Nautilus said:First, russians wound not do something to hurt the US, even if China pays in gold. They would have too much to loose.Nautilus said:China would approach Russia in an attempt to negotiate some 'special exercises' to be conducted. Given enough incentives, Russia could be persuaded to put to sea (part of) their fleet of SSBN's and SSN's. Basically this is nothing but smoke and mirrors to divert attention. Worry some decision makers in the Pentagon and in turn some USN SSN's would be pre-occupied with shadowing these subs. Less SSN's available for ops in chinese waters.
Second, if 3 russian boats can leave port without problem, they should find themselves happy.
It is well known for years (since respl at sea exist actually).Nautilus said:A weakness in carrier ops is their dependency on RAS. Between 12 CBG's there are only four large Supply class replenishment ships (and a fleet of other less capable ships) in the USN. The Supply class had their Phalanx and SeaSparrow armament removed a couple of years back. They have a part civilian crew and recently have adopted a new doctrine by which these ships operate idependently from CGB's - essentially these ships ferry ammo, fuel and food between friendly harbours and CBG's. Sinking some of these ships would have a direct impact on US ability to sustain ops around Taiwan. Compared to a CBG these ships are lightly escorted if at all.
And they are not going to put their RAS in arms way. They will protect their assets, don't worry.
Not a prob here. US won't send their CVSG in the straight anyway.Nautilus said:Next, China would want to ensure the game is played by their rules (to an extend). For example, they could mine the southern and eastern areas around Taiwan. Obviously this would be picked up by american satellites which is the whole point of the exercise. As the ground invasion is in full progress, the USN would not have the time to clear the mines in time and hence have two options - a) stay away further from the shore effectively cutting down on the range of their jets or b) moving into the area not mined by China (north-east of Taiwan) which is a trap. It is close to chinese air bases and Taiwan is not in between the carrier and China as a buffer zone.
You don't make war without looses. CVSGs will come by waves until the war is finished. They may loose one, I doudt so though.Nautilus said:Direct attacks on the CBG would be drawn out, even though China would be interested to get it done with as quickly as possible to give Americans less time to repair damage and to wear out the crews. If at all, then it could only be tackled with a combined approach by masses of aircraft, submarines and during the final phase - surface units. The attrition rate would be extremely high.
China already has pu markers in the sea bottom to monitor the incomings. That is well known today. Rest is speculations.Nautilus said:For the Chinese some ideas could be worthwhile considering before all this starts. Firstly, installing a network much like SOSUS in the Yellow Sea and East China Sea to track US SSN's. Secondly, investments in american media as support for a war or lack thereof highly depends on the perception in the general american public. Also, the chinese navy would need to be build up considerably - something that is happening NOW! Chilling thought huh?
Sinking an Aircraft carrier
- Thread starter corsair7772
- Start date
- Status
Reality check:Nautilus said:
China is a continental power - she is not an intercontinental power, she does not have a blue water navy, and in real terms her intercontinental naval capability is way below UK, France, Germany, Brazil and Japan.
China fails the multiple P test of warfighting (there are 5 discrete tests)
The US has just fired a borer at a meteor in space - and hit the target. (subst borer with weapon and you see the inference) China has not done anything remotely similar - in fact she has not hit any of the space milestones achieved by Russia and the US in the 1960's. The US can track meteors, space debris and other assorted space junk and has done so for years - China cannot. Read into the lines about capability.
China has been dependant on acquiring technology via other sources and modifying them for local use - she has not demonstrated any independance of innovation. The JF17 is legacied to the Lavi and F-16, the Song is a modified Kilo, the 2208 is a stolen Australian cat design from 1998, the C series cruise missiles are Russian etc....
China has one coast - and that means that it is far easier to monitor traffic with satellites than a country like the US which has split coastlines. Think about it, the USAF has more military satellites in space than all other satellite users combined - and that ignores CIA/NSA/USN assets. At the peak of Russian power, they still did not have a fully functioning Glonass network - in fact it's only been considered for proper launch coverage (ie the min of 32-33 satellites) since India agreed to participate - how many satellites does China have up as part of one group? They've got less than Russia, arguably even India, France, Israel have greater resolution in their satellites than China.
If you're going to target a vessel, then you need persistence and saturation (as well as technological capability) to monitor then vector approp weapons systems to target - China does not have the footprint in any of the required disciplines to do that.
If the Russians, at the peak of their power, thought that at best they could maybe get 1/5th of all US CSF's in an allout conflict, then I find it hard to believe that China, with considerably less capability, and certainly far less capability at projection will achieve any of the requirements to win a war.
The US is geared to be able to fight mulitple conflicts on multiple fronts, it's a legacy of Adm Fishers "2 Powers" philosophy - China could not engage Taiwan and guarantee success, something she readily acknowledges. Assuming that a country that is lacking confidence on waging war on an island target less than 90kms away, and can't guarantee success speaks volumes for how they would cope in a real fast moving shooting war.
On forums, chinese kids, like american kids, like martian kids, become patriotic and tend to talk up capability. the reality is that the cold hard figures don't stack up for China - and won't stack up for close to 15 years. The US btw, won't operate in a vacuum.
Last edited:
At the very begin of my previous post I stated the chances were remote at best, I absolutely realize it would be very diffifult. However, what do you believe would happen if Taiwan declared independence in 1-2 years from now knowing that it only gets tougher the longer they wait?
If China didn't react within a reasonable time frame - it would look like they aren't going to do what they've threatening for years. It would make them look rather weak.
I am not an american nor chinese nor martian kid, I just see a possible conflict of interests! I am interest in defence and read up on it quite a bit (typical armchair general
) and I see some more simple facts, namely that China is expanding its military considerably and that the Chinese economy is doing extremely well whereas the American economy is doing very poor.
Also, consider where the Chinese military was 10 year ago and where it is now from a technology perspective. There are some countries in Europe which would love to lift the ban on arms exports to China. An attempt to change legislation was made this year but the Chinese pulled themselves a leg by introducing laws that would justify military means of Taiwan declared independence. Now they are talking about a 'delayed' lift of the ban in Brussels. So clearly, there are efforts being made to modernize their military. They want to buy systems to copy them.
Francois - your reply sounded like a typical american statement
gf - I do agree, I am just asking to consider the possibility
If China didn't react within a reasonable time frame - it would look like they aren't going to do what they've threatening for years. It would make them look rather weak.
I am not an american nor chinese nor martian kid, I just see a possible conflict of interests! I am interest in defence and read up on it quite a bit (typical armchair general
) and I see some more simple facts, namely that China is expanding its military considerably and that the Chinese economy is doing extremely well whereas the American economy is doing very poor.Also, consider where the Chinese military was 10 year ago and where it is now from a technology perspective. There are some countries in Europe which would love to lift the ban on arms exports to China. An attempt to change legislation was made this year but the Chinese pulled themselves a leg by introducing laws that would justify military means of Taiwan declared independence. Now they are talking about a 'delayed' lift of the ban in Brussels. So clearly, there are efforts being made to modernize their military. They want to buy systems to copy them.
Francois - your reply sounded like a typical american statement
gf - I do agree, I am just asking to consider the possibility
Last edited:
Naut, I am not american, but european (hence, caucasian). To give you a trick, my passport's country have similar 5 first letters then my name.Nautilus said:Francois - your reply sounded like a typical american statement
But, I am living 10,000km from Paris now (make a circle on your globe).
Anyway, I don't know how to take your statement. I am rather pro-European.
My resume states many years of engineering in both military and civilian industry (mainly aircraft, naval too), so I believe what I am talking about.
And I have access to data the most don't via the industrial channel that give me a good insight of what is running around the world.
And in the industry, we like to know what the others are doing.
Ehh bon jour mon ami! Ca va bien?
I believe in the principle that there is no such thing as a perfect system and that everything has a weakness.
For me it is not the point to prove that China would beat the USA! By no means... I just wonder what their best options would be if facing a carrier battle group.
gf - earlier you posted that China only posesses a brown water navy and wouldn't stand a chance on the open ocean. I totally agree but the East China Sea is effectively this brown water area the way I understand it. Presuming that China can maintain air superiority over the mainland, the carrier would be at a disadvantage the closer it gets to shore from a tactical perspective and at a disadvantage the further it stays away from the shore from a aviation perspective.
See, I didn't post this to be pro one side or the other. I actually considered to write my post in abstract terms (ie country A vs B) but I guess you can't take such a conflict out of its context.Francois said:
I believe in the principle that there is no such thing as a perfect system and that everything has a weakness.
For me it is not the point to prove that China would beat the USA! By no means... I just wonder what their best options would be if facing a carrier battle group.
gf - earlier you posted that China only posesses a brown water navy and wouldn't stand a chance on the open ocean. I totally agree but the East China Sea is effectively this brown water area the way I understand it. Presuming that China can maintain air superiority over the mainland, the carrier would be at a disadvantage the closer it gets to shore from a tactical perspective and at a disadvantage the further it stays away from the shore from a aviation perspective.
I think the big issue is that people focus on the US committing carriers early in the game - and thats just not how I see it.Nautilus said:
No CSF is going to be put in harms way without adequate support. There are easier and cheaper ways to land punches on China than by committing a CSF. The flight times for F-22's, F15's from various spots is 4hrs, standoff weapons from B2's, B1's and even B52's are well outside the reach of the PLAAF, and the USN has been sortying super taskforces (ie 6-7 CSF's) as a clear message as to what can happen if deployed. Even the Russians weren't confident about killing carriers - and they had far more launch platforms, and far more capable technology.
The US can see what China does every living moment of the day. They can programme and reroute satellites to their hearts content, then can effectively have a redundant interrogation presence there 24/7/365 - and all of those assets are way way way beyond the reach of any chinese system.
There are too many numerous examples of what not to do, Eilat, Stark, Cole etc...
Besides, what US President would standby and not respond with approp force as soon as a carrier was attacked? maybe a democrat (which is why China was pro-Clinton) - but certainly not a republican
I just don't see that the East China Sea is going to be the great naval "megido" that some others do.
Ok but then how are they stopping a chinese amphibious task force crossing over? TLAM's can be the answer to sink a large number of small to mid size ships transporting men and vehicles.
From what I know, CSF's are the standard first response the US comes up with. If they'd be reluctant to commit them in the East China Sea then there's gotta be something to China having a better position in this geographical area.
What are the closest land bases the US could operate from? South Korea?
From what I know, CSF's are the standard first response the US comes up with. If they'd be reluctant to commit them in the East China Sea then there's gotta be something to China having a better position in this geographical area.
What are the closest land bases the US could operate from? South Korea?
The Straits are a damocles sword, just as they see it as being am aquatic graveyard for large vessels, the same applies to any expeditionary force that attempts to cross it.Nautilus said:
The CSF's are the only things that people mention as they seem to be the obvious choice to get persistance of air on target. it's not the only option though.Nautilus said:
From the numbers I've seen they can have non USN aircraft on station within 4-7 hrs. They have the numbers to fill air space until the first CSF arrives on station within 7 days, and that CSF doesn't need to be on the westward side of Taiwan.Nautilus said:
They already have increased the number of AEGIS kitted skimmers normally based in Japan. IIRC they've now got an additional 3 on rotation.
If you include an ESG in the mix, then it means that all rotors can be offloaded to the ESG flag and the vacant parking taken up by more fixed wing combat aircraft. So any future CV(N) arrivals will be overpopulated with fixed wing combat aircraft. The DDG's and CG's can take on an extra helo each as an interim measure - and within a fleet it becomes less critical as more would be up flying ASW and picket duty.
and then there are the subs....
I never said that! In fact it'd be the most stupid thing to do. The position of choice for the US side would probably be the south east side of Taiwan. This puts the island in between the carrier and the mainland as a buffer zone with Taiwanese F16 and SAM's.Francois said:
If the US want to prevent China from taking the island, they have to do something about Chinese forces getting over the strait. Not a week later but while its actually happening. The targets are amphib ships of various sizes.
Japan and South Korea may be all good as a long range bomber base but they're a bit far for fighters and ground attack planes. Sure, can be air refueled but the transit takes time and pilots get tired.
As was stated before quite correctly, once China assembles a large force of Ships near Taiwan - this would be detected by sats and would allow the US to pre-position a CSF (or more) if only as deterrant.
What is a ESG?
Taiwan has started deploying cruise missiles along the coast - they only have to disrupt and hold until greater force arrives in time (assuming that extra force is required). And I know what I'd be targeting - and it wouldn't be the amphibs.Nautilus said:
The Stinkbugs flew from the US to Iraq with 4-5 refuleings along the way - far more than whats required for USAF aircraft to reach TaiwanNautilus said:
You cannot conduct a major amphibious assault without alerting some harvester somewhere. To gather together an assault group large enough to storm Taiwan would start significant alarm bells. even if it was scaled slowly some analyst somewhere would be coming to theoreticals and chucking it up the line for someone else to decide upon.Nautilus said:
Expeditionary Strike Group, or sometimes referred to as an ARG (Amphibious Response Group). of which the USN has 11 of. They're basically pretend aircraft carriers for VTOL and for carting around Marines. Sort of like a mini carrier group.Nautilus said:
Apart from all of this, an amphibious assault requires favourable weather conditions - IMV there are far more variables to alert the US that something is about to happen than the situation of the US having to get assets together to deal with a "surprise attack".
Anyone who thinks that running an amphibious event against Taiwan is in favour of the PLAN and PLAAF is seriously not looking at the impact of weather, logistics, persistence, projection, protection etc.... Political will and intent only counts for so much.
Thats based on your assumption that planes on station are required immediately or relatively immediately to deal with the amphibious force.Nautilus said:
Planes on station is a timing issue - its got little to do with how an invasion force can be blunted in the interim. The first planes are only 4 hrs away. An amphibious force can do bugger all in 4 hours, as they arrive on station (assuming that sea state is ideal and that they can travel unmolested as a group for the entire crossing) then the US component is either on station or in a position to launch standoff weapons for deterrence.
The Taiwanese Airforce isn't exactly going to be sitting still and waiting - and neither will the Taiwanese navy or coastal forces. They can see what mainland Chinese forces are doing for up to 250km past the shoreline. If Chinese aircraft don't want to be seen by Taiwanese controllers, then they have to saddle up at the 250-300km inland point - and that means reduced loiter time, earlier turn around time etc... Apart from that, any mainland Chinese aircraft movements are going to be seen as they happen by the US.
The dumbest thing China could do is pick a fight in the Straits. It's not going to be a Coral Sea event.
abramsteve
New Member
I am unsure but wouldnt the best way to stall any sort of aggression from China against Taiwan be to flood the straits with SSN's. I dont know the force levels of either side in terms of Subs.
A sub blockade of the straits would deny the Chinese the abillity to sealift troops into Taiwan, and would mean that the CVB can stand off at safe distance and take part in a defensive air war.
Like I said though I dont know, and alot would be determined by what would be connsidered an acceptable loss of manpower/equiptment in regards to the US/Allies anyways.
Could China try to saturate a CBG's defences with massed missile attacks? Would this work, and if so would it be worth it?
A sub blockade of the straits would deny the Chinese the abillity to sealift troops into Taiwan, and would mean that the CVB can stand off at safe distance and take part in a defensive air war.
Like I said though I dont know, and alot would be determined by what would be connsidered an acceptable loss of manpower/equiptment in regards to the US/Allies anyways.
Could China try to saturate a CBG's defences with massed missile attacks? Would this work, and if so would it be worth it?
well, I know what I'd do, but thats kind of irrelevantabramsteve said:
, and considering the fact that mission planners have access to far more data than any of us do, then I'm pretty sure they've crunched the numbers.Of course they can, but that still means that their are launch arcs that are known and can be dealt with. I'd rather be on a moving target than one that is fixed and easily updated for retargetting.abramsteve said:
The Russians had the most complex and capable force that ever contested the Americans, and they have admitted through various historical publications released in the last 4-5 years that they lacked the confidence to deal with the USN. They had far more capable aircraft, far greater range and speed in those aircraft, far better weapons and far better synergy than China has today - in fact I can't see China hitting the same capability footprint for at least 10 years - irrespective of how strong her economy is - and believe me unless they've reinvented economics, their economy is going to experience some ugly times like every other country on the planet.
With a military that is fundamentally landlocked, with a barely functiong navy (in the blue water sense) and an army that lacks expeditionary capability in the most basic of senses - I don't see her being that stupid in contesting another power - especially one that has a modern synchronised military, has the best electronic harvesting in the world and actually has functioning battle management systems in 3 dimensions and operates in all five environments, submarine, surface, land, air (gravity bound) and space.
Hence why my frequent comments about reality checks being needed to be demonstrated all the time when these kinds of scenarios are postulated.
IMO of course.
I am not so sure this SSN idea is good. These subs are considered high value assets and are not exactly designed to mass sink ships in the littoral area. Whilst Chinese subs may be far inferior, they'd still get some hits. One US SSN sunk for every ten Chinese subs is simply unacceptable and then there is the flotilla above crossing the strait.
the US isn't going to commit subs to the Strait - it's a relatively pointless exercise. Both sides have been establishing seabed sensor systems anyway - putting subs in those situations would be like shooting fish in a barrel.Nautilus said:
The Taiwanese are more than capable of defending the approaches. Things get interesting after D+1.
Brits and French did manage to get a few CVs in simulated battles, with tremendous odds on the Opfor (the US).
The US won't commit their assets too close to Chinese's.
And the US space management is thousend times more precise then chinese.
They will keep their HVUs out of reach and hit at the same time.
The only bad news would be that Taiwan refuses to fight.
But there won't be a war then, uh?
The US won't commit their assets too close to Chinese's.
And the US space management is thousend times more precise then chinese.
They will keep their HVUs out of reach and hit at the same time.
The only bad news would be that Taiwan refuses to fight.
But there won't be a war then, uh?
and we're talking about real blue water navies with substantial experience at naval warfighting who also know how their US partners tend to train and react under given circumstances - advantages that China does not have. They also have the advantage of having active aircraft carriers and thus knowing what they'd do in a fight - again, CV handling is anathema to the PLAN.Francois said:
and thats the advantage of having large flexible mass where they can graduate how and what they dispose to a fight. they have force flexibility - china does not.Francois said:
agree, and thats the wildcard in all of this.Francois said:
- Status