It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

PLAN 2005

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
An insanely massive air assault would be able to get to a carrier. The ships only carry so many missiles.

However, zoom out from the carrier battlegroup a minute and look at the theater as a whole. How many resources will China really have to throw at a carrier battlegroup?

If it actually came to war between the US and China, there would be more than one US Battlegroup. They'd be all over the place. We'd be launching air raids from Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Diego Garcia, Australia, etc. We'd be launching naval attacks along the entire coastline of China. Not to mention the other countries who would come to Taiwan's aid. China would be stretched too thin to devote the massive amount of resources needed to succeed in such a raid.


But the U.S. would be stretched very thin as well.

The way I see it, the above situation is only possible should the war be an invasion into China. But I think we all know an invasion into China is impossible and unlikely. Totally unnecessary too. We'd be fighting over Taiwan if we fought China.




posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Not really the USN and USAF are not stretched thin by any means.
Its not like we need insane number of jets for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Sweatmonica why would we have to invade China?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

But the U.S. would be stretched very thin as well.

The way I see it, the above situation is only possible should the war be an invasion into China. But I think we all know an invasion into China is impossible and unlikely. Totally unnecessary too. We'd be fighting over Taiwan if we fought China.


The carrier battle group has everything necessary to protect it from most attacks. In a time of war like this scenario where the carriers would be threatened (unlike Iraq) they would have even more Aegis escorts and subs.

And I agree with you that the only foreseeable way the US and China would come to blows would be if China invades Taiwan. And I just don't see that happening. That makes this whole discussion like "who would win if Superman fought Mighty Mouse".



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Not really the USN and USAF are not stretched thin by any means.
Its not like we need insane number of jets for Iraq and Afghanistan, and Sweatmonica why would we have to invade China?


Yes really. Air power and naval power have their limits. Especially when faced with long-range situations, as well as superior enemy defenses.

Can you point out where I said we'd have to invade China? I don't recall saying that.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
And I agree with you that the only foreseeable way the US and China would come to blows would be if China invades Taiwan. And I just don't see that happening. That makes this whole discussion like "who would win if Superman fought Mighty Mouse".


I agree, it's likelihood is limited. But IF the U.S. and China ever fought, the war would take place on and over Taiwan and would never enter the United States or China.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Yes really. Air power and naval power have their limits. Especially when faced with long-range situations, as well as superior enemy defenses.


Of course, but right now the USAF and USN are not really being used for anything so to say our forces would be stretched thin is not correct. And go look up U.S. bases in the region and you will see that your long range situation is not that much of a problem.
“Superior enemy defenses“??? Please explain.


Can you point out where I said we'd have to invade China? I don't recall saying that.


I think in one of your posts you talked about a certain situation where the U.S. would ave to invade china, if a war over Taiwan broke out.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Of course, but right now the USAF and USN are not really being used for anything so to say our forces would be stretched thin is not correct. And go look up U.S. bases in the region and you will see that your long range situation is not that much of a problem.


You really do know your military... anybody who does knows that the U.S.A.F. and the U.S.N. are used far more than even ground units. That's not true right now, of course. But in peacetime, the most active units are the Air Force and the Navy. Just think, deployments, the countless no-fly zones, and now that a war has broken out, we still have plenty of air power and naval power left over for an even bigger war? Try again.



I think in one of your posts you talked about a certain situation where the U.S. would ave to invade china, if a war over Taiwan broke out.


Try reading. It's awesome and totally necessary to have, especially because you're gonna be doing a lot of that at the U.S. Military Academy. Here's what I said earlier:



The way I see it, the above situation is only possible should the war be an invasion into China. But I think we all know an invasion into China is impossible and unlikely. Totally unnecessary too. We'd be fighting over Taiwan if we fought China.


If the U.S. ever fought China, it'd be on, in the airspace, and in the waters of Taiwan. I was saying for the situation that PeanutButter was describing before my post to happen, we would have to invade China in that case. Not invade China if a war over Taiwan broke out.

Any questions?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

You really do know your military... anybody who does knows that the U.S.A.F. and the U.S.N. are used far more than even ground units. That's not true right now, of course. But in peacetime, the most active units are the Air Force and the Navy. Just think, deployments, the countless no-fly zones, and now that a war has broken out, we still have plenty of air power and naval power left over for an even bigger war? Try again.


You seem to be only talking about the tactial air forces not the strategic one. The US has hundreds of heavy bombers which can carry a ridiculous amount of AA and AS weapons. B-52's, B-1's and B-2's could launch stabdoff weapons hundreds of kilometers outside any Chinese defense umbrella. They could also concentrate at least several carriers and associated escorts. Don't forget that AEGIS cruisers and similar ships carry more than a few Tomahawks and Harpoons not to mention hundreds of SAM's.
However the balance of poweer is gradually evening up in the Western Pacific - the Chinese are taking the delivery of 2 more Soveremmy's in the next few years with Sunburns. Now if and when China reverse engineers Sunburn tech ( and mass produces similar missiles ), then we may see an overwhelming threat to the USPACFLT in the Western pacific.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
You seem to be only talking about the tactial air forces not the strategic one. The US has hundreds of heavy bombers which can carry a ridiculous amount of AA and AS weapons. B-52's, B-1's and B-2's could launch stabdoff weapons hundreds of kilometers outside any Chinese defense umbrella. They could also concentrate at least several carriers and associated escorts. Don't forget that AEGIS cruisers and similar ships carry more than a few Tomahawks and Harpoons not to mention hundreds of SAM's.
However the balance of poweer is gradually evening up in the Western Pacific - the Chinese are taking the delivery of 2 more Soveremmy's in the next few years with Sunburns. Now if and when China reverse engineers Sunburn tech ( and mass produces similar missiles ), then we may see an overwhelming threat to the USPACFLT in the Western pacific.


Again, that would only happen in the case that a HUGE war broke out. To keep that uptempo you refer, it would require tons of resources and the U.S. has been prone to logistical issues and it only gets worse in huge wars.

Again, this all would only happen should the U.S. go on the offensive against China.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Again, that would only happen in the case that a HUGE war broke out. To keep that uptempo you refer, it would require tons of resources and the U.S. has been prone to logistical issues and it only gets worse in huge wars.

Again, this all would only happen should the U.S. go on the offensive against China.


Don't forget the US practically invented modern logistics. Any major war with China would send the US Military-Industrial complex into overdrive, new factories would be established and the priduction of munitions increased exponentially.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo

Again, that would only happen in the case that a HUGE war broke out. To keep that uptempo you refer, it would require tons of resources and the U.S. has been prone to logistical issues and it only gets worse in huge wars.

Again, this all would only happen should the U.S. go on the offensive against China.


Don't forget the US practically invented modern logistics. Any major war with China would send the US Military-Industrial complex into overdrive, new factories would be established and the priduction of munitions increased exponentially.


so what china would also increase there arms production. its not ww2 where america outproduced everyone else. china is the worlds number one steeel producer and third largest ship builder to.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite


so what china would also increase there arms production. its not ww2 where america outproduced everyone else. china is the worlds number one steeel producer and third largest ship builder to.


Once again a complete lack of understanding of the strategic postions of both countries. Chinese shipyards and ports would be put out of commission fairly quickly they are extremely vulnerable. China would find it far harder to strike at US centers of production if not impossible, unless of course they lied about NFU and used nukes.

You should really step back and try and take a real world perspective not some fantasy land.



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 01:56 AM
link   
rogue1 im going to try ignore you
pathetic



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:02 AM
link   
rogue1 if you think my information is false please Recommend any sites i could go to


pin dick



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by PeanutButterJellyTime
An insanely massive air assault would be able to get to a carrier. The ships only carry so many missiles.

However, zoom out from the carrier battlegroup a minute and look at the theater as a whole. How many resources will China really have to throw at a carrier battlegroup?

If it actually came to war between the US and China, there would be more than one US Battlegroup. They'd be all over the place. We'd be launching air raids from Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Diego Garcia, Australia, etc. We'd be launching naval attacks along the entire coastline of China. Not to mention the other countries who would come to Taiwan's aid. China would be stretched too thin to devote the massive amount of resources needed to succeed in such a raid.


And which other countries would those be?
Japan and SK I can understand.. Japan defeinitely..
But Australia I have my doubts..
India wil not help for sure..
Maybe even oppose the whole thing..
Same with Russia..
In SE Asia I doubt Malaysia and Indonesia will help..
Phillipines most probably will..

The solution I think would be to have a swarm-type air- strike as a 'meat shield' or decoy of sorts while the main attack force would be kilos..
Again a well planned co-od attack..
This IMHO would exponentially increase the chances of damaging (maybe even sinking a carrier in purely conventional terms..
And if the chinese sink a carrier conventionally, then maybe the USN will have second thoughts about a full-frontal attack..
It may just swing the entire war in the favour of the chinese..
If they actually manage it, the battle will become one of the most phenominal victories in modern warfare..
Greater than the falklands stuff..
Btw IMHO if the argentinian AF / Navy was replaced by any half decent AF/Navy for that war then they would've won it for sure..
Every time I study the events of that war...
Im like.. "stupid stupid stupid!!!"


EDIT: As for the balance evening up in the Pacific...forget it...
China has zero offensive (conventional) capability there..
Only if the US goes on an offensive and China plays her cards really well whilst defending taiwan, will there be even ness between the two..
This scenario also gives the US an upper hand in naval and air superiority terms..
The only US problems I foresee are:

1. The incapacitation/sinking of a carrier as mentioned in my prev post
2. Getting actual troops on the ground in taiwan and then holding taiwan while keeping china at bay..


[edit on 22-4-2005 by Daedalus3]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:40 AM
link   
It's worth noting that the US is very blunt about not having a No First Use policy, and if a carrier bit the dust, or was about to, I believe the US would go nuclear first. 5,000 or so sailors dead in a few minutes would not go over well domestically, and some dramatic response would be expected. Possibly a nuclear attack on a PLAN surface group out at sea - I think the US would be careful to avoid any strikes on the Chinese mainland though. That would put a lot of pressure on the Chinese to retaliate against the US proper, something they can do if they want. The US is unlikely to be willing to trade Honolulu or San Diego for Taipei.

The Chinese would most likely retaliate without escalating, IE some kind of very measured nuclear response against a US military target, also in response to internal pressures more than real military necessity.

I don't think any of this is really likely though. Both China and the US have way too much to lose by going to war with each other, we're major trading partners for one thing. For another we're both nuclear powers, and the potential for each side to inflict catastrophic damage on the other is a strong mutual deterrent.

If the US and China go to war, we will blunder into it somehow. It won't be by intent, but by miscalculation. I think both sides will be careful to avoid making moves that are likely to lead to hostilities, but noone can be sure what these moves are. The most dangerous error would be in an underestimation by either the ROC or US about how essential the Chinese consider the Taiwan issue to be to their soveriegnty - a particularly touchy issue given the last couple centuries of their history.

The most likely scenario is more of what we see now, ceremonial displays of naval and air power in the seas around Taiwan, dire growling from the Chinese, and continuing brisk trade by all concerned. Taiwan will eventually enter China's orbit more or less willingly. Not because they're bullied into it, but because that's where the money is going to be, and they aren't stupid.

I also think China, with it's burgeoning middle class and increasing impatience with government ineptitude and corruption, is likely to become freer place by itself without outside interference. It's harder to oppress a prosperous people than an impoverished one.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by xmotex]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:41 AM
link   
quote

"We'd be launching air raids from Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, Diego Garcia, Australia"

how are you going to get planes into taiwan. any war between nuclear powers has to be throught though no rash thinking. am i right in thinking this but what is australia going to do??? i live in aust and its not that powerful. why would south korea help? .japan would help. countries dont think about how people helped them in the past but how much trade in the future. im not to sure about this figure but 54% of taiwanese would rather unification than war

also if american carriers get close to chinese coasts you'll be seeing alot of massed attacks of Q5 attack planes and lots of chinese ship attack missles mixed in with sunburn missles. by the sheer number of attackers dont you think missles will get through.

[edit on 22-4-2005 by chinawhite]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
Arn't we off topic?

This thread is turning into another U.S V China thread.

The thread is about the PLAN's current inventory, not about any engagement with the U.S. It's just some nice pictures, some details, and people have to turn it into a flame session.




posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 04:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
It's worth noting that the US is very blunt about not having a No First Use policy, and if a carrier bit the dust, or was about to, I believe the US would go nuclear first. 5,000 or so sailors dead in a few minutes would not go over well domestically, and some dramatic response would be expected.
[edit on 22-4-2005 by xmotex]



That I seriously disagree with...Esp. if china manages to sink the carrier conventionally..
Very bad for the US to go nuclear..
It'll be soo isolated from the rest of the world after that...
Also the public opinion at home will heavily weigh on the US actions...
It'll again be like nam except this time the US has nuked another country in a pre-emptive fashion..
I foresee sooo many sanctions being slapped on the US soo fast, it makes my head spin..
The islamic fundametalists wil take adv of this and you can say bye bye to public support for the US in the Middleeast.
Even the govts there maybe forced to take some sort of economic action due to public opinion/international pressure..
And the best part is I doubt China will respond in nuclear terms..
Perfect PR for the chinese..
"they come to our land, nuke our people and yet we do not stoop to their level."
Nuking pre-emptively could have far reaching consequences for the US..
consequences that will extend beyond the war..

And rapier the PLAN has just about enough ships to maintain a discussion for say 10-20 posts..
After that it will always gravitate towards comparisions with the USN in the pacific... human nature..



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Let me post some pictures of new PLAN stuff, so we can get off the US vs China stuff








***Someone please inform me of the AShM missile that will be held in these huge round cannisters (Not your typical PLAN rectangular ones)***



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join