 |
| |
|
|
Ben Kenobi
|
 |
McGregornobi!
Oct 2002
time: 21:34
|
|
quote:
China has nothing to gain from it.
Taiwan has nothing to gain from it.
America has nothing to gain from it.
|
War is not always done for the best interests of one state, but when one state feels these interests are threatened.
One case in point, the first world war. Did France really want war, or Germany, or Russia, or Britain, or Italy, or the Austro-Hungarian empire? No. Yet all ended up fighting each other in the end. The British and Germans, for all their naval bluster never truly sparred, because to lose was worse than to win. As it was, the British were able to blockade the Germans, and eventually force a surrender on those terms.
No one won, everyone lost. Yet war still happened.
I agree fully with slowwhand. Do not care about Iraq, or even N. Korea. Care about China.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
Some things that most people seem to agree on
1. Barring complete suprise ( unlikely given the sea transports required), US naval and airpower should be sufficient to stop a Chinese invasion of Taiwan-- Heck Taiwanese forces might be sufficient unless China missile barrages them to heck and back first
|
Its not just a MIGHT here at the moment. There is a general aknowledgement that China has at most the sealift capability to transport at most 3 divisions to Taiwan as part of an initial invasion force.
quote:
An amphibious invasion would also be very risky, given the PLA's current lack of amphibious lift capability and the rate at which it seems to be acquiring such. Suggestions that troops can be landed from fishing junks on deserted beaches of Taiwan are fanciful. On this densely populated island with its large fishing fleet, deserted beaches are extremely scarce. And the number of fishing junks that would be required to effect such a landing could not help but attract attention.
Neither weather nor geography lends itself to the success of such an invasion. The PLA's 1996 exercises in the Strait were called off before completion because of bad weather. Unfortunately for an invading naval force, rough seas and storm conditions are very typical in the Strait. As for geography, Taiwan's west coast is surrounded by large, shallow mud flats that would make it nearly impossible for amphibious ships to get close enough to land troops and their equipment. A knowledgeable American naval officer predicted that this kind of operation would amount to a "million man swim," with the swimmers burdened by their weapons, radios, and other cumbersome impedimenta. An amphibious assault on Taiwan's east coast would involve transporting men and equipment to the side of the island further from the mainland, thus lengthening supply lines and increasing the opposing side's chances for detecting the force. Assuming that they arrived successfully and undetected, the invaders would find mountains and cliffs bordering the ocean, with some narrow strips of land giving limited access. The military advantage would be to the defenders. |
http://taiwansecurity.org/IS/Dreyer...iwan-Strait.htm
The big problem for China here is that Taiwan has its own significantly sized army. You're looking at a 220,000 man standing army and a 1,500,000 man reserve force. Not only are the initial invading Chinese divisions going to be heavily outnumbered, but you're realisticly looking at fewer men coming in as reinforcements as the war continues. Taiwan's Airforce and Navy, both armed with antishipping weaponry such as the the Hsiung Feng II antishipping missile, are going to take a substancial toll on the Chinese transports. This is going to quickly drasticly reduce China's ability to reinforce its invasion force, which is going to remain rather small while Taiwan's 1,500,000 men reserves are brought to bear in order to force the invading Chinese divisions into submission.
While China has alot of medium range missiles, these missiles are expensive to make, and China does not have an unlimited supply of them. While China could cause some damage with these missiles, it would not be enough to seriously impair the military capabilites of an army the size of Taiwan's.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Why would the PLA need to fight the entire Taiwanese army? Another question is, how would Taiwan sustain this war effort? |
Why would you think they wouldn't need to do so in order to sucessfully pull off an invasion and conquer Taiwan? A particular problem for China is that there are a small number of viable landing beaches on Taiwan, so the army can be in place to greet them. Taiwan has a population of over 25,500,000 people, and a fair amount of reserve supplies, so a war effort should be sustainable for awhile, and I see the invasion force being completely defeated relatively quickly
quote:
You are assuming that they can still be launched. |
That doesn't seem to be too much of an assumption all things considered. Much of the Taiwanese Airforce is located at an airbase that is actually inside a mountain. Not exactly an easy target for non-nuclear missile strikes. The approximately 150 F-16 fighter armed with AMRAAM missiles in particular, should allow Taiwan's airforce to achieve localized air superiority and sucessfully escort other modern aircraft to their targets early in the war.
China's naval forces are in general still pretty limited in their capabilities. Taiwan's Navy currently includes approximately 7 destroyers, 21 frigates, 2 relatively modern submarines, and 62 patrol craft all capable of firing anti-shipping missiles. Some antishipping missiles are also based on island defense instalations. Since Taiwan's ships are moving targets at sea, and not that easy to locate for China in the first place, medium ranged missile attacks won't be effective. The larger ships all have anti-air defenses, while the patrol boats will be fairly hard for Chinese aircraft to locate, and actually will be fairly difficult targets to hit. Given the Chinese airforce will not have undisputed aerial superiority during this time, its going to be quite difficult and take awhile for the Chinese Navy to sucessfully deal with.
quote:
Suppose their command and control systems are out. How would they fight? Any good? |
I'm pretty sure that their command and control systems are some of the locations most likely to be defended by Patriot Missile Batteries, and the newer versions are fairly effective in dealing with these type of missiles. I'd expect active army units to already be deployed at potential invasion beach sites once signs of a Chinese invasion become evident. While I need to do more research to give you a better answer, as the defenders with internal lines of communication, I think that Taiwan should be able to still fight effectively in realistic scenarios involving command and control being hit.
Last edited by Mordoch on 19-02-2004 at 12:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Doesn't China have the biggest airforce in the world?
Regardless of what planes they fly...shouldn't they at least be able to take out the Taiwanese airforce, by shear numerical superiority alone? |
It doesn't work like that. Israel has always been outnumbered in the air by her arab neighbours but this has never translated into even local air superiority for the arab air forces. The difference in performance of aircraft types between China and Taiwan is of that order, the difference in C&C perhaps a bit less.
Also the Chinese air units have to operate over Taiwan so they use fuel to get there, have to save fuel to get home and come within range of Taiwanese SAM's. All this counts against them.
I don't know how good the Chinese navy is at minehunting but mining is another easy tactic to disrupt an amphibious invasion and I would be surprised if it isn't in the Taiwanese defence plans.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
PLATO
|
 |
Of the occupied South
Dec 2002
time: 23:34
|
|
quote:
Russia Arming Chinese Navy Against U.S.
NewsMax.com
Wednesday, July 12, 2000
Communist China is receiving from Russia the second of four advanced warships armed with super-missiles aimed at knocking out United States aircraft-carrier battle groups.
It is a move unabashedly aimed at countering any U.S. move to honor its pledge to defend Taiwan against China's threatened attack from the mainland.
Republican-led bipartisan members of Congress are so alarmed by this new weapon – which the Navy admits it has little ability to defend against – they are sponsoring legislation to cut off U.S. aid to Russia unless it halts all further sales of "this 200-kiloton nuclear-capable weapon."
Citing its well-placed military-intelligence sources within the Pentagon, the Washington Times is reporting that the second Sovremenny-class advanced warship Beijing is buying from Moscow has been spotted undergoing sea trials in the Gulf of Finland.
What has American observers concerned even more, the exercises are expected to include at least one test launch of the Russian onboard SS-N-22 Sunburn anti-ship cruise missile, which is what makes the Russian vessel so awesome.
Even without the other two installments of the four-ship procurement, this latest acquisition from Russia – which is receiving billions in U.S. aid to bolster its messed-up economy – will give the Communist Chinese People's Liberation Army frightening new capabilities against U.S. aircraft- carrier battle groups.
Operated by a mixed crew of Russian and Chinese sailors, the first cruise-missile ship, delivered from Russia in February, is currently going through test runs off the Chinese coast, within easy range of Taiwan.
Its arrival in the region was followed within weeks by a shipment of two dozen of the dreaded Russian-made SS-N-22 missiles this spring.
Those developments take on greater significance when considered against the background of recent Russia-to-China sales of missile-equipped destroyers, Su-27 aircraft, Kilo-class submarines and satellite navigation systems for missile guidance.
Just recently, Moscow announced it will begin sending to China also the first 10 of 40 advanced Su-30 warplanes.
Those purchases are funded by cash, much of which China has been able to garner from its lopsided favorable balance of trade with the United States.
The Clinton-Gore administration has spent much of this year lobbying Congress to grant China permanent normal trade status, which would boost even more the communist regime's global trading ability.
There is no longer any question that Russia, a direct recipient of massive aid in U.S. tax dollars, is embarked on a deliberate and extensive program to help bring the Chinese war machine up to world-class standards, or that Beijing's ultimate target is the United States.
The Washington Times reports that the leader of concerned congressmen on both sides of the aisle, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., says, "The SS-N-22 is the most dangerous anti-ship missile in the Russian, and now the Chinese, fleet.
"Our Navy admittedly has scant ability to defend against this 200-kiloton nuclear-capable weapon."
According to the wording of Rohrabacher's bill to rein in Russian missile sales by denying further U.S. financial bail-out assistance to Moscow:
"Currently the Russian and Chinese governments are discussing the sale of two additional Sovremenny destroyers.
"The supersonic Moskit [SS-N-22] missile, which can be mounted on a naval or mobile land platform, was designed specifically to destroy American aircraft carriers and other warships equipped with advanced Aegis radar and battle-management systems.
"The United States Navy considers the missile to be extremely difficult to defend against."
As all this was going on, Defense Secretary William S. Cohen flew in to Beijing on Tuesday to hold talks with his Chinese counterpart, Defense Minister Chi Haotian.
Cohen's arrival was greeted by an official Communist Chinese statement repeating its attacks on the Clinton-Gore administration for proposing a national missile-defense system, which so far has flunked most of its in-flight tests.
Calling it part of American plans to dominate the world, the Chinese statement said:
"We urge the United States to drop as soon as possible this plan, which does not serve its interest and harms that of others."
Cohen said earlier that part of the objective of his mission to Beijing was to assure the Chinese government that the limited U.S. missile-defense shield would not pose a threat to China.
|
Granted this is a nearly four year old article, but it speaks volumes to what the Chinese are trying to accomplish WRT their naval capabilities in the Strait and beyond.
My belief is that the Chinese are very patient but also very determined. In the end I believe it will be war. The frightening fact is that the Chinese will not move until they feel they can win and the US won't move until attacked.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CerberusIV
|
|
A local war fought between PRC and Taiwan (with US help) using conventional weapons is just about possible. The bit I noticed in that article was the reference to "200 kiloton warheads". The Chinese may have a few nuclear armed missiles that might get through to hit a US carrier but would the US just sit and take it or would there be a tactical nuclear retaliation? I doubt if the Chinese want every military installation within 500 miles of Taiwan vapourised.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
China have than armour vehicle that can swim underwater carrying 10-20 infrantryman and equipment built by the 10' thousand's drive up onto a beach undetected an stike key defence system and destory then with cannon fires, captive airfield and destory enemy airforce. Plus China is working on a bore vehicle which can tunnel underground to reach target.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I can believe Newsmax ever paid compliment to a Russian weapon system :shocked:
I don't forsee war with China anytime soon. |
The USSR have the t-34 tank one of the best tank of war world 2 and the AK-47 and their ICBM.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CharlesBHoff
China have than armour vehicle that can swim underwater carrying 10-20 infrantryman and equipment built by the 10' thousand's drive up onto a beach undetected an stike key defence system and destory then with cannon fires, captive airfield and destory enemy airforce. Plus China is working on a bore vehicle which can tunnel underground to reach target. |
Source?
quote:
I doubt that America will put man on Mars. First it will take than 18 month to get there wait between 18 and 24 month for than window to head home, take 18 month to reach home. Problem is carrying than water and food to last the entire trip. |
Travel time is 6-7 months in one direction. And that's if we dont use nuclear power.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by CerberusIV
I don't know how good the Chinese navy is at minehunting but mining is another easy tactic to disrupt an amphibious invasion and I would be surprised if it isn't in the Taiwanese defence plans. |
The Taiwanese Navy certainly has made minelaying a focus of their Navy. They have aproximately 30 mine warfare ships.
In addition to this the 11 Chinchiang-class vessels can all be equipped with 2 mine racks apiece. (Why the info I have is a bit unclear, I'm assuming it can be quickly modified in this manner depending on the mission.)
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/...jing-chiang.htm
Given the limited number of usable beaches for an invading fleet attacking Taiwan, the Taiwanese Navy should be able to predict what areas the Chinese Navy will have to travel across, and lay their mines accordingly. Even a delay to clear a path through the minefield is going to be a major problem for the Chinese Navy, since its more time that their transports are potentially vulnerable to navy and air attack before they can even land their troops. If the minefields are laid close to Taiwan, the ships defusing the mines will be vulnerable to both naval attacks as well as air attacks that have the advantage of being launched from a very close range.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
19-02-2004 02:05
We shouldn't be wasting resources and time in Iraq... we should be examining REAL threats to America.
.
|