taiwan mentions independence, china commences primary igniti

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-11-23 04:41pm

That's got nothing to do with it. China will not provoke the situation before 2006 when Tawain holds its referendums. From now till that date and further, China will be reacting to Taiwan and the US.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-11-23 06:02pm

The referendum won't come before China is capable; the point is moot.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-11-23 06:12pm

Oh, and by the way ? does anybody find it possible that China would launch a tactical nuclear strike on an American carrier battle group which attempted to interpose itself between the mainland and Taiwan (or, more prudently, lingered behind Taiwan itself)?

And then we get to watch the Chinese Dragon vs the West, Part II.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-11-23 06:27pm

No, the referendums will come before China is capable. Do you really think the US would try coming in between Taiwan and China with a credible Chinese Navy blocking its path?

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-11-23 06:47pm

Possibly.

The U.S. and Chinese definitions of "a credible Chinese Navy" will almost certainly differ.

For the PRC, blue-water capability is simply "that sufficient to cross the straits," considering that their plan for confrontation with US carrier task forces relies so heavily on land-based air and missile groups.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-23 08:58pm

Axis Kast wrote: Oh, and by the way … does anybody find it possible that China would launch a tactical nuclear strike on an American carrier battle group which attempted to interpose itself between the mainland and Taiwan (or, more prudently, lingered behind Taiwan itself)?

No. If they could effectively deliver a tactical nuclear warhead then they could also get a hit with a conventional weapon, so there's no reason to commit national suicide.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-11-23 09:11pm

What weapon in the Chinese arsenal has a higher potential for success against a CVBG but a tactical nuclear weapon?

I take it, by the way, that you believe the United States would repond by nuking Chinese cities?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-23 09:19pm

Axis Kast wrote:What weapon in the Chinese arsenal has a higher potential for success against a CVBG but a tactical nuclear weapon?

Whatever is used to deliver the nuke will work just as well. You can't hit ships with a ballistic missile you know.

I take it, by the way, that you believe the United States would repond by nuking Chinese cities?

We'd certainly nuke there military bases and impose a blockade which would collapse there economy.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-11-23 10:15pm

Whatever is used to deliver the nuke will work just as well. You can't hit ships with a ballistic missile you know.

A nuclear missile cannot hit a carrier? Does China have conventional arms sufficient to take out an entire CVBG in one blast? Does anybody? Or are you suggesting they will overwhelm the carrier defenses?

We'd certainly nuke there military bases and impose a blockade which would collapse there economy.

By the time China tried to take Taiwan, they would probably possessed their own battlecruiser. It'd be a very expensive fight for the U.S.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-11-23 11:07pm

I thought the battlecruiser was a stupid idea? And battleships/battlecruisers with big guns are obsolete.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-23 11:12pm

Axis Kast wrote: A nuclear missile cannot hit a carrier?

Not a ballistic one no. I suppose if you laid down a very large number and had very good reconnaissance information, tough with the Carrier group shooting down everything with a radar, you might get one close enough to do damage. But it's unlikely to work and soon the USN will have ATBM capability anyway.

Does China have conventional arms sufficient to take out an entire CVBG in one blast?

Not unless the carrier is brought extremely close to the Chinese coast, in which case it might be swamped but even that is unlikely. 40 modern fighters backed up by about 500 SAM's is hard to overwhelm. Plus there'd be support from land based aircraft and the USN wouldn't' leave a single carrier in position for long.

Does anybody? Or are you suggesting they will overwhelm the carrier defenses?

Russia is the only nation which you could count on stopping a lone CVBG without releying on a lucky torpedo salvo from a sub. Though over the next decade China will be building up a quite large force of modern Su-27's and Su-30's which could overwhelm a single carrier. Though a great many of those would be lost fighting Taiwanese forces

By the time China tried to take Taiwan, they would probably possessed their own battlecruiser. It'd be a very expensive fight for the U.S.

By the time the Chinese have cruisers it's going to be 2040 or so, and we can't really predict what the US military will look like. It may well have a couple CHAL's on the seas, Cruiser Huge Ass Laser. High-end solid-state lasers will likely make swamping air attacks near impossible to pull off.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-23 11:18pm

One other thing to keep in mind is that launching large air attacks requires big air bases, and big and numerous air bases tend not to have much in the way of hardened facilities. One of the US militaries favorite air supremacy weapons is the cruise missile. Send in fifty to blow away the planes on the ground, plus the weapons and fuel storage areas and the air threat is greatly reduced.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-24 12:48am

BoredShirtless wrote:No, the referendums will come before China is capable. Do you really think the US would try coming in between Taiwan and China with a credible Chinese Navy blocking its path?

The Creidble Chinese Navy is sunk in a day's battle from a massive alpha
strike from the massed decks of a US Carrier Task Force of three CVNs
in concert.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-11-24 01:20am

I thought the battlecruiser was a stupid idea? And battleships/battlecruisers with big guns are obsolete.

When I say “battlecruiser,” I mean something alike to the Kirov-class employed by the Soviet Navy.

Beijing has three options in forming the core of a credible blue-water navy: submarines, aircraft carriers, and battlecruisers. While they’ve attempted to amass larger numbers of the third, a surface force is still desired. That leaves carriers and battlecruisers. Technically, the Chinese navy is to be oriented around the subject of Taiwan – meaning that carrier-killers are their main focus. Because of their high cost and significant “run-up” period of decades or more, supercarriers are out of the question. Thus, missile-armed battlecruisers – essentially floating boxes full of projectiles – are the most likely option.

Not a ballistic one no. I suppose if you laid down a very large number and had very good reconnaissance information, tough with the Carrier group shooting down everything with a radar, you might get one close enough to do damage. But it's unlikely to work and soon the USN will have ATBM capability anyway.

And missiles launched from the air by a bomber flying amidst massed squadrons of the People’s Air Force?

Not unless the carrier is brought extremely close to the Chinese coast, in which case it might be swamped but even that is unlikely. 40 modern fighters backed up by about 500 SAM's is hard to overwhelm. Plus there'd be support from land based aircraft and the USN wouldn't' leave a single carrier in position for long.

In a concerted battle, the Chinese would bring to bear hundreds of planes against either target (the CVBG and Taiwan Island) alone, rendering support from one to the other a dangerous and costly proposition. Between land-based missiles and aircraft, the Chinese are more than capable of blanketing one or the other in missiles.

Also – aren’t most carriers now operating on air groups smaller than forty aircraft – many of which aren’t even intended for air superiority?

Russia is the only nation which you could count on stopping a lone CVBG without releying on a lucky torpedo salvo from a sub. Though over the next decade China will be building up a quite large force of modern Su-27's and Su-30's which could overwhelm a single carrier. Though a great many of those would be lost fighting Taiwanese forces

If they have hundreds, it’s not a problem of terrible significance.

By the time the Chinese have cruisers it's going to be 2040 or so, and we can't really predict what the US military will look like. It may well have a couple CHAL's on the seas, Cruiser Huge Ass Laser. High-end solid-state lasers will likely make swamping air attacks near impossible to pull off.

Explain.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-11-24 01:37am

Axis Kast wrote:
Beijing has three options in forming the core of a credible blue-water navy: submarines, aircraft carriers, and battlecruisers.

They need both subs and carriers and large escorts. You can't form a decent fleet from just one.

Thus, missile-armed battlecruisers – essentially floating boxes full of projectiles – are the most likely option.

There's no point to such expensive ships for short-range operations.

And missiles launched from the air by a bomber flying amidst massed squadrons of the People’s Air Force?

AEGIS.

In a concerted battle, the Chinese would bring to bear hundreds of planes against either target (the CVBG and Taiwan Island) alone, rendering support from one to the other a dangerous and costly proposition. Between land-based missiles and aircraft, the Chinese are more than capable of blanketing one or the other in missiles.

No there not, only a small fraction of there air force can use anything but iron bombs and most of it is extremely short ranged. What long-range missile armed aircraft they do have would be chopped down by hundreds of SM-2's and AMRAAM's. A Ticonderoga was designed to defeat 32 multi mach missiles on its own you know, and that was using early 1980's missiles. The most recent version is active homing, which means there's no real limit to how fast they can be fired off. A CVBG is going to have four or five AEGIS vessels in the future. Then there's the ESSM hail to take care of leakers.

Anyway, actually launching such a massive strike would be incredible difficult from a coordination and logistics standpoint, and on neither point is the PLAAF well reguarded.

Also – aren’t most carriers now operating on air groups smaller than forty aircraft – many of which aren’t even intended for air superiority?

Current air groups have 40-45 F/A-18's and F-14's, all are very capable fighters that could unload a vast number of AAM's.

If they have hundreds, it’s not a problem of terrible significance.

Explain.

A solid state laser air defenses would be impossible to evade and have essentially unlimited ammunition while being able to fire constantly. The USN is already working on a laser CIWS and area defence systems will be practical within the decade. No reasonable mass attack could succeed. And the US will have fielded such weapons long before the PLAN is large enough to be a threat nor the PLAAF is fully upgraded. The equipment and organization of the Chinese military has reached block obsolesce and fixing and upgrading it all will take decades, onto of the requirement to expand there capabilities.

Essentially there is no threat from China. They cannot hope to gain anything from a war of attrition nor win one in the air or at sea, and that is all they can fight.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-11-24 02:26am

A solid state laser air defenses would be impossible to evade and have essentially unlimited ammunition while being able to fire constantly. The USN is already working on a laser CIWS and area defence systems will be practical within the decade. No reasonable mass attack could succeed. And the US will have fielded such weapons long before the PLAN is large enough to be a threat nor the PLAAF is fully upgraded. The equipment and organization of the Chinese military has reached block obsolesce and fixing and upgrading it all will take decades, onto of the requirement to expand there capabilities.

Going slightly off topic here. Suppose two ships with laser CIWS systems are fighting. Since both can destroy incoming missiles how would victory be determined ?

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-11-24 02:28am

evilcat4000 wrote: Going slightly off topic here. Suppose two ships with laser CIWS systems are fighting. Since both can destroy incoming missiles how would victory be determined ?

Why my friend, with a hail of 406mm projectiles.

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2003-11-24 05:00am

Going slightly off topic here. Suppose two ships with laser CIWS systems are fighting. Since both can destroy incoming missiles how would victory be determined ?

Water Polo, winner takes all. It how real men fight wars.

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-11-24 06:23am

Any attack on Taiwan is likely to be proceeded by a mass missile and air bombardment of American warships off its coast – potentially by nuclear-capable bombers. China will lose hundreds of planes in the process, but by dint of sheer numbers is likely to overwhelm the Americans – especially if decoy missiles feature extensively in the attackers’ arsenal. You’re certain that the AEGIS shield can overcome hundreds of individual targets, each with a half-dozen missiles or more?

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-24 08:58am

No aircraft can carry 6 anti-ship missiles unless the missile in question has short range (i.e. ~100km). In which case the AEGIS defenses will destroy the aircraft before it's within range. Those sorts of missiles aren't good for attacking a CVBG.

China would have to build modern anti-ship missile bombers, equipped with large, long range, supersonic anti-ship missiles, to have a hope. These are costly and expensive- China wouldn't have hundreds of them, and even if they did, they'd be carrying 3 missiles at most, taking the Tu-22M3 as a benchmark.

Not to mention that this sort of thing is precisely what AEGIS was designed to deal with a few decades ago. The Chinese are in a terrible catchup position where the USA retains a technological lead.

A survey of China's anti-ship capabilities as they stand now:

12x H-6D: a copy of the Tu-16 BADGER. A worthless obsolete bomber capable of carrying a mere two first-generation YJ-6 (120km) subsonic anti-ship missiles. Missile fodder.

12-14x JH-7: an indigenous Chinese strike fighter that is, not suprisingly, mediocre. Can carry two YJ-8K (50km) sub-sonic anti-ship missiles. Useless.

28x Su-30MKK-2: Russian-built FLANKER variant to cover up for the abject failure of the JH-7. A formidable air superiority fighter with considerable strike capability, this variant is for the PLAN, in that it is capable of firing the Kh-31A anti-ship missile. While supersonic, it only has a range of 70km, making it AEGIS fodder. To be delivered 2003-2004.

The other 76 Su-30MKKs are not capable of anti-ship operations, and are in service with the PLAAF.

In short, beyond pathetic. Good luck to them in their modernisation efforts, they'll need it.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2003-11-24 09:25am

Vympel wrote:No aircraft can carry 6 anti-ship missiles unless the missile in question has short range (i.e. ~100km). In which case the AEGIS defenses will destroy the aircraft before it's within range. Those sorts of missiles aren't good for attacking a CVBG.

No, but they can carry a couple of anti-ship missiles and several air-launched decoys each, which would be cheaper than equipping each aircraft with up to four tactical anti-ship missiles.

The AEGIS anti-missile systems are getting pretty decent, but against a swarm of anti-ship missiles intermixed with air launched decoys they would be in trouble.

Not, of course, that China could achieve that right now. But they will eventually in all liklihood.

victorhadin · Post by **victorhadin** » 2003-11-24 09:29am

Furthermore, the assumption that anything within 100km of an AEGIS is dead by default is more than a bit awry. A package of aircraft approaching at very low altitude could pop-up to fire when in firing range and then slink off at speed. A number might perish, certainly (especially given combat air patrols over the region), but by that point the missile systems on the AEGIS will be dealing with the rather more compelling problem of a big swarm of missiles.

CVBGs are not immune to air asault, despite what many might think. It just takes a bit of ingenuity and the willingness to deploy en masse.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-11-24 09:47am

victorhadin wrote:
No, but they can carry a couple of anti-ship missiles and several air-launched decoys each, which would be cheaper than equipping each aircraft with up to four tactical anti-ship missiles.

I don't see what possible use they could be when you're attacking a carrier. Why waste valuable fuel carrying non-lethal expendables into battle that would have to have characteristics close to those of the real missiles if it's even going to be targeted? You do realise it'll have to have the same operating characteristics as it's 'real' cousin, including size and speed? It may be useful for simulating aircraft, but they cannot simulate missiles.

Also, you're not applying payload criteria to air-launched decoys. The basic TALD, for example, weighs a mere 180kg. But, unpowered, it's range is a mere 26km launched from regular altitude, or 126km launched from absolute high altitude. Want more range? On goes the engine. Weight just went up. Maybe you can get 300km out of it that way (ITALD), provided you launch it from high up.

The AEGIS anti-missile systems are getting pretty decent, but against a swarm of anti-ship missiles intermixed with air launched decoys they would be in trouble.

AEGIS was *designed* to destroy a swarm of anti-ship missiles- Soviet anti-ship missiles. Big, long-range supersonic ones, not that cheap short-ranged subsonic shit that China uses that is only good for sinking corvettes and frigates. Decoys are not relevant to a missile attack- they would have to act like the missiles to be a factor in the targeting of the incoming 'swarm'.

Furthermore, the assumption that anything within 100km of an AEGIS is dead by default is more than a bit awry. A package of aircraft approaching at very low altitude could pop-up to fire when in firing range and then slink off at speed

They would have to fly at low level for hundreds of km to avoid being spotted by the CVBG radars, eating into their fuel and severely limiting their radius of action. Not to mention E-2C Hawkeye AWACS will still spot them. Fighters will be vectored in and it'll be easy pickings. If you are at low level and carrying anti-ship missiles to boot any competent enemy coming at you from above will wipe you out for a variety of reasons (the attacker has higher missile Pk, better situational awareness, and most importantly, more energy)

And it's actually more than 100km. The SM-1 Extended Range has a maximum range of 185km. SM-2ER is probably even more.

CVBGs are not immune to air asault, despite what many might think. It just takes a bit of ingenuity and the willingness to deploy en masse

Immune? Who said immune? It just requires a huge amount of resources. Unfortunately, China has the utterly wrong tools for the job, and nothing in the near-future term (i.e. 10 years from now) points to that changing)

Axis Kast · Post by **Axis Kast** » 2003-11-24 12:09pm

Since 1990 alone, the Chinese have radically improved their air force. We have a precedent after which to expect significant upgrades come 2013 or 2015. By that time, domestic production lines for the Su-30 and Su-27 should also be rolling right along. Now granted the U.S. will be in a better position itself, but the advance favors China (especially because it is likely more American carriers will be elsewhere).

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-11-24 12:32pm

Axis Kast wrote:Since 1990 alone, the Chinese have radically improved their air force. We have a precedent after which to expect significant upgrades come 2013 or 2015. By that time, domestic production lines for the Su-30 and Su-27 should also be rolling right along. Now granted the U.S. will be in a better position itself, but the advance favors China (especially because it is likely more American carriers will be elsewhere).

Domestic production of an export version of, what will then be a 35ish year old airframe design. Oh how i'll giggle with orgasmic glee as F-22's engage six Chinese halfassed ripoff Su-27's each and blast them to bits before the Chinese pilots even fucking notice that they have been targeted.