US B-52 bombers fly close to Guangdong coast

[淼淼De微笑]

If china decide to recapture Taiwan by force one day,It will have considered US/JP interference.
and be confident to win the war. Two bomber can not scare China.

 

[Place Of Space]

If china decide to recapture Taiwan by force one day,It will have considered US/JP interference.
and be confident to win the war. Two bomber can not scare China.

US / JP has no legal base for interferring in the civil war. In this case, American interference is just possible and very risky.

 

[gambit]

US / JP has no legal base for interferring in the civil war. In this case, American interference is just possible and very risky.

Then what was the LEGAL basis for Chinese interests and meddling in Viet Nam after WW II?

 

[Nan Yang]

What assets do China have that can detect and engage B-52s 2000 km from the Chinese coast? Over-the-horizon radars have neither the resolution or the tracking capability to provide a firing solution to an offshore destroyer or fighters.



Sure, but US defenses on Guam and other Pacific islands are specifically meant to deal with such threats. BMD radars and US satellites would easily detect any IR signature coming from a Chinese ballistic missile launch and give the THAAD, SM-3, or Patriot batteries plenty of time to formulate a response.



I suggest that you put your emotions aside and go through my post again with a bit more scrutiny and attention to the points presented there.

US actually has few asset that can penetrate China's integrated air defense.

 

[Jlaw]

Are you seriously a Canadian? I've never read a more stupid post than this.
If what you say and you believe it to be true. Canada should appoint you as The Ministry of National Defence.

We already have a carpet head MoD.

 

[S10]

Then it will take US a couple days longer to render it useless.


Of course we are aware that China is TRYING to monitor US.


By the time the PLA see it, it will be too late. Sure, we would probably be bloodied, but you WILL be defeated. Guess which is worse?

This is the constant problem for you guys on this forum -- lack of respect for history.

This is a military oriented forum, which means as a participating member, you should put mind to the military side of history. But you guys have not. You think that just because you post lots and lots of pictures of shiny new toys and cite a lot of numbers, you know what you are talking about or that you 'analyzed' when all you did was circularly affirmed your own biases.

The current version -- not generation -- of the PLA have no ties to its past. Am not talking about institutions or names. Every organization have a core mission and its execution of that core mission defines it and provides intellectual, psychological, moral, and even emotional continuity to later generations of it. The core of a military, ANY military, is warfare. You can cite the art of warfare, the skills of warfare, or the instruments of warfare. But all of those falls under the general heading of warfare. For any organization, the lack of experience in its core mission is always a negative. For the military, it is contradictory in the sense you train for war and yet hope that it never come. So you train in ways that would take you to as close to real warfare as much as possible.

For decades, your PLA deviated from its core mission as evident by its commercial interests. Your generals and admirals were, and many still ARE, essentially businessmen playing soldiers and sailors. The maximum useful term of service is approximately 30 yrs when a person, enlisted or officer, are able to contribute to the core mission, but usually that time of contribution is about 20 yrs when the physical rigors of service and time takes it toll on the body and the person is readied for a less stressful change. That means your PLA have had 3 generations of businessmen playing soldiers and sailors instead of focusing on the arts, skills, and instruments of warfare. It is no exaggeration when I said that the current PLA have no ties to its past. That is why I say the 'version' of the PLA, and not a generation because the word 'generation' implies continuity. Like father to son.

What I learned in Professional Military Education (PME) stayed with me after my service. I am a member of the Air Force Association. I am an Old Crow. I keep up with military news in general and of US airpower in specifics. In the context of the theme of this forum, you guys are nothing to me. None of you in this forum ever served so you do not know what it is like to have this kind of devotion. To you, the military is a video game. To me, and a few other Americans on this forum, it is very much a lifestyle, even if we are no long on active duty. My support for my military is real. Your 'support' for the PLA is as shallow as a puddle of piss, as in the Trump-speak: Fake News.

This version of the PLA is struggling with everything that should defines it. You do not need a Ph.D in History to see it. Just one yr will suffice. It has no arts or skills to use the shiny instruments of warfare in its hands and is struggling to learn new arts and skills. No wonder you NEED bad news about US to take your mind away from the current state of the PLA.

So in the harsh examination light of history, when compare the PLA that is led by businessmen against the US military led by combat experienced warriors, you think you can win? Of course you would think so. You have no choice. It is actually an embarrassment for you to be forced to think so.

You seem to live in a fantasy world where advanced sensors and network centric warfare is only available to US, while all others are stuck in 1960's. In your own little bubble, all foes will simply be defeated at the mere presence of US military. You claim a background of military service (if true, they take all kinds eh?), and yet you seem to be a relic of an era that have long past. You even managed to get the part about PLA commercial interest wrong, as officers in the PLA had been banned from involvement in such activities for two whole decades. Entire generation of NCOs and officers have been born and raised since them. Either Jim Mattis is wrong, or you're off your meds again.


WASHINGTON — Countering China’s rapidly expanding military and an increasingly aggressive Russia are now the U.S. military’s top national security priorities, outpacing the threat of terrorism, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said Friday. He said competition with those adversaries has threatened America’s military advantage around the world.


Laying out a broad new strategy for the Defense Department, Mattis warned that all aspects of the military’s competitive warfighting edge have eroded.
http://www.columbian.com/news/2018/jan/20/mattis-says-u-s-military-losing-its-edge/

You better pray second island chain holds for another decade, because your forces in the first island chain is effectively dead meat in case of conflict. Give it another 15 years, and China will be able to fight you on equal footing anywhere in Western Pacific. This ain't 1991 boy.

Please enlighten us as to how exactly a terrestrial imaging satellite would be able to detect, track, & coordinate kinetic solutions against a group of B-52 aircraft. I suggest that you review your own sources and arguments before formulating a response.

The same thing goes for your point on long-range radars. What type of radars does China have that can track a target from 2000-3000 km away and still have the resolution needed to deal with aircraft-sized targets at high speed? The sea- and land-based air surveillance radars specifically designed to detect aircraft & missiles have a range of 400-500 km, whereas the Chinese OTH radars (the only systems capable of tracking targets at 1000+ km) will not have the sufficient resolution or processing power to deal with aircraft.

You need to stop posting irrelevant links and actually name a few systems that have the capabilities you speak of. Not only would the Chinese have trouble finding a group of B-52s a few thousand kilometers from the Chinese coast, but they would also have to contend with a barrage of low-observable terrain-hugging cruise missiles.

You seem to have trouble understanding that long range OTH are meant for early warning and work as part of the IADS. It does not need to provide targeting solution, but rather warn of the presence of hostile targets in coordination with other assets. And yes, OTHR is capable of tracking of aircrafts, especially one as large as B-52.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a474069.pdf

Perhaps it is time for you to do a little reading instead.

 

[Akasa]

You seem to have trouble understanding that long range OTH are meant for early warning and work as part of the IADS. It does not need to provide targeting solution, but rather warn of the presence of hostile targets in coordination with other assets. And yes, OTHR is capable of tracking of aircrafts, especially one as large as B-52.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a474069.pdf

Perhaps it is time for you to do a little reading instead.

You need to read your own sources before telling others to do the same. The PDF that you've linked clearly mentions that the OTH radars along the Chinese coast that are capable of tracking aircraft can do so at ranges out to 300-400 km, and that the only system that could detect aircraft formations at supra-thousand-km ranges are the OTH backscatter systems employed by the United States (to ward off Soviet bomber attacks).

 

[S10]

You need to read your own sources before telling others to do the same. The PDF that you've linked clearly mentions that the OTH radars along the Chinese coast that are capable of tracking aircraft can do so at ranges out to 300-400 km, and that the only system that could detect aircraft formations at supra-thousand-km ranges are the OTH backscatter systems employed by the United States (to ward off Soviet bomber attacks).

You either need to visit an optometrist or take a Grade 10 English course. Perhaps both are needed. I gave you a link and you still can't figure it out. You're actually dumber than that selfie obsessed cuck in your profile.

Hint: China, skywave

 

[Akasa]

You either need to visit an optometrist or take a Grade 10 English course. Perhaps both are needed. I gave you a link and you still can't figure it out. You're actually dumber than that selfie obsessed cuck in your profile.

Hint: China, skywave

I suggest that you leave your emotions at the door and actually read through the very source that you claim validates your entire argument. Do everybody here a favor and point out exactly where it is stated that the Chinese backscatter radar is capable of tracking aircraft at 1000+ km ranges.

 

[S10]

I suggest that you leave your emotions at the door and actually read through the very source that you claim validates your entire argument. Do everybody here a favor and point out exactly where it is stated that the Chinese backscatter radar is capable of tracking aircraft at 1000+ km ranges.

I just gave you the keywords from that article, where it clearly states the operating range of the radar. Logically speaking, are you stupid or are you really stupid?

Page 22, since you are incapable of searching. I wonder how you brush your teeth and put your socks on with such limited number of brain cells.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a474069.pdf

Edit: You know what? I'm just gonna attach a picture since I doubt you have the capacity to find the info even when I gave you the page number.

Here is a little gem in Chinese. China was already capable of tracking aircraft with such radar at 2000km in 1998, and two entire decades have passed. Do us a favor. Crawl back into whatever intellectually deficient hole you came out from and stay there. You're about as intelligent as that cuck in your profile.

1982年包养浩、焦培南主持研制成功我国第一部“脉冲体制天波超视距试验雷达”（112-1雷达），成功地在强杂波中检测到900~1500km飞机目标，是我国成为独立地掌握这项技术的第三个国家。该雷达获1985年国家科技进步二等奖。1998年研制成功的我国第一部“调频连续波体制天波超视距试验雷达系统”，成功检测到近2000km的飞机目标并独立形成多批目标航迹。该雷达的关键技术已达到当今国际同类雷达系统的先进技术水平。1999年1月试验雷达系统通过国家鉴定。

 

[Akasa]

I just gave you the keywords from that article, where it clearly states the operating range of the radar. Logically speaking, are you stupid or are you really stupid?

Page 22, since you are incapable of searching. I wonder how you brush your teeth and put your socks on with such limited number of brain cells.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a474069.pdf

Edit: You know what? I'm just gonna attach a picture since I doubt you have the capacity to find the info even when I gave you the page number.

Here is a little gem in Chinese. China was already capable of tracking aircraft with such radar at 2000km in 1998, and two entire decades have passed. Do us a favor. Crawl back into whatever intellectually deficient hole you came out from and stay there. You're about as intelligent as that cuck in your profile.

Let me ask you again, since you seem incapable of comprehending my previous question: where in the page does it say that the OTH-backscatter radar is capable of tracking aircraft at supra-thousand kilometer ranges?

Let me help you: here is a definition of an aircraft. But again, it's not like you're going to bother learning something new today, right?

And please provide a source for the Chinese claim, as I've done a reverse search using the text you've provided and got nothing but Chinese wiki-type sources. Don't you find it ironic that a system capable of tracking aircraft at those alleged ranges was not even mentioned in the very source you provided?

 

[S10]

Let me ask you again, since you seem incapable of comprehending my previous question: where in the page does it say that the OTH-backscatter radar is capable of tracking aircraft at supra-thousand kilometer ranges?

Let me help you: here is a definition of an aircraft. But again, it's not like you're going to bother learning something new today, right?

And please provide a source for the Chinese claim, as I've done a reverse search using the text you've provided and got nothing but Chinese wiki-type sources. Don't you find it ironic that a system capable of tracking aircraft at those alleged ranges was not even mentioned in the very source you provided?

还要狡辩？真不要脸。I even attached the picture and gave you the page number.

There is a line between entertaining stupidity and annoying stupidity, and you have crossed it. You were provided with sources that clearly stated the range of the skywave radar, which you were provided with the keywords and page number backing my claim. Despite all of that, you're still here trying to muddy the water with your non-sense. I'm going to leave the source here below. Come back in a few years when you learned to read. Maybe you'd be mildly entertaining rather than an annoyance.

对牛弹琴，中文什么意思懂不？算了，就当我免费给你这傻子上节课，教你怎么做人。

我国1982年包养浩、焦培南主持研制成功我国第一部“脉冲体制天波超视距试验雷达”（112-1雷达），成功地在强杂波中检测到900~1500km飞机目标，是我国成为独立地掌握这项技术的第三个国家。该雷达获1985年国家科技进步二等奖。1998年研制成功的我国第一部“调频连续波体制天波超视距试验雷达系统”，成功检测到近2000km的飞机目标并独立形成多批目标航迹。该雷达的关键技术已达到当今国际同类雷达系统的先进技术水平。1999年1月试验雷达系统通过国家鉴定。

http://wap.eastday.com/node2/node3/n403/u1ai589092_t72.html

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Zu...KHSa7BzUQ6AEIJzAA#v=onepage&q=天波雷达 飞机&f=false

 

[Oldman1]

Heh a pair of B-52s won't make it within 500km of Chinese coast during wartime without being intercepted. Long range radars can probably spot the huge targets from a thousand kilometers away. This is purely a symbolic gesture with little tactical value.


Same can be said of US bases in the first and second island chains, where they will be subjected to a barrage land-based of medium and intermediate ballistic missiles. That's not to mention cruise missiles launched from surface ships, submarines and bombers. You'd have to be a total moron to think US can eliminate Chinese air defences efficiently without suffering catastrophic losses. Serbian air defences held out for more than a month under the combined might of NATO bombardment, and they're a fraction of China's capabilities.

Serbian air defense didn't held out for more than a month. Hardly defended for 78 straight days of bombing. Don't underestimate what B-52 bombers can do with 20 cruise missiles alone. The U.S. has always been planning to bomb the Soviet Union since the days of the Cold War. You saw what happened to Iraq considered back then the most advanced air defense systems in the world. Sure China is different but that don't mean we can't defeat it.

 

[Yingluck]

When USA flying object come close to China airspace, they are committing suicide -- in particular B52, a big and slow target.

 

[Oldman1]

If china decide to recapture Taiwan by force one day,It will have considered US/JP interference.
and be confident to win the war. Two bomber can not scare China.

2 bombers is just training. Not a full scale assault and not at war. That I guarantee. 2 bombers, 20 missiles. Sure thats nothing. 50 bombers, 1,000 missiles, well then you got something to worry about.

When USA flying object come close to China airspace, they are committing suicide -- in particular B52, a big and slow target.

Well then Chinese bombers are committing suicide then being big and slow targets?