top 5 but is on top 3 of resources related with military porpuses.

>But faced the US.
and got raped...

the USA has double the population of russia
5 times the GDP
a vastly superior navy and airforce
and a better army too

No, you don't disagree. Japan was more industrialized than Italy, they're weren't just some dirt eating slit eyed monks. They were a naval super power in the Pacific, not anywhere else or in general and made huge progress in naval technology.

Russia on the other hand has a GDP per capita that is lower than that of Turkey and of course for comparison's sake Italy. Italy still had a bigger economy if you drop per capita.

Italy has better GDP then Russia, also satellites.

and is in bed WITH LIKE 99% OF FIRST WORLD COUNTRIES

The only weapons that matter in a Russia US war are nuclear. Let's not kid ourselves.

Being more industrialized than Italy isn't saying much.
Also superpower in a region isn't a superpower and their naval technology all got gimped by their awful practice of funding obe thing that works and then rejecting any other alternative. Basically they make a pretty good pre war fighter but then utterly fail to replace it as it goes obsolete, all the while centering their entire navy around a retarded doctrine that worked once against retarded Russians.

>Russia
>superpower

>Being more industrialized than Italy isn't saying much
Yes, it is actually considering that Italy is in Europe, an important country in both World Wars and started its industrialization before the 1880s. Outside of that Japan actually industrialized the Korean Peninsula and Manchuria so much that Korea, even though it was not a state, was the second or third most industrialized place in SEA. In comparison the late Russian Empire was an "industrial" disaster, read agrarian.

>Also superpower in a region isn't a superpower
No one implied otherwise.

>naval technology all got gimped by their awful practice of funding obe thing that works and then rejecting any other alternative
I'm sorry but I have absolutely no clue what you're trying to say.

>Basically they make a pretty good pre war fighter but then utterly fail to replace it as it goes obsolete
Wrong. If that's what you meant in the above sentence then this is just wrong, wrong and wrong. Though one could argue that it took Japan way too long to switch gears in a number of aspects, sure.

>all the while centering their entire navy around a retarded doctrine that worked once against retarded Russians.
Strange claim considering the Russo-Japanese war was at the beginning of the century(not a full-scale international conflict either) and World War II was 40 years later. Seeing as how they were pioneers of naval aviation, organization of carriers into fleets and used said naval aviation even during World War I(though obviously in a limited fashion) I'd say you're just absolutely wrong.

>as Panzer tanks were for Germany during WWII
You do realize Panzer was the German word for tank, right? You just said tank tanks.

>was
Still is.

>Korea, even though it was not a state, was the second or third most industrialized place in SEA
>Korea
>SEA

Attached: 1344465727407.jpg (640x480, 54K)

Funny mistake to make. I was thinking of how to put it so that smartass over here won't come up and say THE SOVIETS ARE IN ASIA AS WELL. I just woke up, sorry.

Attached: 1402354091761.png (192x137, 37K)