China’s Plan to Beat U.S.: Missiles, Missiles and More Missiles

[Stormweaver]

I don't think China is relying exclusively on missiles to fight its wars though missiles obviously have their advantages. One Ticonderoga-class cruiser is worth more than $1 billion and probably as much as $3 billion each while one Chinese missile is probably worth only $1 million each. So it is cost effective to trade 1,000 missiles for one Tigonderoga. Even if 1 DF-21D cost $10 million, it is still cost effective to trade 100 DF-21D for 1 Ticonderoga cruiser. But I think even with just 5 DF-21D it is enough to incapacitate or even sink 1 Ticonderoga cruiser. There are some 20 to 25 Ticonderoga-class cruisers in service now. So if China deployed 200 DF-21D they'll be many more than enough to sink all Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

In the future I'm sure China will be deploying many stealth fighter/bombers such as the J-20 that could fly close in and fire off a barrage of anti-ship missiles that could easily incapacitate all Ticonderoga-class cruisers. And building more tanker planes is a certain thing for China to do. Once American ships can be stopped, American attack is basically stopped. American carriers cannot approach Chinese coasts. American cruisers cannot approach Chinese coasts to land troops. All shipping will be stopped by Chinese missiles or submarines. This means China can defend itself against Ameirican attack on the sea. And America cannot help Asian countries suc as Philippines or Vietnam.

Beyond another 10 years, and providing Chinese economy and technologies continue to surge ahead, China can not only develop more advanced weapons it can also deploy more weapons than the US. For example, if Chinese GDP is more than 80 trillion yuan then at 3 yuan per dollar this would be some $27 trillion and 50% bigger than the US GDP. This means that China can deploy 450 J-20 for each 300 F-22 or F-35. Or China can deploy 30 Aegis class cruiser for each 20 deployed by America. Or China can deploy 15 aircraft carriers for each 10 deployed by America. In which case China can not only defend itself against an American attack it can also take the war to anywhere in the world. Its current reliance on missiles is just an interim solution. It also fits with China's protrayal of itself as a defensive military. After all, other than ICBM China's missiles are all short range and cannot be used as offensive weapons.

The DF21 is a ballistic missile. Until it has a proven antiship role, as speculated, it is just another missile that can only hit static targets.


You would have to first locate the Cruiser and currently no one does maneuver warfare better than the US Navy. Not to mention their unsurpassed electronic warfare capability.


The Americans have been operating stealth platforms since the 1966, they will have new stealth platforms by the time there are sufficient J20s to counter the Raptor threat. Also note that the F22 is a mature aircraft and its crews have had lot longer to devise tactics and gain experience.


Finally, the Chinese economy is largely dependent on the US economy. The Soviets had no such relationship. The US spends around $700 billion on defence and its allies, hundreds of -billions- more. Can China really match that in the next 10 years?

 

[gambit]

I don't think China is relying exclusively on missiles to fight its wars though missiles obviously have their advantages. One Ticonderoga-class cruiser is worth more than $1 billion and probably as much as $3 billion each while one Chinese missile is probably worth only $1 million each. So it is cost effective to trade 1,000 missiles for one Tigonderoga. Even if 1 DF-21D cost $10 million, it is still cost effective to trade 100 DF-21D for 1 Ticonderoga cruiser. But I think even with just 5 DF-21D it is enough to incapacitate or even sink 1 Ticonderoga cruiser. There are some 20 to 25 Ticonderoga-class cruisers in service now. So if China deployed 200 DF-21D they'll be many more than enough to sink all Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

If you have to resort this comparative argument, that mean the DF-21D is not as good as claimed. Here is an illustration you probably never seen before...

The greater the amount of missiles required against a static target, the greater the system depart from the most desirable: High accuracy, High precision. Against a STATIC target.

Against a DYNAMIC target, either you program individual warheads into a spread pattern like 'High accuracy, Low precision' or the DF-21D is that way already. The 'High accuracy, Low precision' spread pattern offer an increased odds, not guarantee, of a hit because the target's locations over time will be inside the projected CEP area. Either way, you increase your cost to destroy a single target. Finally, keep in mind that other than nuclear warheads, in a missile versus ship engagement, if the missile fail by just one meter, the ship win. The ship will keep track of these descending warheads and will maneuver to reduce the odds of a successful hit.

 

[Swatwolf]

The Americans have been training for decades for this particular scenario vis-a-vis the Soviets. And keep in mind that the Soviets were lot more dangerous then, than the Chinese are now.

BTW, the US did win a war in the Pacific, against an evenly matched Japanese empire. And it did it on all its own, with another war in the European theatre.

Is China willing to bombard US bases in sovereign countries? This would mean a declaration of war all over South Asia. Does this mean that China is willing to tangle with the Koreans and the Japanese, while being in simultaneous war with the Taiwanese and the Americans?
China does this and the logistics train problem solves itself.


Also, the manpower argument is a fallacy in my opinion. A pilot, a submariner or even an infantry officer takes years to mature and become effective, you cannot just hope to throw in new recruits in battle and expect victory.


Do you really think that NATO will not lend a hand if it becomes a war of attrition? Most of NATO is supported by the Americans.


All Carrier groups are protected by a screen of the most potent warships in human history, not to mention an air arm of atleast 90+ aircraft. All this plus god knows how many land based aircraft. They aren't as helpless as you may think.


You can lob ten thousand missiles at Taiwan, but until the first Chinese infantry boot hits the Taiwanese beaches, Taiwan will still be free. I am assuming that this would be the most logical flash point.


Also, a lot of strategic targets [dams, power-plants etc] will be hit by stealth platforms operating out of the continental US. No need for overseas bases.


Finally, the US has one of the most abundant pile of natural resources in the world. Canada, Mexico and other South American countries will pickup all the slack for resource supply and industrial capacity. Also, there will be trans Atlantic trade, China can never disrupt that. And US has been trading with the Europeans lot longer than the Chinese. It will hurt for a while sure, but these places were US trade partners before the Chinese took their place.

China on the other hand, is an export based economy and without its biggest customer, it would collapse. Losing the US, Japan, Korea, India and Europe all at once will play merry hell with the economy.

False argument, the Japanese were forced to attack America because of their resources being cut off by the Americans, as Japan was wholly dependent on resources from abroad, hence their expansionist policies, and wholly dependent on resources from abroad to support their military adventure, which means they were forced to take the assault to the American homeland, and lost precisely because of the chock points i mentioned before. When America rearms, there's nothing Japan could do to match American manpower. But this point is moot again with the advent of space and information technologies, and the advancement in technologies, during WW2 they were no guided missiles, submarines were far less effective, no anti satellite or anti access weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

 

[gambit]

False argument, the Japanese were forced to attack America because of their resources being cut off by the Americans, as Japan was wholly dependent on resources from abroad, hence their expansionist policies, and wholly dependent on resources from abroad to support their military adventure, which means they were forced to take the assault to the American homeland, and lost precisely because of the chock points i mentioned before. When America rearms, there's nothing Japan could do to match American manpower. But this point is moot again with the advent of space and information technologies, and the advancement in technologies, during WW2 they were no guided missiles, submarines were far less effective, no anti satellite or anti access weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

Forced? No, they felt compelled by their own reasoning. No one 'forced' Imperial Japan into anything. Might as well give them a pass on what they did to the rest of Asia. You can start by excusing them for Manchuria.

 

[Oldman1]

False argument, the Japanese were forced to attack America because of their resources being cut off by the Americans, as Japan was wholly dependent on resources from abroad, hence their expansionist policies, and wholly dependent on resources from abroad to support their military adventure, which means they were forced to take the assault to the American homeland, and lost precisely because of the chock points i mentioned before. When America rearms, there's nothing Japan could do to match American manpower. But this point is moot again with the advent of space and information technologies, and the advancement in technologies, during WW2 they were no guided missiles, submarines were far less effective, no anti satellite or anti access weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

Whose resources? It wasn't theirs to begin with. No different with oil in the ME. It ain't ours. They cut off the oil supply because of support for Israel, did the U.S. invaded them nope. Japan was ahead in carriers, powerful battleships, Japanese Zero planes and they had Asia to help them with their hunger for resources. The U.S. military was reduce to size because of the Great Depression while Japan was already at war with China.

 

[gambit]

Whose resources? It wasn't theirs to begin with. No different with oil in the ME. It ain't ours. They cut off the oil supply because of support for Israel, did the U.S. invaded them nope. Japan was ahead in carriers, powerful battleships, Japanese Zero planes and they had Asia to help them with their hunger for resources. The U.S. military was reduce to size because of the Great Depression while Japan was already at war with China.

Notice the attempt to rewrite history to make Imperial Japan a victim: '...their resources being cut off by the Americans...' as if the US had a blockade around the Japanese islands to deny the Japanese their due. The reality was that the American embargo, not a blockade, of the scrap steel and other resources was an attempt to influence atrocious Japanese behaviors in Asia, part of which was the plunder of other countries' resources back to Japan.

 

[Stormweaver]

False argument, the Japanese were forced to attack America because of their resources being cut off by the Americans, as Japan was wholly dependent on resources from abroad, hence their expansionist policies, and wholly dependent on resources from abroad to support their military adventure, which means they were forced to take the assault to the American homeland, and lost precisely because of the chock points i mentioned before. When America rearms, there's nothing Japan could do to match American manpower. But this point is moot again with the advent of space and information technologies, and the advancement in technologies, during WW2 they were no guided missiles, submarines were far less effective, no anti satellite or anti access weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

So Japan is the victim here? What they did to the Chinese was as reprehensible as it gets. No one forced them to kill -millions- of Chinese, Thai or Koreans. When someone invades multiple countries just because they cannot import goods, it is just a war of loot and plunder.



Then how about this, the British colonized Asia and Africa because they had a small island and needed resources. They were forced against their will by other countries that were rearming in Europe to seek resources for defending themselves. Maybe this argument should be read to someone who struggled for freedom against the British.

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

what wrong with missiles? iran and china are both developing their missile capability. the usa thinks just because they have more ships than china it makes them alot stronger..sighs any country can spend 1 trillion and make a large navy and airforce if they had the money..but has usa won any war? they just talk, they think they are powerful but in reality they only bully weak countries. they would never dare to start with countries like china and russia.

 

[Obambam]

what wrong with missiles? iran and china are both developing their missile capability. the usa thinks just because they have more ships than china it makes them alot stronger..sighs any country can spend 1 trillion and make a large navy and airforce if they had the money..but has usa won any war? they just talk, they think they are powerful but in reality they only bully weak countries. they would never dare to start with countries like china and russia.

Nothing wrong with missiles at all. It's a cheap deterrent. Much better than building and paying needlessly to service all the hardware and equipments. Personally I feel the day where we have to fight ship for ship or plane for plane it drawing to a close. Just imagine for every ship sunk, how many men, weapons and ammunitions onboard will be taken down with it? It's more effective and cost productive this way. Moreover China have always stressed to be defensive in nature, so there is no need to emphasize too much projection capability, we are not going out to invade anywhere. Projection would be needed only for the security of the sea lanes to secure the in-out of goods.

 

[Luftwaffe]

I love the guy who said the US would run out of resources. The US has more land, and it is full of resources (we haven't been exploiting it for thousands of years)

Time to exploit it since your economy is going down down.
Reminds me of the greed for more land when British threw you back where you belonged 1812 its still rattles you people.

 

[Zabaniyah]

False argument, the Japanese were forced to attack America because of their resources being cut off by the Americans, as Japan was wholly dependent on resources from abroad, hence their expansionist policies, and wholly dependent on resources from abroad to support their military adventure, which means they were forced to take the assault to the American homeland, and lost precisely because of the chock points i mentioned before. When America rearms, there's nothing Japan could do to match American manpower. But this point is moot again with the advent of space and information technologies, and the advancement in technologies, during WW2 they were no guided missiles, submarines were far less effective, no anti satellite or anti access weapons or other weapons of mass destruction.

Seems like Imperial Japanese style Colonialism didn't work out. I mean Jesus, they slaughtered people like animals. However, similarly can be said about the other European powers in the past.

 

[Peter]

China's Plan to Beat U.S. with Missiles, Missiles and more Missiles!? Plan to beat this ...

China's Plan to Beat U.S. must be considering this News - U.S. is using electronic warfare to attack in waves

EA-18 Growler jets have been deployed to Libya.
Instead of bombs, they carry an array of radars, antennas and high-tech gear to thwart enemy air-defense systems.

Roar in the roaring | WAREYE

 

[NiceGuy]

China's Plan to Beat U.S. with Missiles, Missiles and more Missiles!? Plan to beat this ...

China's Plan to Beat U.S. must be considering this News - U.S. is using electronic warfare to attack in waves

EA-18 Growler jets have been deployed to Libya.
Instead of bombs, they carry an array of radars, antennas and high-tech gear to thwart enemy air-defense systems.

Roar in the roaring | WAREYE

Can any missile in the world shoot her dow ??

 

[Peter]

Can any missile in the world shoot her dow ??

Ask the Chineses!

As far as I know, more than 5000 air-stike missions successfully in Lybia recently without losing a plane due to the aid of EA-18 Growler.

This is the U.S. Navy in 2007 Boeing delivered to the “Super Hornet” after “Growler,” the first time in combat operations, it is clear that the operational environment Libya very suitable for “Growler” battlefield debut. U.S. does not meet the “Growler” The current operational effectiveness, is stepping up development of next-generation jammer, this new jammer not only to the past, the other jamming equipment as radar and communications jamming, but also in its direct network plant into the virus, and even make the opponent’s command system completely paralyzed.

 

[NiceGuy]

Ask the Chineses!

As far as I know, more than 5000 air-stike missions successfully in Lybia recently without losing a plane due to the aid of EA-18 Growler.

How about Russia S-400 bro ??Can it be paralyzed ??