What's new

China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier

Status
Not open for further replies.
Definitely China has the capability to sink - but only the first CBG because it has the weapons nd more importantly the element of surprise.
But once that is done then China will be sunk...make no mistake abt it..because it is the stated policy of US that an attack on its CBG is equal to a nuclear attack on its mainland nd do u think US will have any qualms at all in launching a massive retaliatory on PRC..?

How can US retaliate China in a massive way? Nukes?
US stealth bombers are not invincible to China's SAM networks. All US bases as far as to Guam could be hit by Chinese missiles. How can US gather its forces while we are watching?

China is preparing her military defence against a worst enemy. It's certainly not India, so to speak.
 
.
As long as the war over Taiwan doesn't turn nuclear, I believe that Mainland China will ultimately prevail in the war of attrition. Let's face it, Mainland China wants the island a lot more than the U.S. Also, Taiwan is 100 miles off Mainland China's coast. The U.S. is thousands of miles away. Logistically, China has a huge advantage.

Therein lies the problem. How do you stop the U.S. from intervening without sinking her carriers? If you sink American carriers with 5,000 to 6,000 personnel on board then what are the chances that the U.S. won't go nuclear? The U.S. Naval Institute (i.e. USNI) publications are already warning China that the U.S. will go nuclear. The USNI is communicating to China that its advanced ASBMs are verboten (i.e. forbidden).

Anyway, here is the latest RAND Corporation study on a China-U.S. Taiwan war.

Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War | Danger Room | Wired.com

"Think Tank: China Beats U.S. in Simulated Taiwan Air War

* By David Axe Email Author
* August 5, 2009 |

In 2000, the influential think tank RAND Corporation crunched some numbers regarding a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan, and concluded that “any near-term Chinese attempt to invade Taiwan would likely be a very bloody affair with a significant probability of failure” — especially if the U.S. raced to the island nation’s defense. But nine years later, a new, much-updated edition of the RAND study found that China’s improved air and missile forces “represent clear and impending dangers to the defense of Taiwan,” whether or not the U.S. is involved.

“A credible case can be made that the air war for Taiwan could essentially be over before much of the Blue [American and allied] air force has even fired a shot,” the monograph notes.

It’s a potentially controversial assertion — and one that might have fueled the (now-resolved) debate over whether the U.S. Air Force should buy more F-22s. RAND found that F-22s flying from the relative safety of Guam could be surprisingly effective in blunting a Chinese air assault.

Still, with or without F-22s, the Chinese air and missile force “dramatically outnumbers [U.S. and Taiwanese] forces and wins the war of attrition,” according to Steve Trimble’s summary of the RAND study. The Chinese lose 241 jets on the first day of fighting, while the U.S. and Taiwan together lose 147, but this lopsided kill ratio doesn’t matter, when China has hundreds more planes to put into the air. Moreover, most of the U.S. and Taiwanese planes lost, are destroyed on the ground by barrages of Chinese ballistic missiles. (It’s not for no reason that the U.S. Air Force is working hard to win new friends, each with juicy new bases, all over the Pacific.)

Before you panic, though, consider the many caveats RAND sneaks into the study — especially in the footnotes.

In light of how close the Chinese and Taiwanese economies have grown in the last decade, a Chinese invasion would amount to Beijing “shooting itself in the foot.” “China’s IT sector, in particular, could be devastated.” Never mind that the U.S. and Chinese economies are also irrevocably interdependent.

What’s more, despite focusing on the air battle for most of the report’s 185 pages, RAND admits that dogfighting can’t conquer an island. “Ultimately, there is only one military course of action that guarantees China control of Taiwan: a successful invasion and occupation.” An amphibious assault across the 200-mile-wide Taiwan Strait would represent “by far the most challenging military operation ever undertaken” by the Chinese. The entire Chinese navy could only carry 31,000 troops in the first wave — a number RAND admits would “almost certainly not” suffice, “assuming that Taiwan’s government, military, and populace chose to put up a fight.” It would take just one successful attack by Taiwan’s missile boats, or one day’s sorties by the island’s attack choppers, to incapacitate the whole Chinese assault fleet.

For that matter, RAND admits that successful attacks by just four U.S. B-1B bombers could also disable the invasion fleet. But let’s assume China does sweep the sky of U.S. and Taiwanese planes, bombers included — and even manages to take out Taiwan’s missile boats and choppers. The RAND study glosses over, in a single footnote, the force that would really play the biggest role in halting a Chinese invasion: the U.S. Navy’s huge, lethal fleet of nuclear submarines."
 
Last edited:
.
a very potent weapon for sinking carriers are J-6 and J-7 converted drones with anti-ship missile programming. these already exist, and are essentially costless 19 ton cruise missiles that can fly at mach 2 considering that over 3000 of these planes were produced and just take up space in storage.

it all depends on how badly the US wants to fight. 3000 J-6 drones in addition to any number of cruise missiles and aircraft WILL take out any number of carrier battle groups and all associated ships. the US can escape this threat any time however by just staying out of range, the burden of starting a war is on the US and no one else and china reserves the right to retaliate to any pre-emptive attack by any power.

the rand study is also very optimistic for taiwan because it assumes that 1 taiwanese F-16 can take out multiple (more than 1) mainland J-11, Su-30 or J-10. This is a fatal assumption again resting from the American idea that numeric inferiority means technological superiority: there is no such correlation, and many forces have absolute superiority in both qualitative and quantitative fields on their enemies such as USN vs. Iraq and PLAAF vs. Taiwan. There is no plane in Taiwan that can come close to the J-10 or Su-30. In fact their media estimates to destroy 1 Su-30, it would take 4.5 taiwanese aircraft http://bbs.tiexue.net/post2_4203061_1.html
 
.
a very potent weapon for sinking carriers are J-6 and J-7 converted drones with anti-ship missile programming. these already exist, and are essentially costless 19 ton cruise missiles that can fly at mach 2 considering that over 3000 of these planes were produced and just take up space in storage.

it all depends on how badly the US wants to fight. 3000 J-6 drones in addition to any number of cruise missiles and aircraft WILL take out any number of carrier battle groups and all associated ships. the US can escape this threat any time however by just staying out of range, the burden of starting a war is on the US and no one else and china reserves the right to retaliate to any pre-emptive attack by any power.

There are not as many "drones" as 3000.
 
.
if all J-6 (now retired) are converted to drones, then yes there can be 3000 of them.
 
.
China's Blitzkrieg on U.S. Carrier. I'm just laughing my A$$ off just reading the fanboy's posts. China may have become a strong nation but not as strong as US Navy. China has no clue to what extend US Navies capabilities are.
 
.
Folks...

This is not new. This subject have been posted before. The technicalities questioned. This is just another 'fanboy' tactic of letting the previous debates, on the same subject, be pushed into the recesses of the forum listings, let the subject lay low for a while, then resurrect it again as if it is something new and shocking.

For American claims, the counter argument is that the US have never faced an equal enemy, therefore any claims made by US should be suspect. But this argument seemingly is never applied to China. Whatever the Chinese government claimed, even when it is clearly speculative, the 'fanboys' suspend their critical thinking skills and many times cross the line separating the laws of physics and fantasy.
 
.
Folks...

This is not new. This subject have been posted before. The technicalities questioned. This is just another 'fanboy' tactic of letting the previous debates, on the same subject, be pushed into the recesses of the forum listings, let the subject lay low for a while, then resurrect it again as if it is something new and shocking.

For American claims, the counter argument is that the US have never faced an equal enemy, therefore any claims made by US should be suspect. But this argument seemingly is never applied to China. Whatever the Chinese government claimed, even when it is clearly speculative, the 'fanboys' suspend their critical thinking skills and many times cross the line separating the laws of physics and fantasy.

Read the previous twenty-one posts by other members of this forum. You are the only one complaining. If you have nothing constructive to add, please visit some other thread. Thank you.
 
.
Read the previous twenty-one posts by other members of this forum. You are the only one complaining. If you have nothing constructive to add, please visit some other thread. Thank you.
Pointing out the fallacies of the arguments is being constructive. Questioning the technicalities of this speculative weapon is being constructive. Or are you saying that only Chinese are allowed to do these things in other threads?
 
.
Pointing out the fallacies of the arguments is being constructive. Questioning the technicalities of this speculative weapon is being constructive. Or are you saying that only Chinese are allowed to do these things in other threads?

Moorkh and other members have raised legitimate points. You have repeatedly engaged in personal attacks by making accusations of being a "fanboy." That is not professional and does not contribute to the discussion.

This thread contains information that members and guests of this forum may consider interesting. The position of the U.S. Naval Institute is clearly expressed. The RAND Corporation study regarding the military situation over the Taiwan Straits is also interesting. The newslinks demonstrating that U.S. nuclear threats against Mainland China date back to the Korean War and thereafter are also of potential interest.

Though you may not find any of this information interesting, you do not have the right to disparage me as a "fanboy" in your first two posts (see posts #4 and #22). I would greatly appreciated it if you would extend a little courtesy to me. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
.
Let me address the point that China's ASBM is "speculative" by an alleged military professional.

Firstly, why would the U.S. Naval Institute address China's ASBM in at least three separate publications if it was a mere flight of fantasy? Obviously, the U.S. Naval Institute believes that China's ASBM is a dangerous and credible threat.

Secondly, what are the technical challenges of developing an ASBM in comparison to China's technological capabilities? An aircraft carrier is roughly four acres. That means it's really big, can carry about 100 planes, and has a relatively long runway. An aircraft carrier can move at a slow 35 knots (65 km/h) along the 2-dimensional surface of the ocean.

In comparison, let's examine the complex challenge of destroying a weather satellite. China's FY-1C was approximately the size of a small refrigerator with dimensions of 4 feet x 4 feet x 4 feet. It was traveling at 8 km/s or 22,000 miles/hour at more than 500 miles above the Earth in a 3-dimensional spatial orbit. China's ASAT technology successfully destroyed the tiny and fast-moving orbiting satellite. Most people reasonably conclude that China's demonstrated technological prowess in its ASAT test is in excess of the far-simpler requirements of hitting a slow-moving man-made island (i.e. aircraft carrier).

Furthermore, China has also demonstrated that it can successfully hit a fast-moving missile with its mid-course ground-based interceptor (i.e. GBI).

Given China's ASAT and GBI capabilities, I think it is reasonable for the U.S. Naval Institute to conclude that China probably has a functional ASBM and to treat it as a serious threat. Let's listen to the experts discuss China's ASBM in the following CNN newsclip.



2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The 2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test was conducted by China on January 11, 2007. A Chinese weather satellite — the FY-1C polar orbit satellite of the Fengyun series, at an altitude of 865 kilometres (537 mi), with a mass of 750 kg[1] — was destroyed by a kinetic kill vehicle traveling with a speed of 8 km/s in the opposite direction[2] (see Head-on engagement). It was launched with a multistage solid-fuel missile from Xichang Satellite Launch Center or nearby.

Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine first reported the test. The report was confirmed on January 18, 2007 by a United States National Security Council (NSC) spokesman.[3]"

Breaking News, China finishes its first Missile Defense Test!!|China Military Power Mashup

"Jan.11 (China Military News reporting by Johnathan Weng) – Beijing local time PM 9:00 January 11 on 2010, Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs announces that China has successfully finished a ground-Based midcourse missile interception test in the territory of China."

Aircraft carrier - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Aircraft take off to the front, into the wind, and land from the rear. Carriers steam at speed, for example up to 35 knots (65 km/h), into the wind during"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Besides BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.
 
.
Besides BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.

What is a 'BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers"'
sounds scary :what:..
 
.
What is a 'BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers"'
sounds scary :what:..

"Originally Posted by Sanchez
Besides BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers."

My understanding of the sentence:

Besides BMs (i.e. ballistic missiles), scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.

or

Besides ballistic missiles, scramjet powered "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.
 
.
"Originally Posted by Sanchez
Besides BMs scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers."

My understanding of the sentence:

Besides BMs (i.e. ballistic missiles), scramjet thrusted "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.

or

Besides ballistic missiles, scramjet powered "bombers" will be another potential threat to carriers.

What are scramjet powered "bombers"?
 
.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom