Quantity has quality all it's own. Haven't you heard about that?
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/795954-quantity-has-a-quality-all-its-own
So it is your own theory that number not a consideration which is nonsense here. You must have miss interpreted WW2 cases.
Quantity mean shit if you have not had the quality.
You seems to quote a lot of weird stuff, what next? Are you going to say Chinese is superior race and quote Adolf Hilter's Mein Kempt?
Why should China use Indian ports?
I've told you: China's Navy have 18 Replenishment Ships in their Battle Fleet, including 2 Type 901 Fast Replenishment ships + Djibouti military base. That may not be enough for total warfare but would be enough for skirmish in mediterenian sea or north sea.
How many ship Chinese is using to fight a war in French coast then? Just 2? That's because that's probably the number that 18 ships can carry support for from China.
18 Replenishment ship is very, VERY little in number, it may give you around 40,000 (assuming each ship is Suply class ship which is around the same size as type 901) tons of supply with that 18.
Let me give you a for instant.
You need 1 tons of food PER DAY to feed 500 sailor assuming each sailor have 3 meals and eat 2 Kilogram of food per day, I personally eat more than 2 Kgs of food per day (that's around 2 destroyer worth of Sailor)
You need 10 tons of supply PER DAY to supply a ship.
You need around 30 tons of oil in around 7 days.
US have around 200 Sealift Ship, not counting the Merchant Navy (Which would be number in around 500), US navy can current only support 3 Carrier fleet which is 30 surface combatant ship (3 Carrier, 6 Cruiser, 15 destroyer, 6 Submarine), and US have bases all over the world, how would 18 supply ship goes? Triple that number and you still cannot support a meaning fleet that far ahead of your own soil. According to the loss of power curve, you lose 80% of your total combat power to just goes that far to fight.
So how do you transit thru Indian Ocean without stopping in ports all the way around India?
You are hilarious
Didn't you ask me : "a way China can go around Indian Ocean without resupply in India"?
Once i told you Djibouti military base, then you are asking what it has to do with the fighting in france coast?
First, Djibouti is ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE INDIAN OCEAN, you need a resupply trip between Hainan to Dijibouti? Where can you port if you are in War?
Secondly, Djibouti is not YOUR BASE, in war, that will most likely close off.
And you are dumb
That is still fine.
As I told you, chinese navy ammunitions + 18 replenishment ships will be enough for skirmish warfare.
your 18 replenishment is magic that can Teleport back to Chinese port in an instant?
18 replenishment ship mean shit. US have around 200 (700 if you also count the Merchant Navy) and their number is no more than 30 ship. How many Chinese ship 18 replenishment ship can support?
Britt still could win the Malvinas war against Argentina, the war that was 15,000 km away from England.
Tell me why Britt could sustain her navy in the such a distant war while China wont?
First of all, Argentina and Britain is
NOT PEER TO PEER. Argentina uses second hand US ship (General Belgrano is an US WW2 relic cruiser), and the best ship in Argentina procession is British made Type-42 destroyer. I would not say the two navy is at the same class.
Second of all, look at how the naval portion of the war turn out.
Argentina Lost 1 surface combat ship and 1 submarine (Gen Belgrano and Santa Fe)
The Royal Navy lost 2 Destroyer (Type 42) and 2 Frigate (Type 21)
I don't care how you slice it, in term of tonnage (Argentina lost around 10000 tons while RN lost around 13000 tons), technology (Type-42 was state of the art then, Type 21 is not but still good in Falkland, while both Cruiser and Submarine Argentina lost is 40 years old WW2 relic) or number (4 vs 2) British fleet was DEFEATED TACTICALLY at sea.
Thirdly, Falkland war is a ground war, an amphibious intrusion. Naval war does not play an important role to the whole campaign, as long as the RN landed the troop needed to recapture Falkland, that's their part, and the RN did that, despite heavy lost (
If you don't know Military History, don't open your mouth, son.
With what the B-52H will destroy Chinese Navy?
Does US has equivalent to YJ-12, the supersonic anti ship cruise missile deployed already?
For short-range anti-ship attacks, the H-6K carries the potent YJ-12 supersonic anti-ship missile. “The YJ-12 poses a number of a number of security concerns for U.S. naval forces in the Pacific and is considered the ‘most dangerous anti-ship missile China has produced thus far,’” according the Missile Defense Advocacy group. “
The danger posed by the YJ-12 comes from its range of 400 km, making it the longest-ranged ACBM ever engineered, and its ability to travel at high rates of speed (up to Mach 3). This makes it difficult for Aegis Combat Systems and SM-2 surface-to-air missiles that protect U.S. carrier strike groups to identify and engage the missile since it can be launched beyond their engagement ranges, which greatly reduces the U.S. Navy’s time to react.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-h-6k-the-old-bomber-could-sink-the-us-navy-25913
You never heard of JASSM-ER?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158_JASSM
Because the technology was not mature yet at that time, hence US choosed subsonic path.
But now US is interested and have her own supersonic anti ship missile, which is SM-6
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-sink-battleships-us-navys-anti-ship-sm-6-missile-15436
However SM-6 is not deployed yet, and inferior to Chinese counterparts in some important feature.
The U.S. Standard Missile-6 (
SM-6) ASCM variant, which may be deployed before 2020, has less range than its Chinese counterparts.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anders...-missile-failure-and-preemption/#544d5742638f
It was not considered, not immature, it cannot be immature when it was not developed. There are several flaw in the kill chain, mainly ISR portion, which no one can still solve it today, that is the reason why they are infavor of shorter range cruise missile.
DF-whatever series have a series flaw, limited range is one of the issue, carrier can deploy their fighter any range with aerial refuelling, which mean the range limit on missile is a dead point before it start. Secondly, no country as of now can achieve real time target acquisition, which depending on Chinese ISTAR lag, the carrier target DF-whatever were meant to hit would be Kilometre away from its original target, I cannot tell you what the US ISTAR lag time, but I can tell you is this, 10 minutes lag time would have mean your missile will missed the carrier by 30 kilometer. Also, Land base missile launcher is susceptible to sub launch cruise missile.
SM-6 is not a dedicated ASBM, it was created as AAM. Whatever they are used for is USN business, that does not mean it was a good idea. 88mm flak was not intend to fight tank when the german made it, but does it mean it cannot be good at it?
They are wonder because of their speed (supersonic or even hypersonic) and maneuverability. This is coming from the analysis of the military experts including from western analyst.
Your ignorance doesn't mean somebody else need to head check
What you need is just to educate your self:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-h-6k-the-old-bomber-could-sink-the-us-navy-25913
https://www.forbes.com/sites/anders...-missile-failure-and-preemption/#544d5742638f
Hahahaha
First of all, if they are high speed, they cannot manoeuvre (You spell manoeuvre wrong by the way) This is physic's physical limits (
@gambit). So, unless you claim Chinese missile defiled physics, it cannot be both high speed and manoeuvrable. Try driving a car over 150 km/h and turn, and see how manoeuvrable that car get, and if you was not killed, come back and tell me.
AND LOL at your quote. So 2 dude who I don't know and have no apparent credential say these are a threat and I need to think it was a threat? You are honestly either quite stupid or quite naïve or both to believe anything you read, or selectively believe anything you heard.
If H-6K with Cj-12 is a problem, then wouldn't B-52 with JASSM-ER does the same with Chinese navy? The difference is, USN have more B-52 than H-6K. So in a war, US kills PLAN, Chinese kill the Pacific Fleet, who will win at the end? That would be the US, because they still have Atlantic Fleet (2th Fleet) Med Fleet (5th Fleet) and 4th Fleetin AFRCOM and which Chinese have no Navy left.
This is honestly quite stupid to say one weapon can kill all. You can go believe your wonder weapon if you want. But keep it to yourself, otherwise I am going to laugh at you everytime you bring this up
If the war happen in SCS, the chance for US and her European alliance to win is not big, with reasons explained above: chinese numerous submarines + destroyers + frigates + regiments of H-6K + DF-21D & DF-26 + big carrier (artificial islands equipped with fighters, SAMs, and anti access weapons).
Explain to me, how?
You obliviously have not heard of "Defeat in detail" as a concept.
The same things what the Japanese Admiral told their emperor during WW2. But in reality, in a war like this, US don't fight to capture all the island at once. Their commander will choose an island that is furthermost, concentrate it forces to attack it. Then turn it into a FOB and use it to attack another island.
How many plane and missile can you put in 1 island? no more than 140 fighters. That's 4 airfield worth. US/NATO can simply focus on one island first, then the other, then the other, then the other until all the island are capture. That is called Island Hopping Campaign. In a island war, it extremely
UNFAVORED the defender because of the lacking of Mobility, while the attack can come at you at any angle and you are limited by the geography. That is Military Tactics, and I think people like you would never understand.
Denial is not smart argument. What you need to do is give plausible explanation supported by facts/data that those chinese anti access weapons are total failure.
There are enough evidence that YJ-12 is supersonic and hit target, and evidence accuracy and reliability of Chinese missile tech.
Hope also is not a good argument. Come back to me when your DF-Whatever or CJ-whatever have actually killed a ship. Then we can talk, in the meantime...……
HAHAHAHA
