>You could fit every Tomahawk the US has produced since 2016 into the number of VLS cells the PLAN added to its fleet in 2025Is this true?:https://x.com/i/status/2006080291098816551
Implessive
surely this thread will stay up longer, right chinkshill-kun?
>>64697919You tell me?https://www.amerikanets.com/recommendations>Recommended by Amerikanets>Russians with Attitude
>>64697919Well, given that the USN has dramatically reduced TLAM purchases for the last decade or so, sure... but that kinda misses the point, which is that there are reasons they've been cutting back production. They're not always *good* reasons, mind you, but they ARE reasons.JASSM, on the other hand, has been produced in absurd numbers and used far less in combat thus far, so there should be several thousand of them sitting around. Hence why things like Rapid Dragon are very interesting.
>>64697919Yes. Raytheon builds 6 tomahawks per month. They are truly a garbage company.
>>64697942>Hence why things like Rapid Dragon are very interesting.In a hot China war logistics aircraft are gonna be WAY too valuable to risk turning into missile trucks. We really just need to take the missile pill like Iran and develop a cheap IRBM missile system and then surround China with them.
>>64697919And they're building modern day "Liberty Ships" too, so they can increase their number of VLS cells tenfold during wartime:https://www.twz.com/sea/chinese-cargo-ship-packed-full-of-modular-missile-launchers-emerges
>>64697919The US has 4,000 TLAM and many thousands of jassm and lrasm.>built since 2016Irelevant.
>>64697961Iran's chimpout was the best proof that conventional IRBMs are a dogshit technology. Years upon years of stockpiles expended in one chimpout to basically zero effect against a tiny country. You'd have to build a truly ridiculous number of them and get them all to hit Beijing in order for China to even notice. It would also be a deterrence nightmare, any kind of first launch would and should be treated as nuclear... So you might as well put nukes on them in the first place. Maybe even put them on a more survivable platform, like, I don't know, a boat that can submerge?
>>64697971Well, no not really. A war between China and the United States will be decided within a month long before anyone floats any significant tonnage. Either they stand off the United States airforce and navy in which case they've basically already won, or they fail to do that and all of their shipyards cease to exist.
The US buys enough tomahawks to replace the ones it used up
>>64697919A better metric would be to look at what they have available to use. There's a reason the abrams tank production is pretty low. No reason to make a fuck ton of them if all they're gonna do is sit around eating up maintenance funds. Or worse, end up like Russia's stockpile of tanks that were so run down because they had the bright idea to make a ton but never maintain them.
>>64697999Do you actually believe any of this shit or are you just baiting? Either way, here's your (You).
>>64697919>Have thousands of cruise missiles lying around in storage>We need to build more of them because China is building something completely unrelated!What manner of retardation is this?
>>64698118That explains the 25% failure rate of Tomahawks (3/12) in the recent strikes in Nigeria
>>64697919Does that mean the Chinese will produce that number of their Tomahawk class missiles and put them into their VLS cells in 2025?
>>64698159Yeah: >>64697971
>>64698166Nice way to get all your merchant shipping immediately raped
>>64697942>JASSM>7,500 producedJesus. It's infuriating that Americans have so much available force and then cuck out to third rate powers like Russia. I don't even understand why so many Americans think russia would be a good ally against China. Even IF they joined and helped out, it'd be like Italy in WW2 times 10. You'd spend more treasure and lives trying to stop Chinese columns rolling into Omsk and forget about defending Vladivostock, that's gone 12 hours into a Sino-Russian war.the whole thing makes zero strategic sense and yet there's so much fucking buy in amongst the current security/defense staff.
>>64698159no, tomahawk are obsolete non-stealth cruise missiles. china has ballistic missiles which unlike non-stealth cruise missiles are hard to intercept.
>>64698269>>7,500>so much available force those will last for 8 days in any wargame with China, retard
>>64698287it'd probably look even worse if china figures out how to mobilize their economy and men before an invasion as opposed to doing it afterwards.
>>64697919Tomahawk mass production isn't a key part of our strategy. America has a fucking lot of Tomahawks, and they're good but we have other systems we rely on.
>>64698294wrong.subs are key to our strategy. subs are a hard-counter to china's a2/ad. subs can only launch tlams.
>>64698287>Chart has no sourcesShut the fuck up, Dennis, men are talking,
>Number of ships>Tonnage>VLS cellsSurely none of these matter compared to the ability to outproduce ships, plans, drones, missiles and just about everything right?
>>64698315>outproduce ships, planshow many cvn does plan have?
>>64698326>He can't read
>>64698082>Poorly copied scud missiles are vital to US defense or however the leadership is decapitated
>>64697971>Using WW2 tactics in the 21st century Incredibly implessive. I highly encourage them to put expensive VLS farms on as many ships as they can.
>>64698378It's even funnier framed in a ww2 context>showing a desperation plan when nothing is happening>>64698287That doesn't mean what you think or are insinuating it means.
