Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

rhino123 · Aug 24, 2010

solarz said:
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. What does soil and water have to do with anything? Why does China need to replace their assets 10x faster than the US?

Wow... you are really taking everything to the basic meaning of the words I have put down.:roll: But could you actually read what I have stated more carefully before questioning the paragraphs.

What I mean by Soil and Water means that the war will be waged in China and her territorial water. Whenever that happen, even if US and her allies limited their attacks on military bases situated in China mainland, the civilian would suffer the most.

And who say China need to replace their assets 10x faster than US. Read my thread again. I say, "Lets say" which mean it is a assumption or a hypnothesis, I did not say, "China could" did I? And you don't just read that sentense alone. I vaguely remember saying, "lets say or even if china could replace their assets 10x faster, a war waged in china would still result in China losing or something to that effect." and I presented my reason being the war is fought on China's land and any damages is to China and not US (at least that is what I meant).

I would appreciate it that next time when you read, please read the passage in its entirety and not dismantle each sentense and words.

plawolf · Aug 24, 2010

ZTZ99 said:
Look at you spinning and backtracking furiously. Yet here is what you said before:

As usual you see things that are plainly not there.

Most people here have a good enough grasp of English to understand that you were clearly stating it would take "all 11 carriers" to overwhelm the PLA, not that 11 carriers would overwhelm the PLA. The difference in expression is slight, but the meaning is dramatically different. You were clearly trying to imply that it would take a gargantuan effort by the USN to defeat the PLA involving most or all of its forces, including all of its carriers. Sounds like a prediction to me. Don't try to deny this, you're just making yourself look dishonest by doing so. It's not even a matter of differing interpretation. The interpretation of your previous statement is blatantly obvious, no matter how much spindoctoring you are now performing on your own words. And I'm clearly not the only one who took your statement at face value. See above.

Looks like its you who is trying desperately to put a spin on your own ridiculous behavior.

I said 11 carriers because that is how many the USN has. If I said any other number, then I would need to justify, and as I have already pointed out before, not even the PLA or the pentagon can say with absolute certainty how many would be required. And that fits in with what I have been saying all along, which is that if the US brought its entire military might to bare, it can win. That's undisputed, as soon as you start bring in fractions, you get bogged down in a debate that could have not satisfactory conclusion, and I did not want to waste my precious time on such irrelevant time wasting.

You mistake me for someone else. In actuality I perceived no slight at all and was merely trying to offer a counterpoint, unlike you who are obviously taking my statement as a personal affront, with both solarz and yourself jumping on my statement like rabid nationalists. Childish and petty indeed. Practice what you preach and grow the hell up.

Oh really? Is that why you went and said 2 carriers would be enough and not offer any sort of justification other then that pathetic, 'he said a number so can I'? For someone who loves to accuse others of spinning, you really should take a good look in the mirror.

It's also amusing that you accuse people who offer you a rational explanation of their positions as 'rabid nationalists' for no other reason than daring to disagree with your point for view. A point of view for which you have offered nothing substantive as back up. The only explanation you have offered in support of your own prediction servers only to demonstration your own childishness and complete lack of any in depth thought into the matter.

You say you perceived no slight, but your actions say otherwise.

The fact that you are parroting my remarks as an attempt to insult shows nothing but pettiness and total lack of insight or imagination.

rhino123 · Aug 24, 2010

plawolf said:
Which is pretty much the conclusion reached before you got stuck in.

I do not know what you mean by this sentence. What do you mean I got stuck in? All alone I have been saying that China's air defence might not be enough against the combine might of US and her allies, right from the very start.

However I have also been saying that scenario like that will not happen. And by that I did not mean China's air defence are incredible, that would be slapping my own face. What I am saying is that no war could end without land forces being deployed.

And by that it would seemed almost meaningless to just see one aspect of the defence role. Multiple magnitude must be looked into.

noname · Aug 24, 2010

rhino123 said:
Pray... show us that figures... and the source for that figure. Plus if you want to cover a square mile, dumb and semi-dumb munition like rockets are enough to do the job. Ballistic missiles, cruise missiles could be used for more tactical role.

And if you still think that the idea of using cruise missiles and tactical missiles is to bomb an area only... then you seriously is no expert in military.

Not going to go deeper into this topic... as I will be off topic and I believe more people in this forum would be able to fill in the technical and tactical aspect of the ballistic and cruise missiles.

I dont claim to be an expert, dont have the figures, but am pretty good with common sense. If you can use dumb or semi dumb munitions you are not going to be useing ballistic missles. Think about it, a ballistic missile with a conventional war head is going to probably be a maxium of 2000 lbs. Find out the area of damage a 2000 dumb bomb is going to cause and divide that in to a square mile. A ballistic missle is not going to be all that accurate.

2000lb bomb
bomb, effect: destruction of everything over an area of 25,000 sq.ft. and severe blast injury to everything over 75,000 sq. ft theres 27878400 square feet in a sq mile, do the math.

Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I was refering to the comment you could take out US bases and air fields with ballistic missles, I just dont think so

siegecrossbow · Aug 24, 2010

noname said:
I dont claim to be an expert, dont have the figures, but am pretty good with common sense. If you can use dumb or semi dumb munitions you are not going to be useing ballistic missles. Think about it, a ballistic missile with a conventional war head is going to probably be a maxium of 2000 lbs. Find out the area of damage a 2000 dumb bomb is going to cause and divide that in to a square mile. A ballistic missle is not going to be all that accurate.

2000lb bomb
bomb, effect: destruction of everything over an area of 25,000 sq.ft. and severe blast injury to everything over 75,000 sq. ft theres 27878400 square feet in a sq mile, do the math.

Read more:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I was refering to the comment you could take out US bases and air fields with ballistic missles, I just dont think so

If you claim to be neither an expert nor has any figures why are you questioning a better qualified member on the board?

By your logic since dumb and guided bombs do the job so well, why does the United States and other major military powers still bother with ballistic missiles?

Because bombers are inherently vulnerable, even if you have stealth! The U.S. lost an F-117 over Kosovo's relatively inadequate (anti-aircraft gun) air defence. Imagine how it will fare over Chinese skies!

Ballistic missiles, on the otherhand, are relatively difficult to intercept. There is a reason that the U.S. is spending so much money developing a "Missile Shield".

As for damages to air fields/runways, the weapon payload doesn't need to be phenomenal. A missile could bring down an air field simply by cratering the run ways/spreading enough debris to keep the repairmen working for the next 48 hours. Keep in mind that the smallest debris/dent in the ground could shred a jet fighter's tires during takeoff! There is a reason that you see servicemen lining up and scanning the entire length of the aircraft carrier for debris.

solarz · Aug 24, 2010

ZTZ99 said:
Complete rubbish. I saw and you saw NO such analysis of the "amount of air defenses and fighters China can deploy from the mainland" against USN carriers. He offered his personal opinion and I offered mine. You should try reading more carefully before you start sounding huffy next time. Besides, he is now claiming he did not in fact claim that it would take 11 carrier groups to overwhelm the PLA. See below.

LOL, your position is ludicrous. If you don't think someone's analysis is correct, then by all means offer some legitimate criticisms. Instead, you just admitted that you just pulled the "2 carriers" number out of your ass.

Wow... you are really taking everything to the basic meaning of the words I have put down. But could you actually read what I have stated more carefully before questioning the paragraphs.

What I mean by Soil and Water means that the war will be waged in China and her territorial water. Whenever that happen, even if US and her allies limited their attacks on military bases situated in China mainland, the civilian would suffer the most.

And who say China need to replace their assets 10x faster than US. Read my thread again. I say, "Lets say" which mean it is a assumption or a hypnothesis, I did not say, "China could" did I? And you don't just read that sentense alone. I vaguely remember saying, "lets say or even if china could replace their assets 10x faster, a war waged in china would still result in China losing or something to that effect." and I presented my reason being the war is fought on China's land and any damages is to China and not US (at least that is what I meant).

I would appreciate it that next time when you read, please read the passage in its entirety and not dismantle each sentense and words.

Actually, I wanted to question your assumption that China would automatically lose in a war fought on its own soil, but I wasn't sure if you had some other meaning with your comment about "soil and water".

If you're talking about civilian casualties, sure there will be, and that's why wars are bad. However, winning or losing a war is a completely different issue altogether.

noname · Aug 24, 2010

siegecrossbow said:
If you claim to be neither an expert nor has any figures why are you questioning a better qualified member on the board?

By your logic since dumb and guided bombs do the job so well, why does the United States and other major military powers still bother with ballistic missiles?

Because bombers are inherently vulnerable, even if you have stealth! The U.S. lost an F-117 over Kosovo's relatively inadequate (anti-aircraft gun) air defence. Imagine how it will fare over Chinese skies!

Ballistic missiles, on the otherhand, are relatively difficult to intercept. There is a reason that the U.S. is spending so much money developing a "Missile Shield".

As for damages to air fields/runways, the weapon payload doesn't need to be phenomenal. A missile could bring down an air field simply by cratering the run ways/spreading enough debris to keep the repairmen working for the next 48 hours. Keep in mind that the smallest debris/dent in the ground could shred a jet fighter's tires during takeoff! There is a reason that you see servicemen lining up and scanning the entire length of the aircraft carrier for debris.

I question just about every thing, but I try not to be rude about it. Now as to why does the USA has ballistic missiles, they are to deliver Nuclear Weapons, not conventional war heads.

I expect the F117 was a matter of shoot and spray or pray, shoot enought iron into the air and sooner or later you are going to hit something.

On the USA anti missile system is being developed to defend the USA from missiles with nuclear war heads, I doubt if the USA would bother for missiles with conventional war heads.

I doubt if many air fields can be put out of condition very long in war time by ballistic missiles.

siegecrossbow · Aug 24, 2010

noname said:
I question just about every thing, but I try not to be rude about it. Now as to why does the USA has ballistic missiles, they are to deliver Nuclear Weapons, not conventional war heads.
QUOTE]

I think there might be a little problem with your statement:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

During the Operation Iraqi Freedom more than 450 missiles were fired.[3]

Click to expand...

I doubt if many air fields can be put out of condition very long in war time by ballistic missiles

Click to expand...

As I've argued before the it is in America's best interest to utilize her superior technology to cripple Chinese defences as soon as possible in a war. The only reason for America to fight a long (over 48 hours) war in China will be the invasion of Chinese mainland. This is a quagmire that no sane military commander would dare to enter.

Lezt · Aug 24, 2010

noname said:
I question just about every thing, but I try not to be rude about it. Now as to why does the USA has ballistic missiles, they are to deliver Nuclear Weapons, not conventional war heads.

I expect the F117 was a matter of shoot and spray or pray, shoot enought iron into the air and sooner or later you are going to hit something.

On the USA anti missile system is being developed to defend the USA from missiles with nuclear war heads, I doubt if the USA would bother for missiles with conventional war heads.

I doubt if many air fields can be put out of condition very long in war time by ballistic missiles.

The sky is a much bigger volume than the amount of iron you can throw into it, I don't believe it is by luck that a F117 was brought down.

the question about ballistic missile defense, How does the US know which one is conventionally armed and which one is WMD armed? and more so, how do you differentiate a MRBM, ICBM etc when what you see on a radar screen is a missile flying at you at Mach 5+? with 5 minutes to intercept it, will you intercept it or will you try to guess if it is WMD armed or conventionally armed before reacting?

siegecrossbow said:
noname said:

I question just about every thing, but I try not to be rude about it. Now as to why does the USA has ballistic missiles, they are to deliver Nuclear Weapons, not conventional war heads.
QUOTE]

I think there might be a little problem with your statement:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

As I've argued before the it is in America's best interest to utilize her superior technology to cripple Chinese defences as soon as possible in a war. The only reason for America to fight a long (over 48 hours) war in China will be the invasion of Chinese mainland. This is a quagmire that no sane military commander would dare to enter.

Click to expand...

Do you think that Chinese nationalism will allow the PLA/CCP to absorb 48 hrs of US assault without escalating it to a full scale war? Any direct military action on Chinese soil will result in something not pleasant

rhino123 · Aug 24, 2010

noname said:
I dont claim to be an expert, dont have the figures, but am pretty good with common sense. If you can use dumb or semi dumb munitions you are not going to be useing ballistic missles. Think about it, a ballistic missile with a conventional war head is going to probably be a maxium of 2000 lbs. Find out the area of damage a 2000 dumb bomb is going to cause and divide that in to a square mile. A ballistic missle is not going to be all that accurate.

2000lb bomb
bomb, effect: destruction of everything over an area of 25,000 sq.ft. and severe blast injury to everything over 75,000 sq. ft theres 27878400 square feet in a sq mile, do the math.

Read more:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I was refering to the comment you could take out US bases and air fields with ballistic missles, I just dont think so

Oh... and by your common sense maybe we should all go back to WWII and use dumb bombs, drop from aircraft so as to peppered the entire regions for a something to be done. And why don't we also amass huge number of fighters to escort these bombers to strike on a target.

I mean... come on! The usage of dumb munition and ballistic missiles are different... I think you really should read more and not suggest other people to do that.

As ballistic missile technology advances so was their targeting system, you really doesn't need to practically destroy an entirety of areas and regions to achieve the same goal. Only hit where it hurts - military complex, radar installation and stuff like that. And these places normally have quite good a aerial defence, and to send in manned aerial vehicle is wasteful. launch very precise "intelligent" weapon like the ballistic missiles that are very difficult to intercept and with quite a good accuracy would be ideal to take out these installation... then to practically and literally bomb the entire location to stone age... not to mention getting many of your men killed too...

And by your logic, you could take out US bases and air fields using bombers to fly over them and drop bombs on them? That is the most hilarious thing I have ever heard! Can you please update your military and tactical knowledge again... and perhaps read up some new technological advancement... and perhaps also read up something along the line, "Precision Strike.", "Precision Standoff weapons." etc, etc.

noname said:
I question just about every thing, but I try not to be rude about it. Now as to why does the USA has ballistic missiles, they are to deliver Nuclear Weapons, not conventional war heads.

You obviously is not following latest development of US military. They are creating the capability to strike at any nation using conventionally armed ballistic missiles within around 2 hours... so who say about ballistic missiles are only use for delivering nuclear warhead? There are plenty of other warheads available, from HE, chemical, EMP, etc.

noname said:
I expect the F117 was a matter of shoot and spray or pray, shoot enought iron into the air and sooner or later you are going to hit something.

Oh... so to you it is dumb luck that the F117 was being shoot down

noname said:
On the USA anti missile system is being developed to defend the USA from missiles with nuclear war heads, I doubt if the USA would bother for missiles with conventional war heads.

I doubt if many air fields can be put out of condition very long in war time by ballistic missiles.

How wrong can that be... US is pursuing the capability to strike anywhere on the globe within 2 hours... and with conventionally armed ballistic missiles, google a bit and you will find.

Any airfield in the world when knocked by ballistic missiles would render them useless for the time being until the road was rebuild. But who say anything about after hitting an airfield and thats it... mission accomplished? Wrong... as we have been mentioning... Ballistic missiles strike are the first wave of attack, there are the second waves, third waves and stuff like that...

Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

rhino123

Pencil Pusher

plawolf

Lieutenant General

rhino123

Pencil Pusher

noname

Banned Idiot

siegecrossbow

General

solarz

Brigadier

noname

Banned Idiot

siegecrossbow

General

Lezt

Junior Member

rhino123

Pencil Pusher