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: 39
1
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   


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


Gonna be pretty damn hard to hide weapons in this day and age... a few smart bombs or and bunker busters will do the job of a 100 non accurate bombs.




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


And as stated before, the Hornet pilot probably too evasive maneuvers and turned the music on full blast.




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


Good! The easier for a 'Bug or Viper to shoot it at range with a HARM.





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


What? Is china copying youre tanks now?





Also american apache's have full weather issues.


I wasn't aware of that... The better for a Hornet and Viper to take over CAS...



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


Actualy it's greater then 101 and there are ~2 friendly kills when F-15Es and F-15Ds rammed each other.



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.


With the F/A-22A that ends... It's the best of both worlds.

[edit on 4-1-2005 by ChrisRT]




posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:46 PM
link   

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.


I agree the best course of action is to starve china... considering it imports a large quantity of it's food, a naval blockade would be more effective than an air campaign. Especially if india and russia refuse to help china.


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


Yes that's true... but FF incidents are worryingly common. I'm thinking of armour attacked by US planes etc


Explain, and with a source.


there was also an incident with the B2 being tracked at Farnborogh (2nd sept 1996), when BAe caused a storm after it released a video showing the Rapier SAM system tracking the B-2 Stealth bomber in IR as it did a fly past.

www.hippy.freeserve.co.uk...

During the first gulf war british destroyers routinely tracked US F117's which initially the americans denied until they were shown the video's.


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


The chinese set up a communications network... nothing more


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


Not if the US keeps cutting back... though as you say in war more would be produced... I could say the same for the SAM's



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.


Are you thinking of the first gulf war?... the challenger II's performaed excellently in Iraq... taking part in the largest tank battle of the war in which 50 iraqi tanks were destroyed with no losses.

The Abrams uses the same aging smooth bore M256 gun developed by Germany for their Leopard 2 tanks.

The Challenger 2 uses a Royal Ordanence Rifled L30, so longer range and better armour penetration.

The Abrams uses Armour based on First Generation Chobham used on the Challenger 1. Challenger 2 uses Second Generation Chobham, which is better than the American attempt.


America has THE best.


Considering that many of NATO use the same equipment... you could say they share the best



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.


Actually there was not enough evidence either way..


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


your talking about satalites etc?... you do realise china and russia both have extensive millitary satelite networks. There is probably a chinese satelite flying over the US photographing key sites right now.


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.


Hmm... it's just that this has a funny habit of happening frequently


America has always operated above NATO.


So that means when NATO gets involved and american troops are deployed they suddenly are not a part of NATO?... get real


They can't.


Rather they can... see above


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.


erm... I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the majority of SAM system fielded have had more success than the US missile shield.
Can you honestly say you feel safe under the system as it stands now?... I thought not


Let's see a source for this claim.


Iraq used the downgraded export version of the russian T-72

www.voentour.com...




[edit on 4-1-2005 by Lucretius]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   


there was also an incident with the B2 being tracked at Farnborogh (2nd sept 1996), when BAe caused a storm after it released a video showing the Rapier SAM system tracking the B-2 Stealth bomber in IR as it did a fly past.


Thank God for IRST jammers...
By the way, the Raptor and Typhoon both get them within 5 years...



Considering that many of NATO use the same equipment... you could say they share the best


Well, a watered down version of the best.





Hmm... it's just that this has a funny habit of happening frequently

What better way to fund an advanced fighter then to 'show' ho inferior youre current one is.




erm... I can say with a fair degree of confidence that the majority of SAM system fielded have had more success than the US missile shield.
Can you honestly say you feel safe under the system as it stands now?... I thought not

Wow! I was unaware of any other system built specifically to intercept other missiles traveling at ~hypersonic...




[edit on 4-1-2005 by ChrisRT]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
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...

Gee thanks man, because i am determined to prove my point, hell i have even changed my mind on many things during this thread due to the facts presented.
Actually you where outnumbered by about 10 to one.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Disturbed Deliverer
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.

Because they dont have fighters that can reach that far is a problem but subs could and would reach those bases.
Unless of course the US navy plans to be able to sink all submarines entering or leaving the south china sea.



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.

Actually you have shown one peiece of evidence which mine revutes, but as i said it wasnt the tornado the patriot was fireing at and the IFF was not to blame since that was a safe approach vector.

Take a look at this link.

link 2




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.

What your saying its public realtions?
The general would be happy of that , but when the general loses those troops because someone in his command screwed up its still a screw up.



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

How?
The bomber cant find all the targets if they off.


Another dimension to the whole thing is altitude.
[/qutoe]
Then the bomber would need to be closer since it would still be traveling the same distance longatude but also in the hieght it is shot from.
You know 3D.



Cruise missiles will overwhelm any defense system currently in existance.

One thing, every time i have looked up cruise missiles it has been the NAVY that has them not AF. Can you comment on this?



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

A cruise missile can be picked up and shot down.
Proven.


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

Then why does the one with 1500 range not have a designated payload except from nuclear?



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

A few years is diffrent from now, and you will still need to come to us for chobram armour.




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.

Diesel/electric are more stealthier than nuclear proven.



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

So mabye in 3 years they could invent something that improves it ten fold.



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

They can shoot down jets.



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

With up to date crews?
Highly trained and with the latest updates?



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

Yeah against what though.


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.

What exsactly is better than russian avionics and missiles?



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:52 PM
link   


Because they dont have fighters that can reach that far is a problem but subs could and would reach those bases.
Unless of course the US navy plans to be able to sink all submarines entering or leaving the south china sea.


Sounds like a job for Japan and a few U.S. seas dominance subs huh?




What your saying its public realtions?
The general would be happy of that , but when the general loses those troops because someone in his command screwed up its still a screw up.


What does FF have to do with a war between china and the U.S. anyway? These things can and will happen with every military... You arent trying to argue that we'd loose a noticeable amount of friendly forced to FF are you? Ha, if anything moral would take a slight hit, though, I suspect the troops would be far more worried about whats over the hill then what got killed in Bravo company...




How?
The bomber cant find all the targets if they off.


Hm, the targets arent underground are they? Use intel and UAVs to gather where traffic is coming out of and going in to. I'm sure military equipment wont be making a regular at a Krispy Kreme on the country side of china... Bomb it.




One thing, every time i have looked up cruise missiles it has been the NAVY that has them not AF. Can you comment on this?


So, you didnt hear about the B-52s used in the opening days of the GW2? Most all airforce jets and bombers can fire cruise missiles.




A cruise missile can be picked up and shot down.

Yes they can! better to let the 'enemy' use all his SAMs on cheap cruise missiles then $100 million air dominance fighters, huh? What's that? A stealthy cruise missile in development...




Diesel/electric are more stealthier than nuclear proven.


Thats not what these guy's say...




With up to date crews?
Highly trained and with the latest updates?


Oh, and you expect million man china to have crews trained and pampered even to their level?





Yeah against what though.

Other fighter jets with A2A missile.




What exsactly is better than russian avionics and missiles?

Oh, F-15A better then Mig-25, F-15C better equipped then Flankers of the 80's, F-15C AESA better electronics then the latest Flankers,
F/A-22A COMPLETELY undisputed in all levels.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
Gonna be pretty damn hard to hide weapons in this day and age... a few smart bombs or and bunker busters will do the job of a 100 non accurate bombs.

Yet again thats in effectiveness and smart bomb's arent as smart as they are made out to be.

How can 100 do the job if there are 400?



And as stated before, the Hornet pilot probably too evasive maneuvers and turned the music on full blast.

And as my other report said it was not comunication fault because they didnt fire on the tornado but a "ghost" target and the missile destroyed the tornado since there was no other target.
Also there was equipment to stop this but it wasnt delievered to the troops.




Good! The easier for a 'Bug or Viper to shoot it at range with a HARM.

For a "bug"?
Wtf is a bug?
A viper?
Also the HARM would be shot down by the FT-2000 SAM.
And to get that close undetected by air patrols would be impressive.





What? Is china copying youre tanks now?


I am actually disccussing the arogant statement made about how america has the best everything.

But yes chinese tanks are inferior BUT they are getting new type 98 which i have to say are impressive and the challanger has a new oponent, it has laser defense?




I wasn't aware of that... The better for a Hornet and Viper to take over CAS...

You still need heli's...




With the F/A-22A that ends... It's the best of both worlds.

[edit on 4-1-2005 by ChrisRT]

Mabye but , possibly not.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
Sounds like a job for Japan and a few U.S. seas dominance subs huh?

Yeah but gona need a big fleet to cover that area, bigger than the pacific fleet to cover that AND china's shores.



What does FF have to do with a war between china and the U.S. anyway? These things can and will happen with every military... You arent trying to argue that we'd loose a noticeable amount of friendly forced to FF are you? Ha, if anything moral would take a slight hit, though, I suspect the troops would be far more worried about whats over the hill then what got killed in Bravo company...

I think they would worry about getting themselves.
You would most likely loose many troops in FF.




Hm, the targets arent underground are they? Use intel and UAVs to gather where traffic is coming out of and going in to. I'm sure military equipment wont be making a regular at a Krispy Kreme on the country side of china... Bomb it.


Yeah use intel and UAV's , one intel is about as useful as shine on your combat boots. Two UAV's are useful but i dont think america can have one every where in china.




So, you didnt hear about the B-52s used in the opening days of the GW2? Most all airforce jets and bombers can fire cruise missiles.

Funny i look up tomahawk and see NAVY in big letters.





Yes they can! better to let the 'enemy' use all his SAMs on cheap cruise missiles then $100 million air dominance fighters, huh? What's that? A stealthy cruise missile in development...

Easier to build a SAM rocket than a cruise missile.




Thats not what these guy's say...

Where does it say nuclear warships are quieter than diesel?
This is the latest ship in the fleet a diesel battery with the same mods would be able to be quieter.




Oh, and you expect million man china to have crews trained and pampered even to their level?


Well million man china is going to have its crews trained since its only a specific amount of troops that operate them unless of course you think every soldier there is an infantry man...




Other fighter jets with A2A missile.

Clariffy other jets...



Oh, F-15A better then Mig-25, F-15C better equipped then Flankers of the 80's, F-15C AESA better electronics then the latest Flankers,
F/A-22A COMPLETELY undisputed in all levels.

What proof you got of these btw?

Lets see, russia = recent economic collapse.
Usa = no economic collapse.
Also missiles is a diffrent matter, russians hold the trophy on A2S/G2S/S2S missiles.
Its better equipped but doesnt mean its better overall.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   



Yet again thats in effectiveness and smart bomb's arent as smart as they are made out to be.

How can 100 do the job if there are 400?


Oh no. I was saying that a few well placed GPS-laser guided bombs would do far more damage then an inaccurate carpet bomb of a weapons facility.




For a "bug"?
Wtf is a bug?
A viper?
Also the HARM would be shot down by the FT-2000 SAM.
And to get that close undetected by air patrols would be impressive.


A "bug" is an F/A-18 Hornet...
A "Viper" is an F-16 Fighting Falcon...
How does the FT-2000 target at ~M2 that is already small and would need a blast fragmentation to disable it, would probably already used up its rocket fuel, and the fact that the FT-2000s feeder would probably be turned off in fear of the HARM flying strait at him? Anyway, I though I heard something about a stealthy HARM being developed.




Mabye but , possibly not.


Oh, this has been done by some in the USAF and some hot headed Ivans that really know about Russian weapons... It beats everyone by a long shot and matches, if not slightly exceeds the 3D TVC Flanker in close in combat...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
Oh no. I was saying that a few well placed GPS-laser guided bombs would do far more damage then an inaccurate carpet bomb of a weapons facility.

Mabye , but with china a few surgical strikes wont do.



A "bug" is an F/A-18 Hornet...
A "Viper" is an F-16 Fighting Falcon...
How does the FT-2000 target at ~M2 that is already small and would need a blast fragmentation to disable it, would probably already used up its rocket fuel, and the fact that the FT-2000s feeder would probably be turned off in fear of the HARM flying strait at him? Anyway, I though I heard something about a stealthy HARM being developed.

You guys have weird designations.
The FT-2000 has a greater range and would detect that craft.




Oh, this has been done by some in the USAF and some hot headed Ivans that really know about Russian weapons... It beats everyone by a long shot and matches, if not slightly exceeds the 3D TVC Flanker in close in combat...

Give it , you will see the russians always have something up their sleeve.

Still it is amazeing that the russians can do this with less money on a project than america.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   


Yeah use intel and UAV's , one intel is about as useful as shine on your combat boots. Two UAV's are useful but i dont think america can have one every where in china.


Expect them to be waypointed near where satellites pick up unusually high movement and where there are suspected to be munitions plants.




Funny i look up tomahawk and see NAVY in big letters.


B-52
PRECISION
18 JDAM (12 ext)
30 WCMD (16 ext)
8 AGM-84 Harpoon
20 AGM-86C CALCM
8 AGM-142 Popeye [3 ext]
18 AGM-154 JSOW (12 ext)
12 AGM-158 JASSSM [ext]
12 TSSAM


F-15E
AGM-130

B-1
PRECISION
30 WCMD
24 JDAM
12 GBU-27
12 AGM-154 JSOW
12 TSSAM


B-2
PRECISION
8 GBU 27
12 JDAM
8 AGM-154 JSOW
8 AGM-137 TSSAM





Easier to build a SAM rocket than a cruise missile.


How is that so? They both has simple-slightly complicated guidance devices and rocket motors/small turbines... Probably right though. Only by a small amount. Dont expect china to mass produce SAMs though as seeing as soon as their first air defenses are knocked out then they have to worry about the actual plants getting leveled. And HARMs take out the sophisticated and hard to build feeder radar of the SAMs, not the SAM launcher itself.




Where does it say nuclear warships are quieter than diesel?
This is the latest ship in the fleet a diesel battery with the same mods would be able to be quieter.

It says it will be able to give the U.S. its superiority over silence back... I dont know if it means over diesel or not. I do know that ASW aircraft would be the first on the scene... I also know the U.S. sub operators have decades more training in highly sophisticated subs and have developed tactics that only come along with massive time on the practice field.




Well million man china is going to have its crews trained since its only a specific amount of troops that operate them unless of course you think every soldier there is an infantry man...

Those 'few' well trained men will probably get token out when HARMs land on their radar or Mk-x's clean up the dead missiles lying there.




Clariffy other jets...

Flankers to Migs...




What proof you got of these btw?

You read up on it... Its everywhere and up to you whether you want to acknowledge the fact or not.




Lets see, russia = recent economic collapse.
Usa = no economic collapse.
Also missiles is a diffrent matter, russians hold the trophy on A2S/G2S/S2S missiles.


There is no excuse for developing inferior electronics for their fighters when they where rich... Your argument is debunked...




Its better equipped but doesnt mean its better overall.

Same could be said about you and youre pro-chinese arguments...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:39 PM
link   


The FT-2000 has a greater range and would detect that craft.


The longer ranged HARM (better rocket motor) will counter that or at least leave the current standings the same.




Still it is amazeing that the russians can do this with less money on a project than america.


Same could be said about NASA and its little TVC projects... The main problem is our higher salaries and labor that drive up our costs.
This isnt to say the Russians dont build AWESOME things.
You have to acknowledge that most of Russians modern designs where developed before their collapse though.


[edit on 4-1-2005 by ChrisRT]



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
Expect them to be waypointed near where satellites pick up unusually high movement and where there are suspected to be munitions plants.

That could take weeks to come up with, weeks the US doesnt have.

Oh well , weird how i only see it on navy.
Why USAF not got something on it.




How is that so? They both has simple-slightly complicated guidance devices and rocket motors/small turbines... Probably right though. Only by a small amount. Dont expect china to mass produce SAMs though as seeing as soon as their first air defenses are knocked out then they have to worry about the actual plants getting leveled. And HARMs take out the sophisticated and hard to build feeder radar of the SAMs, not the SAM launcher itself.

The SAM can take down the HARM and the cruise if need be.
Secondly the carrier which launched the hornet would be fired at by a high tech sunburn.
Also the cruise costs more than the SAM.
Dont know why and how but it does.




It says it will be able to give the U.S. its superiority over silence back... I dont know if it means over diesel or not. I do know that ASW aircraft would be the first on the scene... I also know the U.S. sub operators have decades more training in highly sophisticated subs and have developed tactics that only come along with massive time on the practice field.

Firstly USN pilots and heli's require a launh pad and heli's can actually be shot down by subs.




Those 'few' well trained men will probably get token out when HARMs land on their radar or Mk-x's clean up the dead missiles lying there.

By "few" i mean hundreds.
They have a mucho money!




Flankers to Migs...

You forgot mirage's but might i add this was probably with the aid of AWAC's, so tipped the balance.




You read up on it... Its everywhere and up to you whether you want to acknowledge the fact or not.
[/qutoe]
Fine i wont, but i will take your word on it.




There is no excuse for developing inferior electronics for their fighters when they where rich... Your argument is debunked...

Actually they spent most money on getting lots of vehicles not makeing them very very good.




Same could be said about you and youre pro-chinese arguments...

They most liekly are not better than USA SAM crews and their AF is definately not as good as USA ones BUT they are still a threat.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
The longer ranged HARM (better rocket motor) will counter that or at least leave the current standings the same.

Not really, i looked on the US navy site and had no mention of this.




Same could be said about NASA and its little TVC projects... The main problem is our higher salaries and labor that drive up our costs.
This isnt to say the Russians dont build AWESOME things.
You have to acknowledge that most of Russians modern designs where developed before their collapse though.

Yeah they make things great , not advanced but easy and simple.
And they make them last or cheap and easily replaced.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:07 PM
link   


That could take weeks to come up with, weeks the US doesnt have.

This isn't a 'let's take all season to decipher the intel even though its fabricated' Iraqi scenario. This is a matter of life and death and even back in the 80's the intel was quickly read and deciphered.




Oh well , weird how i only see it on navy.
Why USAF not got something on it.

I donor... Buffs and Lancers did launch cruise missiles in the opening days though.




The SAM can take down the HARM and the cruise if need be.
Secondly the carrier which launched the hornet would be fired at by a high tech sunburn.
Also the cruise costs more than the SAM.
Dont know why and how but it does.


It probably can take down a HARM with some great luck but most weasels will be going in hot with ~4 or so onboard in a flight of 2 or more... More SAMs then the SAM site has to launch.




Firstly USN pilots and heli's require a launh pad and heli's can actually be shot down by subs.


P-3 ASW aircraft...




They most liekly are not better than USA SAM crews and their AF is definitely not as good as USA ones BUT they are still a threat.


Heh, in a war with Russia-USA it would probably be a close call but since the U.S. has the economy it may out build and thus outgun Ivan.. They still have many Migs and Flankers that are super advanced and many, many SAMs. They just ordered a few new Flankers last week.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   


Not really, i looked on the US navy site and had no mention of this.


It wouldnt be on the Navys site. They dont promote the SH as the fleet defender and so on.
They are military and company development plans. They will probably incorporate them into the production phase of the next few batches of missiles. The PAC-3 is also getting a rocket motor upgrade that increases its range DRAMATICALY.

If I find the articles I will pass them your way.



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Okay now the air war part of it. I think before I started the war I would send in high altitude spy planes to take pictures of China's air defense's, I would of course equip the spy planes with radar jammers, and RAM. As to hopefully not alert them of our activitie's by them tracking us by their radar, hey it's my scenerio I can do what I want, heck I'll even equip them with electro-chromatic panels so they can't even by seen, ha, ha i'm so evil
. Now after I did that I would plan to launch tacit rainbow SEAD missiles from planes of the coast of china, these missile's would target the SAM's, and radar stations along the coast and further inland. Then I would send in my JSF's, and UCAV's to launch HARM missile's and other munitions at radar's and sam's in the heart of china. To locate mobile SAM's I would use the Predator UAV operating with a stealthy UCAV when they spotted them operators would give the ok to fire on the mobile sams
. Then I would send in the F-22 raptor to go head to head with china's air force, we would use the new SLAMRAM long range AAM to take out any bombers, then for dogfighing we would use the AIM-9X sidewinder.




After that we would use the B2 spirit to bomb important industrial buildings key to china surviving the war for any length of time. We would use the JDAM on the important buildings, we would us the JSOW to hit NBC facilities, and important hardened structures. We would use the B1B Lancer to attack ground targets, using it's cluster bombs, also we would use SDB's to hit airbase structure's and enemy bunkers. We would use the AH-64D longbow as a enemy armor smasher, smashing tons of enemy vehicles to make way for the ground forces. The AWACS would monitor enemy air space for enemy planes then contact any fighters that were not in action and give them the coordinates.



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 02:21 AM
link   
A MILESTONE!!!!

2005 Jan 1st

The fitst complete made-in-China car was expoted to USA, arriving at detroit.

2007, $8.000 made-in-China SUV will wipe through North America market. $20,000 and belowing car will drop price by 30% averagely by then in USA.

Unlike Japen or Korea, China has its own huge domestic market, it can easily dump the car with extreme low price in foreign market and still make money over all.

it is just getting better and better



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 02:52 AM
link   
yes proteinx... that's why they have so-called anti-dumping laws


you should know all about that



posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 04:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is: Never get involved in a land war in Asia!, and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!



My kids make fun of me for that being my fav movie.
Don't worry, I got it even if no one else seems to have. Or maybe they did, like 25 pages ago; I wouldnt know, too much to read.

Oh yeah, back on topic (having stopped reading at like page 1,000,000 or something.) U.S. wins, carpet bombs the crap out of Asia with no regard to collateral damage, fights like the U.S. used to when it won wars a long time ago. After the bloodiest war in human history (not counting the war 'tween Atlantians and the Greys, of course,) Jesus and Satan duke it out, big sea dragon with UPC bar codes on its heads pops up out of the ocean, gets nuked, end of world. Cavscout crawls out of his mountain bunker, finds the rest of whats left of humanity, and is elected the first Libertarian president. The end.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join