... is implemented in every connected device stack ...
I can play HLS content in my Chrome browser you mean? Oh, no it doesn't have HLS support, only widevine. OK, howabout IE... no, not there either, that only supports playready. Ok, firefox! no, not FF without a NPAPI plugin - which will be gone eventually. Safari? Well yeah, sort of. What's left? Opera? and no, not Opera without NPAPI.
So what do you mean by "every connected device stack"?
imitate (someone or their actions or words), typically in order to entertain or ridicule.
What part of "mimic" necessitates deep knowledge of the inner workings of a system? I can mimic a dolphin (EEEEK EEEK EEEKK QED), but that doesn't mean I have a clue how dolphins work. I was just imitating a dolphin to entertain you. It seems to me that the poster simply doesn't understand what the word "mimic" means.
1) Russians have a lot of things that can kill an Apache. Tunguska for example. And fixed wing aircraft.
Apparently you don't know what NOE means. Fixed wing aircraft and AAA's cannot engage an heli flying NOE because they cannot pick it up on radar. Because of the radar configuration on the AH-64D it can engage armor while NOE - that is unique to that heli and it was made to counter exactly the threats you listed. Also, AAA and SAMs are loath to turn on their radar because of F16s and F18s flying constant wild weasel missions, so even if they did try and engage it would be like turning on a homing beacon for a HARM missile.
2) Aircraft carriers can be destroyed by supersonic anti ship missiles - something Russians can and do build very well, making the carriers just huge targets. Even the Brits during the cold war were aware of this kind of an asymmetrical answer.
Seriously? Yes, the US has many answers to anti ship missiles. From the phalanx cannon arrays to the AIM120 fired from aircraft screens. Anti ship missiles are not some sort of panacea against aircraft carriers - in fact, thats one of the reasons carriers travel with so many phalanx cannons!. If you really want to know how that might play out, read Tom Clancy - there is more than one engagement with anti ship missiles fired from Russian TUs. It's fiction, but it's hard science using the real stats. Which is a hell of a lot better that pure conjecture. (that's what you're doing btw, pure conjecture)
3) USA does not use stealth aircraft before achieving air superiority anymore because they are too afraid to lose one of the very expensive birds because they aren't that stealthy
Woah, you mean the first stealth aircraft ever, one designed in the 1970s, was shot down? I guess we should scrap the B2, F22 and F35 projects! The F117 has always been a nightmare, I don't even think it's in service anymore. But more to the point, yes the US would use B2s against C&C targets, you're just being foolish if you don't think so. And your logic is flawed too. You're saying the US is afraid of losing its stealth tech - but at the same time you say the stealth tech is worthless - sounds like you have some shit to figure out there.
American army was already overstretched fighting under-equipped savages in two countries, staying in Afghanistan for a decade and still losing that war.
In other words, the US has bases that surround Russia that it can launch strikes from? And you're posing that as a disadvantage? Hmmm... Shaky reasoning. And I'm not so sure about the overstretched part. Did the US start the draft and I missed it?
But I can see you have read too much Tom Clancy for your own good.
For my own good? Maybe for your own good. I read some Clancy, and other other publications, like Janes. So yeah, educating myself on the topic has really worked out well. I'm able to articulate my point in detail. How's that whole "lack of meaningful knowledge" working for you? Do you feel like you're able to argue your point succesfully without any actual citations or facts to backup your conjecture?
The AH-64D Apache Longbow, is equipped with a glass cockpit and advanced sensors, the most noticeable of which being the AN/APG-78 Longbow millimeter-wave fire-control radar (FCR) target acquisition system and the Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI), housed in a dome located above the main rotor. The radome's raised position enables targets detection while the helicopter is behind obstacles (e.g. terrain, trees or buildings). The AN/APG-78 is capable of simultaneously tracking up to 128 targets and engaging up to 16 at once, an attack can be initiated within 30 seconds. A radio modem integrated with the sensor suite allows data to be shared with ground units and other Apaches; allowing them to fire on targets detected by a single helicopter.
They were literally made to fight Russian SAMs and tanks in the eastern european theater. They have (almost) never been used in that role. Read up on the AH-64D's capabilities. Do the Russians have anything that can combat that? I'm not aware of anything. Shoulder launched SA-7 maybe, but not at night and not against helis flying NOE - and that's the only way AH-64s operate prior to achieving air superiority. And I didn't even bring up the F15, F16, F18 or F22.
And what makes you think the USA can't achieve air superiority against the Russians? Is that a joke or something? The US could send just a fraction of the 20 aircraft carriers it has into the black sea and they would have an order of magnitude more resources than the Russians.
The Russians? They have 1 aircraft carrier.
And let's not forget about the stealth aircraft. It would be a shame to lose all of your C&C on day one. But that's pretty much how it goes down in a war with the US. And what does Russia have to counter that? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. On day one, all C&C would be gone, any fighting that continued would be commanded by the highest ranking officer on the ground, not from central command. Add air superiority and it effectively makes all Russian armor irrelevant. After a week or two of fighting (working) Russian armor would be a rare sight. The US doesn't even need to send aircraft to attack the armor, they could destroy it with cruise missiles fired from submarines or missile frigates if they wished. And the Russians can do nothing about it.
Oh they could try and field their aging Navy against the US, but with 20 aircraft carriers and dozens of nuclear attack submarines the Russian navy is heavily outmatched.
And don't forget the US army has been fighting wars for a long time. That means we have a lot of skilled veterans - something that the Russians are lacking. So US has more and better skilled men and equipment that was purpose built to destroy the Russian army.
Maybe you can explain how the Russians could stand a chance, because I'm not seeing it.
Read Red Storm Rising. It's about a theoretical engagement of NATO and Warsaw pact countries in the 1980's. And Russia has only declined in military power since then.
Today, Russia would get decimated by the US and might lead to nuclear war, and that more than anything else is why the two countries don't engage in fighting directly.
But in the past 150 years or so, the parties swapped, they might as well have renamed themselves a few times in there.
Whether or not you know it, that's the "southern strategy".
The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatable things, called by the same name—liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatable names—liberty and tyranny.
Nope. That's the first Republican president talking about slavery. And the tyrants he's talking about? Democrats.
But don't let facts get in the way of your frothing hatred of people you obviously don't understand.
To be or not to be, that is the bottom line.