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.

 

USAF bombing Chinese Navy

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
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.


The Taiwan straight is a little over 100 miles across. That's a lot of water for LST's to cross with prowling American submarines, aircraft, and surface combatants, not to mention any land based ASM systems that Taiwan may have. Like I said, if they could somehow get their troops and tanks loaded onto ships without anyone noticing, they might have a chance to get an invasion force across the straight before we could react quickly enough. That's a big if though. I'm willing to bet we have a satelite parked over the area looking for this sort of thing.

You seem to be assuming that all things are equal between the U.S. and China on a military/technological level. They're not. U.S. airborne early warning and command and control are far superior as are U.S. aircraft and naval units. I think you're right about one side losing hundreds of aircraft, but that side wouldn't be the U.S.

For China to have any hope of landing armored units in Taiwan, I think they'd have to throw everything they could muster at Taiwan in a surprise attack and hope the defenders run out of Harpoon and TASM missiles. They'd suffer horrific losses. I don't think it's worth it to them.



[edit on 24-8-2007 by Vanguard223]




posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   
China just does not have the amphibious capabilities that wold be needed for a successful amphibious assault on Taiwan.
If they even tried it, with the few crafts that they do have, I dont think they would get within 20 miles of the coast.
Thanks to us, Taiwan has a HUGE supply of missiles every type, which I'm sure could hold off any land invasion of their island until a sizeable US force could get there.

Its my opinion though that we do not risk an allout war with China over Taiwan and I believe most Chinese are saying the same thing.
Why risk a full blown war with the US just to claim a small island, whos government doesnt want to be a part of them anyway.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
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.



I disagree with this 1 point - biowarefare gives me the heebeejeebees - the thought of a silent genetic plague scares me silly - i would rather be nuked then bac bombed.

nukes can be cleaned up quite quickly - bio plagues and neuro toxins arn`t quite so easily cleaned off - you wash a fense , the toxin could be on the underside and 1 touch and bam your on the floor as your internal organs liquify.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard223

The Taiwan straight is a little over 100 miles across. That's a lot of water for LST's to cross with prowling American submarines, aircraft, and surface combatants, not to mention any land based ASM systems that Taiwan may have. Like I said, if they could somehow get their troops and tanks loaded onto ships without anyone noticing, they might have a chance to get an invasion force across the straight before we could react quickly enough. That's a big if though. I'm willing to bet we have a satelite parked over the area looking for this sort of thing.



Ok lets say they DON'T have the element of surprise.
The missile barrage that the chinese will pummel the island will leave only those assets that are protected by HALs,bunkers and tunnels.
Obviously all Taiwanese missile sites will be targeted in this onslaught.
How many missiles will this chinese launch consist of? IMO 'enough' to saturate any credible missile defence system.

Initially(if not throughout) the airspace over the strait will be in chinese control. This is because they have aerial and ground based assets in the region that can dominate the airspace in that area.
Shore-based SAM batteries will complement CAP sorties conducted by BVR capable a/c(J-8 derivaties, Su-30MKKs). These a/c are more than capable of handling airborne carrier units and those based at forward bases(except for the F-22 maybe).
So getting into these skies is going to be mighty difficult for any non-LO US a/c.
If the F-22 is deployed into the region, then I concede it definitely changes things, but for both sides:


  1. The US is committed enough to deploy a high-value strike asset into an area in which it could be 'lost' to enemy hands.
  2. The Chinese will NOT cease all hostilities if and when the F-22 is deployed. I'm sure you don't expect them to. They will have to employ a counter. Now this counter will definitely up the ante(just like the F-22 inclusion did). Upping the ante means committing more forces, using more asymmetric tactics etc etc.


Bottomline, introducing the F-22 will only move the battle into a higher gear. No end to hostilities in the near future.

Why am I talking about air superiority in the straits? This is because chinese air superiority in the region makes it very difficult for any USN naval assets to enter the straits. All surface vessels will be in danger of stand-off attacks by long-range sea-skimming AShCMs launched by chinese a/c, and subs in the straits. Again any layered AEGIS and CIWs can only hope to hold off a certain number of these missiles until they are saturated.
Any USN subs in the straits will be vulnerable to Chinese ASW Ops conducted by air(under chinese air superiority cover),subs and ships in the straits.

This makes it entirely possible for the Chinese to open a clean and lengthy launch window for any amphibious expedition across the straits, w/o much resistance from the Taiwanese or US for that matter.



You seem to be assuming that all things are equal between the U.S. and China on a military/technological level. They're not.


Of course they're not. But all this technological advantage talk needs to be applied to practical on-the-ground scenarios. Its not all-out war after all.
Yes, the US can conduct stealth strikes against Chinese assets on the Chinese mainland using B-2s et al; but an attack on the Chinese mainland will take the conflict to a whole new level.
I do not want to predict how the PRC will respond to an attack on the mainland. I fear the response will be a similar attack on sovereign US soil using asymmetric means. Not something the US wants to get into. The social issues on CONUS vis-a-vis the massive chinese population living there would be far-reaching.



U.S. airborne early warning and command and control are far superior...


barely 100 miles of the chinese mainland?! You've got to be kidding me!
Chinese AEW in that region will be at least equivalent to corresponding USN capabilities, if not better.
A no brainer IMO!



as are U.S. aircraft and naval units.


Other than the Raptor and AESA capable a/c, there's not much difference.
Again with the C4ISR advantages available to the chinese(just 100 miles off their coast) AESA advantages would be minimal as numerous chinese shore based GCI operators would be feeding 'lesser a/c' with extensive radar info. The better ones would be enhanced even more.

Only the Raptor would make a clear-cut difference IMO. How many operational AESA units (Superbugs and F-15Cs) are operational anyways?



I think you're right about one side losing hundreds of aircraft, but that side wouldn't be the U.S.

Are you still certain about that?



For China to have any hope of landing armored units in Taiwan, I think they'd have to throw everything they could muster at Taiwan in a surprise attack and hope the defenders run out of Harpoon and TASM missiles. They'd suffer horrific losses. I don't think it's worth it to them.


The defenders would most certainly run out of those(partly due to the chinese pre-emptive missile barrage) much before any credible damage to the invading forces can be done.



[edit on 24-8-2007 by Daedalus3]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kr0n0s
China just does not have the amphibious capabilities that wold be needed for a successful amphibious assault on Taiwan.


Oh but they DO have capabilities tailored for that very purpose.
And they flaunt those capabilities every chance they get: military exercises(international and internal), defence exhibitions, you name it!



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
I disagree with this 1 point - biowarefare gives me the heebeejeebees - the thought of a silent genetic plague scares me silly - i would rather be nuked then bac bombed.

nukes can be cleaned up quite quickly - bio plagues and neuro toxins arn`t quite so easily cleaned off - you wash a fense , the toxin could be on the underside and 1 touch and bam your on the floor as your internal organs liquify.


Well that's yor personal opinion; but think of from the strategic sense.

Using bio-chem weaps is not conventional warfare, I whole-heartedly agree. Their effects on the individual can be more horrifying than nukes, but this is at a microscopic perspective.

Look at it this way:

If BC weapons are used in a conflict, any use of nuclear weapons by either side at later stage would still be viewed as a GROSS escalation!
Conversely if nuclear weapons are used right at the onset, any successive use of BC weapons would not be a major escalation.
After nukes(esp strategic ones) nothing would be considered as a escalation.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:12 AM
link   
It depends on your outlook on NBC weapons - at least 30% of russian ICBM`s have bio or chem loads - the main doctrine (AFAIK) was to nuke the silo`s and bio bomb the cities - bio weapons are the ultimate `doomsday` weapon a silent , wind borune plague that would kill everything.

the use of any NBC system would be regarded as an escallation , not just nukes.

have you read `biohazard` by ken alibek? the info is 15 years old now - but the russians are decades ahead of teh americans in this field of warfare.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 09:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
It depends on your outlook on NBC weapons - at least 30% of russian ICBM`s have bio or chem loads - the main doctrine (AFAIK) was to nuke the silo`s and bio bomb the cities - bio weapons are the ultimate `doomsday` weapon a silent , wind borune plague that would kill everything.


Oh! I was unaware of this Russian biochem ICBM bit!




posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
You want to have a look for Biopreparat and there ongoing activites - the west didn`t really know about it till the early 1990`s with 2 defections - but they talk about RNA splicing for virus`s


but i digress and apologise for going off topic.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
You want to have a look for Biopreparat and there ongoing activites - the west didn`t really know about it till the early 1990`s with 2 defections - but they talk about RNA splicing for virus`s


but i digress and apologise for going off topic.


They talk about research into combining the DNA of Viruses and bacteria. (Ken Alibekovs book " Biohazard " was very enlightening and scary). Whilst it talks about the weaponisation of the common viruses ie. smallpox, Ebola, Marbug etc. They never talk about the weaponisation of hybrid pathogens, although they do claim to be successful in producing such germs in the lab. I believe one such clam was that blackplague and smallpox were comibined.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Daedalus,

I could go back and forth with you all day long with hypotheticals but in the end, neither of us is going to change our position on this issue. I think you're vastly overestimating the PRC's ability to wage war against a technologically advanced enemy, in this case the U.S. China has command and control issues with their own military that would be exacerbated by the U.S.' ability to exploit these type of weaknesses. And yes, I do think the AEW advantage of the U.S. would play a part, even in such a confined AO, since aircraft would be entering and exiting the area from remote bases, not just from Taiwan itself.

I also think you overestimate the accuracy of Chinese missiles with regard to targetting specific defense nodes on the Taiwanese mainland. Your latest response to me seems to be more what you hope would happen in a conflict between the U.S. and China, not a realistic interpretation...based on past performance and technology...of what would actually happen. In other words...fantasy.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 04:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Vanguard223
Your latest response to me seems to be more what you hope would happen in a conflict between the U.S. and China, not a realistic interpretation...based on past performance and technology...of what would actually happen. In other words...fantasy.


Now why is that?
All interpretations are what the interpretors envision, not what they 'hope' will happen.
I have no vested/biased interests interests in a chinese(or US) victory in that theatre.

I think the 'hope' concept could be only applied to those who DO have vested/biased interests.

Anyways, it makes little sense to make generalised judgements like technological 'advantage', 'better' AEW.
It helps to point out the details so that the others understand and grasp what one says.

e.g:

Chinese missile accuracy: Which missile(s)? CEPs? in comparision to what? American equivalents? Which ones?
AEW advantages: Which platforms and at what operating/tracking radii?
And how these can overcome the pure power advantage of ground based radars that are ofcourse larger and more in number.

Specifics are always good. They can get you caught with your pants down if you're drastically wrong about them, but if you state them and it checks out then one is confident that you know what you're talking about.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   
People underestimate the US capability and give way too much credit to militaries like china Iran and Russia all over the internet. No one here has to believe me on this, but I know for a fact, as of over a year ago, with the current technology in place, if 100 nukes were launched at the US maybe 1 would get through. And this is not because of laser equipted 747's.

I would conclude based on what i know, that a lot people don't know what the US navy battle group can withstand and defend against. The US has 11 carrier battle groups. Best case scenario for china is they get away with taking 2 out.



posted on Aug, 27 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by psperos
People underestimate the US capability and give way too much credit to militaries like china Iran and Russia all over the internet. No one here has to believe me on this, but I know for a fact, as of over a year ago, with the current technology in place, if 100 nukes were launched at the US maybe 1 would get through. And this is not because of laser equipted 747's.


Popular public opinion in the now so-connected world society my friend!


And pray what will stop the 99 nukes?!



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 03:03 PM
link   
People overestimate the US capability as well

Stealth doesn't make an aircraft invisible to radar but effectively reduces its range, so a B2 will keep it’s distance from any SAM sites. The targets will be defended by SAM so the B2 will be using standoff weapons like cruise missiles. You also only fly them in the hostile area at night as they can be seen in the day. The SAMs will also destroy some of the cruise missiles. So B2 aren't going to destroy any where near the amount of targets people think until China's air defence has been destroyed if it can be.

The Patriot missile system isn’t perfect, Israel was so disappointed in their performance in the GW1 they developed their own and they get $25 billion from the US to spend on US military hardware. PAC-3 was being introduced at this point which is the current version of patriot. Patriot main weakness is against ballistic missiles, when it is successful it doesn’t destroy the missle but damages it causing it to miss the target, so it wouldn’t be effective against nuclear missiles, it is effective against aircraft which it has a tendency to identify as missile which was the cause of it downing 2 friendly aircraft in GW1. It also launches 3 to 4 missile for each incoming missile so I wonder how much it would take to overwhelm it .

Also in that conflict a US battleship was nearly hit by a seersucker (made in china) when its US escort failed to intercept with Phalanx and hit the battleship instead. The seersucker was destroyed by a Royal Navy ship (UK)

In the more recent Israel Lebanon conflict a US ship was hit by a missile because it had to turn it Phalanx off due to the risk of it targeting and shooting down Israel aircraft. Phalanx has accidentally shot down US aircraft.

The US Air to Air tanker fleet is going to be very stretched with all these long range strikes. The UK is often used by the US for this, but due to different system can only refuel the US Navy aircraft.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Are you saying that the Phalanx on a ship, which was escorting a battleship, missed an incoming missile and the missile was destroyed by a British ship, saving the battleship?

If the missile had gotten in close enough to where CIWS' are engaging, there wouldn't have been time for a British ship to miraculusly save the battleship. From the time the Phalanx fired (and supposedly missed) to the time the missile would be impacting it's target would only be a few seconds at best. Also...why weren't any of the 4 phalanxs onboard the battleship firing at this missile?

I call B.S. on this story....and probably the rest of your post too.



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Ok lets say they DON'T have the element of surprise.
The missile barrage that the chinese will pummel the island will leave only those assets that are protected by HALs,bunkers and tunnels.
Obviously all Taiwanese missile sites will be targeted in this onslaught.
How many missiles will this chinese launch consist of? IMO 'enough' to .....

[edit on 24-8-2007 by Daedalus3]


ZOMG u genius, u've pretty much summarized whats gonna happen there

after all, nothing beats a sky rainning missiles

a friend of mine (who serves in the Taiwanese army) says that most ppl will just run away or surrounder with out even bother fighting cuz they will be scared to death,
and by the time when the war actually happens, most taiwanese wouldn't give a # about fighting; their lives are obliously more important than some ideal "independence"

i think this pretty much summarizes the capability of the taiwanese military



posted on Aug, 28 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
wow what a funny topic

people seem to forget it wont just be china VS US
it would be China+allies VS US+Allies

got to love war



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Vanguard223
 




Gulf War (1991)
In February 1991 during the first Gulf War the battleship USS Missouri, the Sea Dart carrying HMS Gloucester and the Phalanx CIWS-equipped USS Jarrett were engaged by an Iraqi Silkworm missile (also known as a Seersucker). After an unsuccessful response from the Phalanx 20mm CIWS, the missile was intercepted by a Sea Dart fired from Gloucester', making this the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile during combat at sea.

www.factplace.com...

starbulletin.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Nice spin but this account makes more sense as far as ranges and engagement times are concerned. Also, by this account, the Missouri may not have even been the target the missile.


en.wikipedia.org...

"The Phalanx system has never been credited with shooting down any enemy missiles or aircraft.

February 25, 1991, during the first Gulf War, the USS Missouri and the Phalanx-equipped USS Jarrett were in the vicinity of an Iraqi Silkworm missile (often referred to as the 'Seersucker') that had been fired, either at Missouri or at the nearby HMS Gloucester. After Missouri fired its SRBOC chaff, the Phalanx system on Jarrett, operating in the automatic target-acquisition mode, fixed upon Missouri's chaff and fired a burst of rounds (not destroying the incoming missile). From this burst, four rounds hit Missouri which was two to three miles from Jarrett at the time. There were no injuries.[2] The Silkworm missile was then intercepted and destroyed by a Sea Dart missile launched from Gloucester. Incidentally, this is the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile, during combat at sea."

I'm not bebating the fact that the Glouchester successfully engaged the Seersucker, I just think the sequence of events was a little screwy. I'm betting the Sea Darts were already in the air when the Phalanx was firing.



[edit on 29-8-2007 by Vanguard223]



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join