 |
| |
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
Serb,
quote:
Like USA was ever able to do the same with SU. |
Military conquest, no, but then again, look at which country is still around 
quote:
You are so sure that you’re invincible. |
As of this moment, the US is militarily invincible, from the context of any CONCEIVABLE war. Sure, you can fantasize a scenario of a land war where China charges with 60 million soldiers, but that isn't conceivable. Any conceivable Sino-US war would be fought on or near mainland China, and that in itself is a huge advantage for the US and corresponding disadvantage for China.
quote:
"Never fight war in Asia."
-Don’t remember who. |
You're misquoting - "Never fight a ground war in Asia" is the real gist of it.
Sava,
quote:
Sure, the US is great at aerial bombardment, but China could put together a ground force greater than 2X the population of the entire US. Any war between the two would end in a bitter stalemate. |
Stalemate in what sense? Sure, China has the capability to field a 10 million man army, but so what? They wouldn't be able to equip or supply it, nor would they even be able to field it against the US. Sure, the US couldn't invade China, but that doesn't matter - what happens when the most economically productive area of China - the east coast - becomes a major aerial battleground? Do you think that maybe that would hurt China's economy and manufacturing output any?
UR,
quote:
First of all, carrier groups are blind without AWACS, and a bunch of countries are fielding long range anti-radiation missiles developed specifically to kill off AWACS. Without these, carrier groups make very good targets for enemy planes and land based missiles. Oh, and those Russian Sunburn missiles. They are quite deadly. |
Yes, the US would be foolish to send carriers into the Straits of Taiwan during wartime - at least 1 or 2 at a time. But so what? US submarines could sink any and every Chinese warship that put to sea, with few to no losses. And the first Chinese ship to go, by the way, would be the Xia-class SSBN - the only significant force projection asset their navy has.
If you want to argue that the entire Chinese air force (PLAAF) could defeat 4 or 5 US naval air wings, I don't doubt that's accurate. But could they defeat several hundred US fighter aircraft (F-15C and, in only a couple of years, F-22) based in the region? Certainly not.
Oh, and to answer the anti-stealth argument now, the S-300 isn't all that relevant in an air war over the Straits of Taiwan, unless and until you deploy an aerial version. Of course, that would require China deploying a decent AWACS aircraft, which they don't have. Once the US wins the air war, it doesn't matter what the S-300s can see, because US bombers, warships, and submarines can just launch stand-off weapons from hundreds of miles away. And that's where China's starts hurting, once they start taking heavy damage to major economic centers and manufacturing targets along the coast, which, again, is their richest region by far.
el freako,
quote:
Do you really think the Korean war is a good example to throw around, considering that when the Chinese entered the war the US controlled almost all of the peninsular and at the end of the war you controlled only half of it? |
All that shows is that in an infantry war, China was able to use human wave tactics to stop the US advance, and stabilize the line in the mountains. But, if you want to argue population, the US can afford 38,000 deaths vs. over 1 million Chinese - the population differential isn't that extreme, and in any case, the US is much better able to supply and equip large armies with modern technology than is China.
For example, China might have the theoretical ability to put 200 million men under arms. But your economic and industrial stats should tell you that China could not even BEGIN to supply and equip a force even one tenth that large - and remember, also, that by your own statistic the US possesses a manufacturing capacity 4 times greater. This is as things stand NOW, not as things stand in the middle of a war fought very close to China's economic center, and correspondingly far away from that of the US. I suspect that the economic and industrial gap would only widen in favor of the US.
che,
quote:
Russia and China both have the technology to track American stealth planes. Hell, Yugoslavia even managed to shoot one down. |
That's fine, but are you arguing that an air war between US F-22s/F-15s and Chinese J-6s, J-7s, J-8s, and a few Su-27s would be anything other than one sided in favor of the US? Sure, the US couldn't operate stealth aircraft with impunity over mainland China or Russia, but this doesn't mean that Russia or especially China could win an air war over the Straits of Taiwan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
are fine and dandy, but the US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than any other war combined. |
Irrelevant. North Vietnam had no concentrated economic or industrial center. For that matter, they had no industrial/economic output to speak of. Not so with China - and much of what they have is concentrated within reach of US standoff weapons. Thus, the US can directly threaten China, while the reverse is definitely not true, unless you bring nukes into the picture.
quote:
Attack China's coast, and they move inland... |
That certainly wouldn't be instantaneous. And if China moves inland, that can only reduce any threat China could present to Taiwan, South Korea, or Japan.
quote:
US could never land and win a ground war against China. And that's how you win wars my friend. |
A modern "great power" war would not be primarily fought on the ground, nor would victory be defined in traditional terms. This is not 1632, or, for that matter, 1945.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
quote:
If China invades Taiwan, there might be a war where the US's main objective is the withdrawl of the Chinese forces (a la Iraq/Kuwait). |
China can't invade Taiwan, and if they tried it Taiwan would push them into the sea.
Granted, China could use ballistic missiles to wreck Taiwan's economy, but why should they? That would make the entire war irrelevant - why should China spend billions fighting a war, where even if China was 100% successful they would have to spend even more billions rebuilding, not to mention having to function as an international pariah?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
Ya, I understand hypotheticals, but my main point was for a conceivable war, and I don't consider a complete Chinese occupation of Taiwan and a corresponding US war to push them out to be very conceivable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:25
|
|
China's population isn't a help, it's a hinderance. Sure, they claim an army of 200,000,000...but how far can they project that force? What kind of shape will it be in when it gets there and how long will the supplies they carry on their backs last?
Once it gets there how well will it stand up to Abrams tanks and mech inf?
Remember el duce and his "eight million bayonets". I think a fair number of those got shoved up his wazzoo, but that's as close as most ever came to seeing combat.
Numbers are overblown, except perhaps in jungle warfare...but I'm not sure about even that anymore. What matters is intel, speed, precise attacks in the private parts of enemy forces (command/control, supply) and depriving the other guy of the ability to do these things.
An enemy that doesn't know where it is or where it's supposed to go, doesn't have the fuel/food to get there or the ammo once the fight starts is already a mob before the first shot is fired.
I wish Civ 3 had made an effort to model supply...but I guess they did pretty good in general.
Last edited by Lancer on 29-01-2003 at 03:46
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Urban Ranger
|
|
Apolyton Duke of Off-Topic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Yes, the US would be foolish to send carriers into the Straits of Taiwan during wartime - at least 1 or 2 at a time. But so what? US submarines could sink any and every Chinese warship that put to sea, with few to no losses. And the first Chinese ship to go, by the way, would be the Xia-class SSBN - the only significant force projection asset their navy has. |
You are assuming the Chinese has no ASW assets, particularly in terms of fixed wing aircraft.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
If you want to argue that the entire Chinese air force (PLAAF) could defeat 4 or 5 US naval air wings, I don't doubt that's accurate. But could they defeat several hundred US fighter aircraft (F-15C and, in only a couple of years, F-22) based in the region? Certainly not. |
Again, the PLAAF can be directed by ground-based command centres, what would your fighters be directed by? Assuming that the Taiwanese radar installations and command centres will be targeted and destroyed by missiles and Special Forces, now what?
Are these US assets, if not, why would you expect them to be involved?
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Oh, and to answer the anti-stealth argument now, the S-300 isn't all that relevant in an air war over the Straits of Taiwan, unless and until you deploy an aerial version. |
How so? The Strait of Taiwan is narrow enough so ground based S-300s can cover it completely.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Of course, that would require China deploying a decent AWACS aircraft, which they don't have. |
IIRC, they got some Russian Mainstays.
quote:
Originally posted by David Floyd
Once the US wins the air war |
That's the question - how? What or who will be directing the US airwings?
Last edited by Urban Ranger on 29-01-2003 at 10:11
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:25
|
|
UR,
quote:
You are assuming the Chinese has no ASW assets, particularly in terms of fixed wing aircraft. |
If China wants to put fixed wing ASW aircraft over the Straits of Taiwan, they'll be shot down. If the PLAN sorties with ASW ships, 688is are more than capable of defeating those warships. China does not have enough ASW-capable warships to set up a wide enough net, anyway.
Are you seriously making the claim that the PLAN could defeat the USN in the Straits of Taiwan?
quote:
Again, the PLAAF can be directed by ground-based command centres, what would your fighters be directed by? Assuming that the Taiwanese radar installations and command centres will be targeted and destroyed by missiles and Special Forces, now what? |
Well, air based radar - the E3A Sentry and the E2C Hawkeye, for starters. Secondly, this assumes that the US would NOT deploy any sort of theater missile defense. I see no reason this would be the case.
quote:
How so? The Strait of Taiwan is narrow enough so ground based S-300s can cover it completely. |
Yes, and US standoff cruise missiles can target Chinese radar sites from behind Taiwan.
And in any case, the F-22 and F-15 are able to easily outperform ANYTHING the Chinese can put in the air, just on the basis of paper performance alone. When you put training, equipment, maintenance, experience, leadership, etc., into the mix, the USAF is FAR superior to the PLAAF.
quote:
IIRC, they got some Russian Mainstays. |
The Mainstay is not the equal of the E-3.
quote:
That's the question - how? What or who will be directing the US airwings? |
US AWACS aircraft operating off carriers and land-based airfields, if it comes down to it. Those aircraft are pretty much invulnerable to the PLAAF, unless you think a PLAAF fighter sweep could get past the Taiwan Straits, over Taiwan, through Taiwanese and US fighter defenses, and be able to find and shoot down these AWACS planes. But I'm not worried - the Soviet Union probably wouldn't have been able to do this over Europe, so why would you think the much inferior PLAAF could?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lancer
|
|
Oregon Coast, USA! or Bohol, Philippines!
Apr 1999
time: 05:25
|
|
The Serbs only got our F117 because they locked a SAM onto its heat sig, not its radar image.
If you shoot enough monkeys into the sky sooner or later one of them will type "King George the Fifth"-From 'On The Beach'-kinda.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
29-01-2003 03:01
...some how... for once...
.
|