USAF bombing Chinese Navy

page: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Another advantage the US has is it has equipped its F-15s with PAC-3 missiles, so many of the incoming anti ship missiles bound for CVN would be shot down.
This is a common trend here; stating future or experiental capabilities as operational ones. USAF does not currently have any operational F-15s so equipped.




posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 08:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Ok, I completely agree that the B-2s cant run wild all over china, but were just trying to bomb the rocket sites within range of the Taiwan straight



What rocket sites?

Chinas ballistic missiles are completely mobile and move around the country side ever few hours which makes it impossible to keep track of. It moves under military trucks and are covered by tarpaulin which makes it extremely hard to distinguish for the standard military truck in use by the PLA. It was impossible to track SCUD launchers in the gulf war in a barren desert such as iraq, how are they going to track them in lush mountainous areas of china with a truck of even lower profiles?.

The DF-11 280~350km while the DF-11A has a roguh range of 500km
The DF-15 has a range of 600km


Both these missile mean they can be fired quite far from Taiwan wheres the shorter range DF-11 targets the west coast the longer range targets the east coast

At most a few B-2 will not be armed with SDB but other stand-off cruise missiles to target fixed radar and communications centers and wont be armed with SDB which are essentially bunker busters used for small targets. If they were going to use the SDB they would carpet bomb a major field with a few B-2 to at least make it inoperable for a few hours or days


Sure, you can probably detect it, but at a highly reduced range.


If your surmising about the mission profile of the B-2 is correct than its distance from a radar receiver would likely give it a RCS not of a small bird but of a track able fighter like target. Once its general location is found then fighters will go to that general location if they are not already there and beam their radars and find them at 20km or so. Because the B-2 is not armed with its own weapons it would be easy pickings



we will have spotted it via sattelite and SDB'd it.


I think you give satellites far to much credit. These mountain ranges are massive expanses of area with transverses of almost 90 degrees. Good luck finding a launcher in a 10km2 area let alone a 1000km2 for three different mountain locations. America did not even spot the North Koreans firing their rockets at well known test site in a barren location let alone hidden Chinese launch pads. The Americans couldn't find iraqi SCUD lanuchers in such a small area it would hardly be able to find something in china. I think you give to much credit towards American spy satellites


Also, probably effective, is the YAL-1 ABL.


The YAL-1 is a paper system, not finished development or even deployed. I think they could be countered by having a different coating which makes the chemicals ineffective or having extra metal sheets



1. It was flying a repeated flight path, so easy to track
3. It was an incredibly lucky shot; the missile wasnt even being guided. Some serbs were just ripple firing their SAMS and one of them hit...its just like how bombers were shot down in WWII...they heard the aircraft so they just shot upwards and hoped.


That is the American view of events which I might say is extremely bias.


I dont believe it was flying a repeated flight path, why would they unless they are bombing the same target for over and over again. Which other lfight path could they take. How can the Serbians just fire up without even knowing their are aircraft there. They had to have a very good idea from radar to fire their very expensive missiles just at the right time. The Serbian version of events is much different and cant be discounted because they were your enemies



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
(this is not an attack) I am very curious about the quality of chineese subs. Do you have a link? (not an attack, I actually want to learn)


Here is my list from 2006

Ming class.
There are 17 of these submarines in service. Not very modern, but have been upgrade in recent years



Larger Version



Larger Version


Yuan class.
There is apparantly two of these. One of them is fitted with AIP and denoted with A for a improved variant. These submarines might become the fore front of chinas submarine force in the coming years, compementing the Kilo force



Larger Version

Song class.
There is roughly 12 of these in service, they are also quite modern and have been equipment with mdoern C4I



Larger Picture (top)

Larger Picture (bottom)

Interior



Kilo submarine.

These are the spearhead of chinas submarine force. Very potent and quiet with its Klub-S missile system. Might be fitted with AIP in the future, adding alot more capability for only a little bit more money. There are 2 Kilo 877EKM which are the downgraded export variants, 2 further improved 636 variants which are quietened Kilo submarines while china had just finishing recieving 8 more further imporved 636M submarines




Larger Version



Larger Version



Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

Conventional submarines

20 ~ Type 033 Romeo-class
17 - Type 035 Ming-class

12 - Type 039A/G Song-class
Capable of firing C-80X series of missiles while submerged

12 - Kilo-class
Klub-S missle system

1 - Yuan-class

Total number of conventional submarines = 62

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nuclear Submarines

5 - Han class SSN
Capable of firing C-80X series of missiles while submerged

1 - Xia class SSBN
16 JL-1 ballistic missiles

Total number of nuclear submarines = 6

There are also rumours and pictures of the Jin class SSBN and the Romeo class has probably been put into storage or have been decomissioned

[edit on 11-3-2007 by chinawhite]



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
While its true the B-2 can be located, it is probably indistinguashable from background "noise". What I mean is china would be sending fighters to every small object in the sky.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   
Some points:

The B-2's will not come from islands near china.
They will come from Missouri direct.
I also doubt the F-22s will be kept in range of chinese missiles.

If anybody launches ballistic missiles, conventionally-tipped or not, the other side will not wait to confirm nature of the warhead:
nuclear holocaust..



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:32 PM
link   
Would just like to point out how the US is already winning that war. How many mobile missile defense systems are in the US? Im sure there are some, but we don't fight wars here in America. If a conventional war were to break out between the US and China and NUKES were not used and THE us army was allowed to go balls to the wall full out china would be dominated. It wouldn't be pussy footed like Iraq. China is surrounded by enemies/American top allies. Chinas granddstanding and parades wouldn't do a fifth the damage that the us army/navy/airforce would do. Could we hold the country or invade more than a small part? NO!!! But we could demolish them and go home.



posted on Mar, 11 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I also doubt the F-22s will be kept in range of chinese missiles.


Where will they come from then?


If anybody launches ballistic missiles, conventionally-tipped or not, the other side will not wait to confirm nature of the warhead:


Why wouldn't they wait?. The profile of a IRBM and a SRBM compared to a ICBM is massive. Its not the cold war where each superpower had their hands on the trigger just waiting for a missile to be lanuched so that they can lanuch and guarantee MAD.

I think the actual policy changed in the 1970s to nuclear escalation instead of full out war.


If china launched a ballistic missile America would most definitely wait before they went into a nuclear holocaust, its common sense. Maybe India and Pakistan because of their limited stockpiles and protections with their newly founded capability but definitely the founding nuclear states would definitely wait



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
The F-22 would have to be in range. I would guess japan. But also, MTHEL is being deployed soon.

Another advantage that will be added to every fighter soon is HELLADS. That can shoot down missile of every shape and size (well maybe not ICBMS)

Yes, these systems are not out yet. But they are planned for deployement this year - - and we are not at war yet. Taiwan wont declare independence too soon I think, its not strong enough yet and it dosent have enough support yet.

As for ballistic missiles - - The far-fetched scenario that china is STUPID enough to nuke a CVBG wont happen. Chineese military is not stupid and the US is CERTAINLY not stupid.

MAD assures that nuclear war will simply never happen. The US would realize this before it decided to unleash the power of a nuclear weapon.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 12:19 AM
link   
The F-22 would most likely be based at Kadena Airbase or on Guam



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Originally posted by Daedalus3
I also doubt the F-22s will be kept in range of chinese missiles.


Where will they come from then?


Well that is for them to decide. I don't think they will keep vital assets like F-22s within the reach of the chinese tactical umbrella.
Those drop tank pics at Kadena along with the KC-135s make for very interesting deployment sceanrios.




Why wouldn't they wait?. The profile of a IRBM and a SRBM compared to a ICBM is massive.


IRBM profile more massive? how come?

Anyways if the US is able to distinguish between ICBMs and non-ICBM ballistics, then they may choose to wait since non-ICBMs would not directly endanger their second strike capability.




If china launched a ballistic missile America would most definitely wait before they went into a nuclear holocaust, its common sense.


It would be common sense on the chinese part NOT to assume American 'common sense' in this matter! really!




Maybe India and Pakistan because of their limited stockpiles and protections with their newly founded capability but definitely the founding nuclear states would definitely wait


I don't think India has the ability to detect ballistic launches on foreign soil.
I can bet Pakistan does not have that ability.


I doubt anyone has the necessary satellite surveillance and other reuirements to detect ballistic launches worldwide(or anywhere for that matter) expect for the US and Russia.



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Taiwan is an ally, and our government has stated very clearly an act of war on Taiwan is an act of war on America.

A bit weird considering the cowardly policy of the United States (and Canada, the United Kingdom and Japan for that matter) to recognize that there is only one China and that the People's Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China.


en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 12-3-2007 by Simon666]



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Well that is for them to decide. I don't think they will keep vital assets like F-22s within the reach of the chinese tactical umbrella.


Whats the use of an assent when its a lot further away from the battle front unable to have a continued partaking in the action. The US was preparing to send three CBG right into the heart of the soviet naval base with thousands of nuclear tipped anti-ship missiles, hundreds of attack plane and massive amount of mines. This was because to achieve a tactical objective stand-off is not a option.

A carrier is a vital asset, a AWACS is a somewhat vital asset the F-22 is only a assent depending on the number of sorties it can achieve


IRBM profile more massive? how come?


Speed difference of Mach 7 compared to something like Mach 20+ the altitude difference of something like 1200 km. Mostly compared with the the THAAD system and the american ABM system



It would be common sense on the chinese part NOT to assume American 'common sense' in this matter! really!


If china lanched a SRBM at a American airbase why wouldn't the American wait to confirm if its conventional before they lanuch a MAD strike. One single SRBM makes America lanuch a full scale nuclear war?. Even during the cold war they were planning on a system of nuclear war and differentiated between full-nuclear war and tactical nuclear war


I doubt anyone has the necessary satellite surveillance and other reuirements to detect ballistic launches worldwide(or anywhere for that matter) expect for the US and Russia.


China, France, Britan (EU) all have these capbilties.

www.sinodefence.com...


Any country which has the capbility to track pieces in space have this capbility. China had activitly sought this capbility so it doesn't get caught unaware



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
Whats the use of an assent when its a lot further away from the battle front unable to have a continued partaking in the action.


1) So that it is not exposed to enemy interdiction
2) It is not an asset that can be afforded to be lost on th ground/100mil$+ scrap on the tarmac..
3) It can effect the same roles with extended air sorties replenished by cyclic
shifts.
4)Continued presence is not a requirement unless the enemy attempts the same. F-22s will maintain air superiority for the duration of any operation in which other USAF/USN assets are vulnerable to aerial threats.F-22's will carry out deep interdiction missions which will not require them to based near the theatre for prolonged durations.



A carrier is a vital asset, a AWACS is a somewhat vital asset the F-22 is only a assent depending on the number of sorties it can achieve


And it can only achieve sorties when it is operating from a secure location.


It would be common sense on the chinese part NOT to assume American 'common sense' in this matter! really!




If china lanched a SRBM at a American airbase why wouldn't the American wait to confirm if its conventional before they lanuch a MAD strike.


I don't know. Why would you be even willing to wonder if they'd wait or not.
Then you could extend the analogy tactical nuclear exchanges as well:

"If I attack a strike group with a nuclear weapon then he should/would only respond by attacking my military assets while leaving my populous cities alone"..

Not a risk worth taking IMO.




I doubt anyone has the necessary satellite surveillance and other reuirements to detect ballistic launches worldwide(or anywhere for that matter) expect for the US and Russia.


China, France, Britan (EU) all have these capbilties.

www.sinodefence.com...


I am talking about a detecting a launch; not re-entry and the succeeding flight trajectory..
Detecting ballistic launches..



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Guys, F22s are already in Okinawa Kadena. Guam, Saipan and Okinawa can be easily attacked. Hawaii and Alaska are more difficult, but it would be also very difficult for planes there to come to Taiwan Strait during the war. America is sending its best weapons to the far east prepared for another Korea or Vietnam War...



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luketao
Guys, F22s are already in Okinawa Kadena. Guam, Saipan and Okinawa can be easily attacked. Hawaii and Alaska are more difficult, but it would be also very difficult for planes there to come to Taiwan Strait during the war. America is sending its best weapons to the far east prepared for another Korea or Vietnam War...


1. The range of the F-22 with its fuel tanks is Huge. With tankers, even more. The F-22s fly down from alaska, kill 6 aircraft, refuel in mid air and fly back to hawaii.

2. You do realize that Korea was no defeat for the US, right? You also realize that both wars resulted in the catastrophic destruction of the North Vietnameese and North korean air forces, right?



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
I would just like to point out the use of terrain in any conflict between china and the US. Taiwan is effectively a mountain range island if you have a look at it in google earth. Any carrier battle group wouldn't be placed in the taiwan strait but most likely on the other side of the island where it is mostly shielded from any convential seabased system currently field by the chinese. Add air cover and china can only result to nuclear tipped guided weapons to make any real dent in a carrier battle group.

Add in any tech like the raptor for greater aircoverage/interdiction and missle systems like THAAD and PAC for fleet defense from Ballistic end cruise missle threats and the carrier is well protected.

THATS NOT TO SAY THAT SOMETHUING MIGHT GET THROUGH. wITH THE CHINESES HUGE NUMERICAL SUPPERIOTRY, SOMETHINGS BOUND TO GET THROUGH



posted on Mar, 12 2007 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Wow, I never thought of that! The ultimate cover!

Do chineese cruise missiles have terrain avoidance?

I would think that the first step after that would be deploy SAMS and CIWS on taiwan.



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 07:21 PM
link   
American "super" planes can create some casualities, but can hardly stop the boat waves from crossing the strait. They are also insufficient to destroy most of the civilian and military infrastructures in mainland China. Vietnamese did not even have planes. If American ships do not enter Taiwan strait, it can hardly stop the boat waves, either. Of course, it is a national war for China, so Chinese are prepared to suffer from big casualities. The same degree of casualities would also apply to Taiwan or Japan if Japan interferes. It is a pity that mainland America is too far for conventional weapons.

Chinese missile rains would take care of Taiwanese defenses. The Yu Mountain in Taiwan cannot help much to hide American carrier ships, since it is a small island and China can easily launch land based ballistic missiles to hit the ships without crossing Taiwan. Also for ballistic missiles, they can easily overcome the terrain, and they change orbits in the midway.

Yeah, sure, you did not lose Korea War. The so called superpower, backed up by the United Nations, were not only pushed out of North Korea, but even lost Seoul by desperately poor China that have just finished 8 years of anti-Japanese war and 4 years of civil war. It is really sparkling for "All Mighty" America to reach a tie with Beijing in 1950s.

[edit on 13-3-2007 by Luketao]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
With a suprise blitzkrieg, the chineese pushed back the americans for all of a few weeks. After that, we counterattacked, recaptured every inch of territory that was taken, and blunted every single following offensive by the chineese. We recaptured Seoul and crossed into NK for a SECOND time. No, we did not lose the war at all. Not to mention that chineese casualties were five times more than US casualties because China likes to send out human waves to get mowed down. Backed by the NATO? Sure we were. You were backed by the soviet union. You had 250,000 more troops than we did, and after the initial rush we STILL pushed China back.

Here is the way I see the inevitable second stalemate: There is no way that the US can defeat china in an all out war in that area. If China throws itself into the war, a few CVBGs cant absorb the rocket rain, I agree.

If you want to talk full blow war however, there is no way that China's power stretches beyonds its borders. China would lose a war ANYWHERE but INSIDE CHINA ITSELF. No way USA can carry out an invasion, no way china can leave.

As for the limited conflict that IS IN FACT this topic, taking out most if not ALL cruise missiles launched by china is a simple matter of setting up SAMS and CIWS behind mountains in Taiwan. Unless your weapons can see through mountains, you cant TOUCH strategically based defenses, I doubt they would even be DETECTED. The reason is simply physics. The missiles would have to pass over the mountains, than literally turn around and fly back towards the side of the mountain facing away from china, and THAN hit a SAM site or AAA site WITHOUT being shot down.

Too bad USA is out of range of China weapons? Works both ways. As soon as china has weapons in range, those weapons are in range of US weapons. The USA also has the best ballistic missile defense in the world (except maybe S-400) with the PAC-3 on a ground based system.

All that is needed to counter chineese ballistic missiles is the Patriot missile. Ten of them, hiding behind Taiwan, would take out most BMs while ship based missiles would crush the rest.

Super planes? Even our F-15Cs and New Advanced F-18"G" as I like to call it (JHMCS, radar focusing weapons) would match PLAAF in the air easily, if not obliterate all of it.

You also overestimate chinas "waves". If you are talking about landing craft, they would be mowed down by guided missiles. If you are talking about warships, than you VASTLY overestimate china. The US has the largest and most powerful navy on the planet. If war starts, it will go into overdrive production JUST LIKE CHINA's navy will. There is no way the chineese navy can outmatch the USN at this time, so the "boat waves" you speak of do not currently exist.

If any of this information is wrong please correct me


[edit on 13-3-2007 by BlackWidow23]



posted on Mar, 13 2007 @ 09:47 PM
link   
The chinese's naval assualt capability is very limited, some of their amphibious landers are still LST from WWII. Their couldn't be waves of chinese landing ships because they simply don't have them.

The chinese simply can't project force effectively. YOu have to take into account chinese paratrops, but even then, a concerted aerial umbrella can destroy slow speed planes easily. The logistics of such troopers would also be a huge problem if no sea landing capability was availible.

Chinese aerial cover would proberly cover hundreds of planes, however considering that the majority of the chinese airforce is Chinesed Mig-19's and 21's america would have an advantage

China simply can't project force oversea





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join