US aircraft carrier group deployed for ‘routine patrols’ in S. China Sea

[gambit]

You compare Japan in pacific WW2, with China in South China Sea in this modern times.
like compare apple to orange

Not...

Those bombs were delivered from 42,000 ft. We can cripple those islands in the first day and sever any connection to China in the second.

 

[jhungary]

For Red Bold :

Read my post first boy, before reply.
That's you, who LACKING ON BOTH STRATEGIC AND TACTICAL MILITARY KNOWLEDGE AND MILITARY HISTORY knowledge

You compare Japan in pacific WW2, with China in South China Sea in this modern times.
like compare apple to orange

Look at map once more again, China's Military Base in Spratly Islands is very close between each other.
200 Km range is Close enough to give support from Naval Support, Air Support, Close enough for China's Surface-to-Air Missiles, Air-to-Surface Missiles, and Surface-to-Surface Missiles. If someone DARE to attack one of that Island.

View attachment 379191
View attachment 379192





Everyone can Claim he is Superman, Batman, or Donald Duck in Internet.
But, in real Life. He is just a **ser
It's always fun to see people like that.

Do you understand what is NON-CONTINOUS?

These Chinese island is not supporting each other because they were broken up by island controlled by other country, they are close, so the heck what? If you have a Vietnamese island in between 2 Chinese island, I don't really care how close it was, you cannot mutually support them as you cannot SAIL THRU OR FLY THRU THE VIETNAMESE ISLAND without permission.

the rest of your post is just meh (as it have shown you have no understand on how island hopping campaign works)......basically it is not worth any replying

 

[gambit]

A war between China and US will most likely end up in a stalemate. China will lose most of its maritime claims but the US won't be able to invade the Mainland.

We do not need to invade the Chinese mainland. This is about control of the South China Sea. All we want is to deny Chinese control of the area. The PLA is essentially useless in this.

If you say destroying anti access weapon by attacking China mainland, then what will happen will be the other way round, there will be many tolls in US (fiighter, bomber, drone) due to anti access weapon like HQ-9

Here is from ONE Air Force perspective...

Assuming all diplomatic measures are exhausted and no peaceful solution found, what could happen is that the US Navy will withdraw from the SCS just enough to be out of harm's way. All civilian shipping will thru the SCS will cease. Any surface activities remains will be assumed hostile -- Chinese. By this time, SCS underwater will be under US Navy control as Chinese diesel subs are not capable so either they are in ports or sunk by US nuclear subs.

For the US Air Force, we will stress the Chinese mainland air defense by continuously spoofing their radar nets. Low altitude high subsonic Bones will penetrate Chinese airspace at will, putting Chinese air defense on constant alert. In the meantime, we will be collecting SIGINT data as to how they operate under provocations. Mobile does not mean unlimited relocation. Each launcher are limited by their vehicle load rating as to how fast they can move on regular roads and how far. That mean as each time they are alerted by their radar controllers to prepare to launch, they must stop and perform pre-launch sequences, then they must draw down again to relocate. We do not need to have them actually launch. We just need to put them on the edge for as long AS WE PLEASE. Because each launcher are limited as to how much they can relocate, that mean the US can statistically quantify their locations, which are much more limited on land than ships can relocate at sea.

Clue for you, son. We did it against the Iraqis and they were on land.

Throughout this time, global economy will continue as shipping will take alternate routes in lieu of the SCS path. But for China, her economy will suffer because now she must divert much of her wealth towards what she perceives as defending the South China Sea because now she has effectively declare the area as hers.

It would be cheaper for US to fly our Bones to stress mainland Chinese air defense than it is for China to continue being on constant war footing with no end in sight.

 

[Daniel808]

Do you understand what is NON-CONTINOUS?

These Chinese island is not supporting each other because they were broken up by island controlled by other country, they are close, so the heck what? If you have a Vietnamese island in between 2 Chinese island, I don't really care how close it was, you cannot mutually support them as you cannot SAIL THRU OR FLY THRU THE VIETNAMESE ISLAND without permission.

the rest of your post is just meh (as it have shown you have no understand on how island hopping campaign works)......basically it is not worth any replying

Who say that Islands is Continous.


In Your Assumption, Vietnamese post between Meiji Island and Yongshu Island have something that can Destroy Chinese Missile launched from Meiji Island Base Targeting American LSTs when they do Landing Operation in Yongshu Island?

BIG NO, boy

You always talk with your OPINION, but I am talk with FACTS and DATA
That's why we will never meet the Point

My advice for you, my little boy.
Look at the maps once more again.

look at him guys, lol
@cnleio @Shotgunner51 @sweetgrape @Jlaw

 

[jhungary]

Who say that Islands is Continous.


In Your Assumption, Vietnamese post between Meiji Island and Yongshu Island have something that can Destroy Chinese Missile launched from Meiji Island Base Targeting American LSTs when they do Landing Operation in Yongshu Island?

BIG NO, boy

You always talk with your OPINION, but I am talk with FACTS and DATA
That's why we will never meet the Point

My advice for you, my little boy.
Look at the maps once more again.

View attachment 379198

look at him, lol
@cnleio @Shotgunner51 @sweetgrape @Jlaw

you do know under international law, you cannot fire a missile or any projectile (not even a single bullet) over international border over a foreign country, this is the same as you cannot fly your military jet over international border over someone else country, which mean if you fire a missile over the Vietnamese, Taiwanese or Philippine own island without prior authorization or fly thru or navigate around these island own by a foreign country, that is an act of war.

They don't have things that can intercept the missile, they do have missile and artillery battery that can destroy the Chinese missile site tho. Does that bit clear to you? Not to mention if you do fire a missile or fly thru these island without authorization, you are declaring war to Taiwan, Vietnam and Philippine, they may actually allow US to use their island as a staging base and attack the Chinese island from there.

Unless you are claiming Chinese ballistic missile can bend every which way and avoid going into Philippine, Vietnam and Taiwan own island which is surrounding the Chinese island, you cannot fire a missile over their territories and not expecting to drag Taiwan, Vietnam or Philippine into a war.

Do you know what is the stuff that 4 inches above and inside your nose? Use it once in a while, it make you look less foolish.

 

[Daniel808]

you do know under international law, you cannot fire a missile or any projectile (not even a single bullet) over international border over a foreign country, this is the same as you cannot fly your military jet over international border over someone else country, which mean if you fire a missile over the Vietnamese, Taiwanese or Philippine own island without prior authorization or fly thru or navigate around these island own by a foreign country, that is an act of war.

They don't have things that can intercept the missile, they do have missile and artillery battery that can destroy the Chinese missile site tho. Does that bit clear to you? Not to mention if you do fire a missile or fly thru these island without authorization, you are declaring war to Taiwan, Vietnam and Philippine, they may actually allow US to use their island as a staging base and attack the Chinese island from there.

Unless you are claiming Chinese ballistic missile can bend every which way and avoid going into Philippine, Vietnam and Taiwan own island which is surrounding the Chinese island, you cannot fire a missile over their territories and not expecting to drag Taiwan, Vietnam or Philippine into a war.

Do you know what is the stuff that 4 inches above and inside your nose? Use it once in a while, it make you look less foolish.

International law is depends on the side, they view it.
from Chinese Side view, from American side view, from Germany side view, and many others.

That's small post between Meiji Island and Yongshu Island is Chinese Territory.
China doesn't need Authorization from other countries, to fly pass their own territory.

And Vietnamese Small post between Meiji Island and Yongshu Island doesn't have any weapon that can destroy Chinese missile launched from Meiji island Base targeting American LSTs do landing Operation in Yongshu Island.

That's the FACT.

by the way, because you bring Taiwan (ROC) in here, I just give you some DATA again.
PRC and ROC is on the same side, when it comes to South China Sea Issue.
you can ask some insight from our Taiwanese Chinese member in here @TaiShang


He is so Ignorant to face the truth guys. lol
@Shotgunner51 @cirr @Götterdämmerung @Beast

 

[jhungary]

International law is depends on the side, they view it.
from Chinese Side view, from American side view, from Germany side view, and many others.

That's small post between Meiji Island and Yongshu Island is Chinese Territory.
China doesn't need Authorization from other countries, to fly pass their own territory.

And Vietnamese Small post between Meiji Island and Yongshu Island doesn't have any weapon that can destroy Chinese missile launched from Meiji island Base targeting American LSTs do landing Operation in Yongshu Island.

That's the FACT.

by the way, because you bring Taiwan (ROC) in here, I just give you some DATA again.
PRC and ROC is on the same side, when it comes to South China Sea Issue.
you can ask some insight from our Taiwanese Chinese member in here @TaiShang


He is so Ignorant to face the truth guys. lol
@Shotgunner51 @cirr @Götterdämmerung @Beast

Well, if you believe so.

Again, what you believe and what it is two different things. You can believe whatever you want, but that's doesn't mean it is going to be the way you want.

And lol, Taiwan and China are on the same side? Maybe in PDF world. You need to go out and read some newspaper.

Tell me when you start doing it. Otherwise I have no intention to argue with your deranged mind about what you believe.

 

[antonius123]

You, along with many of people before you, missed one single point. Which defensive number superiority does not exist, as one simply rules show.

The point being, for the defender. You need to split your defense force so it would be able to defend all the borders within your country. otherwise your enemy can bypass undefended area and attack your defense from behind, flank or anywhere you are not expected to attack from. Which is how and why France lost that quick during the Battle of France in 1940, as they only focus their defense on Maginot Line but ignored the Ardennes.

If your country is appear a square shape, then you will need to defend the square equally at least (but can be weighted if there are BUND (Build Up Natural Defense) such as a river or cliff face or MMDL (Man Made Defense Line) Such as Maginot Line. Still, you need to position your troop and support element in that land to fend off possible attacks.

However, For an attackers, you only need to penetrate one line, and you will capture your objective. You can attack more than one line to draw off forces for the main attack, but for an attack, you do not need to attack all the defender defense.

Also, it's worth notice that for a continuous defense line, the attacker only need to attack a few point of the line, while the defender have to defend the whole length of the line to make the defensive works.

Now, what does that mean? This is a map of China.

View attachment 379146

You can see the Chinese coast line is not a straight line, also the internal border is not a straight line.

Now, let's say if I want to attack Beijing, and for this case, let's give some advantage to China and say I am going to attack via the coastline along Tianjin and Liaoning (in reality, i can attack from a further point and thus stretching the Chinese defense further, but in this case, we use a fix point)

For China to defend the city of Beijing, the first thing is very oblivious, you cannot fit 2 millions army, 1100 fighter craft all inside Beijing. That mean you will need to evenly distribute your force around the city and area surrounding Beijing. Which mean for China to successfully defend Beijing, China need to put force in or around the City of

1.)Liaoning Province
2.)Shandong Province
3.)Heike Province
4.)Beijing City

Let's say for argument sake, you only put force in these 4 provinces and city, you still diluted your force 4 times, just to protect one city. For the me, if I want to invade Beijing, I can land on any point at Liaoning to Shandong and then head to Heibe and then head to Beijing.

So in effect, even in this handicap scenario, China need to dilute her force 4 times, yet I can concentrate my force in one route. or two (I can land on both Shandong and Liaoning) and pin both defender down while i work my way into Beijing, and my force is unchanged, for example if I have 500 tanks and 400 fighter covering the landing on Shandong, i will have 500 tanks i can use on my Shandong offensive. However, if China have 2000 tanks and 1100 fighter for her disposal to defend Beijing, then according to force dilution, I am only facing 500 Chinese tank and 250-300 fighter that defend Shandong, given the defensive line is equally distributed (500 tanks for Liaoning, 500 tanks for Hebei and 500 tanks on Beijing). And it will take time to move defensive asset around, the time I can use to break thru your line, land reinforcement, or even engage a new offensive to further blogging down your troop concentration.

Now, imagine, I do not only have 1 objective, and I do not only have 1 route, that way I can further dilute the Chinese force where I kept my own force relatively intact, as I will always only have 1 spearhead, but China have to defend the whole line.

Yes, but there are basic and simple questions that you seem to ignore and need to answer at the first place:

=> How you can ensure that US could attack single Beijing city without being destroyed by Chinese defense system (HQ, J-10, J-11B, J-20, etc)?

=> From where you can fly fighters, bombers, drones, air refuelling tankers, etc? (Osan/Korea? Okinawa? Guam? Carriers nearby Chinese coastal?)

=> Don't you ever think that China may have the same or even greater chance to destroy Osan base, Okinawa base, Guam base instantly by sequence of DF-26 attacks or by her fighter bombers even before US ever has chance to fly their fighter and bombers?

=> How could JSF, F22, B2, B52 attack Beijing without help of GPS, in case US satellites are blinded/paralyzed by Chinese anti satellite weapons?

=> How could US Navy ensure their super carriers safety within 1500 km from Chinese coast, from Chinese numerous submarines, aegis destroyers (type 52), cruisers, DF-21D, DF-26, supersonic cruise missile, etc?

Even if US is successful to attack and destroy Beijing first, do you think US still have another same chance to destroy Liaoning, Shandong, Heike, etc? Don't you think China still have great potential to retaliate and destroy US bases even if Beijing has fallen? Remember China still have hundred modern fighters and hundreds missiles.

In fact, your "Split Theory" is ruining your own argument, because split defence system means if you don't destroy the whole defense system/bases spread all over China then you are giving China chance to retaliate very soon by destroying US bases and carriers. And China has bigger chance to destroy US bases than the other way round, because US will be outnumbered by far; remember it is war within the China territory where US need to make great effort to transport machine wars, logistic and supply thousands km away from US soil.

Again, it won't you are looking at a total number comparison, however, in reality, the whole US Air Force will not meet the whole Chinese Air Force in a single engagement. The game will be play via local superiority. You are looking at about 33.3% US casualty rate. given the tradition 3:1 defensive advantage ratio. That figure is given China and US is on par with technology

Also, you fail to discount the effectiveness of US Air Force for their Anti-SAM/Anti-Radar offensive capability. The so called Anti-A2/AD is created just to deal with Advance ADS. In reality, given the lacking of AWACS and ISTAR capability from China, the force is not network-centric and China is a big country, missing ISTAR and Networkcentric capability would mean the defense will be mounted less effectively.

Meaning? The actual Casualty rate is less than 33.3% estimate in reality.

I don't fail to consider the effectiveness of US offensive system, in fact here it is you who fail to consider the effectiveness of Chinese SAM/defence system against US fighters, drones, and bombers, and offensive system to retaliate.

Once US attack the partial Chinese defence system, then the rest of Chinese offensive system will have chance to retaliate and destroy all US bases and carriers nearby China from where the US fighter, drones and bombers departed. So your partial attack theory is against your own argument here.

US SAM is effective, but nobody in US military can ensure their effectiveness against DF-21D yet.

 

[gambit]

I dont fail to consider the effectiveness of US offensive system, in fact here it is you who fail to consider the effectiveness of Chinese SAM/defence system against US fighters, drones, and bombers, and offensive system to retaliate.

The problem for your argument is that the effectiveness of US offensive systems have been battle tested, not just hardware but also in concept, while the Chinese version is not.

 

[antonius123]

The problem for your argument is that the effectiveness of US offensive systems have been battle tested, not just hardware but also in concept, while the Chinese version is not.

LOL. Tested against Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. Not against Russia/China.

Remember, China is not Iraq/Afghanistan

 

[jhungary]

Yes, but there are basic and simple questions that you seem to ignore and need to answer at the first place:

=> How you can ensure that US could attack single Beijing city without being destroyed by Chinese defense system (HQ, J-10, J-11B, J-20, etc)?

The question is, how do you know which way the US is coming from?

You need to intercept and shoot down the US fighter, before that, you will need to know where they are coming from? China have a very big coast, which mean you need to spread thin the asset to cover all the coast, when your defense spread thin, you cannot concentrate your work, meaning you cannot concentrate your attack on the incoming US force.

=> From where you can fly fighters, bombers, drones, air refuelling tankers, etc? (Osan/Korea? Okinawa? Guam? Carriers nearby chinese coastal?)

Guam, Japan, South Korean if you want close range
Singapore, Diego Garcia which is out of Chinese DF-whatever range
Australia and Hawaii if you want to be totally out of Chinese reach

=> Dont you ever think that China may have the same or even greater chance to destroy Osan base, Okinawa base, Guam base instantly by sequence of DF-26 attacks even before US ever has chance to fly their fighter and bombers?

You do know average airfield repair take 6 hours to repair a runway to serviceable status. Combat engineer will fix a runway within 6 hours.

In a war between how long you can keep launching missile to keep those base out of commission and how quickly the ground engineer can fix the runway, the ground engineer will always win.

Let alone can DF-26 really be able to take out these airfield? Do bear in mind SLBM or IRBM does not just exist now, we have been fighting with our airfield in range of both IRBM and SLBM before, what make you think Chinese DF-26 or DF-21 is any better than Scud or Saber?

=> How could JSF, F22, B2, B52 attack Beijing without help of GPS, in case US satellites are blinded/paralyzed by Chinese anti satelite weapons?

first of all, you can never blinded US satellite completely, there are more than 3000 US satellite orbiting the world at any moment, to blind the US completely, you will need to take down at least 90% of those and in theory, if there are 5 satellite remaining in different LOS position on earth orbit, the GPS system can still be continue. Only a few of them the Chinese can reach, the other are in high orbit which is outside the ASBM range.

Yes, you may not be able to watch world series live during a Chinese-US war, but the military will still have their satellite.

Also, age of flight begin before GPS, how do people go where they want to go, bomb drop where they want to drop before 1990? Or did we not fight war with Air Force before GPS and not use bomb before GPS? Even without GPS, we have a lot of option. IRS, INS, Beam Riding, LATRIN POD and so on.

=> How could US Navy ensure their super carriers safety within 1500 km from Chinese coast, from chinese numerous submarines, aegis destroyers (type 52), cruisers, DF-21D, supersonic cruise missile, etc?

Why do US need to station their Carrier 1500km from Chinese Coast?
When their aircraft non-refuel operational range is 3000-4000 km away?

Also, how do you suppose the Chinese sub and Surface ship not being destroyed by US Navy to begin with?

Even if US is sucessfull to attack and destroy Beijing first, do you think US still have another same chance to destroy Liaoning, Shandong, Heike, etc? Dont you think China still have great potent to retaliate and destroy US bases even if Beijing has fallen? Remember China still have hundred modern fighters and hundreds missiles.

In fact, your "Split Theory" is ruining your own argument, because split defence system means if you dont destroy the whole defense system/bases spread all over China then you are giving China chance to retaliate very soon by destroying US bases and carriers. And China has bigger chance to destroy US bases than the other way round, because US will be outnumbered by far; remember it is war within the China teritory.

That is because you are still looking at the whole defense as a single thing.

You do not count the time for Chinese force to redeploy elsewhere to another area once the previous area have fallen. Your unit cannot teleport, your tank cannot appear in Beijing from heibe out of thin air. You need time to transport the tank from one location to another, and when you start transferring these asset, that is where they are more vulnerable.

In case of a defensive line is broken, it will take time for China to regroup and redeploy to a second or third defense line, but for the attacking US troop, they don't need to regroup as they are already in the same spot at the same area. Does that make sense to you?

I dont fail to consider the effectiveness of US offensive system, in fact here it is you who fail to consider the effectiveness of Chinese SAM/defence system against US fighters, drones, and bombers, and offensive system to retaliate.

Once US attack the partial Chinese defence system, then the rest of Chinese offensive system will have chance to retaliate and destroy all US bases and carriers nearby China from where the US fighter, drones and bombers departed. So your partial attack theory is against your own argument here.

You keep saying China can and will destroy this US carrier or that US base, but what you discounting is what if you don't? Or I can also say the US can destroy any defensive measure without giving a reason.

A war does not fight because you think or you say you are going to have to destroy this and that or what weapon you can use this or that and the enemy will be gone. In war, it is never going to be like that. Of course when we are talking about it, yes DF-21 IF THEY CAN OPERATE LIKE THEY CLAIM, it would be undefeatable, but can they work in what they original intent is one thing, how the US is going to tackle it is another.

You also failed to understand the whole battlefield management concept. You expect one part of Chinese defense will be able to engage another part of US invasion force. What if that part of the defense are also being engage to being with? Or is facing a possible invasion so they are going to have to blog down and cannot move?

You should go back and study how US win in Desert Strom and how they uses statics and mobile offensive edge to defeat the numerical superior Iraqi force. Also, don't buy into superweapon. Again, if they are really that good, do you think the American or Russian is stupid? If they are really that good, would Russian and American be already devoted enough resource into it? again, just because you make good missile which is better than US on paper does not mean they are wonder weapon, that just mean you have that, and the enemy don't think they need that. Or do you really think missile technology is really some rocket science that US have problem developing?

 

[gambit]

LOL. Tested againts Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. Not againts Russia/China.

Remember, China is not iraq/afghanistan

What make you think that just because China have newer weapons that make them invulnerable to tactics ? Because they have different letters and scarier names ?

By your own reasoning, the fact that China have not been battle tested AT ALL should be a warning. Instead, you cheered. But then, it will be Chinese blood that will be spilled, not yours. So what do you care ?

=> How could JSF, F22, B2, B52 attack Beijing without help of GPS, in case US satellites are blinded/paralyzed by Chinese anti satelite weapons?

Kid, when I was on the F-111, we planned our flights to Moscow without GPS. That skill is not abandoned.

 

[jhungary]

LOL. Tested againts Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. Not againts Russia/China.

Remember, China is not iraq/afghanistan

What is the different though?

Would an Iraqi or Afghani bullet hit you and you won't die? Would an Iraqi missile or Afghani RPG hit you and you will survive? but You will only die because of a Chinese bullet and your tank and APC only destroy if they got hit by a Chinese missile?

We are talking about how war is fought, equipment yes, they have their fail rate or their advantage or technological advancement too, but the use of equipment is always evolve around how you fight, not the other way around.

Have you been in war and fought the Iraqi and Afghani? And know they are absolutely shit? Are they really poor farmer in AKs? Do bear in mind, even an Ak, if they were given to different people, they will have different use, so can you really discount Iraqi and Afghani is not as the same league to the Chinese?

How about the US, Iran and Russia? Afghanistan have been in war with both US and Russian, are they rubbish too? So if the afghan and iraqi can withstand these operation, what do you think they are different then the Chinese? Or do you really think Chinese can do better?

buddy, you are talking about something you can't possibly know, and that, is a mistake.

 

[gambit]

He is so Ignorant to face the truth guys. lol
@Shotgunner51 @cirr @Götterdämmerung @Beast

Here is the truth...

The South China Sea is practically the worst environment for China to militarily challenge the US. The PLAN is nowhere as capable as the US Navy. Underwater will be ours. That means the PLAN will be severed from those islands and from being a contributor to the fight. Those untested DF-21Ds ? They cannot be used against subs.

US airpower, USAF and US Navy, will control the sky over the SCS. We do not need to fly over mainland China. Those untested DF-21Ds ? They are useless against airborne targets. As for those islands ? Once they are isolated from mainland China, they can be bombed into oblivion.

 

[kuge]

i lol about the presumptions on both sides...lol...