USAF bombing Chinese Navy

Originally posted by FredT
Nuclear responce perhaps, but who knows if the missiles would hit if the US can perfect its ABM shield.

Even the projected programs dont have the capbility to hit a ICBM nor do I believe that they are capable of stopping more than 20 SRBM before the rest get through, thats with the projected program

Originally posted by BlackWidow23
Also, as far as MiG alley goes, there were 370 CONFIRMED kills.

Because MiG alley was so close to the Chinese airbases, American pilots would get a hit on a MiG and claim they got a kill while the MiG would just travel back over the border without being killed. Because of this, American pilots would very much exaggerate their kill ratios

Soviet troops did not number anything in korea, they were simply airforce pilots only

The F-86 and MiG-17 were almost equal in performance, all things considered (rate of climb, turning radius). Most of the rest of the force was WWII equipment (except the new, bigger bazooka).

The F-86 was the better fighter. Technologically advanced army takes into consideration what the command structure, communication equipment, the standard of the infantry equipment etc. This hardly compares to the chinese infantry which had a rifle and some grenades

Let us also not forget the huge terrain training advantage chineese troops had; training in the mountains all the time.

Training in mountains?



Which mountains did they train on?

Originally posted by StellarX
Just a few 'corrections' i feel i have to make. There are many to be made on this thread but i feel you are one of the few who have the knowledge to appreciate the effort; that and i don't really have time.

You know I very much appreciate your contributions StellarX, one reason I give you those votes

If the USAF were allowed to start a strategic bombing campaign against China

I agree that it would have made a difference in troop levels but by launching a bombing campaign would have led to nowhere since china did not produce anything or was there anything worth bombing at that time. What would have needed to be bombed where the soviet Manchurian train networks which would have led to a wider war. The soviets only gave the rights back after the Chinese-soviet friendship treaty

but i can't agree that the Chinese did not sometimes use their infantry in massed attacks to punch holes or turn flanks

Massed attacks were definetly used, what I am trying to say was there was no human wave tactics of lines of infantry running at the Americans. The chinese tactics were infiltration and to achieve local superiority of numbers before an attack. The fire team would be heavily armed troops with granades and automatic weapons to assault the bunkers then the other troops would sweep behind the 1st line and hit then with "chinese artillery" which consisted of 81mm mortar fire

Originally posted by chinawhite
Dont you think that possiblity would have been VERY CLEARLY thought over BEFORE they deployed them within range of chinese missiles?. So within minutes of the battle starting they will then begin to move their fighters thousands of kilometers somewhere else, the question beckons, why didn't they deploy it there in the beginning?the answer is that Kadena is in a strategic location which offers FLEXIBILITY, which is a word much used in modern military operations. Maybe keeping key assets like tankers "always" ready might like interesting but they take space, they are slow and there is limited areas where they could be located

And so you're point being that the F-22s are automatically negated/blunted because they are deployed within the range of ballistic missiles?
And that the US has no option but to deploy them within the range of chinese missiles and thus practically lose them anyways as compared to flying less sorties and increasing the survivability of the 150mil $ airframe?
The US does not view the Taiwan conflict as a 'all or nothing' eventuality even thought the chinese may see it that way.

They will not sacrifice the F-22 to chinese missiles just becuase the aircraft may not 'fly as many sorties' in the theatre. That would be a move of desperation and a posture of 'going the way whatever happens'.


The point being the USAF/USN does NOT need the Raptor to the extent required. The on-station times of the 4/4.5 gen a/c already deployed there make up for the supposed chinese aerial numerical superiority.
The Raptor would be suited for B-2 escort, deep interdiction SEAD, ground strikes against high value-heavily defended installations like naval ports and the maintenance of air superiority during such situations. These mission profiles would NOT require continued aerial presence, the likes of which are witnessed in fleet air defence etc.

True the positioning seems to be closer to Taiwan than NK but the probability of usage is not the same.

The F-22 fighters for Norh Korea?, A aircraft with a primary role of air superiority deployed about 3000-4000 km away with limited ground attack capbilities primed against a airforce with old style MiG-29s which I suspect has no operational missiles?.

Again the role of the F-22 in such scenarios is what is debateable.
The deployment is only for political posturing and is a part of a rotatinal program. Wartime deployments would not be the same for F-22s IMHO.

Or against a air force 1000km away in which the government is taking aggressive stances against and claiming of a re-armament?.

can you be more specific?You mean the PLAAF and the PLANAF? IMO the USN/USAF believes that all 4/4.5 gen assets in the region()including ROCAF
etc are sufficient to counter chinese aerial capabilities.The F-22 is surplus

We are talking about countries with long founded nuclear programs and almost MAD capbilties, Not a regional contest between two newly founded nuclear powers

China does not have total MAD with the US.
If were to boil down to total nuclear war the chinese would still lose more than the US..anyday. And this does not have anything to do with new nuclear powers or anything..
I was simply stating the examples because there are NO other instances of ballistic missile usage except for V-2s in WWII.
btw, The Soviets fired Scuds at Pakistan during their Afghan occupation.

WMD are much like nuclear weapons, Why didn't the israelis "nuke" the iraqis since their WMD program is well known. It is much the same situation as to what you are saying.

You sound like GWB and co now.
Nuclear Warfare is NOT comparable to bio-chem warfare. Never was and never will be. Usage of chemical and biological weapons is not trivial agreed but it cannot be compared to nuclear weapons.

It doesn't matter if they were nuclear or not, all that mattered was that it had a payload which would have been as or more devastating than a nuclear warhead.

And this is the point of disagreement. It DOES matter if it is nuclear or not.
Nuclear war is a whole new thing..even when compared to biochem weapons.
Besides, the Israelis would have to fly into Iraqi airspace with N-bombs, in the midst of a aerial frenzy which already had IFF issues. To add there were
American forces on the ground which could be a part of the collateral.
The Americans would never allow it. Infact they would be forced to 'take-out' any such Israeli attempt to breach the nuclear threshold vis-a-vis Iraq.
All-in-all? The Israelis never really did have a exercisable nuclear option against Iraq in GWI, irrespective of the nature of the Scud warheads.

This is what your telling me,

China fires a SRBM at a US airbase and before the content of the missile is known the US lanuches a full blown nuclear war or a nuclear missile in exchange?.

The SRBM does not endanger Americans MAD capability nor does it threaten Americas ability to wage war.

No, it tests American resolve regarding such ambiguous matters.
The Americans raise the DEFCON level, thus increasing the possibility of a tactical nuclear exchange at the very onset or at any point in the future, accidental or not.
Strategic alert levels are raised as well.
Boomer Captains and Silo commanders start thinking of their families from hereon.

The Americans will look to stem the ballistic launches, and pick sites for B-2/F-22/tomahawk bombardment. Now they will obviously try to pick sites that they believe are the 'source' of these ballistic barrages and sites that their intel tells them to be 'conventional' ballistics.
Does China publicly segregate its nuclear and conventional ballistics so that there is NO misconception in the matter whatsoever?

An impossibility since distinct publicised segregation would itself endanger the survivability of the nuclear-tipped MRBMs/SRBMs/IRBMs.
The ambiguity is further increased since the ballistics are NOT ICBM-type(the US would strive to stay clear of ICBM sites in order to not further escalate).

If the US is forced to go ballistic hunting on the Chinese mainland then it futher raises the stakes, the tension and the possibility of accidental(or intentional) nuclear weapons release.

Does China's no-first-use policy help here?
Well logically it should but the strength of China's no-first-use policy cannot be determined by China; it can only be determined by the amount of value China's nuclear opponents give it, and this is something China has no control over whatsoever.

So its not about whether the Americans would wait or not. In all probability they would wait, of course nobody wants a nuclear war. However the introduction of long range rocket propelled ballistics would move the confrontation to a new level in which NEITHER China nor the US want to be in.

China would be much better off using LACMs launched from subs(they do have sub launched LACM capability don't they? ) to supress bases like Kadena esp if those bases do indeed have high-value assets like F-22s.
This would keep the conflict at a safe distance from the ascent to nuclear war.

If the attack had turned out to be bio-chem then the Israelis may very well have responded with N-bombs but I think there were too many American forces on the ground for that.

But why didn't they respond before the missile hit?

Like I said:

1)They would only be able to respond by sending aircraft with drogue-release free fall N-bombs. They did NOT have a ballistic response mechanism.
2)The environment in which these IAF a/c would release the weapons would be extremely inconducive to the mission objectives.
The Americans wouldn't allow it so it would have to be w/o their knowledge.
If the Americans found out in advance, then they(USAF/USN) would be just as dangerous to the mission as Iraqi Air Defense and the IRAF.
3)The Israelis would risk American casualties on the ground even if they succeeded.
4)If they didn't then you would have 'broken arrows' all over the Iraqi desert, free for anyone to collect.
5)In order to have a albeit extremely slow exercisable nuclear response option the Israelis would need to have a large section of its military totally dedicated to carry out the strike. They had apparently put more faith the PAC-I systems then do alll this. The fact that PAC-I systems failed in Israel is another thing, thus prompting their own ABM program with Green Pine and Arrow.

Effectively the situation did not fit the response outlined by the Israeli nuclear doctrine at the time.
Nuclear response was not an option irrespective of the bio-chem nature of the Scud warhead.

[edit on 18-3-2007 by Daedalus3]

Originally posted by chinawhite
You know I very much appreciate your contributions StellarX, one reason I give you those votes

Thanks.

I agree that it would have made a difference in troop levels but by launching a bombing campaign would have led to nowhere since china did not produce anything or was there anything worth bombing at that time.

I believe i specified that the bridges of the Yalu were never closed as they could ( relatively easily) be... If anything it would disrupt the supply of critical equipment ( people must eat; even pure infantry uses bullets by the boat load ) enough to make the best efforts of the Chinese infantry largely useless; these were strategic choices made by the US at a time when the US could turn the USSR and whatever parts of Europe they managed to overrun into a temporary nuclear wasteland. The US in theory had all the strategic aces and their choice not to destroy those bridges suggest that they had other motives than simply winning this war.

What would have needed to be bombed where the soviet Manchurian train networks which would have led to a wider war. The soviets only gave the rights back after the Chinese-soviet friendship treaty

The USSR could not have done much against the US strategic strength in the early 1950's and they were very much on the defensive and in no way worth calling serious involved in the Korean war that took place. If anything they tried to prevent it for fears of it's escalation.

Massed attacks were definetly used, what I am trying to say was there was no human wave tactics of lines of infantry running at the Americans. The chinese tactics were infiltration and to achieve local superiority of numbers before an attack.

Maybe it's just semantics and i can prove that the US army staged 'human wave attacks' of it's own in the second world war. There is in fact not all that much that truly separates human wave attacks from any other kind and it's in my opinion largely a question of how the observer interprets the effectiveness....

The fire team would be heavily armed troops with granades and automatic weapons to assault the bunkers then the other troops would sweep behind the 1st line and hit then with "chinese artillery" which consisted of 81mm mortar fire

And i am not arguing that this was the stock standard type of tactics that caused the US infantry such discomfort... They were very aggressive and quite effectively managed the overwhelming 'allied' support fires so as to not have themselves annihilated by static combat. While on the attack artillery can hurt but not nearly as much as it does when your stuck on the defensive; German casualties during their invasion of the SU were largely from small arms and direct fire ( line of sight ; maybe the distinction is not so obvious) field artillery and not from the massive number of artillery pieces the SU deployed at that time;the Germans started taking those types of casualties when they started to engage in set piece battles and especially when they went over to a general defense in late 1943. If your never standing still for any significant strategic time frame they will simply just lack the information to target you with and be cut off or captured.

Keep up the good work.

Stellar

Originally posted by Daedalus3
What legs are tied in Iraq??
As far as I can see all the tying up has been self-inflicted.

And you've got to be kidding yourself if you think the US will win hands down..
really
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 16-3-2007 by Daedalus3]

'

Bro, I have a lot of friends in Iraq. and from a perspective of over there and American attitude they cannot do their job. They cannot demolish the enemy completely. We don't use our power and we are trying to baby sit a bunch of crazies who want to blow us up (not that i agree we should be there). We are very tied down with politics and media coverage. Its dis heartening when our soldiers cannot do their job. Its not a war, its a sham. I don't want to spend an hour typing it all, but iv the US Army had full run we could end this conflict in weeks with out nukes. But heavy civilian casualties would occur. We wouldn't care if we were against a major power like china. Talk to some of the US soldiers and you will hear. For example our soldiers now have been bared from double tapping downed terrorists because its inhumane. Trust me on this one because I don't want to betray what soldiers (some rather high ranking) have told me in confidence.

^^
Well welcome to the real world then..
There is NO 'perfect war'..

Any and EVERY non global-all-out-nuclear-conflict you get into will be just as bad.
Esp if you're going there with the the current mandate. There will be no real friends, no real enemies and no real end objective.
Nobody likes foreign troops on their soil. No one..
'Occupations a bitch' and every single occupying force has experienced that; American or not.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
^^
Well welcome to the real world then..
There is NO 'perfect war'..

Any and EVERY non global-all-out-nuclear-conflict you get into will be just as bad.
Esp if you're going there with the the current mandate. There will be no real friends, no real enemies and no real end objective.
Nobody likes foreign troops on their soil. No one..
'Occupations a bitch' and every single occupying force has experienced that; American or not.

Hey man, I agree with you. Occupation is a bitch. But that's not really what would happen with China. Nobody could really invade and hold china. It's too big and too populated. The mess of Iraq would not correlate to how the US would fight an actual power. I mean for the record the US demolished the "organized" forces of Iraq twice in about 2 1/2 weeks combined. The only country that can be effectively held is a totally destroyed country that knows that if they make one move they will all be gassed and fire bombed. Other than that its silly except for big business.

Ever thought that war with China would mean an instant collapse of the Dollar, the US economy and American rich-life society? The world would follow shortly after and that's what I think is going to happen.

Financial experts and governmental bodies are aware that the Dollar will collapse it might be years away, but not decades.

A world war would enable the US to found an American Union and additionally, a new currency.

Inevatibly, we will see new alliances. I wouldn't be surprised if China, Iran, Russia and India will be one side and will try to overthrow the regime in Saudi Arabia, which is why the US will likely strengthen it's presence in Saudi Arabia in the coming years.

The most important factor in the coming world war will be to secure oil supplies and believe me, it will be a bloody one not only fought in Arabian soil.

I will join the fray...

First off, a US Carrier would stay well out of range of land-based missiles. This is a non-issue. The carrier does not need to be that close to launch sorties. A carrier would never enter the strait. That is crazy, it serves no purpose.

It would be positioned east of Taiwan meaning any Chinese attack would have to cross Taiwanese air defenses before posing any threat.

Though the US could destroy much of the Chinese Navy by air, that will not be the strategy. US air units will be tied up shooting down Chinese missiles aimed at Taiwan and running top cover and ground support missions.

My guess is that they would never attack the Chinese mainland directly, but may use cruise missiles for that. For political reasons the US would want to avoid the appearance of a US-China conflict, only aiding an ally in its treaty obligations.

Ship sinking will be a submariners job. The Chinese Navy submarines simply could not get near US subs (LA class or otherwise), they just are not good enough. I doubt they have ever successfully tracked one. The Russians never successfully tracked them and they are using old Russian subs.

At any time there are 3-4 attack submarines a day away from the strait (if not in it), with 8-10 more inside of 5 days. Chinese naval formations would suffer in that environment, and they really would not be able to shoot back. They do not have the sonars and weaponry to effectively target US submarine forces. It could turn into a Turkey Shoot.

Remember that it is Chinese Fighters that would have to be the aggressor, and that means dealing with thick Taiwanese air defenses (as good as any) Aegis cruisers and the US Navy.

The US could have 700+ front line aircraft in theater inside 2 days.

We know what US air power can do to ground forces that are forced to maneuver. It is an ugly sight. China has a lot of men, so it may not be enough, but it would be ugly nonetheless.

China would have to take a pretty drastic action to stop the US Navy and Air Force in that scenario, and that would involve a nuclear airburst, EMP or something similar.

If China preemptively attacked a US carrier group like that, you would not have to worry about conventional strategy anymore.

China would likely be an inferno inside of an hour, and The US West Coast may get a few new sand traps on the golf course.

Honestly, I do not think China really would attack Taiwan. It is great for political posturing, but they are making too much money to risk the ugly results. What is there to gain by it?

You conveniantly forgot about the Song class submarine that stalked a US carrier group a few months ago in the pacific... surfacing within weapons range.

The PLAN is quite capable of making it very difficult for any US naval assets to operate around the Taiwan waters.

Originally posted by Lucretius
You conveniantly forgot about the Song class submarine that stalked a US carrier group a few months ago in the pacific... surfacing within weapons range.

The PLAN is quite capable of making it very difficult for any US naval assets to operate around the Taiwan waters.

washingtontimes.com...

A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned.

I would bet that there is a difference in detection capability between when a sub is stalking an oblivious CVBG during peace time and during war time when people are constantly scowering the sonar screen looking for these things.

When ships are scanning for subs there is probably a multitude of additional sensors and power diverted to sub scanning.

Originally posted by magicmushroom
Yes it would be a blood bath, on the American side, the Chinese would not wait to watch their ships and aircraft destroyed, any US combat group would be nuked before it got in range to do anything.

Thats the problem with an imbalance of power, China cannot match the US at sea, but it can nuke America's carrier fleets with no loss to itself. I'm sure it would not provoke a nuke exchange because as mad as Bush and Co are they wont want the US nuking back to the stone age irrespective of the option of nuking China.

in respect to you i think people would think one of two things if bush diddnt retaliate
1) what a pussie
2) what a mature president

now obviously the peoples thoughts and the international communities thoughts are completly different the u.n. would come down on china like a ton of bricks imposeing heavy sanctions and praiseing the u.s. for not retaleateing.

You are talking about a full blown nuclear standoff.

1. You, me, and everyone else on this forum knows that if China were to attack with a nuclear weapon on a US CVBG it would not get away with it without a significant retaliatory strike by the USA.

2. Tactical nuclear weapons would make it more reasonable for a retaliatory nuclear strike.

3. China knows that if they can get away with a nuclear stike so can the US as a retaliation, thats why a nuclear weapon wont be used.

4. Its not that easy to hit a CVBG steaming at you at 35MPH with a nuclear weapon designed to hit an immobile city like object. The other option is bombers which would be swatted out of the air by USNAF and finally subs which would also be checked by Los Angeles class subs certainly to be escorting a US CVBG every inch they move.

sorry guess you never heard that china already has a plan in place-they would simply air detonate a nuclear wepon high enough to cause a EMP and disable the fleet---dont think cause we are america ,we could possibly stand up to china--are you kidding!!china is the army of armgedon

Army of Armageddon .. right.

Anyway, the vast majority of our military hardware is hardened against electromagnetic pulse.

Furthermore, unless they used a localized EMP, a nuclear device detonated at altitude to perform EMP-related damage would most likely go for several hundred, if not many thousands of miles and strike their own mainland.

Good attempt, though.

There is a lot of bad information floating around this site. People with no understanding of American military doctrine or hardware are commenting as if they're experts on the subject.

I won't point fingers but I'm getting a good chuckle from some of these posts.

My opinion is that China might have some initial success in an invasion of Taiwan but would eventually be beaten back once the U.S. attained air and naval superiority....which wouldn't take long. This is all assuming that China could keep their invasion force hidden up until the time they attacked. If their cover was blown and they lost the element of surprise, it would be a horrible defeat for the Chinese right from the get go.

The U.S. would form an impenetrable air defense umbrella around Taiwan. Nothing with Chinese markings on it would live long within that zone. Aegis cruisers and destroyers, USN and USAF combat air partrols, and Patriot batteries based in Taiwan would decrease the average life span of Chinese pilots to about 10 minutes. I won't even get into what would happen to their Navy after they lost control of the air. I just hope they have a lot of life boats on their troop ships.

Originally posted by Vanguard223
There is a lot of bad information floating around this site. People with no understanding of American military doctrine or hardware are commenting as if they're experts on the subject.

I won't point fingers but I'm getting a good chuckle from some of these posts.

You know I just read this whole thread and was about to post a similiar remark, you beat me to it, LOL. I think some people here have some sort of list they refer to when arguments such as these come up and just regurgitate the same stuff over and over.

Whilst most Taiwanese se themsleves more as CHinese they don't want the bosses in Beijing telling them how they can live. They are happy with the status quo, neither being fully independent and neither being bossed around by Beijing. It's interesting over 500 000 Taiwanese live in Shanghai.

If there were some conflict over Taiwan, you could be sure the Japanese would side with the Americans and commit forces. They could could cut off almost all of CHina's international trade quite easily, through somination of the sea lanes.

However, China and the US both need each other any major conflict between them would wreck their respective economies. That being said, after speaking to many young people in Beijing, they believe that Mao is god and that Taiwan should be invaded if they declare independence. Just goes to show the degree of nationalistic brainwashing that goes on there. Especially as most of these people were reasonable and intelligent. Another intersting thing is that many are very naive about what goes on inside their country as well.

Originally posted by Vanguard223
There is a lot of bad information floating around this site. People with no understanding of American military doctrine or hardware are commenting as if they're experts on the subject.

I won't point fingers but I'm getting a good chuckle from some of these posts.

My opinion is that China might have some initial success in an invasion of Taiwan but would eventually be beaten back once the U.S. attained air and naval superiority....which wouldn't take long. This is all assuming that China could keep their invasion force hidden up until the time they attacked. If their cover was blown and they lost the element of surprise, it would be a horrible defeat for the Chinese right from the get go.

The U.S. would form an impenetrable air defense umbrella around Taiwan. Nothing with Chinese markings on it would live long within that zone. Aegis cruisers and destroyers, USN and USAF combat air partrols, and Patriot batteries based in Taiwan would decrease the average life span of Chinese pilots to about 10 minutes. I won't even get into what would happen to their Navy after they lost control of the air. I just hope they have a lot of life boats on their troop ships.

All said and done, IMHO once a sizeable chinese infantry/armored divisions gets trenched in Taiwan, they will not be removable unless the US uses immense firepower.
Also Air Superiority over the straits will only come after either side has lost a/c in the hundreds. Not a loss any side would be willing to incur.

I agree with the status quo position. Everybody is better off that way including both militaries. If the conflict inflames and becomes long-drawn, both countries will be greatly weakened in all aspects(economic,military etc etc..). Ofcourse there will be other neutrals watching from the outside that will be just waiting to take advantage of this weakening.
Good for them I guess!