Rand Report

after reading a bunch of posts, i personally think they china should start a major buildup of 1-2k new 4th gen fighter jets.. don't matter if they need to buy it from russia or self-construct it. if they buy it from russia as well as domestically produce it at the same time, then it will speed up the progress. and let say, if they spend the entire 1.9 trillion reserve on just building advanced jets, submarine, and ships, then china will instantly become a major power to be reckon with. well.. not as good as u.s in terms of quality but it is still way better than the current situation they are in right now.

everyone seems to make a standpoint of u.s hardware(esp f-22) vs china hardware... i mean come on.. you are talking about the best military nation in the world. besides the u.s, i don't think any other nations can touch china.

Pointblank said:

1. The USN is highly proficient at ASW tactics. Many of their allies are even more proficient (Japan, Canada, etc). The USN is highly capable of sanitizing the ocean around them very effectively. They can pump out enough low frequency sonar to create a dead whale bridge between all of the islands of Japan. Any target that comes into the general vicinity of a carrier group will be viciously prosecuted by the escorts and ASW aircraft until destroyed.

Click to expand...

LOL. You are talking about the same Japan that Chinese subs penetrate with impunity?

You are talking about the same USN that always seems to have a "shadow" whenever a ship goes into the Asian littorals?

They can do ASW if they have no time constraints..... but by that time, the army has already landed and are heading for the capital!

Pointblank said:

Another issue is that USN carrier groups can move very fast. A conventional submarine is limited by how big the batteries are; even with AIP, they can only maintain top speeds of around 20 knots for only a few hours before requiring the diesels having to recharge.

Click to expand...

China is extremely adept at diesel sub ambushes. They're not afraid of flaunting this either. Nothing frustrates an adversary's plans more than diesel subs.

Pointblank said:

2. The Type 22 FAC is vulnerable to air attack. This has been the major shortcoming of any FAC in the world. A single F-18 can carry 4 Maverick missiles or numerous laser guided bombs, and hang out of range of retaliation. SeaHawk helicopters are also cleared to carry Hellfires (4 on MH-60R, 8 on MH-60S using the Armed Helo Kit).

Click to expand...

And how will you get air superiority when China has overwhelming numbers of advanced aircraft in the theater? When it has overwhelming supply ability? When it has advanced support assets like AWACS and ground radars?

With the Type 022 and the Yuans, the US cannot try to cripple the coastal bases and land bases with a massive initial barrage of cruise missiles. Therefore, it will have to go head to head with the full mass of the PLAAF and PLAN. Based on the assets it could conceivably bring into the theater, that's a losing game now and it's becoming even worse with time.

Pointblank said:

3. In war, you go into battle with what you have, not what can be produced later on.

Click to expand...

The point is that China can greatly scale up the numbers if it looks like a conflict is coming.

Sea Dog said:

WBut it wouldn't make any difference if they can be mined into a confined space. Or if they make it out, mine them off from their support structures.

Click to expand...

And how will an adversary mine anything if it can't even get within 2,000 km of the Chinese coastline? That's a no-man's land for surface ships and for subs.

China's only real vulnerability is a blockade from far away. But as multiple pipelines from Central Asia and Russia are coming online soon, that vulnerability won't be there in 2 or 3 years.

Gollevainen

Thanks for the understanding.

I can offer my opinion on how to survive or suppress U.S traditional dominance in the air or sea battlefield. As I have said before, scramjet technology would make any modern hardware obsolete. The idea is that it is simply too fast for any defense system to react. Any aircraft battle group is scared of this technology, even the U.S aren't 100% confident in defending against ramjet missiles. The ratio is more like 25(successfully hit)/75(unsuccessful) in defending against a ramjet missile. What China should concentrate on is to divert more funding to such devastating technology. Another thing, I believe more funding should go to ASAT technology because it can neutralize U.S dominance very quickly. That is overall well-spend money instead of wasting money on upgrading some 40 year old bomber.

Based on China's current technology and quantity, I would say China has only 25-35% chance of regaining a hold on Taiwan and as well as performing a successful blockade on U.S from coming to their aid. That percentage will increase to 50/50% by 2020.

he ratio is more like 25(successfully hit)/75(unsuccessful) in defending against a ramjet missile.

Click to expand...

Based on China's current technology and quantity, I would say China has only 25-35% chance of regaining a hold on Taiwan and as well as performing a successful blockade on U.S from coming to their aid. That percentage will increase to 50/50% by 2020.

Click to expand...

Where the hell are you getting these numbers?
China already possess Sunburns, which are some of the most effective ramjet-powered missiles in service, and they have already demonstrated their ASAT capability. If these two platforms were truly game-changers, you can bet that they will be mass-producing these two weapon systems. There is no silver bullet to breaking US air and sea dominance, the only way is the comprehensive, steady approach.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Where the hell are you getting these numbers?
China already possess Sunburns, which are some of the most effective ramjet-powered missiles in service, and they have already demonstrated their ASAT capability. If these two platforms were truly game-changers, you can bet that they will be mass-producing these two weapon systems. There is no silver bullet to breaking US air and sea dominance, the only way is the comprehensive, steady approach.

Click to expand...

I know China has a bunch of ramjets in their inventory. All I am saying is that the defender (Aegis destroyer) has a hard time reacting and destroying a ramjet missile. That is how I come up with that ratio with 25% (successfully destroying the ramjet missile) while 75% (miss it). It is not exact but pretty reasonable percentage in an actual battle scene.

China has demonstrated their ASAT capability, but I still think their technology is shaky. They have only managed to successfully hit their intended target one out of several tries.What they now need is more funding on other ASAT capability such as high beam laser etc..

Roger604 said:

... You are talking about the same Japan that Chinese subs penetrate with impunity?

You are talking about the same USN that always seems to have a "shadow" whenever a ship goes into the Asian littorals? ...

Click to expand...

The fact that you repeat media reports does not support the argument of a superior chinese sub force, as you try to imply.
Since those incidents are reported, the sub presence was at least known. Now how can you tell that these subs were perhaps not actually deliberatly let in close to a well known position of the group to capture their noise signature? And a "we were suprised" statement was just made to attract further subs for signature capturing?
And because there are no reports of USN subs close to chinese coasts, maybe they just go in and out regularely unnoticed.
That's nothing more than just pure speculation. But neither are your two sentences above on how good PLAN subs could defeat aggressors / intruders.

Nothing frustrates an adversary's plans more than diesel subs.

Click to expand...

Except for, perhaps, your own diesel subs that just disappear in the ocean and don't answer any more?

When it has advanced support assets like AWACS and ground radars?

Click to expand...

At least the support assets part is true for both sides. However, I am currently still under the impression that the EW issue is rather one sided with Growlers and perhaps B-52Hs (should they get so equipt) for stand off jamming of the area. And that capability affects the effectiveness of the assets you mentioned before.
Situational awareness, or the denial thereof to the other side, does have serious implications.

twodollarss said:

I know China has a bunch of ramjets in their inventory. All I am saying is that the defender (Aegis destroyer) has a hard time reacting and destroying a ramjet missile. That is how I come up with that ratio with 25% (successfully destroying the ramjet missile) while 75% (miss it). It is not exact but pretty reasonable percentage in an actual battle scene.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think your numbers are far off.
We've had that ramjet/scramjet vs. ships discussion all over just a few month ago, here. ramjets are no natural born ships killers. Especially AEGIS, wich you mention, has proven it's capability to intercept those targets. Plus ramjets have other serious limitations, e.g. in range, wich decreases your ability to succesfully launch them in the first place.

What they are saying is that in the context of their report, barring any battlespace preparation, that these set of circumstances are feasible

Click to expand...

You know SeaDog, this is precisely why I have a serious problem with the type of picture you are trying to paint for me. What you call a "set of circumstances" I deal with on a regular basis under the heading of "Sensitivity Analysis". The idea that an organisation would produce a whole report just to illustrate one outcome of a Sensitivity Analysis is frankly absurd and the Client would do their nut if the authors presented such to them. If the report were a general examination of a particular scenario, it would provide a range of possible outcomes, analyse the primary factors influencing it and give a level of probablility of that outcome being achieved. This is clearly not the structure of the report, which is equally clearly a very specific answer to a very specific question, whatever that may have been.

The report is plainly a warning that the USAAF would in the sitution proposed be "unfit for purpose" and the reason for that lack of fitness can only be guessed at based on the factors actively discussed and those actively excluded.

To me the only question that makes real sense would be in regards to the effect of current and proposed Strategic Planning on the ability of the USAAF to carry out its mission under circumstances as described (of which the Cross straits conflict was provided simply as an illustration). If you have a better interpretation then please share.

It is clear that U.S treats every countries differently based on their militarily strength. Yes, China have nukes and a well-standing military force but it is still not enough to threaten U.S in any way. If Russia was in China's shoes trying to reclaim back a so-called renegade province, the U.S has very little option as they both don't want to risk a MAD. Look at what happen to the conflict between Russia and Georgia, all U.S does was tough-talk on the side without doing a jack thing.

If I was one of the top leaders of China, I would stock up my nukes in thousands. That is the only thing the Russian military have that is meaningful. China should get their acts together and try to come up with more Assassin mace (EMP, 10 MIRV nukes, etc)