broadsword
Brigadier
Keep calm and wait till he assumes office instead of going full-on.
China's Defense/Military Breaking News Thread
- Thread starter swimmerXC
- Start date
- Status
Keep calm and wait till he assumes office instead of going full-on.
Hyperwarp
Captain
I always felt China's nuclear deterrent to be lacking. Estimated values are less than 300 (~275?) for the total number of warheads and only about half of that is active, and probably less than half of that can reach the ConUS. A US 1st strike would destroy a number of those delivery systems (especially the DF-5) and whatever existing ICBMs will have to get past at least 30 Ground-based interceptors in addition to the ship based mid-course interceptors. GBI would probably increase to 45 by 2020 and US would have the ability to deploy multiple kinetic-kill-vehicles in one interceptor in the future.
Currently I am not putting much hope on the PLAN's sea based deterrence such as the JL-2 armed 094 SSBN.
The DF-ZF HGV is good development but they really need to mass produce the DF-41 along with increasing the total number of warheads to at least around 500 with at least 250 of them active.
The small nuclear arsenal in the very reason why China needs 5000 km tunnel system to hide those warheads from a 1st strike.
Currently I am not putting much hope on the PLAN's sea based deterrence such as the JL-2 armed 094 SSBN.
The DF-ZF HGV is good development but they really need to mass produce the DF-41 along with increasing the total number of warheads to at least around 500 with at least 250 of them active.
The small nuclear arsenal in the very reason why China needs 5000 km tunnel system to hide those warheads from a 1st strike.
Some might rephrase that as "this is calm, wait til he assumes office and goes full on!"
What many people fail to realize is that it takes time for the USN to gather in strength. Only one carrier would be immediately available, and another in several days. I seriously doubt these two carriers even with their escorts would dare going anywhere near China at this point. They would wait for the third carrier at minimum coming from the European theater, and probably a fourth that would be cutting its training/maintenance cycle short, to surge into the Western Pacific. Meanwhile subs and other surface escorts would also be diverting from their usual theaters. All of this takes time, on the order of weeks. This is the time that China has to do whatever it needs to do to pound the Taiwanese military into dust and achieve a fait accompli before the USN can gather with enough force to comfortably defeat the Chinese military.
Second, nobody knows how many nukes China has. It almost certainly has already moved away from a "minimal deterrence" posture to a "limited deterrence" posture. China has in fact been talking about doing this for a long time. The advent of the DF-41 and JL-2 with their multi-warhead capabilities are a sure sign of this; just 3 DF-41s or 8 JL-2s already exceed the capability of the entire DF-5/A arsenal that China has had deployed for the last few decades. The DF-5B MIRV upgrade has added even more warheads to the total strategic count. The Underground Great Wall has been in place for decades and is a perfect solution to many of China's pressing nuclear security needs (protection, storage, transportation, launching, command, etc.) Add all of this together, and the most reasonable conclusion is that the actual cost to the US of a nuclear exchange is probably much higher than what people have traditionally tended to give China credit for. And since China's strategic arsenal is much lower compared to that of the US, China won't be choosing counterforce targets, it will probably be exclusively choosing countervalue targets for maximum impact. China may get turned into a parking lot, but it won't just be LA or San Francisco that get ashed in response, rather probably most major US cities across the entire country. This is something that President Frump and his military advisors will have to take into account before they get trigger-happy with the nuke switch.
Second, nobody knows how many nukes China has. It almost certainly has already moved away from a "minimal deterrence" posture to a "limited deterrence" posture. China has in fact been talking about doing this for a long time. The advent of the DF-41 and JL-2 with their multi-warhead capabilities are a sure sign of this; just 3 DF-41s or 8 JL-2s already exceed the capability of the entire DF-5/A arsenal that China has had deployed for the last few decades. The DF-5B MIRV upgrade has added even more warheads to the total strategic count. The Underground Great Wall has been in place for decades and is a perfect solution to many of China's pressing nuclear security needs (protection, storage, transportation, launching, command, etc.) Add all of this together, and the most reasonable conclusion is that the actual cost to the US of a nuclear exchange is probably much higher than what people have traditionally tended to give China credit for. And since China's strategic arsenal is much lower compared to that of the US, China won't be choosing counterforce targets, it will probably be exclusively choosing countervalue targets for maximum impact. China may get turned into a parking lot, but it won't just be LA or San Francisco that get ashed in response, rather probably most major US cities across the entire country. This is something that President Frump and his military advisors will have to take into account before they get trigger-happy with the nuke switch.
Phoenix_Rising
Junior Member
Current Fleet Response Plan set the length of carriers' cycle at 32 month, future Optimized Fleet Response Plan extend the cycle to 36 month.
Having 11 carriers in service (after Ford commissioned), USN could always deploy 2 carriers, and mobilize altogether 6-7 carriers within 3 months.
That only means set them to combat ready, not get into position on west-pacific.
Could USN still hold 11 carriers in coming years? it is not unthinkable, the RCOH of USS Washington was almost cancelled in 2014.
How many CSG or CBG could the logistic and supply ships support to deploy? Last year I read about it the max number is 6.
PLA has 39 (in 2014 idk if anymore now) AFBs within 500nm of Taipei, filled by hundreds of brand-new fighters with BVR combat capability. Even in the most ideal circumstance (fully mobilized, deployed, survived), how large the chance that 6 carriers have, to win or deny the rival's air dominance?
Hawkish views hark back to a time when the US had a clear economic and military edge over China,
but it is already eroded if not eliminated.
Exceptionalists and cold war dinosaurs refuse to accept the laws of physics, which dictate that he who has proximity, and he who has a vast advantage in terms of sheer numbers of vessels and planes, is in a strong position.
If we're talking about a surge, USN could deploy perhaps even 6 carriers (given enough prep time). But if we're talking about prolongued ops, those carriers would need to go back, get maintenance, their crews would need to rest, etc. For year long ops, it's more plausible USN would maintain 3 or at most 4 carriers within the theater; with rest either sailing in/out of mission area or being maintained.
Carriers, though, aren't US main asset anyway. Land based airbases in Japan (and maybe S. Korea) are. Allies are by far the US most important asset.
Carriers, though, aren't US main asset anyway. Land based airbases in Japan (and maybe S. Korea) are. Allies are by far the US most important asset.
Allies and forward basing including prepositioned equipment that may not have a continuous corresponding troop presence.
I really don't know why people are still using Taiwan as an example of conflict that could happen with PRC. There's absolutely no point in trying to take back Taiwan and it could only cause problems in the future for PRC.
So please, stop with this Taiwan discussion. If it could happen it would have happened in the past. It didn't and there's no point for that now and in the future.
- Status