Good point. I think we should evaluate Chinese air defense using a full scall conventional war as criterion.
Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
Good point. I think we should evaluate Chinese air defense using a full scall conventional war as criterion.
Maybe we have different idea of winning and losing a war. Not that what you look at is wrong, it is basically my point of view is different.
What I am looking at is... any war fought on a host country, that country would end up losing the war, not really literally losing the war, they might achieve their goal of pushing out the enemy. But any damage done - be it civilian casualty, destroyed infrastructure, etc, it will be on the host country and they would need to replaced the damage infrastructure and stuff like that.
Also war fought on the host country would somehow destroy her economy too, no one would wanted to trade or do business in that country at least until the war ended and the infrastructure rebuild. Without income coming in... repairing of these damaged parts going to be quite difficult. everything will come to a standstill.
Therefore the damages to that country is going to be way more then any losses to the aggressor nations.
By that I mean losing... because I don't just look at it as one single war... but also what would happen after the war.
I agree with you, that the destruction of economy, life, infrastructure of a host country will make it a loser. Sure Germany won the first half of WW2 and the Russian/French/UK/China lost the first half where the destruction is mainly on their side.
But that definition is much less clear when strategic bombing is brought to bear and blockade instigated. Even less so when the german mainland is invaded.
Similarly for war in China, we will have to consider the strategic nuclear option. Chinese unrestricted submarine warfare, Chinese unrestricted anti shipping mine/missile warfare. etc. I am not saying that China can invade the US; but we should also see that the Vietnam war destroyed Vietnam, yet the repercussion in the US created great changes in the country; thus in a sense, victory and defeat is no simple definition.
Similarly,
Really? Solarz your bosom buddy came to the same exact conclusion I did about your ridiculously obvious post. It's kind of sad how once you realized you would be totally unable to justify 11 carriers you went and started backtracking all over the place. Like a politician caught in the act, no amount of official denials will plaster over a statement already and obviously made.
Exactly. If the US had 15 you would probably have said it would take all 15 of them to take down the PLA. As it is, you said it would take all 11 to take down the PLA.
Exactly. Once you realized you were being called out on your "all 11 carriers" claim you knew you had nothing to back that up with, and so had to quickly backtrack and state that you meant something other than what you obviously meant. Just like a politician.
An undisputed fact does not need to be stated because it gives absolutely no new information, and so is a ludicrous statement to even make in the first place. This would be as stupid as saying something like "if the US launched all of its 3,000+ nuclear warheads, the PLA would be destroyed." Yeah, okay that's true. So what??? On the other hand, this was not your intention and not your statement. Even more obviously so if your statement is taken in the context of the rest of your post. Your obvious implication was that it would HAVE to take all or almost all of the US military to take down the PLA. You were even quite specific: not just all 11 carriers, but ALL of its SSGN's and most or all of its surface fleets. AND a willingness to tolerate "heavy casualties". lol Clearly the implication here is that anything less than your complete (and thorough) list and the US probably would not succeed.
Again you fail to read carefully. I said the PLA would be "hard pressed" to deal with 2 carrier groups, meaning it would be difficult but possible. Then I gave a number of 3 to 4 carrier groups. If I actually meant 2 were enough, why would in the next sentence say 3 or 4? Your complete inability to understand my point is not any kind of reflection on me, fortunately.
And BTW, 'he said a number so can I' is EXACTLY the reason I give, and is a direct reflection on you, or rather your ass-pulled, undefended 11 carrier, every single SSGN and tolerance for massive casualties claim of what it would take to bring down the PLA.
That's an amusing statement as well since you yourself offered absolutely nothing in the way of analysis regarding what it would take to bring down the PLA besides that ridiculous claim you pulled out of your ass, despite your yes-man solarz claiming so. All I see is some general statements without any details whatsoever. You further shamed yourself by blatanly spindoctoring an obvious statement that you quickly realized was indefensible and had to defend by ludicrously accusing me of somehow being slighted at pointing this out. That really is amusing.
That's kinda hypocritical since you first rolled out the insults with accusations of childishness and pettiness when all I had said at that point was that 11 carriers was unjustified and IMO 3-4 would be sufficient. That's when you launched into your own childish tirade of nonsense.
Actually, I pulled "3-4" out of my ass, not "2". See above. And once again, why don't you try quoting plawolf where he actually gave any kind of "analysis" on what it would take for the USN to defeat the PLA? I don't see it anywhere. I do see alot of nonspecific statements about a US-China mlitary conflict, which I guess for unsophisticated minds could be interpreted as some kind of "analysis" for a war scenario. But did he ever analyze a specific USN 11 carrier attack on the PLA? Of course not. Nonetheless you clearly understood plawolf as claiming that it would take all 11 carriers for the USN to be able to defeat the PLA. And rightly so because that is exactly what he said. But you wrongly gave credit where credit was not due. If he actually offered such an analysis, I would be happy to offer legitimate criticisms, but I can hardly be accused of not doing so if there is nothing to critique in the first place.
Exactly. That is why a few thread prior to my last answer, I remember saying something alone the line, "Unless China could also strike on US's mainland." And we all knew it was possible nowaday. However in this hypnothesis, remember we are not to include nuclear option?
If we can include nuclear in our option... then I can tell you, my very first thread had already said that no countries would be sane enough to attack china without risking something like a WWIII.
First off... ballistic missiles is consider a tactical weapon. It is also consider as a weapon of mass destruction, a highly precision weapon (if the accuracy could be achieved, and from China's display of her capability of converting the missile into an ASBM, I believe that accuracy had been achieved). The cruise missiles and ballistic missiles had often been use to take out important installation with near surgerical precision before the next wave of attacks... this tactic had been employed by US thoroughly and to date it is a sound tactic.
Of course we all know that a war between US and China is highly unlikely. But in our scenario (note, it is a scenario, a hynothesis) we were trying to form opinion in whether China's air defence capability could withstand an US air strike.
OF course we know that US would not blindly go hammering population centers unless they wanted to be up against the entire globe. But sometime it really is very difficult to say... look into Iraq, Somalia and many other theatre of war... in a point of time, you would have to attack a city.
All the place that you stated would be targeted by US, are installations... infrastructure, and many had already been point out that fact, so really, there is no need to repeat what others had said, unless you wanted to proof a point, which I fail to catch.
Last edited:
plawolf
Lieutenant General
What a sad and pathetically transparent attempt at smearing. You baselessly accuse me of action like a politician, could that have anything to do with you acting like the worst kind of political attack dog?
You spin all this BS about one line in a long quote that you chose to take out of context and interpret as you wanted. Was that really such a big issue? Or are you just fuming everyone isn't fawning all over how incredible the US military is and think 2 carrier battle groups would be enough to take down China?
The answer is clear to all, so you can stop this pathetic charade.
Thanks for repeating exactly what I have said.
What utter BS. I said 'if America brought all 11 carriers...it can win', does anyone disagree with that? I never said America needed to bring all 11 no matter what you want to imagine. As I have already stressed repeatedly, I said 11 because that way I can avoid needing to justify why I picked that number. If you can't get that through your thick skull, then there is nothing more I care to speak to you about.
To prove a point? Unlike you, the rest of the world operate in a rational universe and would like to base their conclusions on fact, instead of fiction.
Again, you are trying to split hairs, and you are deliberately misquoting me to either justify this ridiculous tantrum or to cover up for the fact that you misread what I originally said and jumped to some stupid conclusion based more on your own insecurities and prejudices.
I said 'IF' not 'HAVE', and no amount of spinning and smearing by you will change that simple fact.
And please, I have done nothing but point out the blatantly obvious. Of course I think the US will take massive casualties in an all out war against China. I challenge you to find anyone with any credibility who think otherwise.
Those are opinions as close to fact as it is possible to get, and people are free to draw their own conclusions from that. If you have a problem the rational and mature thing to have done was to present a rational argument supported by facts and/or strong, persuasive arguments that justify your position. Instead, you 'pulled a number out of your ass' as you yourself admitted and seem to be throwing a tantrum when others ask you where that number came from and how it is reasonable to assume that that is the correct number. Pathetic, childish and stupid. Suck it up and grow up.
Just how stupid do you think everyone else here is exactly to fall for this laughably transparent attempt to backtracking all over the place. Like a politician caught in the act, no amount of official denials will plaster over a statement already and obviously made.
And what exactly is this 3 or 4 figures even based on? Oh I forgot, you pulled that one out of your ass, as it seem everything else you have said so far.
Up to now, you have offered up no reasonable argument to support your assessment, if it can be called that, of how many carriers would be needed. Instead you have wasted mine and everyone else's time by derailing this thread with these sad, pathetic and transparent childish attacks over what exactly? A figment of your own angry and insecure imagination based on nothing more then a hair splitting attempt on a turn of phrase based on what has been said that was deliberately misquoted to make it say what it does not.
I was using that to make a point to support my conclusion, how hard is that to understand? I can only conclude that you are either being deliberately obtuse or simply lack the mental faculties to appreciate what has actually been said and why. Unless you materially demonstration otherwise, I see no point in wasting any more time on you.
That's an amusing statement as well since you yourself offered absolutely nothing in the way of analysis regarding what it would take to bring down the PLA besides that ridiculous claim you pulled out of your ass, despite your yes-man solarz claiming so. All I see is some general statements without any details whatsoever. You further shamed yourself by blatanly spindoctoring an obvious statement that you quickly realized was indefensible and had to defend by ludicrously accusing me of somehow being slighted at pointing this out. That really is amusing.
You know what they say about people who are too easily amused.
As for general statements, well that is all any of us are qualified to say. Do you have classified files and threat assessments from the PLA or the Pentagon to use to be able to make a more detail prediction of what might happen? No, and to claim otherwise would be as pathetic as it is stupid.
I have supported my position, and you have been able to offer up zero counter arguments or evidence to argue against anything I have said other than a pathetic and misguided attempt to twist my words out of context.
Well, in an alternative universe where I actually did say I think it would NEED all 11 carriers, then you would have a point. But in this world, I used that to illustrate my point that if the USN brought its entire might to bare, it can defeat the PLA. Does anyone disagree with that?
You said you think 3-4, but you are basing that on what exactly? It was, after all a number you yourself said you pulled it out of your ass.
Since you seem hell bent on opening a can of worms I wanted to avoid, well come on then, amaze us all with achieving what I think cannot be done, prove to us why 3 or 4 carriers would be enough to defeat China and not 5 or 6, or 6 or 7 or any other number between 1 and 11.
ZTZ99 and PLAWolf,
Just move on; whats the point of arguing - at the end of the day you have your opinion and he has his. Debating will help resolve it, but arguing won't - especially when it is 'you said this' 'I said that' kind of argument.
keep in mind that the author have an idea he wish to express with a phrase, the reader has his own interpretation.
What Wolf's decrement is pretty clear, the 11 carriers is analogous to the entire military might of the US. lets just leave it at that.
Just move on; whats the point of arguing - at the end of the day you have your opinion and he has his. Debating will help resolve it, but arguing won't - especially when it is 'you said this' 'I said that' kind of argument.
keep in mind that the author have an idea he wish to express with a phrase, the reader has his own interpretation.
What Wolf's decrement is pretty clear, the 11 carriers is analogous to the entire military might of the US. lets just leave it at that.
cliveersknell
New Member
The chinese did something very smart in Vietnam during period 1965-69. This is what some Vietnamese friends told me during my trip there in 1992. Initially , the russian SAM2 Guideline had problems with it's guidance system locking on to US B52's, due to the intense humidity and the poor packaging of electronic components used . The russians used Ge transistor based circuitry, which is more prone to leakage current, due to the narrower bandgap of Ge vs. Si. What the chinese did, was they dismantled the original russian warhead and substituited shrapnel proximity type of warhead. So, the SA-2 worked initially like classic AA guns, albeit, at higher altitudes and better accuracy. The B52 were therefore forced to fly at lower altitudes, the Chinese then helped the Viets set up 100mm , 37mm, and 25mm layered flak defences which did the rest of the job. Not only were the B52's affected, also F100's, F105, even F111B. Visit the military museum in Hanoi to see the evidence. The Chinese btwy also used the same technique to bring down Taiwanese piloted U2's in the 1961-65, over lanzhou .
In 1988, China announced that it had a new radar capable of detecting stealth bombers, using low frequency EM waves. In 1998, the Serbs shot down a stealth bomber with the help of such radar, possibly supplied by the russians.
I have a feeling the US will lose big time if they tried anything today, the chinese keep quiet , but do a lot of things. On the other hand, the US talks and brags a lot, but does only 1/100000000 of what it says or promises. It is one country with the least credibility.
Clive
In 1988, China announced that it had a new radar capable of detecting stealth bombers, using low frequency EM waves. In 1998, the Serbs shot down a stealth bomber with the help of such radar, possibly supplied by the russians.
I have a feeling the US will lose big time if they tried anything today, the chinese keep quiet , but do a lot of things. On the other hand, the US talks and brags a lot, but does only 1/100000000 of what it says or promises. It is one country with the least credibility.
Clive