Originally posted by rogue1
I was replying to stated that China relies on mass to win wars, thta simply is not correct today.
Yeah I agree with that too.
Originally posted by rogue1
The fact that almost every time the US NAvy has conducted exercises with friendly SSK's...
At the end of the day they are still exercises, we do not know the exact ROE. Conditions would be different under wartime, both from command, the
crew, right down to the individual systems. Besides, our allies are pretty good at this business, despite the assumptions would an opposing nation be
as proficient and capable?
I'm not saying subs can't sink one of our carriers, a sub it its greatest threat. However if we use them properly and make full use of our join
branch weapon systems and capabilities we can minimize the losses. Yet they would still function as a critical element in any conflict. The focus
should be in killing most of the threat and its support facilities before they can interact with the carrier.
Originally posted by rogue1
I doubt very few American plains would survive the SAM defences on China's coast.
China is almost surrounded with US bases. In the West we can target them from Afghanistan and other Central Asian countries. Then there is Diego
Garcia, Australia, Guam, Hawaii, Okinawa, Japan, South Korea and Alaska. Not to mention the five 4.5 acre floating bases, which if positioned and
defended properly, that can influence the outcome.
Originally posted by rogue1
Cruise missiles? You barely had enough to take on Iraq let alone China...
I think you're referring to Operation Allied Force. That was a problem caused due to several factors. Clinton had overlooked the military and it
suffered. Also, at the time new cruise missiles were just being developed and integrated, GPS was not as mature as it is today. We have more aircraft,
more ships, subs, and other systems integrated with cruise missiles. Bigger stocks, wartime training, an active logistical chain and overall more
capable systems. In the near future this advantage will only increase as more of our programs come online.
Originally posted by rogue1
...and of course any platform lauching cruise missiles will be in range of chinese missiles.
That's pretty irrelevant. When your ISR is gone, Command and Control reduced and forward deployed sites are under attack max missile range and speed
is pointless. We can survive their IADS and blue water surface capability. Because of this we can use our assets from global bases which can only be
targeted effectively is with Chinese ballistic missiles. China would be forced to consider the implications.
Originally posted by rogue1
The Chinese ballistic missile carrier killer is a particularly interesting.
It is interesting but that concept has yet to be demonstrated, much less implemented and perfected.
Originally posted by rogue1
Again, America couldn't possibly devastate China with conventional weapons alone.
Yes we can actually. You are seriously overestimating the size of the Chinese military. While it may have a large number of facilities, a trait of
inefficiency, it has a relatively few systems (in comparison). It is only critical to destroy half of the Chinese forces. I am confident the US or,
more likely, a join coalition between the US, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea can do it.
Originally posted by rogue1
The American Pacific Fleet would in turn be devasted as well as much of the Air Force.
Yes the Pacific fleet would be affected, forward deployed US assets lost as well. However in comparison we would not be as affected as China. They are
loosing continental based units and functions. We are losing forward deployed forces. Their situation is much more critical and severe. They can only
target the CONUS with nuclear missiles. Again, would such a decision get made.
Originally posted by rogue1
Well you seem to imply that the US can attack the Chinese mailand with impunity. If there were a fullscale war then the US bases in the Pacific would
of course be attacked.
Yes China can attack regional US bases however that would draw in Japan and South Korea; Taiwan in this scenario is understood to be included anyway.
This is a worst case scenario for the Chinese, all the current regional military forces allied against it. We can all agree that would virtually
ensure a Chinese defeat.
Originally posted by rogue1
I doubt it would go nuclear unless the mainland US was attacked with mass casualties.
It will not go nuclear unless NBC weapons are used by one side. The US has no reason to use NBC weapons, yet China lacks our conventional global
reach.
Originally posted by rogue1
Actually these days more Taiwanese embrace China and reject America.
Are you kidding me? The mentality of the Taiwanese people is shifting at an increasing rate towards a more nationalized, western and independent
citizen. The older generation is declining, once the younger generations takes over the identification with China will lessen almost completely. The
Taiwanese school system and cultural model was completely changed to reflect independence. Recent attempts at a UN seat hit towards this trend. Taiwan
wants to diffuse the situation politically and peacefully, hence contact with China, however they will not submit without a fight should push come to
shove.
Originally posted by rogue1
To attack China in a major war would require the bulk of US forces to be in theater which means a large portion of them would be destroyed.
Perhaps a large portion would be required but I don't quite make the same connection. There will be losses, but ones which can be absorbed and which
are less than the enemy.
Originally posted by rogue1
It is interesting of course to see how the USAF would manage against China, I doubt many planes would be coming back.
Chinese IADS will be systematically destroyed. A combination of electronic warfare, low observable aircraft, smart munitions etc... make our SEAD/DEAD
capabilities second to none.
Originally posted by rogue1
China's SAM's are too numerous and advanced and of course AWACS couldn't take part they would be shot down hundreds of miles out.
Not numerous enough, not mobile enough and it can be overcome with few losses. A few AWACS might be lost, but all grounded? That's not happening.
Originally posted by Harelquin
i wouldn`t like to be the CBG commander going near that lot
There are an estimated ~950 ballistic missiles in the Taiwan theater of operation. And there are 0 ballistic missiles in the Taiwan theater of
operation which have been credited with, or even demonstrated, an ability to realistically target a US carrier.