# Fun World Events Predictions

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Eluminate, Feb 26, 2004.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### EluminateRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
359
great job spykes, i agree taiwan is dictating the when. Their referendum is the starting point to chinese to put up or shut up. And I m pretty sure about 80% confident the new taiwanese president will have a referendum done. After that chinese navy can get in their boats and row over the taiwan straigths to invade.

3. ### UndecidedBannedBanned

Messages:
4,731
Then show me how it is contradictory.

Re-read it please, you stated that the CVGB was made for wars like the GW, then you retracted? It's irrelevant anyways, I at least have moved on from that conversation.

Umm, so describe this pre-invasion confrontation you're talking about and tell me why it will be necessary for the US to fight it.

The US will have no choice but to fight it Spyke. Please do me a simple favor, look at a map of the Taiwan/Fujian area. Now if you can see in the area there are two chokepoints, one in the north and one in the South. The Chinese could have a missiles range that would cover what? Half of that region, with the multitude of Chinese missiles lobbed against the American forces, you are telling me that the US (in full knowledge of Chinese tactics, copied from the Soviets) would let those Osa class ships merely stand? They would prevent the US from entering the strait. Remember the US in 1997 did not enter the strait. There are reasons for this, and you even conceded that the US carriers would most likely operate East of the Island. Which negatively affects the American war effort but nevertheless increasing the survivability of the carrier itself. The Chinese can get rid of this carrier, it is not as difficult as some would have it seem. It's not in the technology I think Afghanistan, and Vietnam have shown that to be true.

All the US needs to be concerned with is an invasion attempt.

That is if the Chinese decide to invade the Island. The Chinese will probably attack the Island with her IRBM's to the point where the Taiwanese would give up. Or the Chinese can wait until the Americans get out of the war, you assume that x will follow y because that's the way it’s always happened. It's faulty to assume as such, when you have a nation of 1.2 billion people and an indigenous defense industry you can afford to wait. The Chinese population has supported a five year long war, does America? I very highly doubt it. Also we are assuming that the Korean Peninsula will be quiet.

I mentioned the subs because you claimed that the Chinese navy had the ability to hide from US surveillance.

Possibility to hide, yes. Are you saying that the American forces will never lose track of Chinese subs? Remember by your own admission the American forces will most likely not be in the strait, the only forces that will be in the strait will be fighter jets. S-3's, of SH-60's are not going to go in there without air superiority which will not be easy to do. So the Chinese can still do their damage. But I personally don't believe Chinese subs are going to be in the middle of the strait, rather they should be hugging the Taiwanese coast.

The only thing the Chinese navy has that can possibly do that is the diesel subs, and only then if they stay in shallow water.

I agree you assume they want to do more.

Well, we are discussing a possible US-Chinese confrontation. Since you seem to be focused on what the Chinese can do, at least one of us ought to be talking about what the US can do.

But you are wrongfully basing the argumentation against mine. I see it like this, I am the Chinese you are the Americans. If I am not getting out of the harbors, or the shallow waters. What are you going to do about it? If I am on the offensive I make the decisions you are merely the reaction to them. You said why would the Americans do anything prior to the actual invasion, we don't have to do anything you are right. Nothing but wait for the bait to bite.

Are you suggesting Stokes is a mullethead?

High School Photo...

n-n-n-nico, lighten up a little man.

Please don't be condensing... quite elitist, undeserved but nevertheless elitist.

Again, you're suggesting that the US will have been knocked out of a war before the actual invasion starts, when there is no reason for the US to become committed until that point.

So essentially the US will be doing nothing, a stalemate. I won't invade if you are in the game.

As far as the US 'being too far out to severely damage Chinese actions', what do you consider too far out, and how do you believe the Chinese can keep them too far out?

The US cannot cause severe damage on the Chinese coast when it's on the Eastern side of the Island. Firstly the IFR would be taking place to far away to do anything of good. Remember the Americans never were this far away from a combat zone with her carriers, and still wage an effective attack on the enemy. In every war the US had the advantage of being near the enemies’ coast. IFR aircraft are sitting ducks for the Chinese, especially if they have the S-300 SAM in the region. Say bye-bye to all logistical aircraft the S-300PU is the best SAM system in the world, (yes better then the Patriot). And the S-400 is better still, these babies are the biggest airborne threat, and have a range of about 200-400 km.

Yet I see the comparison used in strategy journals.

That's great... you do realize that the comparison is superficial at best because the specifics cannot be compared.

It's irrelevant whether SSMs were around back then, the comparison is about having control of the seas and ultimately the skies for a cross-channel/strait invasion to be successful.

I will leave that to the dogs...

*Sigh*

Do you have a breathing problem? Need to see a doctor?

It's just an analogy

Exactly...just an analogy.

It just shows that in order for the Chinese to be successful they will likely to have to have the same total control as the Allies did.

Did I actually deny this? Have I not shown how that may be acheived?

By contrast, on D-Day, the Allies had the transports, they had uncontested control of the sea, and most importantly, they dominated the skies.

So? Again the comparison looses all value when you compare the simple numbers. The Nazi's #1 had 80% of her forces in the USSR, are you telling me that if the Nazi's were not there that D-Day would have been pulled off successfully? If so, tell me the name of your acid dealer. #2 The Germans were fooled by the Brits, and it took almost a year to prepare the invasion. The Germans were just plain stupid, even when they got the actual location they ignored it. #3 the allies had a numerical superiority in the skies, this time the Chinese do. The German pilots were more experienced then the allied pilots, but the allies blew them out. Replace the bombardments of the Normandy coast from Lancaster bombers to IRBM's and the similarities become rather clear.

So as you can see the invasion of Europe can be played for both sides.

Yes, and if frogs had wings they wouldn't bump their asses when they jumped. It's irrelevant what other problems the Germans had leading up to D-Day. It only matters for this discussion that they were able to control the scene.

??? This is not Sypke, this is someone else. I cannot believe you are claiming that the weakness of the Germans on the Western front is...irrelevant.

Huh? Claiming glory? I'm simply citing factual history.

Partial history...

It's relevant, despite your inability to grasp it. And the Chinese won't commit to nukes over Taiwan.

Where did I say they would? Do show...

That will be up to the Chinese, and I suspect that ultimately that Taiwan is not worth a nuclear exchange to them.

Where did I say they would? Do show...

You don't know that I'm not making it up.

That is so weak; the whole premise of an argument is that you can support your argumentation with facts. The Onus is on you, and you know it. Try saying that in court! "I know what you are, but what am I..." type of attitude.

You might do your own Internet searching and find it. It could possibly be on-line with archives.

Nah, I don't have to do anything but relax. Show me what you said you know is true. Don't start arguments you are not wiling to support please.

Well again, if you want info on the war games, you need to check the Navy's journal. It might be on-line. As far as info about having two CVs on station, I can give you a link.

Speaking of sucking...

My source tell me different, and with the incorporation of the F/A-18 E/F. The chances are the F-14 will be goners sooner rather then later.

Why does the US Navy have to attack the Chinese coast? All the air wing has to do theoretically do is prevent an invasion of Taiwan. It has an arsenal of Tomahawks if it wants to hit the coast.

S-300's can get rid of those tomahawks, so can the MiG-31 which the Chinese supposedly have (according to Janes). With Chinese AWACS the Chinese would have advanced warning.

What tactics? All I've seen is you claiming what the Chinese will do. And I've as yet to give you any comparisons to Iraq, other than to say the CVBGs proved very effective in that role.

In different conditions yes, and against totally different enemies. I mean when you have no navy challenging you then sure. F*** even the Chinese could win...

But I would really like for you to discuss what China's tactics will be in this confrontation and why the US will have to play China's game. But others seem to believe that China poses no real threat at this point.

So what happens if Taiwan decides to declare independence during the '08 summer Olympics in Beijing? If China wants to contest it she will definitely have to play the US' game.

How will have to play the US game, what militaristic difference does the Olympics have? Do the swimmers present a threat that I am not aware of?

You talk about American arrogance, but even Japanese analysts don't give the Chinese much respect at this point.

Because they are assuming that the Chinese are going to follow the Armada theory. Spyke things are bias you know, and in that case it was bias into believing the Chinese would fight on Japanese/American terms.

But the US has recently worked to come up with something to counter the AA-11, the latest generation Sidewinder, the AIM-9X.

Fat chance, the Russians are developing, or developed a more advanced version the AA-11. Hey the Russians have backward firing missiles as well, so...

And it should be note that these weapons are only as good as the pilots using them. Iraq never downed a single Coalition plane using the AA-11 in the first gulf war.

To the best of my knowledge Iraq did not posses the AA-11, the AA-8 Aphid ok. But not the AA-11.

Yes...anyways do look:

Rather interesting, I wouldn't want her in the hands of a good pilot.

Well, the SU-27 was considered to have inferior BVR capabilities to its Western counterparts.

Which generation?

Over the last two decades the Soviets focused on dogfight capabilities, hence their superior dogfight missiles, while the West has focused on BVR, and have the lead in that aspect. Granted, I like what I've seen of the SU-30 and the AA-12 on paper.

Actually before the breakup of the USSR the Soviets began to re-orient from short ranged to BVR. Did you not notice the modern weaponry just before the breakup that would have seriously challenged American air weaponry once and for all? You may know a lot about American arms, I suggest you contemplate Soviet arms as well.

5. ### Carnuthi dontRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
547
face the music

you may be right about surface ships nico, but i think you underestimate the US submarine fleet. Los Angeles', seawolfs, Virginias, etc. - besides effectively bottling up chinese harbors with mines also would blow any warship out of the water. In sheer numbers or technical superiority, the subs would overwhelm any chinese naval presence without hesitation. L.A. class subs(majority) carry dozens of self-propelled mines, and just one mine would freak out the chinese. Minesweepers are a bit too vulnerable so in one fell swoop the US has the potential to stop any invasion fleet. on to missiles...

korea may end up a mess, i wouldnt want to be in seoul when the artillery starts up. I agree with you on the IRBM problem, since the province closest to taiwan is the mainstay of China's missile forces but Taiwan is interested in Patriot Pac-3's, which would help out quite a bit, though maybe not enough to have a significant effect. In the end, China would run out of missiles before Taiwan ran out of resolve.

subs =)

nuke subs can stay quiet longer and wont have to surface, id also presume HKs would be trailing chinas subs, if they arent already.

you mean condeScending right? ... pot, kettle, color

WHY are you ignoring my subs! subs! quiznos has great subs! any coupon works! they have a pepper bar! beware of paper cuts!

come ON Nico... =P

FFS Nico youve never done acid! drugs are bad, dr-dru-drugs are bad see
...
comparing modern warfare to that of the 40's is illogical on both ends. Come on there is no comparison.

kinda a tough argument, things never work out 100% or even 50% so its really impossible to have a theory on S-300 capabilities or Mig-31s in this...especially regarding missiles (ex patriots in iraq both wars). and that mig 31s were shot down over iraq, if the US has air superiority, NP, HARM and such takes down S-300s and Mig-31s, if they dont, odds are in favor of tomahawks making landfall...its way too complicated for anyone to have a definite theory on this...

japanese analysts have never really given China much respect

missiles+flares+decoys+chaff+inherent instabilities in the basic concept of missiles = who knows until it happens? certainly not you people.

And it should be note that these weapons are only as good as the pilots using them. Iraq never downed a single Coalition plane using the AA-11 in the first gulf war.

iraq also never even tried to attain aerial supremacy. So point is kinda

anyways, im just saying that there are insane amounts of factors that no one is considering. Things never work out to plan, particularly with trajectories. Chaos theory f"s everything up in the end. Im also putting a lot of faith in the US putting the subs in danger since we are saying this is a US - China confrontation.. ive been reading for a while but never had the time for a serious post cuz u guys talk too much =)

Last edited: Mar 10, 2004

7. ### UndecidedBannedBanned

Messages:
4,731
face the music

The modern carrier was built exactly for operations like the Gulf wars.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Of course operations like the Gulf wars are not a CV's sole purpose.

Dichotomy? Do you not see it? If the carriers are built for GW wars, then how is it that the CV's main (sole) purpose is not for GW wars? If the design is inheritantly geared to GW wars, then its sole purpose is to fight them.

but i think you underestimate the US submarine fleet.

Well finally, someone who understands the premise of this argument! Thankfully you understand that carriers are not going in there.

Los Angeles', seawolfs, Virginias, etc. - besides effectively bottling up chinese harbors with mines also would blow any warship out of the water.

To the best of my knowledge the US has 2 Seawolfs, so really how much damage can she do? The LA class is excellent subs, and they do constitute a serious threat to the Chinese Armada forces. These subs don't threaten the 80 or so Osa class ships which are mingled in with hundreds of civilian boats in a harbor in Southern China. The sheer numbers again greatly depreciate any threat. Also the subs need to have info from above to get their targets, and P-3's, SH-60, and S-3's are not going to be there. Also they have no air support at this time, so they are uniquely vulnerable to the Chinese Anti-Sub forces. But I do concede that American subs are very quiet and that would be a very big advantage. But the US will still not be able to quell this threat. Also the Virginia is still in development, which is truly the sub of this war. A brown water sub to deal with the problems of the new century.

In sheer numbers or technical superiority, the subs would overwhelm any chinese naval presence without hesitation.

How many numbers can realistically be allocated to the war zone? The Chinese will easily retain the numerical superiority. The Question for the Chinese is how can they effectively counter this very real threat?

L.A. class subs(majority) carry dozens of self-propelled mines, and just one mine would freak out the chinese. Minesweepers are a bit too vulnerable so in one fell swoop the US has the potential to stop any invasion fleet. on to missiles...

The Chinese by that point in time should have mined Taiwanese ports as well. So it will be a war of attrition. Now the premise of your argument is that the Chinese will be leaving the harbors soon, I wouldn't be in a hurry. I think the Chinese will be looking out for mines as well. But it can potentially cause serious damage to a large Chinese force getting out of the harbors. But still if you want to defeat the Chinese forces you need to have air support, and you need to have surface combatants to deal with the threat. Subs can cause damage but not enough imo to change the fate of the war effort.

I agree with you on the IRBM problem, since the province closest to taiwan is the mainstay of China's missile forces but Taiwan is interested in Patriot Pac-3's, which would help out quite a bit, though maybe not enough to have a significant effect. In the end, China would run out of missiles before Taiwan ran out of resolve.

I don't really think so, the Chinese missiles are not complex in their manufacture and you know that Chinese military production would be red hot during a war. So the Chinese will be replenishing that region with IRBM's constantly. PAC-3's can only do so much. I predict an almost constant bombing of Taipei, and Kaoshing.

nuke subs can stay quiet longer and wont have to surface, id also presume HKs would be trailing chinas subs, if they arent already.

Nuclear subs are louder then diesel subs when they are transiting. The Kilo is one of the most silent in the world, and that presents a great threat to the US, supposedly they carry the Skhval. If they can get close enough to the carrier, she's gone. Subs are good against large sedimentary targets. The targets the Americans will have to face are tiny, and have max speeds of 35kt, as fast as the sub itself.

kinda a tough argument, things never work out 100% or even 50% so its really impossible to have a theory on S-300 capabilities or Mig-31s in this...especially regarding missiles (ex patriots in iraq both wars).

Tests of the missiles have been very impressive indeed. Obviously the tests are not even close to real world conditions, but the S-300 has proven to be very popular on the export market for a reason.

and that mig 31s were shot down over iraq,

:bugeye: No MiG-31's were never exported, rumor has it that China has a few. Iraq simply did not have the MiG-31, if you are talking about the MiG-25 ok.

if the US has air superiority,

Largely because the US has electronic superiority over the Iraqi's the Chinese have AWACS, they have J-11's they have BVR missiles en par with the Americans, the Iraqis did not. Also the Iraqi's force consisted of mostly older MiG forces. There is very little compare.

HARM and such takes down S-300s and Mig-31s,

The HARM is not an AA missile so the MiG-31 thing is... the S-300 is threatened by the HARM you are correct. But the Aegis class ships are equally threatened by the even better Krypton missile that the Chinese have. Also the E-2 would be downed by the AS-17; the initial purpose was to destroy American AWACS.

if they dont, odds are in favor of tomahawks making landfall...its way too complicated for anyone to have a definite theory on this...

The Iraqi's in the Gulf War were able to down Tomahawks as well with their SA-8 missile systems. I feel very confident in a missile system that is two generations ahead of that system. The Russians have always been better at things like SAM's and it shows.

iraq also never even tried to attain aerial supremacy. So point is kinda

Iraq did put up some fights with the US in the first stages of the war. It was only later did the bulk of the Iraqi AF left to Iran.

Last edited: Mar 10, 2004
8. ### SpykeRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,006
I've re-read and re-read. First you said it was contradictory, but when I challenged that and said show me how, you now say I recanted. So when did I recant what I said?

Yet you've continued to beat that dead horse in every post to date.

First of all, the US didn't enter the strait because the Chinese didn't enter the strait because the Chinese warned that no foreign warships should enter during the exercises. That was during the Clinton administration. For all we know the Bush administration might have challenged that. But regardless of that, if Chinese naval vessels approach Taiwan, I suspect Taiwanese military forces will react. The US will likely not seriously react unless an invasion appears imminent. But meanwhile, I suspect that 3 or 4 Los Angeles class attack subs will have slipped quietly into the strait.

Yep, I forgot about all those CVs we lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan. It is difficult to take out a carrier, nico. I think it is much more difficult than you presume. Not impossible, but difficult.

Isn't that what you're doing? Assuming that X will automatically follow Y. You have no idea how the Americans will play it. And unless the Chinese can come up with a sufficient transport flotilla, 1.2 billion peasants means squat.

Supported a 10 year war in Vietnam. But a war over Taiwan won't last extremely long, one way or the other. China can't afford to sustain a prolonged war anymore than the US can afford to.

There are always variables.

You can be assured there will be US attack subs lurking in the strait, and if those Chinese subs venture into blue water, they're dead.

I assume Chinese subs won't be a factor.

If you're not getting out of your harbors I have no reason to do anything about it because you're no threat to take Taiwan.

Well, I don't know what 'wait for the bait to bite' means, but what will you do if the US doesn't take the bait?

Telling you not to take it seriously is elitist?

Well, I agree with you to a degree here, although it's not really necessary for the US to do severe damage to the Chinese mainland. It's only necessary for the US to help Taiwan repel an invasion attempt. But I do agree that in the gulf wars the US had to bring the CVs in much closer than was preferred, mainly because of the Hornets limited range. The Super Hornets will help with that problem, and possibly if the F-35 program ever goes through, but with the F-14D program cancelled that is a problem for the aviation wing, I grant you. However, despite the problems the Navy's aviation wing had, the Tomahawks were a success. With a better than 85% accuracy rating in the first gulf war they took away some of the embarrasssment the Navy had at being bested by the Air Force. The Tomahawks are an option if it is deemed necessary to hit the Chinese coast.

But again, you're assuming the US will need to approach the Chinese coast. If they do, yes, I think the air wing, in its present state, could have severe problems.

Analogies still give a historical comparison. They're never perfect because history never repeats itself, but they still provide a starting point. In this case, where it's a duscussion of invading a chaneel/strait, looking at the discarded invasion and the successful invasion, it is easy to see that the former was abandoned because the invader couldn't dominate the sea or the sky, and in the latter, it was successful because the invader could do both. So it leads strategists to operate on the assumption that for the Chinese to be successful, they will have to dominate the strait. But obviously there are differences in this case (missile systems, US attack subs, etc), but that doesn't make previous studies less relevant.

I'm taking that as a nod yes.

*Sigh*

See above discussion on analogies.

Well, you said the Chinese would wait until they drove the Americans out of the war, but you haven't shown how they can even draw the Americans into it without actually approaching Taiwan. And when they do, then they are at the disadvantage.

And all of this has what to do with the discussion at hand? It's a simple analogy. The Allies had total control of the English Channel on 6 June, 1944. Plain and simple. I don't care if they had it because most of Germany's forces were tied down in Russia or if little green men had convinced Hitler that there was not a Western Front to worry about. All of that is irrelevant, although I will be glad to discuss it in another thread.

No, but what I can see is the Strawman fallacy you've introduced.

*Sigh* Strawmanicus continuum. I said arguing about the causes leading up to Allied domination of the English Channel on D-Day are irrelevant to the argument. Try again.

9. ### SpykeRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,006
Well, I must have been in the process of typing my last post when you posted this one, because I just saw this.

How does the latter contradict the former? Saying that the CV doesn't have one sole purpose doesn't contradict saying it was built exactly for a war like the gulf war. You conveniently skipped where I said the CV has multiple roles.

10. ### UndecidedBannedBanned

Messages:
4,731
First of all, the US didn't enter the strait because the Chinese didn't enter the strait

The Chinese were in the straits.

But regardless of that, if Chinese naval vessels approach Taiwan, I suspect Taiwanese military forces will react.

Obviously they would react; the Chinese could win against a Taiwanese force. That is the war the Chinese want to fight not the American battle ground. Obviously the US is going to assist Taiwan even if there wasn't a actual invasion force coming into play, that is why the Chinese would simply wait it out. While the Chinese are leisurely going to attack Taiwan constantly with her IRBM's China doesn't have to get out one bomber, or one jet. I don't how much fortitude the Taiwanese have when their cities are on fire.

The US will likely not seriously react unless an invasion appears imminent. But meanwhile, I suspect that 3 or 4 Los Angeles class attack subs will have slipped quietly into the strait.

With no Chinese naval assets in the strait, they can loiter for a while. As long as the Chinese have aerial superiority over the strait those subs are sitting ducks, they will eventually get caught.

Yep, I forgot about all those CVs we lost in Vietnam and Afghanistan.

:bugeye: This is shocking, it really is. Firstly these two nations do not have the capability to attack a CVBG, the Chinese do. Thus illogical comparison. Jezze Afghanistan doesn't even border an ocean.

It is difficult to take out a carrier, nico.

You wouldn't know, no one has ever really tried to, and no one yet has had the capability to. Rest assured it is not complex...

I think it is much more difficult than you presume. Not impossible, but difficult.

It's not going to be a walk in the park, but it's not going to be the Battle of Ypres either. The US for all her tech marvels can do shit against 30 Silkworms in 4 waves coming against her. There will be losses, the US is not wiling to risk her naval assets.

Isn't that what you're doing? Assuming that X will automatically follow Y. You have no idea how the Americans will play it.

If you haven't noticed Spyke I have been using your tactics that you presented as an idea on how the USN would deal with it. They will be safely nestled on the East side of Taiwan, and correspondingly I will stay in my harbors. The whole point is to lure you and the Taiwanese to the coast, so the Chinese can rid of you .

And unless the Chinese can come up with a sufficient transport flotilla, 1.2 billion peasants means squat.

Totally agree.

Supported a 10 year war in Vietnam.

Against a non-nuclear nation, that no capability to get rid of major American assets. The American ppl haven't seen a war since WWII, and it should be a shot in the arse. WAKE UP CALL!

But a war over Taiwan won't last extremely long, one way or the other. China can't afford to sustain a prolonged war anymore than the US can afford to.

This is why I consider this conversation rather wasteful, the simple logical trends indicate that Taiwan will become almost totally dependant on China for her economic well being, with the US imposing less and less influence on Taiwan until the Chinese just absorb the already dependant state. The US can't go to war with China and not wiling risk a major economic disaster, who is paying for the US' budget deficits? Who is stocking Wal-Mart's selves? That's China...

There are always variables.

If the Korean Peninsula explodes concurrently with the Taiwan crisis. The US will end up bankrupt. That is America's nightmare scenario and it's not as wild as some may think.

You can be assured there will be US attack subs lurking in the strait, and if those Chinese subs venture into blue water, they're dead.

Chances are that those Chinese subs are going to be hugging the harbours of Taiwan. Simply loitering, waiting for that moment when Taiwanese naval assets go into the strait to contest the Chinese. Like the North Koreans, you fight behind their backs to win the game.

I assume Chinese subs won't be a factor.

You assume incorrectly.

If you're not getting out of your harbors I have no reason to do anything about it because you're no threat to take Taiwan.

I think 700 IRBM's blasting Taiwan to smithereens is a good reason to care. Needless to mention Chinese cruise missiles which are an exact copy of the Tomahawk.

Well, I don't know what 'wait for the bait to bite' means, but what will you do if the US doesn't take the bait?

LOL! I tried to be American with your clichés. If the US doesn't take the bait we will wait.

Telling you not to take it seriously is elitist?

The means not the ends was elitist.

How? *coughIRBM'scough* doing nothing is worse then doing something in that instance.

Well, I agree with you to a degree here, although it's not really necessary for the US to do severe damage to the Chinese mainland.

Thank you, the US needs to attack the Chinese mainland to have any effect on the war. She has to get rid of the IRBM threat, the logistical support, the AWACS, airfields, ports, etc. You can't do all that with Tomahawks, some of which will be destroyed by SAM's, some hit off target, and other erroneous things. You need manned airplanes like the F-18 to get to the nitty gritty.

It's only necessary for the US to help Taiwan repel an invasion attempt.

But you know the US will not just do that...

The Tomahawks are an option if it is deemed necessary to hit the Chinese coast.

It really is not enough, and the best Chinese assets are most likely underground.

But again, you're assuming the US will need to approach the Chinese coast.

I have no doubt in my mind the US will approach the Chinese coast, they have to. The Taiwanese would have to as well, that is where the fireworks begin.

But obviously there are differences in this case (missile systems, US attack subs, etc), but that doesn't make previous studies less relevant.

The ends is what you are advocating, you cannot have an ends without a means. The means are the relevant part imo, and saying the allies did it x can do it to is irrelevant. What is relevant is modern precedents that support the modern technology. Obviously you need air supremacy, and naval supremacy, any simpleton could tell you that. But to compare what happened 60 years to today as a legitimate premise imo is incorrect. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

I'm taking that as a nod yes.

No it should be so overt to the reader on how wrong your statements were I left it to the dogs (the reader).

Well, you said the Chinese would wait until they drove the Americans out of the war, but you haven't shown how they can even draw the Americans into it without actually approaching Taiwan. And when they do, then they are at the disadvantage.

The US is trapped she cannot go into the strait without risking a carrier; the insurance companies would go rabid on the navy! The US is going to realize that she is largely irrelevant unless she get's into the battle zone, you don't fight in *peacezones*(lack of a better term).If the US wants to make a difference she has to risk her assets. The Chinese would have won; simply preventing an American carrier getting in there would be enough to shift the tides of war. Eventually I believe the Taiwanese will get the message, the war is lost, politically and militarily. You don’t need to kill, the Chinese know this. You have to psych your enemy out.

No, but what I can see is the Strawman fallacy you've introduced.

IMO the strawman was the analogy business, so let's not degenerate into a Stokian strawman debate.

I said arguing about the causes leading up to Allied domination of the English Channel on D-Day are irrelevant to the argument. Try again.

You are entitled to your opinion; it does not mean it is right. I tend to disagree with you on this, so really your position is irrelevant.

You know and I know you're getting off track. for no apparent reason.

T'was you Spyke who got of topic not me...

Well, my first response was in regard to this statement by you..."Also you are dealing with a nuclear armed China," which at least seemingly implied that China migh escalate to nukes over Taiwan.

Well no that is not what I said or meant. I just indicated that one shant forget that China has nukes. I have said in my posts before that this war would not escalate into a nuclear confrontation.

Scroll up slightly.

Ditto.

Then the onus is on you as well. I can't take that message you linked from the PakistaniTimes message board seriously.

Unless I have a source that indicates differently then yes you do.

How do you know he was not making any of that up?

I don't know for certain, but why would he lie? Is this even relevant?

He didn't provide a credible link, yet you believed him enough to link his post here and use it to back up your position. Speaking of weak.

Then you should have no difficulty in providing me an opposing position, as you said you would. Again you know as well as I do, you don't present specific arguments that you can't provide some form of support for.

Just as soon as you can show me that your 'expert' message board geek can prove that he knew what he was talking about. And that point I might feel obligated.

No again the onus is on you to prove him wrong, not me. It's only logical.

Your source? LOL! You mean that Internet site?

What about it? Notice your sources kept on saying "at least until 2010" which obviously mean it can be retired before.

You have no idea if the S-300 can actually take out a Tomahawk. The Soviets simply said they could. Same for the MiG-31.

The evidence shows as such, surely not a perfect system but it can do the job.

But again, you're operating under the assumption that the Americans will play the game you're creating for the Chinese. There is no reason for the US to attack the Chinese coast to stop an invasion of Taiwan.

So you are telling me the US will sit doing nothing at all for the entire war while Taiwan is being bombarded to shitake, me no think so.

If what you've given me so far is the Chinese strategy, I'd say Taiwan ought to feel pretty good right about now.

So she should if Taipei enjoys looking like this:

Sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.

Ain't it a beaut?

The naval war is merely an aspect not the war itself.

Where've you been? I've read several articles the last few months, including Asian sites, suggesting that Taiwan might choose to declare independence while Beijing is distracted hosting the summer Olympics. It would put enormous pressure on the Chinese.

Politically, but we aren't talking politically. Militarily the situation will be much better for China by that time.

But I find it interesting that you think the Americans are only capable of assuming the Chinese are going to fight one way only. That's why they have planners constantly conducting war scenarios.

And the Battle of Kursk is an example of how those "planners" can get it wrong big time. Placing importance on training and tech superiority vs. numbers, and will to fight proved to be the end of the Nazi regime, don’t repeat history.

Is not he AA-11 the best short ranged missile in service? And the SU-34 has the ability to carry the backwards AA-11.

No way, their MiG-29's would be the only craft to carry that and I have never read anywhere the Iraqi's had AA-11's. Not even on my Janes references... I don't believe it. The Iraqi's had these missiles at their disposal:

AA-2/-6/-7/-8/-10
R-530
R-550

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-force-equipment.htm

Sorry that cannot be correct.

And as you noted early in this thread, lack of ability by those Chinese pilots could be a problem against better trained American pilots.

Yes it sure can, but obviously the Chinese best pilots are going be flying the best jets. Remember the Chinese have thousands of useless jets whose sole purpose is to overwhelm defense of x state, and then get the advanced fighters to finish off the stupid allied jets off like jelly.

I agree. Hopefully, China doesn't have many good ones. Based on the one who couldn't get even get his fighter out of the way of that slow moving US AWACS, I'd say they don't have many.

Notice the jet he was flying... there is a correlation.

How many do the Chinese have?

200 J-11’s and I think 80 SU-30MK's.

Last edited: Mar 11, 2004
11. ### UndecidedBannedBanned

Messages:
4,731
Sorry I just had to include this baby:

http://www.emeraldesigns.com/matchup/fighter.htm

12. ### Stokes PennwaltNuke them from orbit.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
No.

@ that site. Hey let's match up shit and pick winners over the internet! Not even their rampant Chinese fanboyism can mask the simplicity of their "analysis". If you want to see some quality forecasting accessible to civilians anywhere, go check out Jane's. Your local library should have something to whet your appetite.

13. ### Carnuthi dontRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
547
a major thing is that the carriers dont even have to be in the strait to impact a war. obviously the US is not going to stick a fleet in the bottleneck, but a CVBG or 2,3,4,5,6 would be around to fight.

we are talking about the future, and the virginias will probably be around when china's military gets its supremacy in the formosa power balance. Submarines have a little thing called a sonar which detect targets, they can get their info from VHF or UHF but they arent necessarily dependant on air forces, that would totally defeat the purpose of a sub, as you just have to look for the electronic warfare/asw aircraft to figure out the operating area... what do you mean harpoons, torpedoes, and mines wouldnt stop the Osas? - depending on sea conditions and the alertness , particularly when the chinese commercial fleet is stuck in harbors during a war, there shouldnt be a problem is obliterating any chinese fleet.

im talking about the subs, there are over 60. Wars dont start overnight without Some hint of trouble, at least 5 subs will be there which means at least 200+ mines. the chinese will have surface fleet superiority but thats not what matters.

you dont remember the wolfpacks?
i think US Subs would already be around before china could bottle up taiwanese harbors, but then again, you never know. its just one of those things...

you can fire irbms a lot faster than you can make them, especially with what i presume would be US+Taiwanese harassment of factories and rail lines, pending air superiority of course.

of course if its on battery power, which has severly limited range. When they are running on diesel they are quite loud. regardless I dont think chinese sonar technology and submarine training is advanced enough to have an advantage over Los Angeles class subs in regard to their reactor pumps, particularly the 688(I)s- THe US subs would be basically waiting in ambush so not much transitting during hostilities. And if a kilo found an american sub, the moment they fired a torp they would be detected and fired upon. Same thing if a US Sub did but the US does have better torpedoes, training, speed(if kilos have been on silent running for a while)...US subs clear advantage in all respects except for silence, but that is almost irrelevant.

ah yes, my mistake

you mean mig 29's dont compare?

Harm and SUCH, "such" would mean AA missiles

E-2s have a radar range over 200 Nautical miles vs 200 KM range of the krypton, i think they will be okay.

if im not mistaken, the majority of the iraqi af tried to weather it out in reinforced bunkers, only a small # went to their former enemy, iran

14. ### crazeeeeeemRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
174
In response to your prediction I submit ->
1. Bush or some other US terrorist occupies the minds of US citizens even more than now.
2. More Weapons of Terror being put into use by the new "super race". Examples such as the sonic weapon being deployed in Iraq, the plasma cannon, the bunker buster (yes it is nukes), more dirty bombing of sovereign nations using nicely named thingies like depleted uranium etc, more shock and awe (sounds like the Stuka in WWII) and more killing of humanity because they are evil gollywogs.
3. US never getting a surplus because the US realises that time is almost up and it doesn't matter within 20 years.
4. Isreal waking up to the realisation that it is a pawn in a bigger game. Princess Sharon may have to move to her castle in the US or be lynched.
5. The whole world suddenly waking up from the orchestrated nightmare and telling the little Island, except possibly for its Southern and Far Norther bits to FRAK OFF.
6. US Citizens realising they not only have been duped but are actually in the same position as Isreal (maybe after they loose a few more of their rights - who knows, the PATRIOTs Act should have done it but hey, maybe propaganda can fool all the people all the time)
7. US citizens slowly coming to terms with joining humanity.
8. The world becoming much more dynamic and actually setting out on its destiny.

15. ### EluminateRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
359
lol thats all i can say...

After syriah is freed from axis of evil we will free saudi arabia and meccah and medina will be testing sites for nuklear detonation. Would be fun to see the reaction of the arab world after those two cities get nuked. Terrorism would stop right away because after that you could just say we will wipe you all from the face of the earth if you do not stop right now... Mohammed can bend over and recieve a patriot missle up his azz.

16. ### SpykeRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,006
Sorry. I didn't proofread before I posted the thread and didn't realize that sentence was jumbled. It was supposed to read as...

My point was, Clinton chose not to antagonize the Chinese. I would hope that Bush would not have either, I won't automatically assume that he would. And if it was an actual hostile act by China, rather than a show of force, I would suspect that Bush might very well send forces into the strait.

I agree. Sheer weight of numbers would leave little doubt, although as you've continued to stress, nothing is insured.

I have no idea on the fortitude of the Taiwanese, but I do suspect if the US decides it's in its best interest to assist Taiwan, it will take it seriously and will hit China hard. Then we'll see how much fortitude the Chinese have. Granted I agree with you, the only chance China has is to simply overwhelm Taiwan with missile attacks and hope Taiwan collapses before the US decides whether to intervene.

The US Navy is not going to just allow the Chinese to simply gain and maintain air superiority over the strait.

Sorry. I keep forgetting tongue in cheek is lost here.

And you wouldn't know either.

And since it's never been tried you're background for knowing this is what?

You have no real idea what US technology is capable of. The MK 41 VLS system, which is now employed on the all the Arleigh Burke and Spruance class DDs, and on 17 of the 22 of the Aegis cruisers, is an absolute marvel, and battle proven.

You have no idea what the US is willing to risk. Those naval assets were built to fight a superpower. I would suspect the US would be quite willing to use them against the closest thing to a superpower.

The US doesn't have to approach the Chinese coast to hit it.

You only asked if Americans would support a lengthy war. I gave you an example. Now you want to put qualifiers on the question.

It is doubtful any modern war between industrial states will be prolonged. Neither can afford it. And China likes its trade status with the US.

That scenario will be dictated by Taiwan. If she declares independence, then the pressure is on China.

I think you've got it backwards. The US can find another peasant filled country to ship its jobs out to, whereas China needs those jobs to keep that huge population economically content.

Again, anything is possible. The US might be forced to make a choice in such a situation.

I think you're seriously over-estimating Chinese sub capabilities and under-estimating Taiwan's superior ASW capabilities. China may have the numbers in ships, but Taiwan has a far superior navy.

The Chinese subs will stay close to home in case enemy surface ships approach, because that is the only place they can be effective. They won't of course, meaning those Chinese subs are inconsequential.

Yes, Taiwan will care. Of course, Beijing might care if the US response is to unleash its Tomahawks in response. With each CVBG having 4-5 Aegis cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers, each ship with a minimum of 61 Tomahawks, not to mention a minimum of 4 Tomakawk toting attack subs in the strait, well, you can do the math. I'm seriously doubting the Chinese' ability to deter such an attack. And it's estimated it will take the Chinese a minimum of 18-20 months to replenish their missile force once its spent.

Tomahawks will soften the defenses up, destroy airfields, destroy command and communications, at which point it will be easier for those F/A-18s. If this thing gets serious, I would expect the Air Force to bring its Stealth aircraft over into the theater.

Both sides will want to keep it short. The US might be content to pprevent an invasion. However, I do agree that if the Chinese decide to unload its missile arsenal the US will respond.

You're assuming. But if they are not enough, they will at least soften the defenses for air power.

First of all, you're misinterpreting. You interpreting it as "saying the allies did it x can do it to is irrelevant" is false. The analogy is the Germans couldn't do it because they failed to do A&B, while the Allies were successful because they didn't fail to do A&B, so it would indicate that for X to be able to do it successfully they will likely have to achieve A&B as well.

I agree that you've turned a simple analogy into an absurd side argument that has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

I would hardly call it trapped. She doesn't have to send the CV into the strait. She has plenty of other lethal surface ships that can do that. And I won't even comment on the insurance company remark.

If you think that laying off the east coast of Taiwan means the strait is out of a CVBG's battle zone, then I don't know what to say.

Are you being serious?

You're going to equate using historical analogies to strawman fallacies?

I...did...not...have...an...opinion. I...simply...applied...an...event...in...history...as...a...possible...example...to...indicate...what...the...Chinese...will...probably...have...to...do...to...launch...a...successful...invasion.

Disagree with what exactly? All I said was that the Germans failed to achieve air superiority but the Allies did, hence one couldn't invade while the other could. Are you disagreeing with history?

Let's see. I used an analogy for the topic we've been discussing, and the next thing I'm reading from you is the Germans being committed on the Russian Front, the Dieppe invasion, and every other excuse you could come with for why the Germans couldn't prevent the Allied landings, all of which meant diddly.

Then why mention nukes at all in your argument?

Then don't hold your breath. I feel no more inclined to track down my source than you do.

Why would I lie? It's not like I'm getting a grade for this, or I'm going to penalized.

Yet you did just that. You linked to a poster on another message board. What kind of source is that?

No, you linked him over here, even though he provided no link to a credible source in his post.

See. I can play this stupid game as long as you can.

Are you serious? 'At least' mean it will be in service through 2010, maybe longer. If it meant it could be retired before 2010, it would have said 'no later' than 2010.

I'm sure for Taiwan too. They aren't exactly sitting on their hands. Neither is the US military, for that matter.

Which means what? Most engagements have winners and losers, yet both planned to win. Are you saying war planning is irrelevant?

Sorry if you don't like it, but I gave you a credible source.

This latest bit of propoganda is being brought to us by Sciforums own version of Baghdad Bob, Comrade nico.

17. ### 15ofthe1935 year old virginRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
1,588
This is such a fascinating phenomenom to witness. The probability of nico contradicting herself and actually supporting the arguments of the poster that she's trying to prove wrong is directly proportionate to the number of arguments she posts in an attempt to win the so-called "debate".

There has to be a name for this phenomenom. Similar to the Godwin Principle regarding the Nazi's, I can't believe that somebody hasn't already put together a workable thesis on this curious aspect of the human animal.

Regarding China and Taiwan, I'm getting confused here nicky. First you say that the U.S. couldn't control the straits, but then you concede that the Chinese Navy is not equipped to come out into blue water, but then you argue that the Chinese could effectively take Taiwan if they so desired. Work with me here. How exactly do you invade and subdue an enemy without putting boots on the ground? Somebody's got to drag the other sumbitch out of his foxhole to sign then damned peace treaty, right? (spyke, who said that? Some U.S. General. Can't remember his name.)

How do you get all those Chinese soldiers across the strait without a boat? What are they going to do? Swim? A handful of Los Angeles boats are going to blow anything out of the water that they deem an enemy combatant. Dont' think for a second that a few old shitty diesel boats are going to be any match for a 688. Even you wouldn't argue that point.

So explain yourself girl. How's it going to work?

18. ### Stokes PennwaltNuke them from orbit.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
Right on chief. Too bad I put that myth to bed here. Argumentum ad nauseam has always been one of your strong points, and I'm happy to see you've been no let-down this time around. Also, the posters of this forum beg to know your credentials and the data on which your perfunctory commentary is based.

Take a respite from the thread. Come back within 2 days to find him arguing a position in stark, polar contrast to what it was before. That way, we don't even have to refute his arguments, because eventually he will do it for us.

19. ### UndecidedBannedBanned

Messages:
4,731
I didn't expect the level of debate to degenerate into ad hom attacks so quickly. This is why I avoid discussing with you.

My point was, Clinton chose not to antagonize the Chinese. I would hope that Bush would not have either, I won't automatically assume that he would. And if it was an actual hostile act by China, rather than a show of force, I would suspect that Bush might very well send forces into the strait.

Yes it was political move by Clinton; I don't think I really indicated otherwise. But also there must have been militaristic concerns for the US. The Chinese had their best assets in the strait at full military potential. I don't think the navy would have liked to entertain the idea of a full blown war with a pumped up Chinese force.

I have no idea on the fortitude of the Taiwanese, but I do suspect if the US decides it's in its best interest to assist Taiwan, it will take it seriously and will hit China hard.

So she should if the US feels it's in her interests to do it. But by the time this happens (let's say 2008) it would be in the US' best interest to secure the Chinese rather then the Taiwanese. It is simple economics that dictate this, the old ideologues of the past are dying off and so are their feasible idealism. Globalization and simple numbers will dictate that support of Taiwan is not in the US' long term interests.

Then we'll see how much fortitude the Chinese have. Granted I agree with you, the only chance China has is to simply overwhelm Taiwan with missile attacks and hope Taiwan collapses before the US decides whether to intervene.

We will have to see...

The US Navy is not going to just allow the Chinese to simply gain and maintain air superiority over the strait.

But you said the USN wouldn't do anything until the Chinese actually begin to invade the Island, or is imminently going to invade? So what is it going to be? Will the US help the Taiwanese from the moment the IRBM's slam or will she help when the Chinese actually start their invasions? Now as to aerial superiority it becomes evident the further the Chinese wait the better. The US technical superiority over the Chinese is significant now, but the Americans are going to have to waste resources against forces that don't deserve to be shot down. The "Farmer syndrome", you damned if you do and damned if you don't, what do I mean by that? Well the USN fighter pilots have to shoot down those incoming F-6's wasting that valuable ammo in the process, in return when the Chinese J-11's come from behind the F-6's the Americans would have almost no ammo left, and their pilots are tired. From 50 km away the Chinese could get rid of the F-18's. It will take planning on the Chinese part but it will be possible. The first target that the Chinese have to get rid of is the E-2's ASAP.

Sorry. I keep forgetting tongue in cheek is lost here.

But you knew it was factual incorrect, and totally not relevant to what we are speaking about.

And you wouldn't know either.

Your right I wouldn't know either, nor have I indicated as such. But using simple logic it is not impossible.

And since it's never been tried you're background for knowing this is what?

Eliat 1967.

You have no real idea what US technology is capable of.

That's why I want a American to complement, I do have a idea although I concede I am weaker on US systems.

The MK 41 VLS system, which is now employed on the all the Arleigh Burke and Spruance class DDs, and on 17 of the 22 of the Aegis cruisers, is an absolute marvel, and battle proven.

Sure against what? I never said that the US VLS systems were not the best of quality anywhere. Frankly I even conceded before that some Silkworms will be destroyed by the VLS systems. But I do not see how they are going to protect the carrier against such a numerically superior force. I never said it was going to be a walk in the park for the Chinese. But they play their cards right those VLS systems will essentially become irrelevant.

You have no idea what the US is willing to risk. Those naval assets were built to fight a superpower. I would suspect the US would be quite willing to use them against the closest thing to a superpower.

This is a NWO man; this is not the Cold War. The US is not imo wiling to risk their carriers for a battle over Taiwan. Nor do I believe will the American ppl, back when the USSR was a threat the US was behind the USN in her adventures. But here is no threat of a "communist world revolution". The American gov't and ppl know that it is in their best interests to stay out, not get in. This entire conversation again is a complete waste of time, because I don't think either side will be wiling or able to confront each other.

The US doesn't have to approach the Chinese coast to hit it.

Ah but let's be realistic here ok, the US has always had to couple her Tomahawk missiles with her massive aerial armada. TO merely have a Tomahawk attack against the Chinese is not going to win the war. The US was running low on them in Iraq I believe, and Iraq did not surrender due to the Tomahawk. The vast majority of the damage was from the good ole aeroplane. Yes you can inflict damage but not enough to change the face of war. Also the Chinese do have defenses against the missiles, so revise the importance and impact of the Tomahawk. This is not flat Iraq either, it's rugged Fuijian.

You only asked if Americans would support a lengthy war.

Did Americans support Vietnam really?

And China likes its trade status with the US.

Visa Versa, be under no illusions Spyke the US is not in a very powerful position vis-a-vis China at this moment in time.

I think you've got it backwards. The US can find another peasant filled country to ship its jobs out to, whereas China needs those jobs to keep that huge population economically content.

No I know I don't have it backwards you don't know what you are saying. Firstly the Americans have hundreds of billions of $invested in China. You simply cannot pull out, it would take a great deal of time and effort. Secondly no nation can compete with China in terms of wages, workers, and benefits. Then the US depends on nations like China to fund her budget deficit, if China stops buy American bonds, you better find a new buyer, in that case good luck. You are in trade deficit with the Chinese remember that, you can't reasonably expect to weather a loss of$11 billion/month in trade with China. Wal-Mart goes bankrupt because she has no suppliers, simple, 1 million jobs gone. You are playing a very dangerous game indeed, and it's not China who will suffer. Remember China if need be is still a communist state, and can restart and reinvest in her plants to hire ppl, also the Chinese ppl will be behind their gov't so economics will be secondary. Also Europeans, Japanese, etc still have jobs in there as well and they aren't at war with China.

Again, anything is possible. The US might be forced to make a choice in such a situation.

Then Taipei will be mini-Beijing soon enough.

I think you're seriously over-estimating Chinese sub capabilities and under-estimating Taiwan's superior ASW capabilities.

All I said is that the Chinese would be near Taiwanese harbours, I didn't even mention the Taiwanese yet.

China may have the numbers in ships, but Taiwan has a far superior navy.

Far superior? LOL! ok you don't know what is going on in China do you?

The Chinese subs will stay close to home in case enemy surface ships approach, because that is the only place they can be effective.

Indeed that is the whole point, you are finally getting it.

They won't of course,

meaning those Chinese subs are inconsequential.

Eventually surely, at first no.

Of course, Beijing might care if the US response is to unleash its Tomahawks in response.

That's the threat of escalation btwn the US/China, I know the US will attack the Chinese with Tomi's but it would only increase the tensions.

I'm seriously doubting the Chinese' ability to deter such an attack.

China's whole premise is to even have a threat to deter in the first place. The Chinese will try to get the American CVGB ASAP if possible. If the Chinese can successfully carry out an attack with Su-30MK's armed to the teeth with Krypton’s, and AA-11's for defense with J-11's providing BVR, and the F-6's giving the US a headache the defenses will be defeated. It would be a complete mess.

And it's estimated it will take the Chinese a minimum of 18-20 months to replenish their missile force once its spent.

Source? What type of missile? Too broad...

Tomahawks will soften the defenses up, destroy airfields, destroy command and communications, at which point it will be easier for those F/A-18s.

Again it's the numbers, and the Chinese will most likely have the most important assets underground. Also here we are assuming a fully loaded F-18 can make it to the Chinese coast without being IFR-ed on the Eastern side of the Island. More then advanced warning for the Chinese to send up their J-7's lol.

If this thing gets serious, I would expect the Air Force to bring its Stealth aircraft over into the theater.

Uh lala Stealth, the fallacious barrier of protection. The modern SAM systems the Chinese have can detect stealth, so uh lala.

You're assuming. But if they are not enough, they will at least soften the defenses for air power.

If they know where they are...

I agree that you've turned a simple analogy into an absurd side argument that has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

This is where the argument is wasteful and stupid, I already said give it up.

I would hardly call it trapped. She doesn't have to send the CV into the strait. She has plenty of other lethal surface ships that can do that.

Ok don't send the CV into the strait make it easier for the Chinese to get rid of your destroyers, have it your way.

And I won't even comment on the insurance company remark.

...tongue in cheek is lost here.

If you think that laying off the east coast of Taiwan means the strait is out of a CVBG's battle zone, then I don't know what to say.

I never it was, you are inserting words into my mouth. What I said was that the Chinese would have a far easier time do their dirty work and keeping air superiority against the Americans if they are on the Eastern side of the island. The Americans as you even conceded will be such a big factor if they hang around the East.

Are you being serious?

The Tet offensive was a military failure for the Vietnamese, but it changed the course of the war in their favor. Tear down the figureheads and the war goes on your favour. Get rid of an American carrier I don't know how Americans will deal with that. War is nothing more then a state of mind.

Then why mention nukes at all in your argument?

Why not? I am simply stating a reality of Chinese forces. Saying don't forget is not tantamount to saying the Chinese are going to use it.

Then don't hold your breath. I feel no more inclined to track down my source than you do.

I don't have to do anything, you contested my source you prove him wrong.

Yet you did just that. You linked to a poster on another message board. What kind of source is that?

Completely irrelevant you took the source seriously, thus you put some value into it. So ask yourself the latter question not me.

No, you linked him over here, even though he provided no link to a credible source in his post.

Yet I have no reason not to believe him.

See. I can play this stupid game as long as you can.

Here you degenerate Spyke into a simpleton.

The Zaslon being the best long ranged radar on board a fighter.

I'm sure for Taiwan too. They aren't exactly sitting on their hands. Neither is the US military, for that matter.

Yes but the growth in Chinese defence spending is red hot, also they are sucking up Russian arms and developing their own Aegis class ships now.

Which means what? Most engagements have winners and losers, yet both planned to win. Are you saying war planning is irrelevant?

I see u don't like historic analogies either, this is why I avoid doing it.

Sorry if you don't like it, but I gave you a credible source.

It is the only source that there is, I want to see supporting evidence. No where have I seen this, Janes doesn’t even mention it.

This latest bit of propoganda is being brought to us by Sciforums own version of Baghdad Bob, Comrade nico.

An ad hom which substitutes for no argumentation, I hope you don't surrender again like this. This is exactly why I don’t even take you seriously some times.

20. ### Carnuthi dontRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
547
The chinese would not be able to take out the E-2s. AEGIS, CAP, etc would curtail any effort, even with en masse attacks. To engage American fighters, the F-6/J-11ss would have to fly through Taiwan and the US's naval air defenses, and if they went around, they would need additional fuel, meaning less armament, thus the US would actually have more of an advantage operating from their carriers. Not to mention the advantage Taiwanese pilots would have. No doubt that any air attack from the chinese mainland would lead to a multitude of tomahawks being launched to destroy airfields, so even if the 200+ Chinese Fighters take out 20-50 American planes, they would have no place to land

Next carrier and replacement aircraft from Japan step up = instance American air superiority.
That all depends on the amount of forsight both sides have however, which is as a given, impossible to determine.

soo....go study! test on friday...but dont neglect your RL algebra

so whats with the whole China will fight argument on page 1? Couldnt you have stated this earlier and ended 4 days of quotes, cut and pastes, and very small print?

not all wars are made equal nico. this isnt like iraq so i dont think that is a fair comparison. We're not trying to win a war in this case, but to deny Chinese attacks, and with the number of tomahawks vs the efficiency of any anti-air system, there would be no problem. Theres always the potential use of Tomahawk EMP bomb which spit out spools of carbon filaments to short out power lines-electromagnetic pulses etc(used as early as GW1), you cant have air defenses without electricity =) about the Tercom system you are wrong...it was designed to follow the terrain based on stored map references, that means the more landmarks the better. In Iraq it would actually be more difficult for Tercom to hit the target. Then theres the GPS which makes things even easier.

im not sure this is a valid comparison

India's population will pass Chinas in about 20 years... As for pulling out of China, it would ideed take great effort, which would be a result of any hostilities with China. China in the end WILL suffer the worst. Particularly with her transition from a communist state which she is NO Longer to socialism.

bah san francisco is already mini beijing =) just a joke to lighten to mood in these dark times of war :m:

in an argument you dont believe in you certainly seemed to have planned some things out, as you seem to be holding some cards

though quantity has a quality all its own, the taiwanese technological advantage tips the balance in their favor, analysts agree, its a fact ( Toronto's own! Kids in the Hall/best sketch comedy ever reference)

it wouldnt even be close. The CVBG+Tawanese air force+fighters from foreign bases would knock them out cold. This isnt an overnight thing, by the time hostilities seem imminent forces around the pacific rim would be on alert, and i doubt there would be only one CVBG.

are they going to have space factories as well? i dont know what you are inventing in the god-state of China but they are far from omnipotent. Underground facilities of any worth are still vulnerable and are quite expensive. Plus The F-18E has increased range and the distance to the mainland isnt far.

which of course they will because of satellites

do keep in mind that the United States spends more money on their military than the entire world Combined, and that their technological innovations are not static in comparison to a hypothetical Chinese AEGIS

edit* as an additon, i would question the desire of the chinese in fujian province to launch missiles at taiwan without dissent or some type of sabotage in their midst, 75% of Taiwans population are descended from the Fujian province, where most of China's IRBMs are stationed.

Last edited: Mar 12, 2004
21. ### Stokes PennwaltNuke them from orbit.Registered Senior Member

Messages:
1,503
Preliminary indicators are that the Lanzhou class will have a 3D radar with a mechanically scanning height finder in it, rather than a completely fixed emitter like the AN/SPY-1D used aboard USN AEGIS combatants. This is interesting because it is likely diagnostic of a lack of computers capable of processing electronically scanned radar inputs. To keep it short, electronically scanning radar lobes, as is done with the SPY-1 series, requires some pretty powerful computers to do. The calculations necessary to scan the skies at random locations, addressing over 27,000 parasitic sub-emitters randomly, is difficult. Even moreso when you consider that it's also frequency agile to make it hard to jam.

Phased array radars are not new or that difficult to slap together, but frequency-agile fixed emitter parasitic antennas are. That the Lanzhou class has thus far been observed with mechanically scanned height finders goes to show that the PLAN lacks the computing hardware to make it an equivalent to the USN's SPY.

Computing power is the crux of what makes an AEGIS suite. Not the radar, not the missiles. Those are nice, but ancillary. So until the Chinese can get their hands on the kind of computers that make American AEGIS what it is, they're not going to have it. That's also something Russia can't give them, since they never got that far either.

22. ### CounslerCoffeeRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
4,997
People, start getting along. This is an internet forum. It's not a day-care center, and I'm not a baby sitter. If you can't act civilized, on an internet forum, then there is no hope for humanity.

23. ### Carnuthi dontRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
547
obviously you havent had quite enough caffeine =)