Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Can China Invade Taiwan?

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by zcheng
The problem is that China has the capability to sink these "floating airport things".

dude the USAF doesnt have the capability to sink these things. thier like a mile long. big enough for B2's to land on it.
i am not doubting the USAF because they bomb excellently.


I do not doubt the bombing capability of B2.

When a thing is about a mile long, it can be easily spotted, targeted and destroyed, and much more difficult to defend. It is common sense.




posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng


I do not doubt the bombing capability of B2.

When a thing is about a mile long, it can be easily spotted, targeted and destroyed, and much more difficult to defend. It is common sense.


it has like 2 carrier groups with it.
its got fighters stationed on it,even with your air force it can stage far longer range than any of your bombers hell farther than any bomber i am pretty sure with out refueling,but that requires a tanker and a tnaker is a sitting duck. you gota admit a refueling tanker pilot must have one of the most hazardous jobs in a war zone.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by zcheng


I do not doubt the bombing capability of B2.

When a thing is about a mile long, it can be easily spotted, targeted and destroyed, and much more difficult to defend. It is common sense.


it has like 2 carrier groups with it.
its got fighters stationed on it,even with your air force it can stage far longer range than any of your bombers hell farther than any bomber i am pretty sure with out refueling,but that requires a tanker and a tnaker is a sitting duck. you gota admit a refueling tanker pilot must have one of the most hazardous jobs in a war zone.


The attack will not be initiated by bomber, but by mid/long range supersonic missiles or missiles/torpedo from conventional/nuke submarines. Bombers can be easily took out by fighters from Carriers.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng


The attack will not be initiated by bomber, but by mid/long range supersonic missiles or missiles/torpedo from conventional/nuke submarines. Bombers can be easily took out by fighters from Carriers.

uhh one thing you need to know is that they have ageis and frankly you have nothing that cant be shot down in your mid to long range arsonal. and your toprs need to break the net AND even with kilo's you gota get with in 300km to use ur best missle, and even to get withing 50 miles of it is a feat.
the missles need to come from some where name me one place.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
uhh one thing you need to know is that they have ageis and frankly you have nothing that cant be shot down in your mid to long range arsonal. and your toprs need to break the net AND even with kilo's you gota get with in 300km to use ur best missle, and even to get withing 50 miles of it is a feat.
the missles need to come from some where name me one place.


The missiles will have range of 3000 km. Out that range, US carriers will be no harm to PLA forces. Since China only want to deter US intervention in Taiwan, these missiles can be mobile land-based, or submarines. In fact, China only need to dominate the air and sea of about 600 km.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng
The missiles will have range of 3000 km. Out that range, US carriers will be no harm to PLA forces. Since China only want to deter US intervention in Taiwan, these missiles can be mobile land-based, or submarines. In fact, China only need to dominate the air and sea of about 600 km.


Please show me a link to your 3000 km missile. Are you refering to your IRBM's? If so, they are not really a good weapon against a mobile platform like a carrier.

Yes we are talking about 600 km, but, the carriers can stand well out of range and still have an impact in the Taiwan Straight. All the more reason to give the Taiwanese PAC-3's and Ageis Cruisers to help defend agains the missile threat.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 08:35 PM
link   
FredT and zcheng,

You two need to stop using weapons systems that either don't exist or haven't been utilized to support your arguments. It helps nobody.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by cubiehole

Originally posted by skylight

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by gattaca
straitstimes.asia1.com.sg...


Interesting. But as the article pointed out, the 5 day wipeout assumed no help from the US. Lets say the US provides air support, it would alter the scenario quite a bit. Its intersting that they made the report public. You think that they would want to cover it up. But perhaps its part of a political agenda to buy more arms etc. Either way, the US should offer the freedom loving people of taiwan whatever military assistance that they need.


it is interesting. where would you like to land your aircraft? Singapore? Australia? oh, friend, these countries have declared that they would not offer any help to TW. Japan? maybe?

do you know the history of WWII in Asia? tell you sth, Chinese hate Japanese most. it is a good excuse to erase Japan from the map.


What about some of those floating airport things the US has? I hear they have some abilities to project force.


for how long do you expect the war to last? 3 months, 6 months or 2 yrs?
can you imagine the feeling after floating on the sea for so long? you won't even be able to stand properly.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
FredT and zcheng,

You two need to stop using weapons systems that either don't exist or haven't been utilized to support your arguments. It helps nobody.


As I posted to you earlier, my reference to Hypersonic missiles was in reference to ZCheng's claim that China had them. I said that the US was just researching the technology and I doubted that China had it.

I never talked about floating mile long bases either.

PLEASE get your facts straight before you get off your soap box



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by skylight
what did you do to the LOCAL AMERICAN INDIANS???

Skylight, Im going to cut to the chase because you guys all have the same argument. Instead of answering the questions you redirect to:

What about the Indians?
What if Alaska wanted to leave the union?
etc. etc.

Its pretty clear that you guys read from the same propaganda manual. You guys are like skipping record. Look at the previous posts those questions have been answered many times.



bud, please do remember that is history. that is what ever happened on the land of America. wherever you go, it will stick to america.
there is no difference whether it happened 300 yrs ago or just yesterday. from the history point of view, time is nothing. please be mature. don't ever say what is passed is past. a man should take the responsibility for what he said and what he did.

if you still wanna argue, please show me your proof. don't just imagine.

you may not believe what we said. (btw, i am not zcheng. i don;t know him or her either :lol
. you don't believe is b/c you donna wannna believe. you are not willing to believe that china submarine srufaced very close to Japan without being detected; you are not willing to believe that china is developing at a dramastic speed. b/c when you were young, you were taught that american is world no. 1 automatically. well, why don't you pay a visit to china? open your eyes and try to hear different voices. you are always welcome.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 06:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng



The missiles will have range of 3000 km. Out that range, US carriers will be no harm to PLA forces. Since China only want to deter US intervention in Taiwan, these missiles can be mobile land-based, or submarines. In fact, China only need to dominate the air and sea of about 600 km.

thats like somthing u use on a city not a carrier or MOAB they can move and dodge those missiles. secdonly the US navy would have ship patroling around in front so no chance for your ships to get them. the only way to destroy them would be to lie in wait in the general area of where they are going to anchor and sink them that way. they wont be able to find you if the torps fired right under the carrier. but that takes more skill and tech than you currently have.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
FredT and zcheng,

You two need to stop using weapons systems that either don't exist or haven't been utilized to support your arguments. It helps nobody.


sweatmonicaIdo, Would please read following analysis in Chinese.
www.wforum.com...

It contains the recently disclosed missile information I talked about. If you can not read Chinese, ask jazzmaster. He can translate it.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
thats like somthing u use on a city not a carrier or MOAB they can move and dodge those missiles. secdonly the US navy would have ship patroling around in front so no chance for your ships to get them. the only way to destroy them would be to lie in wait in the general area of where they are going to anchor and sink them that way. they wont be able to find you if the torps fired right under the carrier. but that takes more skill and tech than you currently have.


Yes, carrier can dodge or shoot down slow moving missiles. But to supersonic missiles, No. Just think whether your car can easily dodge a bullet fired at you. Carrier is much larger, and slower than you car. Quiet Submarines are extremely difficult to detect, and can lauch sneak attacks.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 10:54 AM
link   
This situation seems like a perfect strategic opportunity for the use of a neutron bomb. Destroy everything that lives, and maintain infrastructure and industry.

The bomb of the future!



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
"China would only attack Taiwan if the US was massively distracted military elsewhere in the world and on a massive scale."

You mean like being in Iraq and Afganistan at the same time?

I concur with the analysis that the currently lack the amphibious capability, but not the desire and the balls to do it.

If it happened tomorrow (ChiCom attack), given the current Chinese nuclear capability, and our distraction elsewhere, IMHO we'd sell out Taiwan so fast it'd make your head swim.

But destroying Taiwan to take it would be counter-productive to assimilating their economy.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by zcheng


Yes, carrier can dodge or shoot down slow moving missiles. But to supersonic missiles, No. Just think whether your car can easily dodge a bullet fired at you. Carrier is much larger, and slower than you car. Quiet Submarines are extremely difficult to detect, and can lauch sneak attacks.

quiet submarines cant dodge sonar. and super sonic missile make a nice bright sign in the sky. also a carrier is slow? ha ha get real its the fastest ship in da fleet i thought it was slow then i checked the facts its only limited by its hull not its engine power.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
quiet submarines cant dodge sonar. and super sonic missile make a nice bright sign in the sky. also a carrier is slow? ha ha get real its the fastest ship in da fleet i thought it was slow then i checked the facts its only limited by its hull not its engine power.


The USS Enterprise is so overpowered with its 8 reactors that during its sea trials they had to back of the top speed tests because of fears of hull plates buckling. They have to be fast to generate wind over the deck to launch aircraft. A cat shot with the carrier standing still will just put the plane in the water



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I hate to break this to you, but ships can only travel as fast as their "hull speed." (I'm talking about displacement ships-not boats that plane and are therefore out of the water) Typically speaking, the longer the waterline length the higher the potential hull speed.

The equation is:

Maximum Speed of a Single-Hull
Displacement Boat

Hull Speed = 1.34 * sqrt(LWL)

LWL: length of the hull at the waterline.

The Enterprise has a waterline length of 1040 feet so it has a maximum possible speed of 43.21 Kts.

Most data indicates that the CVN-65 in fact has a top speed "above 30 Kts." I'm of the mind it can propably do 43 and without "buckling hull plates." 8 reactors or 80-it' doesn't matter once it's capable of hull speed.



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sargon of Agade
Most data indicates that the CVN-65 in fact has a top speed "above 30 Kts." I'm of the mind it can propably do 43 and without "buckling hull plates." 8 reactors or 80-it' doesn't matter once it's capable of hull speed.


Thanks for the science lesson. (not a flame) but that was kind of the point I was making. It is a massivly overpowered ship. Rickover wanted to flex his nuclear muscles and decided that 8 was the number. The Nimitz usues 2



posted on Sep, 1 2004 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sargon of Agade
The Enterprise has a waterline length of 1040 feet so it has a maximum possible speed of 43.21 Kts.

Most data indicates that the CVN-65 in fact has a top speed "above 30 Kts." I'm of the mind it can propably do 43 and without "buckling hull plates." 8 reactors or 80-it' doesn't matter once it's capable of hull speed.


But how does it compare with the speed of Sound? It is like a snail when compared with a supersonic missile. Even at 45.21 Knots, it is equivalent to 23.57 Meter/second, while speed of sound is about 334 meters/second.

To devilwasp, when you can see the missile, it is already too later. You are only seconds from destruction.






top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join