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.

 

U.S. vs. China

page: 38
1
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 01:52 PM
link   

1 b2 carriers 40,000 pounds of bombs, while the B52 carries 488,000 pounds of bombs, now tell me again how they manage to hold as you say 36,600,000 pounds of bombs?



An assessment published by the USAF showed that two B-2s armed with precision weaponry can do the job of 75 conventional aircraft.


www.airforce-technology.com...


It was the US that shot it down not the iraqis.


Makes the Iraqis look worse, then.


You dont understand how strong thier anti air fores are, they have one of the best anti air screens in the world.


It can be taken out just the same way as any other.

Cruise missiles from 1500 miles away being fired from a B-2 could cripple most of their best defenses. There's no way of detecting a B-2 from that length. Not even a Russian could argue otherwise. Then the stealth bombers start a free for all of bombing, followed by the rest of the airforce, then an invasion can take place.


How do you know where to look?
Just go around shooting anything without the good old red white and blue on it?


You don't just place SAM's anywhere you want. China has them in a strategic network. We'll have an idea of where to look. Given a few months, they won't have a single SAM left. Most of their radars, for instance, are large, and bulky. They aren't very hard to find. Take a few of these out, and the whole system falls.




posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
An assessment published by the USAF showed that two B-2s armed with precision weaponry can do the job of 75 conventional aircraft.


www.airforce-technology.com...

Ah but thats on effectiveness not on bombing capabilities, the sheer number of trargets would overwhelm the enemy.





Makes the Iraqis look worse, then.

No it makes the USA look worse.



It can be taken out just the same way as any other.

Not when you cant find it.


Cruise missiles from 1500 miles away being fired from a B-2 could cripple most of their best defenses. There's no way of detecting a B-2 from that length. Not even a Russian could argue otherwise. Then the stealth bombers start a free for all of bombing, followed by the rest of the airforce, then an invasion can take place.

Yeah once they lose a SAM site they will know an attack is comeing, they just need to wait until the first bomb hits the ground then turn the SAM's on, SHOOTING GALLERY!



You don't just place SAM's anywhere you want. China has them in a strategic network. We'll have an idea of where to look. Given a few months, they won't have a single SAM left. Most of their radars, for instance, are large, and bulky. They aren't very hard to find. Take a few of these out, and the whole system falls.

A few months, a few months can mean the end of the war.
Its hardly a case of takeing a few down then comeing in, any how if they didnt get taken out the USA is going to have to land, wheres it going to land?
They set soldiers down the enemy shoots them, they put tanks down they will be blown up.
Its about all three terrains here not just air.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Ah but thats on effectiveness not on bombing capabilities, the sheer number of trargets would overwhelm the enemy.


To be as effective, you'd have to be doing the same job.


No it makes the USA look worse.


Couldn't have been a screw up by the British, huh? You know, lack of communication, not knowing the plane was going to be in the area?


Not when you cant find it


If they try to use it, we can find it. So, China has two choices. They can use it, and it will be destroyed, or they can keep it off as much as they can to keep it safe, making it pretty pointless to have in the first place.


Yeah once they lose a SAM site they will know an attack is comeing, they just need to wait until the first bomb hits the ground then turn the SAM's on, SHOOTING GALLERY!


The sky is pretty big, and even a B-2 is pretty fast. Firing wildly into the sky isn't such a reliable strategy.

A B-2 can take out its target fast. The best targets in the area would be gone once it drops its bombs.


A few months, a few months can mean the end of the war.
Its hardly a case of takeing a few down then comeing in, any how if they didnt get taken out the USA is going to have to land, wheres it going to land?
They set soldiers down the enemy shoots them, they put tanks down they will be blown up.
Its about all three terrains here not just air.


You didn't pay attention much to the Gulf War, did you?

China will have to sit there while we take out airdefenses. After that, China can't touch us in the air. They'll have nothing to shoot us down with.

After that, we can target whatever ground forces China has, and they can't do a thing. American troops can make an amphibious invasion. China has a large coast, and we have bases in the area.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer

China will have to sit there while we take out airdefenses. After that, China can't touch us in the air. They'll have nothing to shoot us down with.

After that, we can target whatever ground forces China has, and they can't do a thing. American troops can make an amphibious invasion. China has a large coast, and we have bases in the area.


Yeah, like the entire country of Afghanistan. Or several bases in Japan, S. Korea, and Diego Garcia.

If there was a conventional war with China (which I think is very unlikely, every bit as unlikely as one against Russia) the US would have jumping off points all around China.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
To be as effective, you'd have to be doing the same job.

To be effective you need bombs in the first place....



Couldn't have been a screw up by the British, huh? You know, lack of communication, not knowing the plane was going to be in the area?

Yeah take a look at this...

On March 22, 2003, a Patriot air defense battery -- the most fearsome air defense in the world-shot down a British Tornado fighter as it was descending within a prearranged "safe" corridor to land at its nearby air base in Kuwait"

The report on this is quite worrying dont you think?
And the fact 2 american planes where threatned and one shot down.
also


US Air Force F-16 had to fire in self-defense on another Patriot unit that was about to attack

Interesting huh.
from link



If they try to use it, we can find it. So, China has two choices. They can use it, and it will be destroyed, or they can keep it off as much as they can to keep it safe, making it pretty pointless to have in the first place.

They have many sams, loseing a few to find out your tactics and where abouts is worth it.



The sky is pretty big, and even a B-2 is pretty fast. Firing wildly into the sky isn't such a reliable strategy.

Once the bomber is over the enemy land then the remaining SAM's can turn on and basicaly shoot it down with ease.


A B-2 can take out its target fast. The best targets in the area would be gone once it drops its bombs.

These best targets are scattered all over china.



You didn't pay attention much to the Gulf War, did you?

In the gulf war did the enemy have acess to the latest and best anti ship missile in the world?
[qoute]
China will have to sit there while we take out airdefenses. After that, China can't touch us in the air. They'll have nothing to shoot us down with.

They can shoot you down, it takes both ground and air control.
Unless of course we are talking about future war if that is so china will most likely have a good navy and have the abilitly to threaten a navy carrier group.


After that, we can target whatever ground forces China has, and they can't do a thing. American troops can make an amphibious invasion. China has a large coast, and we have bases in the area.

The USAF can and will be shot down, once you have limited air superiority the land forces will be mostly on their own, also amphibios ships are vunerable, little defenses.
One or two sunburns into the marine force and bye bye invasion force.
If they try to pile into china by land they will only help them by limiting the angles of attack.
America doesnt have that teleporter thing yet so they will need to burst through from somewhere.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 03:10 PM
link   

To be effective you need bombs in the first place....


Having stealth allows a single B-2 to get where a single B-52 couldn't. It's accuracy allows it to drop far fewer bombs to achieve the same mission.


The report on this is quite worrying dont you think?
And the fact 2 american planes where threatned and one shot down.


This doesn't contradict what I said. It was a major operation, and there was probably lack of communication.

Friendly fire occurs in every war.


They have many sams, loseing a few to find out your tactics and where abouts is worth it.


Our tactics? What the hell are they going to be able to find out? They can't detect a B-2's flight path. They can't do much to stop it. It's a pretty simple idea here.


Once the bomber is over the enemy land then the remaining SAM's can turn on and basicaly shoot it down with ease.


They can't detect it. There's one big problem. Plus, there's a reason SAM's are spread out. A SAM in the western part of China can't shoot down one in the East. All of these SAM's don't just magically come online and shoot. And once they go on, we know the location, and they're going to lose them. We don't even have to go anywhere near China to attack SAM's, either. We can stay well out of their range, and use our cruise missiles.


In the gulf war did the enemy have acess to the latest and best anti ship missile in the world?


I doubt China does, either. Either way, we won't have any ships close to China until their coastal defenses are gone.


They can shoot you down, it takes both ground and air control.
Unless of course we are talking about future war if that is so china will most likely have a good navy and have the abilitly to threaten a navy carrier group.


China can't find or shoot down a B-2 any better than Iraq. This thing was designed to penetrate future Russian air defenses.


The USAF can and will be shot down, once you have limited air superiority the land forces will be mostly on their own, also amphibios ships are vunerable, little defenses.
One or two sunburns into the marine force and bye bye invasion force.
If they try to pile into china by land they will only help them by limiting the angles of attack.
America doesnt have that teleporter thing yet so they will need to burst through from somewhere.


You don't get the fact that there won't be an invasion without complete air superiority, and that is completely achievable.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Having stealth allows a single B-2 to get where a single B-52 couldn't. It's accuracy allows it to drop far fewer bombs to achieve the same mission.

Stealth limits your payload.
Besides if the chinese SAM's are as bad as you say they are then why doesnt the USAF just use them?



This doesn't contradict what I said. It was a major operation, and there was probably lack of communication.

"IN A SUPPOSEDLY SAFE ZONE????"
Also what about hill 282?
Clear signals they where friendly yet fired on.


Friendly fire occurs in every war.

Rarely and thats usually due to a fk up , but the patriots in iraq where a clear lack of organisation.



Our tactics? What the hell are they going to be able to find out? They can't detect a B-2's flight path. They can't do much to stop it. It's a pretty simple idea here.

You can, when a SAM goes out that means they are going that way or it would be a waste of 1 million dollars of equipment.



They can't detect it. There's one big problem. Plus, there's a reason SAM's are spread out. A SAM in the western part of China can't shoot down one in the East. All of these SAM's don't just magically come online and shoot. And once they go on, we know the location, and they're going to lose them. We don't even have to go anywhere near China to attack SAM's, either. We can stay well out of their range, and use our cruise missiles.

There are only so many cruise missiles and many more SAM's there there are cruises.
They can detect it !
Remember stealth means it cant be detected as easily, but can still be.



I doubt China does, either. Either way, we won't have any ships close to China until their coastal defenses are gone.

They dont need any real coastal defenses, only a small launcher or a ship or a fighter to destroy the US ships.



China can't find or shoot down a B-2 any better than Iraq. This thing was designed to penetrate future Russian air defenses.

Yeah several years ago, the radar has become more advanced and come on to say you cant pick up any stealth bomber is idiotic!



You don't get the fact that there won't be an invasion without complete air superiority, and that is completely achievable.

It is not!
Do you really think that stealth aircraft are so unstoppable?
They can get shot down and have before.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp


Which is supporting the landing forces so therefore technically its a support ship...


What I mean to say is using the DDX in a pre invasion bombarding role. Sorry for the screw up in language.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 08:46 PM
link   

Stealth limits your payload.
Besides if the chinese SAM's are as bad as you say they are then why doesnt the USAF just use them?


It's better to be safe. The object in war is to achieve the objective at minimal costs.


"IN A SUPPOSEDLY SAFE ZONE????"
Also what about hill 282?
Clear signals they where friendly yet fired on.


A supposedly safe zone? Saddam had an airforce left.


Rarely and thats usually due to a fk up , but the patriots in iraq where a clear lack of organisation.


A few instances isn't a sign of anything. In a massive operation like Iraq, a few instances is far more than exceptable.

Iraq was a testing ground in many ways, as well. Many lessons have been learned, and they'll be fixed next time we're at war.


You can, when a SAM goes out that means they are going that way or it would be a waste of 1 million dollars of equipment


Yea, so they'll have an idea of where a B-2 is. It could be just about anywhere in a fifty mile range...


There are only so many cruise missiles and many more SAM's there there are cruises.
They can detect it !
Remember stealth means it cant be detected as easily, but can still be.


There's absolutely no chance of detecting a B-2 hundreds of miles offshore.

And sorry, we can produce a lot more cruise missiles then SAM's. China has a handful of weapons like S-300's.


They dont need any real coastal defenses, only a small launcher or a ship or a fighter to destroy the US ships.


There won't be a ship in range as long as China has these weapons. We don't need to put carriers in risk to attack China because we have bases in many neighboring countries..


Yeah several years ago, the radar has become more advanced and come on to say you cant pick up any stealth bomber is idiotic!


It's idiotic to think that someone could find a solution to a billion dollar bomber with a million dollar SAM. China and Russia have no way of actually testing any of this. The B-2 has proven itself against Chinese style air defenses in Iraq with some of the same equipment.


It is not!
Do you really think that stealth aircraft are so unstoppable?
They can get shot down and have before.


One F-117 was shot down because of luck, and that's after it achieved its mission.

Hell, SAM's have proven unable to stop conventional aircraft in the past.

SAM's aren't anywhere near as reliable as you like to think.



posted on Jan, 3 2005 @ 10:08 PM
link   
continuing on the naval front. The CGX next generation cruiser would be used as a CVBG missile, and air defense ship protecting CVBG's from advanced missile's and fast strike aircraft. Also it would be tasked with intercepting ships that break the blockade of China. Then the CVN-X would be used to launch the joint strike fighter, predator UAV ,and the peagsus UCAV. The predator UAV would be used to search for ships that break the blockade, they would then transmite the data to ship's or plane's near enough to intercept the ships. The Peagsus would be used to attack radar stations and sams near the coast of china, the joint strike fighter would be used to attack vehicle's and mobile missile launchers near the coast, and further inland.



And the CVN-X would be used as a amphibious command ship cordinating beach landings and airstrike's. The USS Virginia would be used to launch mini sub UAV's that would search for mines and would drop acoustic sensors at the bottom of harbours so that they can track enemy subs and ships. It would also be used to combat other subs and enemy ship's I would use them right outside of harbours that important warships or cargo's dock. The Navy would use the San Antonio class ships to launch LCAC, firescout UAV and the MV-22 Osprey, the Osprey would be used to sent supplies and reinforcments to remote place's along the coast and futher inland in china. The LCAC would or course transport tank's, troop carriers, men and other important vehicle's and equipment to
the beach. We would use the Fire Scout for beach recon, and maybe a target designator if we fitted with one of those machine's, it could also fire Hellfire missiles on important vehicle's or just for self defense. We would use the Ohio class SSGN as a huge tomahawk missile launching pad launching possibly more than a hundred missile's in one salvo.




Helping the LC ships patrol china's coast would be the Norwegian patrol ship Skjold its equiped with 8 NSM's norwegian strike missile's, (which have a range of 150 KM) to engage enemy ships, and a infared guided MBDA Mistral AAM which can fire as far as 4 KM. For smaller and faster boats it can use it's Otto Melara 76mm super rapid firing gun which has a burst firing rate of 120 RPM, and has a range of 16 KM. Also helping the CGX would be the Visby class corvette, it's armed with 8 Saab Bofors Dynamics RBS 15 anti-ship missiles. A Bofor's 57MM 70 SAK Mark III general purpose gun. The gun fire's 220 rounds per minute to a maximum range of 17,000 metre's.
Also helping the Virginia SSN would be the Astute equiped with tactical tomahawks and harpoon anti ship missiles. Would help by launching cruise missiles at important target's, and using it's Harpoon missiles to blow the heck out of enemy ships. It's also equiped with six torpedo tubes which launch the spearfish torpedo which has a range of 65 Km at 60 knots and is equiped with a kinetic warhead.

Well that's my Naval scenerio how do you guy's like it?

PS
I'll also make a post of how the Chine's would react to our naval action, if any of you guy's can help me with this please U2 me.

Thanks Blue Cell


[edit on 3-1-2005 by blue cell]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
It's better to be safe. The object in war is to achieve the objective at minimal costs.

But that means it takes longer....



A supposedly safe zone? Saddam had an airforce left.

A safe zone was set but the patriots in iraq where poorly set up how can you even try to justify it by saying he had an airforce!



A few instances isn't a sign of anything. In a massive operation like Iraq, a few instances is far more than exceptable.

The point is it shouldnt be exspected, hell the report even says how badly the troops did and thats 3 ocasions it happened. Not just a few.


Iraq was a testing ground in many ways, as well. Many lessons have been learned, and they'll be fixed next time we're at war.

At the cost of how many troops though, they should have been more properly placed!



Yea, so they'll have an idea of where a B-2 is. It could be just about anywhere in a fifty mile range...

Fifty miles is small if you have many sams.



There's absolutely no chance of detecting a B-2 hundreds of miles offshore.

And to hit targets inshore you need to come closer.


And sorry, we can produce a lot more cruise missiles then SAM's. China has a handful of weapons like S-300's.

A handful?
I dont think so mate, a SAM doesnt cost 1 million a peice.



There won't be a ship in range as long as China has these weapons. We don't need to put carriers in risk to attack China because we have bases in many neighboring countries..
]
Yeah and china has G2G weapons you know, you may win an air war but on the ground is a diffrent story.



It's idiotic to think that someone could find a solution to a billion dollar bomber with a million dollar SAM. China and Russia have no way of actually testing any of this. The B-2 has proven itself against Chinese style air defenses in Iraq with some of the same equipment.

You can sink a million dollar battle ship with a 1000 dollar torpedo.
The B2 has been tested against sams and infact by some british ones.



One F-117 was shot down because of luck, and that's after it achieved its mission.

I wouldnt call it luck since all the facts are not out.


Hell, SAM's have proven unable to stop conventional aircraft in the past.

Didnt have trouble shooting down an F18 over bosnia or over several fighters in iraq now did they.


SAM's aren't anywhere near as reliable as you like to think.

Sams bring down aircraft , if they didnt believe they where dangerous they wouldnt train thier pilots about them.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 10:19 AM
link   

But that means it takes longer....


Time doesn't matter for America. We took months during the Gulf War, and there was an actual risk of Iraq attack Saudi Arabia. There's no risk from China.


A safe zone was set but the patriots in iraq where poorly set up how can you even try to justify it by saying he had an airforce!


If the guys operating the Patriots don't know who is returning, they just see a jet coming, and don't know who it is, should they just sit there and watch?


The point is it shouldnt be exspected, hell the report even says how badly the troops did and thats 3 ocasions it happened. Not just a few.


3 is more than a few now?


At the cost of how many troops though, they should have been more properly placed!


A handfull at most were lost. That's nothing in a war.


Fifty miles is small if you have many sams.


10 SAM sites (an overestimation of what the reality is) couldn't shoot up an entire 50 square mile chunk of the sky.


And to hit targets inshore you need to come closer.


When you have a 1500 mile range you don't have to get anywhere near the SAM's.


A handful?
I dont think so mate, a SAM doesnt cost 1 million a peice.


It was an exageration, obviously. I just threw down numbers. A SAM site is just a few million, though.

And China does not have many SAM's. Go look up the numbers yourself.


Yeah and china has G2G weapons you know, you may win an air war but on the ground is a diffrent story


America has the best tanks, artillery, communications, intelligence, and mobility in the world. I wouldn't worry about the ground war, especially if we had FCS style weapons.


You can sink a million dollar battle ship with a 1000 dollar torpedo.
The B2 has been tested against sams and infact by some british ones.


There are countermeasures to that torpedo. A carrier goes in groups for a reason.


I wouldnt call it luck since all the facts are not out.


It doesn't matter how many facts you have. They shot down a single F-117 out of thousands of attacks. If they had the ability to detect it, and target it, more than one would have gone down.


Didnt have trouble shooting down an F18 over bosnia or over several fighters in iraq now did they.


See, you don't get the point. These are small losses. A handfull, even a few dozen aircraft are acceptable in destroying the enemies air defenses. You have to weigh the damage they did, to the losses they took. It's not comparable.


Sams bring down aircraft , if they didnt believe they where dangerous they wouldnt train thier pilots about them.


I never said SAM's weren't dangerous, I said they've yet to actually prove themselves in combat.

It may very well be that those SAM's in Iraq just had horrible operators. It very well may not be, though. SAM's have yet to show much effectiveness in a war.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Time doesn't matter for America. We took months during the Gulf War, and there was an actual risk of Iraq attack Saudi Arabia. There's no risk from China.


I agree time is on the American side... however don't expect the chinese to just sit and wait for the bombing to begin. They have a larger industrial capacity than the entire north american area, so expect tanks etc to be flying from the lines.


If the guys operating the Patriots don't know who is returning, they just see a jet coming, and don't know who it is, should they just sit there and watch?


The tornado was decending in the safe corridor and was identified like every other US/British plane with an electronic identifier to prevent this kind of thing happening. If the tornado expected the Patriot to shoot at it... than it would have taken evasive manouvers.



3 is more than a few now?


it's more than enough


10 SAM sites (an overestimation of what the reality is) couldn't shoot up an entire 50 square mile chunk of the sky.


50 square miles would be 5X10 miles.... I would say that 10 SAMS could cover that area very easily.


When you have a 1500 mile range you don't have to get anywhere near the SAM's.


This is assuming the US can identify every single SAM site...



It was an exageration, obviously. I just threw down numbers. A SAM site is just a few million, though.


SAMS are cheaper than jets and quicker from the production line


And China does not have many SAM's. Go look up the numbers yourself.


China has a huge amount of avanced SAM's... check here for details

www.sinodefence.com...


America has the best tanks, artillery, communications, intelligence, and mobility in the world. I wouldn't worry about the ground war, especially if we had FCS style weapons.


The US has some good kit... but certainly not the best when it comes to tanks, artillery and intelligence. However you are right they have the best C4 in the world.


There are countermeasures to that torpedo. A carrier goes in groups for a reason.


Didn't stop the dutch and british sinking them in excercises


It doesn't matter how many facts you have. They shot down a single F-117 out of thousands of attacks. If they had the ability to detect it, and target it, more than one would have gone down.


testiment to the #e they were fielding and the quality of NATO pilots


See, you don't get the point. These are small losses. A handfull, even a few dozen aircraft are acceptable in destroying the enemies air defenses. You have to weigh the damage they did, to the losses they took. It's not comparable.


If a small third world country can bring down a few jets... just think what large, relatively modern nation can achieve.


I never said SAM's weren't dangerous, I said they've yet to actually prove themselves in combat.


They deter and make pilots think twice about flying over certain areas. Just because they have not... does not mean they can't.


It may very well be that those SAM's in Iraq just had horrible operators. It very well may not be, though. SAM's have yet to show much effectiveness in a war.


In iraq they were fielding clapped out T-72's and T55's... which were outdated when the russians sold them. Now if the simple to build and run tanks fared poorly... what does the chances of a more complex system (SAM) fare?

[edit on 4-1-2005 by Lucretius]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   

I agree time is on the American side... however don't expect the chinese to just sit and wait for the bombing to begin. They have a larger industrial capacity than the entire north american area, so expect tanks etc to be flying from the lines.


Complex weapons take more time to make then during WW2. It would also take time for China to transform civillian industries (which are funded by American companies for the most part) into military ones.

This would all be bombed, as well. Unlike with America or Russia during WW2, there won't be a place to hide factories out of reach. The Chinese will suffer what the Germans did.


The tornado was decending in the safe corridor and was identified like every other US/British plane with an electronic identifier to prevent this kind of thing happening. If the tornado expected the Patriot to shoot at it... than it would have taken evasive manouvers.


You know, I should have just wasted the five seconds to go look this up myself when it was first brought up.

The Tornade, as well as the F-18 shot down, were not using the proper identification code:

www.popularmechanics.com...

It was, as I originally said, a communication error.


50 square miles would be 5X10 miles.... I would say that 10 SAMS could cover that area very easily.


If they could actually find the plane, yes. If they were shooting randomly in the sky in hopes of hitting it, no.


This is assuming the US can identify every single SAM site...


I've yet to see logic, or factual evidence backing up any claim that China, who set up Iraq's airdefenses, would be better at hiding then they were. This was not a problem in Iraq or Kosovo.


SAMS are cheaper than jets and quicker from the production line


Cheaper, maybe, but apparently no quicker. China only has 9 S-300 batteries, and a handfull of FT-2000's. Now, I wouldn't call these massive numbers.


The US has some good kit... but certainly not the best when it comes to tanks, artillery and intelligence. However you are right they have the best C4 in the world.


Tanks? Who can beat the M1A2? The T-90's have less protection, firepower, and about equal mobility. The M1A2 has the superior systems, and I'd wager the superior tank crew. America also has the superior attack helicopters, and anti-tank missiles.

America's MLRS A1 artillery has a faster rate of fire, at a higher range than anything Russia or China has. It's also heavily armored. The Crusader, while cancelled, was in a complete different league from ANY competition in the world. While that program was cancelled, something of the same capability will be put out, only it will be far lighter, and faster than the Crusader.

As for intelligence, that's just dumb. No nation has the communications, and live intelligence network does. Russia, by all purposes, had a communications system that hadn't changed very much since WW2. For a conventional warfare, UAV's, and satellites, and other fancy toys would give a huge edge.


Didn't stop the dutch and british sinking them in excercises


You'll be hardpressed to find exercises where America uses its full strength. I've read the various exercises where Carriers were taken about by Canadians, Europeans, and Australians. America had itself at a disadvantage.


testiment to the they were fielding and the quality of NATO pilots


NATO pilots filled the least dangerous roles, while Americans went on the most dangerous of missions.


If a small third world country can bring down a few jets... just think what large, relatively modern nation can achieve


That third world nation had many of the same SAM's that Russia and China have, minus the S-300's.

The B-2's, F-117's, and F-22's have been made to penetrate airdefenses up until the 2020+ range. They were specifically designed for nations like Russia and China, not third world nations.


They deter and make pilots think twice about flying over certain areas. Just because they have not... does not mean they can't.


I never said they couldn't, I said they've yet to do it. It's all good and dandy that they have all of these, but it doesn't mean anything until they've actually been tested.

Well, they've been tested. They just failed.


In iraq they were fielding clapped out T-72's and T55's... which were outdated when the russians sold them. Now if the simple to build and run tanks fared poorly... what does the chances of a more complex system (SAM) fare?


The T-72's were not outdated. Stating such is just a joke. They were still in wide use by the Soviets, and many of their allies. America at the time was only using the M1A.

The T-80, by the way, is just an updated T-72. The T-72 has about equal protection, equal speed, only a little less firepower, and a a longer ranger.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Complex weapons take more time to make then during WW2. It would also take time for China to transform civillian industries (which are funded by American companies for the most part) into military ones.

This would all be bombed, as well. Unlike with America or Russia during WW2, there won't be a place to hide factories out of reach. The Chinese will suffer what the Germans did.


Yes we talk about the bombing... but I have yet to see you provide me with some sort of strategic plan.


You know, I should have just wasted the five seconds to go look this up myself when it was first brought up.

The Tornade, as well as the F-18 shot down, were not using the proper identification code:

www.popularmechanics.com...

It was, as I originally said, a communication error.


it is however... worrying



If they could actually find the plane, yes. If they were shooting randomly in the sky in hopes of hitting it, no.


If chinese systems are as good as early 80's british rapier SAMS... than they can identify... track and shoot down a B2


I've yet to see logic, or factual evidence backing up any claim that China, who set up Iraq's airdefenses, would be better at hiding then they were. This was not a problem in Iraq or Kosovo.


Yes a few engineers who layed some fibre optics for the iraqi's really made a difference


Cheaper, maybe, but apparently no quicker. China only has 9 S-300 batteries, and a handfull of FT-2000's. Now, I wouldn't call these massive numbers.


in the event of war... these would be multiplyed. In your own words america would not bomb immediately... thus both sides have time to prepare. It takes 1 month to build an F22 and a lot of money, compared to a SAM.


Tanks? Who can beat the M1A2? The T-90's have less protection, firepower, and about equal mobility. The M1A2 has the superior systems, and I'd wager the superior tank crew. America also has the superior attack helicopters, and anti-tank missiles.


Challenger II is better than the m1a2 in both survivability and firepower/accuracy (rifled gun)... not forgetting british tankies are extremely well trained.
The lynx is better than the AH-64 which has problems with all-weather flying.


America's MLRS A1 artillery has a faster rate of fire, at a higher range than anything Russia or China has. It's also heavily armored. The Crusader, while cancelled, was in a complete different league from ANY competition in the world. While that program was cancelled, something of the same capability will be put out, only it will be far lighter, and faster than the Crusader.


China has some of the best surface to surface artillery in the world... especially their unguided rocket systems.


As for intelligence, that's just dumb. No nation has the communications, and live intelligence network does. Russia, by all purposes, had a communications system that hadn't changed very much since WW2. For a conventional warfare, UAV's, and satellites, and other fancy toys would give a huge edge.


didn't the CIA recently cock things up in iraq?


You'll be hardpressed to find exercises where America uses its full strength. I've read the various exercises where Carriers were taken about by Canadians, Europeans, and Australians. America had itself at a disadvantage.


Why would the US deliberately embarress itself... or put itself in a position to be embarressed?


NATO pilots filled the least dangerous roles, while Americans went on the most dangerous of missions.


Since when did the US cease to be a part of NATO?


That third world nation had many of the same SAM's that Russia and China have, minus the S-300's.


Incorrect


The B-2's, F-117's, and F-22's have been made to penetrate airdefenses up until the 2020+ range. They were specifically designed for nations like Russia and China, not third world nations.


Than explain how a 20 year old british sam can track them?



I never said they couldn't, I said they've yet to do it. It's all good and dandy that they have all of these, but it doesn't mean anything until they've actually been tested.

Well, they've been tested. They just failed.


Rather like the American missile shield...


The T-72's were not outdated. Stating such is just a joke. They were still in wide use by the Soviets, and many of their allies. America at the time was only using the M1A.

The T-80, by the way, is just an updated T-72. The T-72 has about equal protection, equal speed, only a little less firepower, and a a longer ranger.


The tanks were not proper T-72's.... they were essentially shells stripped of all electronics and sensors.

For gods sake the iraqi commanders were hand-cranking the turrents because they had no motors in them.

They were not original standard tanks

[edit on 4-1-2005 by Lucretius]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Time doesn't matter for America. We took months during the Gulf War, and there was an actual risk of Iraq attack Saudi Arabia. There's no risk from China.

You took months takeing out an enemy with no real threat to you, while china requires swift action or the chinese dragon like the russian bear will descend upon the US.



If the guys operating the Patriots don't know who is returning, they just see a jet coming, and don't know who it is, should they just sit there and watch?

They know who's comeing back, if you looked they didnt aim at the tornado and infact had set up the patriots in a way that the conflicting radar screens created a ghost image so when they fired it went and shot down the tornado.
If they had set it up like the book says then that would not have happened.



3 is more than a few now?

You say freindly fire is to be exspected , there was air and ground friendly fire.



A handfull at most were lost. That's nothing in a war.

A handful in war is a lot, every soldier lost is bad.
Why do you think the gov spends so much money (or lack of it in my govs case) on armouring troops.



10 SAM sites (an overestimation of what the reality is) couldn't shoot up an entire 50 square mile chunk of the sky.

They dont need to they just need to wait once the first SAM goes down, i mean the bomber needs to come closer to shore to hit targets inside the country no matter the range of the weapon, now when bomber is over china the SAM's can go on and take it down.
Difficult but not impossible.



When you have a 1500 mile range you don't have to get anywhere near the SAM's.

That may be but can the tomohawk can be shot down.



It was an exageration, obviously. I just threw down numbers. A SAM site is just a few million, though.

Yeah , it seems tomahawks have gone down in price too. $569,000 a piece.
Btw you do know it would take about 2 and a half hours for the missile to reach its target.
Also i dont think the navy or AF is going to be fireing nukes at them.
Take a look BTW, the 1500 miles range ones are nukes and only the original block Block II's.




And China does not have many SAM's. Go look up the numbers yourself.

That is true, though they have 2 regiments of S-300's.



America has the best tanks, artillery, communications, intelligence, and mobility in the world. I wouldn't worry about the ground war, especially if we had FCS style weapons.

America has the most exspensive weapons in the world.
The american tank is exspensive but there are better tanks in diffrent fields.
Your intel is not the best.
Your artillery will be far behind the front line troops and cant keep up, they learned in GW1 that artillery can keep up with front line troops but only on flat terrain and not takeing much supplies.



There are countermeasures to that torpedo. A carrier goes in groups for a reason.

Yeah we are talking about a battleship, besides those counter measure dont work so well.
And during war games sub's have been known to be found inside the carrier group.
I suggest you read "kilo" class, its describes how it would work.



It doesn't matter how many facts you have. They shot down a single F-117 out of thousands of attacks. If they had the ability to detect it, and target it, more than one would have gone down.

Yeah 1 out of thousands is progress from none at all.



See, you don't get the point. These are small losses. A handfull, even a few dozen aircraft are acceptable in destroying the enemies air defenses. You have to weigh the damage they did, to the losses they took. It's not comparable.

The F-18 shot down over bosnia was on reacon.
Even small loses are loses.
The whole destroying enemies air defense is kind of impossible since there is still shoulder fired ones and mobile launchers.



I never said SAM's weren't dangerous, I said they've yet to actually prove themselves in combat.

Never had a real chance though.


It may very well be that those SAM's in Iraq just had horrible operators. It very well may not be, though. SAM's have yet to show much effectiveness in a war.

Yeah same with america's jets in actual A2A combat.


[edit on 4-1-2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   
Lucretius

Yes we talk about the bombing... but I have yet to see you provide me with some sort of strategic plan.


I have already given the base of it. I guess I'll get a little more detailed, though.

-Cruise missiles assault the many SAM's (mostly the more dangerous S-300's), and radar sites China has protecting their coast (and yes, this is the actual location of most of China's airdefenes)
-B-2's and F-117's, and maybe even F-22's move in if needed to finish whatever remaining lower class SAM's are left, plus attack airfields
-Industry, and other military bases are now targeted, and assaulted from all directions by the full American bomber force. China has no safe spot for their industry like Russia had against Germany

I guess a blockade of China could be established. I imagine with our navy, and airpower we could keep China from getting outside aid, and even start destroying many of their own supplies. This could potentially avoid a ground war completely, and at the very least should demoralize, if not cripple the Chinese war effort. An invasion force could be moved in.


it is however... worrying


As I said, not when dealing with a massive operation like Iraq which consisted or forces from several nations.


If chinese systems are as good as early 80's british rapier SAMS... than they can identify... track and shoot down a B2


Explain, and with a source.


Yes a few engineers who layed some fibre optics for the iraqi's really made a difference


The Chinese basically set up the system the Iraqis used. It was modeled after the Chinese one.


in the event of war... these would be multiplyed. In your own words america would not bomb immediately... thus both sides have time to prepare. It takes 1 month to build an F22 and a lot of money, compared to a SAM.


A F-22 is far more survivable than a SAM. It's more numerous.


Challenger II is better than the m1a2 in both survivability and firepower/accuracy (rifled gun)... not forgetting british tankies are extremely well trained.
The lynx is better than the AH-64 which has problems with all-weather flying.


The M1A2 has a greater range then the Challenger II (560 - 450 km's), speed (70 - 60 mph's), DU armor (its a heavier, stronger tank), and the M1A2 carries more ammunition, plus the DU penetrating rounds. And while the Britihs may be well trained, their situation before Iraq wasn't very impressive. They had trouble getting spare parts for many of their tanks. They were reported as falling a part.


China has some of the best surface to surface artillery in the world... especially their unguided rocket systems.


America has THE best.


didn't the CIA recently things up in iraq?


If the CIA was wrong, then so was every other intelligence agency in the world, including the Russians. Everyone said the same thing the CIA was. No one disagreed that Saddam had those weapons.

The CIA isn't the same as battlefield intelligence, either.


Why would the US deliberately embarress itself... or put itself in a position to be embarressed?


Most exercises are rarely put on public display (further prove Cope India was a fraud). There's not much embarassment there. America builds diplomatic relations, and can learn everything they need to know about another military better without using full force. Also, the tougher the opponent, the better the training.


Since when did the US cease to be a part of NATO?


America has always operated above NATO.


Than explain how a 20 year old british sam can track them?


They can't.


Rather like the American missile shield...


The missile shield is a lot more ambitious then basic SAM's. It hasn't failed, either. It has successfully intercepted missiles, and probably under more realistic settings than any test of the S-400/S-300's of Russia.


The tanks were not proper T-72's.... they were essentially shells stripped of all electronics and sensors.

For gods sake the iraqi commanders were hand-cranking the turrents because they had no motors in them.

They were not original standard tanks


Let's see a source for this claim.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
Complex weapons take more time to make then during WW2. It would also take time for China to transform civillian industries (which are funded by American companies for the most part) into military ones.

But the US and every country uses civilians to produce its weapons, so technically they wouldnt need to change.


This would all be bombed, as well. Unlike with America or Russia during WW2, there won't be a place to hide factories out of reach. The Chinese will suffer what the Germans did.

What a few years of not being bombed then a few months of bombing although they could still produce weapons...



The Tornade, as well as the F-18 shot down, were not using the proper identification code:

www.popularmechanics.com...

It was, as I originally said, a communication error.

And as the report said it was not a comunication problem.






I've yet to see logic, or factual evidence backing up any claim that China, who set up Iraq's airdefenses, would be better at hiding then they were. This was not a problem in Iraq or Kosovo.

Do you think they would give the iraqi's or kosovonians the best of the best techniques?



Cheaper, maybe, but apparently no quicker. China only has 9 S-300 batteries, and a handfull of FT-2000's. Now, I wouldn't call these massive numbers.

Those are meduim/long range sams they have many shorter ranged ones.



Tanks? Who can beat the M1A2?

Challanger 2 any day, your armour is a class below ours.



The T-90's have less protection, firepower, and about equal mobility. The M1A2 has the superior systems, and I'd wager the superior tank crew. America also has the superior attack helicopters, and anti-tank missiles.

Also american apache's have full weather issues.


As for intelligence, that's just dumb. No nation has the communications, and live intelligence network does. Russia, by all purposes, had a communications system that hadn't changed very much since WW2. For a conventional warfare, UAV's, and satellites, and other fancy toys would give a huge edge.

Does britain?
Yes.



You'll be hardpressed to find exercises where America uses its full strength. I've read the various exercises where Carriers were taken about by Canadians, Europeans, and Australians. America had itself at a disadvantage.

CBG vs task force?
CBG should win.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Disturbed Deliverer, I honestly say give it a break... This guy is oppressively ignorant and continually argues the same point post after post after you and others have presented legit answers... I think we all know who is/will prevail in such a war... After all, we where armed to dominate the world in case Russia wanted to turn the Cold War hot...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:06 PM
link   

You took months takeing out an enemy with no real threat to you, while china requires swift action or the chinese dragon like the russian bear will descend upon the US.


It's nice rhetoric, but that's about all. China lacks the capability to attack us directly. They can't even attack our bases in Japan or Australia. China is a virtual sitting duck.


They know who's comeing back, if you looked they didnt aim at the tornado and infact had set up the patriots in a way that the conflicting radar screens created a ghost image so when they fired it went and shot down the tornado.
If they had set it up like the book says then that would not have happened.


I covered this. The Tornado's weren't using the proper Identification codes. So, like I've already said, it was a communication breakdown, not a Patriot screw-up.


A handful in war is a lot, every soldier lost is bad.
Why do you think the gov spends so much money (or lack of it in my govs case) on armouring troops.


PR purposes. Any general would be glad to have just lost a handfull of troops. Friendly fire has existed since the beginning of warfare, and always will.


They dont need to they just need to wait once the first SAM goes down, i mean the bomber needs to come closer to shore to hit targets inside the country no matter the range of the weapon, now when bomber is over china the SAM's can go on and take it down.
Difficult but not impossible.


Yea, the odds are just heavily stacked in the bomber's favor.

Another dimension to the whole thing is altitude.


That may be but can the tomohawk can be shot down.


Cruise missiles will overwhelm any defense system currently in existance.


Yeah , it seems tomahawks have gone down in price too. $569,000 a piece.
Btw you do know it would take about 2 and a half hours for the missile to reach its target.
Also i dont think the navy or AF is going to be fireing nukes at them.
Take a look BTW, the 1500 miles range ones are nukes and only the original block Block II's.


Time doesn't matter. A cruise missile is small, stealthy, and accurate.

And a missile can be armed with anything. The Tomahawks with the 1500 mile range are not just nuclear...


America has the most exspensive weapons in the world.
The american tank is exspensive but there are better tanks in diffrent fields.
Your intel is not the best.
Your artillery will be far behind the front line troops and cant keep up, they learned in GW1 that artillery can keep up with front line troops but only on flat terrain and not takeing much supplies.


This is exactly the thing FCS takes care of. We'll be field a Crusader-type artillery piece in a few years.


Yeah we are talking about a battleship, besides those counter measure dont work so well.
And during war games sub's have been known to be found inside the carrier group.
I suggest you read "kilo" class, its describes how it would work.


The only time I've heard of America using subs, they were nuclear going up against diesel. Not exactly a fair comparison. America's new subs are the questest in the world, as well.


Yeah 1 out of thousands is progress from none at all.


Yea, so maybe in a hundred years they'll be useful...


The F-18 shot down over bosnia was on reacon.
Even small loses are loses.
The whole destroying enemies air defense is kind of impossible since there is still shoulder fired ones and mobile launchers.


These are less effective, and mostly used against helicopters and other low flying threats.


Never had a real chance though.


They had a perfect chance in Iraq, Kosovo, and an amazing change in Syria.


Yeah same with america's jets in actual A2A combat.


In actual A2A combat America's F-15 has what, 95 kills to 0 losses?

If you mean a dogfight, then yes, we have inferior planes to the Russians there. That's not what America designs its fighters for, though. There's no need to. An American pilot won't get close enough for the Su-35's manueverability to mean anything. There's a reason the Russians build planes with paper specs greater than America's, yet America's still cost more. America's avionics and missiles are of a whole different level then Russia's.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join