Levi4life wrote:
20-30% might well be enough. The F22 is head and shoulders above what everyone else has, and even our older stuff is the envy of the world.
Look at a map, and look at the countries in east, southeast, south, and central Asia. There's lots of countries that would take exception to Chinese imperialism. South Korea, Japan, Australia, Taiwan, India, all important countries, several of those have a bone to pick(India, Taiwan), several of which have long had large garrisons of American soldiers (Japan and South Korea).
Additionally there are 2 fleets regularly deployed in the area. The bulk of our carrier groups are permanently deployed in the Pacific. Most of our carrier groups operate at about half their capacity. Bring those carrier groups up to full strength and you have more than 500 carrier based combat planes.
Modern aircraft carriers are not designed to manage air superiority against a similarly equipped nation. The amount of time it takes to put an aircraft in the air using a CAT system, or to capture a returning craft, prevents that. You can't do mass launches and returns like you did in WWII. Modern aircraft carries are great as power bases in remote areas and as shows of strength. A fully fledged war with China is no longer a remote area, and determined Chinese attacks from land based sources will be able to sink those carriers eventually. That's the other thing about them. You hit them with a couple of bombs or surface launched rockets, and suddenly that capacity is gone. Support ships, destroyer screens, and their own aircraft can only do so much.
The F-22 is substantially better than what they have, and so are the B-2, the J-35, and the F/A-18 (for naval air power, so attacking other ships, etc). How many of those do we have? This isn't Iraq. We're talking about full scale operations involving hundreds upon hundreds of aircraft. They'll only be a small percentage of the aircraft in theater. Our F-15s, 16s, and other assorted craft are not better than what they have, and they'll have significantly higher numbers. Do some research on air-to-air combat during Korea. Very quickly, the NK and Chinese realized that quantity would regularly beat quality, and started sending out double wings (8 fighters, instead of 4). US air superiority dropped through the floor. Same thing would happen here. Plus the US would have to strike into China, where, as the nature of it being a home country, anti-aircraft defenses would be significantly better built then in Japan, Taiwan, etc.
Speaking of, looking at that list there. How many of those nations have high-level operational capacity on strategic level. Taiwan does...for Taiwan, which, you may have noticed, is quite small. The rest don't, except for India, but India almost certainly wouldn't get involved, because they'd refuse to get drawn into anything that would weaken their defenses against Pakistan.
Japan and South Korea do have large garrisons of American soldiers. But we're talking about going to war with a nation that can field an army of over 2 million soldiers. Those forces are trivial in the case of full scale war.
Also, we're assuming, according to all logic, that a war would be initiated by a Chinese strike. If you don't think they're capable of doing serious damage to our exposed fleets and bases in that part of the world before a full response can be mustered, you are seriously, seriously, underrating their capacity.
I'm not arguing that such a war would ultimately be a bad idea for China within the range of time that we can reasonably predict. But don't discard their capability were they to choose to go that route one way or another.
Levi4life wrote:
And a quick rebuttal to the links you posted. A case of a conflict that seemed inevitable. I think it is more relevant to the modern day.
Korea, Vietnam, Marxist rebels in NA, SA, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The Yom Kippur War, I really don't need to go on, do I? And I'm not arguing it will happen. I was arguing against a general statement against the utility of war, which you seemed to offer.
Edited by Deadpool on 23-10-2012 04:01
My calculations have been based off the lists of active duty aircraft on Wikipedia. Based on those lists, it appears that the majority of combat aircraft in China were designed before or during the 60's. Not that these aircraft can't be useful, but I would bet on the other guy. Just in f-15's we match their older crap. With f-18's we match the newer crap plane for plane. Throw in more than a thousand f-16's just for shits and giggles and then the newer planes which will be delivered in the next decade.
We will begin to phase in the F-35's, which you alluded too. We are planning more than 2400 of them and delivering to several allies, including Japan and Australia (so they will be equipped to service them). F-35s delivered to the Navy will be STOVL equipped, and this will go a long way to addressing the concern about cycling planes in a combat situation, while also increasing a carriers capacity. Our battle groups don't have to end the conflict right then and there but they can hold their own, which would be good enough for the time it would take to fully establish bases for ground aircraft. And there are a tremendous number of potential bases in the region.
China's ability to hit all our bases in one fell swoop would have consequences you haven't included in the calculation. That would involve going to war with Japan, South Korea, Oz, Taiwan, and the central Asian countries that let us have bases. That would drag all of these nations into the conflict, and their allies, and their allies' allies and their allies' allies' allies.
And India would stand to gain from a China at war with the world. India becomes the go to place for cheap manufacturing should China dig itself that hole. While the conflict with Pakistan might be smoldering, Pakistan would have to factor into the equation that attacking India when it is aligned with the US is no bueno for their pocket books.
The wars you mentioned are limited conflicts. There are limited conflicts all over the world all the time. A war between China and the US would not be a limited conflict. The consequences would be far more dire, akin to what would have happened should the Iron Curtain have erupted into fully fledged conventional war.
Deadpool wrote:
EDIT: If you want to debate this with me, feel free. Just so you know though, there is absolutely nothing I know more about than modern military strategy and tactics.
You seem to know a lot about a great deal of things. If you say there's nothing you know more about than this, I can't imagine how much you know about it, so I won't debate with you on this thing
Levi4life wrote:
My calculations have been based off the lists of active duty aircraft on Wikipedia. Based on those lists, it appears that the majority of combat aircraft in China were designed before or during the 60's. Not that these aircraft can't be useful, but I would bet on the other guy. Just in f-15's we match their older crap. With f-18's we match the newer crap plane for plane. Throw in more than a thousand f-16's just for shits and giggles and then the newer planes which will be delivered in the next decade.
We will begin to phase in the F-35's, which you alluded too. We are planning more than 2400 of them and delivering to several allies, including Japan and Australia (so they will be equipped to service them). F-35s delivered to the Navy will be STOVL equipped, and this will go a long way to addressing the concern about cycling planes in a combat situation, while also increasing a carriers capacity. Our battle groups don't have to end the conflict right then and there but they can hold their own, which would be good enough for the time it would take to fully establish bases for ground aircraft. And there are a tremendous number of potential bases in the region.
China's ability to hit all our bases in one fell swoop would have consequences you haven't included in the calculation. That would involve going to war with Japan, South Korea, Oz, Taiwan, and the central Asian countries that let us have bases. That would drag all of these nations into the conflict, and their allies, and their allies' allies and their allies' allies' allies.
And India would stand to gain from a China at war with the world. India becomes the go to place for cheap manufacturing should China dig itself that hole. While the conflict with Pakistan might be smoldering, Pakistan would have to factor into the equation that attacking India when it is aligned with the US is no bueno for their pocket books.
The wars you mentioned are limited conflicts. There are limited conflicts all over the world all the time. A war between China and the US would not be a limited conflict. The consequences would be far more dire, akin to what would have happened should the Iron Curtain have erupted into fully fledged conventional war.
This isn't over Avin. Sorry about calling it the J-35, I was thinking it was still under the JSF program, but I forgot it'd been reclassified to F-35.
Yes, STOVAL is nice (for those unaware, it's vertical take off and landing, so like Harrier jump jets), but only a small number of F-35s are planned to be released to each carrier group, and although they can take-off in groups, they're planned usage on carriers is to land normally, because landing vertically on a ship that banking, even ever so slightly in the waves, has a high risk for not ending well. Plus they still can't operate while normal fighters are landing and need the full deck(they can during take-off). So I'd say the F-35 is an infinitesimal difference.
EDIT: Should note, this is under combat conditions. You can land on a banking carrier not too difficultly, but it takes way, way too long.
Yes, the majority of the platforms of the Chinese Air Force are from the late 60s early 70s...just like the US. And just like an F-15 Eagle in 2012 is a lot better than an F-15 Eagle from 1976, those platforms have been updated many, many times over. In addition, those newer aircraft they've started getting delivered? Let's just say they aren't stopping at 200. Again, I'm not saying though that their air force is better than that USAF. However, in event of a war within the Chinese local area, where they can bring their full force to bear immediately, while the US has to ferry over forces to fight, they'll be a lot more evenly matched then you give them credit for.
Once again, all of those nations you mentioned are strategically irrelevant. You said it yourself that Japan relies on the US for defense, and it's not like the Aussie or Korean military's are anything to write home about either. Taiwan has a strong defense capability, but for Taiwan only, which is a very small piece of the theater. Besides, because of our treaties (such as ANZUS) with all those previously described nations, all of the, would end up going to war anyway with China, so China would certainly be willing to include them in a first strike.
At present, I do concur that US forces could almost certainly deter Chinese forces and allow the US to bring troops over. What I'm not so sure is whether that'll be true in 5-10 years.
That India point is pretty horrendous, if you want to reiterate it, I'll respond to it, but I really shouldn't have to.
Lastly, in a nuclear era, small wars are the primary form of wars. It's the nature of the beast. Von Clausewitz defines that 'war is the continuation of policy by other (violent) means.' It's the reason the Cold War is called a 'war'. It was marked by numerous wars that were subsets of a larger conflict which itself barely involved getting hot, but it was still a war. In addition, a fight between the US and China could in the long term end up being even more likely than a fight between the US and Russia, because Russia didn't have territorial ambitions over US allies, like China does.
By the way, look into netcentric warfare if you want the best avenue of attack on my position (which may, coincidentally, not be my actual position ).
Edited by Deadpool on 23-10-2012 12:50
Ian Butler wrote:
Nothing in particular, but just a general face palm for some of the things he said.
Well, it's actually a bit cruel of me to only include Romney in this face palm, it's meant for all politicians, what a bunch of bullshitters.
I think his high was still when he said that Iran is syrias only ally and that syria needs them to have access to the sea...
Just from looking at a basic map, I can say that hes wrong...
And Cactus: I agree, He would be the best successor for Bushi... Afterall, we are talking about a man who publicly announced that he can really identify with the Leprechaun culture, while visiting Ireland... Bet ya Romney would top that!
Of course the G-man said he could identity with leprechauns, after all he is one. Besides, they're a just as real as his reasons for going to war was!
*ba-dum-tssh* Thank you, thank you, I'll be here all night!
Joking aside though, how can a man who questioned why the windows on airplanes can't be opened actually run for president of themost powerfull nation in the world? And how come it seems that the Republicans manage to attract all the worst possible candidates (Bush, Romney, Palin, etc)?
There's a fine line between "psychotherapist" and "psycho the rapist"
A Bush highlight was on one of his visits to Brazil:
He asked the Brazilian Head of State, In Public (!):
DO YOU HAVE BLACKS TOO?
A wider collection of Bushis best sentences and comments can be found by googling Bushisms...
But to be serious again:
The example George Walker Bush has shown, that even the dumbest person in the world can become president of the US of A. And the people that vote for them idiots are a bunch of retards, and as long as the US election system is not completely revised, the US will swing back and forth between being a sane nation and the most dangerous and potentially most agressive nation on the planet because it is run by idiots who were funded by the gun lobby...
Thats all I will say on that matter. (I will, however, defend my arguments, so dont think discrediting my view means that the argument is over...)
Ian Butler wrote:
He (Bush) definitely sucked. Didn't have the intelligent to be president of the USA. Hell, the didn't have the intelligent to spell president.
Still he had a respectable degree in economics. Not sure if he deserved it or bought it, but he had that degree, which is worth more than 99% of us here will ever have, I guess.
Here, Bush Jr was often depicted as a mere tool for the Neo-Cons, and all the lobbies (war industry, oil, etc.) that went with them.
).
