FOSM PLAN strategy and tactics

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[crobato]

You appear to think that saturation fire is the only conceptual method of carrying out an attack or a bombardment. I would welcome a discussion but nevertheless, this topic is already way off-topic.

Just like to point like every other post you have made, you have refused to look at the other's person's posting and just make assumption based on what you think is correct. For example, you cited again B-52 when the reports I mentioned clearly indicated that the B-52 was not capable of firing PGMs at the point in time in GW-1. You might stop to think why did they include that capability post GW-1.

Actually, anything can deliver a PGM (LGB) so long as someone in the ground is doing the targeting. B-52s even at that time, were capable of firing cruise missiles also.

It still doesn't change the argument that the B-52's were called in to do carpet bombing.

If you think the WS-2 cannot achieve saturation fire, I would normally suggest looking at the one and only video clip of the WS-2 test firing but you'd probably just ignore the post just like you have the rest.

I saw that and why don't you compare that with an MLRS using smaller, but more numerous rockets.

Let me add something about the Luda with MLRS. The PLAN is still upgrading some Ludas actually, only retiring the oldest ones, but these are being upgraded with new AshMs, satcoms and HQ-7s, not with the MLRS which only one had.

You mentioned pilot hours and how it varies and yet you forget you quoted a single pilot's hours and claim that this is for the entire PLAAF and that this is evidence for PLAAF reducing its training post 2004/05 period. Just like how you can insist Sagarika missiles that can't reach China are actually aimed at China. lol.

Read again, I mentioned the PLAAF 1st Division commander talking to General Pace.

Sagarika can reach China because they are in a moving platform. You don't need Sagarika for Pakistan which is right next door. There is not too many nuclear powers in the Asian region, is there? By your logic, actually, the JL-2's is not meant for the US because alone without any transportation, the JL-2's alone won't reach the US.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[crobato]

Again, must I remind you that your basic premise is that China is incapable of artillery support or aircraft support. You claim PGMs are expensive and I highlighted LGBs and are you now claim B-52s firing ALCMs are the only means of fire support?

Accordingly, are you claiming now that China doesn't have the capability to carpet bomb based on your premise above?

I have already highlighted the difference between tomahawks and $10k LGBs. If you can't tell the difference, too bad.

And you know how much dumb bombs would cost?

In fact, the PLAAF cannot carpet bomb the same extent as the USAF can. A lot of the older H-6s have been retired, and the new H-6s have been more like ALCM and AshM carriers. The JH-7A can deliver dumb munitions, but not like the way a big jet can.

So according to you, a larger calibre MLRS cannot provide fire support. That's something new to me. That explains the unitary warheads for the HIMARs then. Boy, the Americans must be dumb if you right.

**Super** large caliber MLRS like the WS-2 has their disadvantages when it comes to saturation fire. Don't deny it. The bigger they are, the less missiles you can put on a single TEL. Everything has their compromises.

HIMARS is 32km. WS-2 is boasting 200km. Maybe you fail to understand there is going to be a relationship between range and rocket size, and the bigger you are, the less you can carry.

Look at the video clip you posted. How many missiles are there? 6.

The PLA's 300mm MLRS has about 12. The 122mm has about 40.

Must I remind you that your basic premise is that moving platforms can't move? eg 052Cs stationed in Shanghai means cannot target Taiwan? lol.

I did not claim that Indian SSBNs cannot sail to China. If you read my first post on the subject (which I know you did not) is that in order to hit China, Indian SSBNs will have to traverse the Malaccan straits into the South China Sea. The plausibility of that happening is minimal when considering the range of the Sagarika, the introduction of nuke arms into littoral states etc is prohibitive. When considering that land based IRBMs such as the Agni can achieve the same with far less risk, it is inconsistent to suggest that the Sagarikas are actually targeted at China since that is patently impossible as Indian SSBNs aren't stationed in the South China sea.

The point is I find you hypocritical claiming that Sagarikas can't be aimed at China because they don't have the reach, while JL-2s are aimed at USA even when they don't have the reach.

By your argument, it is inconsistent that the JL-2 are actually targeted at the US because the 094s have not conducted enough (if any) patrols in the ocean between Guam and Hawaii. You can further argue that transversing to that part of the ocean entails much greater risk, due to the SSNs being positioned in Guam. As for passing through territorial waters, the 094s still have to pass through the nations that make up the first island chain.

Get some consistency in your argument.

Go ahead and repeat all the others. You can't answer them when you don't have an answer. And please I find it quite laughable that you claim I misquoted the CDF on the Houbei numbers when I can bring out a text that makes you the one who misquoted (and the results are so far too.)

Let me add some more things, with the Yuting IIs and the 071 LPD apparently being assigned to the "power projection" South Sea Fleet---farther away from Taiwan---as opposed to the ESF where Taiwan is a direct responsibility.

 

[kato]

HIMARS is 32km. WS-2 is boasting 200km.

HIMARS with ATACMS Block IA QRU = 290 km range. And guided.

I actually think he meant that by "unitary warhead" for HIMARS. Unitary missile with cluster warhead (HIMARS mounts one pack of six 227mm rockets or one ATACMS, M270 mounts two such packs).