Rand Report

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)

Click to expand...

Even if China had a much greater number of nukes, it wouldn't initiate a nuclear a response to conventional action on the part of the United States precisely because of MAD. Assasin's Mace can only do so much, it may help China to gain the initiative in certain situations and force some constraints on US operational planners, but they can be countered by the US as well. For example, scramjets can be considered an Assasin's Mace, but enough Aegis ships will counter them.

And Russia's current military is nothing to be taken lightly... they have far more long-range strike options (conventional) and reach then the PLA, which is still geared towards fighting regional wars. But even more important is geographical- Russia is in a far more strategically important position where it can threaten the Middle East and Eastern Europe as well as Central Asia.

twodollarss said:

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)

Click to expand...

The reason why the PRC leadership opted for the "no first use" and "minimum deterrence" strategy is because it was suicidal to match the Soviet Union or the USA during Cold War era. The USSR in 1986 had some 20,000 tactical nukes and 25,000 nuclear warheads. That's 45,000 nuclear bombs.

You don't need tens of thousands of nukes to deter. You only need few hundred with effective delivery vehicle that could penetrate the other guy's missile shield. There isn't a country on this planet that would remain functional after being hit by 300-500 nuclear bombs.

$$ is also better spent on your own missile shield.

Sea Dog said:

Ahh. Classic. I see you only put the opinion of those who agree with your own opinion and provide no balance to point out the other side in the article. It's known there are two sides to it. Putting the side up you agree with doesn't exactly prove it's a non-viable system. The Navy is still working the issue for FY09. Even though funds are not made available for the conversion process. It's still being worked on.

Click to expand...

Well I can certainly give you Putin's opinion on it. He would consider it an outright nuclear attack. That already removes the most likely rationale and scenario for the system as a "safe" system.

This is not the only place where comments are made about it. Among different sites, I find the overall opinion to be negative.

A good comment to describe it is using an 18 wheeler truck to deliver a pizza.

Lets also put it this way. The Navy wants $250 million over for "research and development". That's not even making a single missile yet. Now tell me how is that $250 million going to be spent and to whose pockets its going?

The Trident cost $30 million to build during the Cold War. What its going to cost now, over $100 million? To deliver a 1 ton warload? That's like expending an F-35 for one way trip each.

Another problem is targeting. This requires good intel. However, the record for intel hasn't been good. Can't still tell a Islamist terrorist gathering from a community funeral or wedding. We still can't find Bin Laden and we have mistakenly bombed Canadians. We claimed there was WMDs in Iraq and when we're there, we can't find them. This reminds me how Clinton sent off Tomahawks and destroyed some camel tents in the process. At least that's a few million wasted. What if you wasted something costing over a hundred million?

Roger604 said:

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!

Click to expand...

The same Japan that detected, tracked and hounded a Chinese submarine out of what they claim as their waters... for which the Chinese apologized for.

Roger604 said:

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.

Click to expand...

In the areas that the Americans will likely place a CVBG, diesel subs won't be an effective tool; I will expect the Americans will place their CVBG on the east side of Taiwan in the Philippine Sea. On the east side of Taiwan, it is open ocean.

Roger604 said:

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?

Click to expand...

The American's don't need to sail down the Taiwan Strait do protect Taiwan. They can do so from the other side of Taiwan.

Furthermore, the ability of the Chinese to maintain high-tempo operations for long periods of time is questionable. The airspace over Taiwan is also limited; no more than 200 aircraft can fit in the airspace before it becomes way too crowded.

Unless the Chinese wished to leave the rest of their borders undefended, the Chinese lack the aircraft to overwhelm the Americans. Furthermore, the maximum amount of aircraft is limited to the capacity of the various airfields on the coast.

Roger604 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I've already crunched the numbers using Harpoon 3 ANW. Unless the Chinese have a 5:1 advantage in fighters, a 5:1 advantage in bombers, and a 2:1 advantage in large, modern warships; they will not be able to inflict significant damage to a single CVBG. In fact, if they were to clash NOW; the Chinese air force would be non-existent after day 8, and the navy would be already be gone by day 6 of active fighting, using USN ships based in Japan:

U.S. Fleet Activities Yokosuka, Japan
USS George Washington (CVN-73)
USS Blue Ridge (LCC-19)
USS Cowpens (CG-63)
USS Shiloh (CG-67)
USS Curtis Wilbur (DDG-54)
USS John S. McCain (DDG-56)
USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62)
USS Stethem (DDG-63)
USS Lassen (DDG-82)
USS McCampbell (DDG-85)
USS Mustin (DDG-89)

U.S. Fleet Activities Sasebo, Japan
USS Essex (LHD-2)
USS Denver (LPD-9)
USS Harpers Ferry (LSD-49)
USS Tortuga (LSD-46)
USS Guardian (MCM-5)
USS Patriot (MCM-7)
USS Safeguard (ARS-50)

Apra Harbor, Guam
USS Frank Cable (AS-40)
USS City of Corpus Christi (SSN-705)
USS Houston (SSN-713)
USS Buffalo (SSN-715)

The USN can also rush other assets into the region within a week's time, these include the Nimitz CVBG, comprised of the following ships:
USS Nimitz (CVN-68)
USS Princeton (CG-59)
USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53)
USS Higgins (DDG-76)
USS Chafee (DDG-90)

Also, the Lincoln battle group is also available:
USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
USS Mobile Bay (CG-53)
USS Shoup (DDG-86)
USS Monsen (DDG-92)
USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG-60)
USS Ingraham (FFG-61)
USS Ford (FFG-54)
USS Curtis (FFG-38)

On top of that, the Stennis is also based in the Western Pacific:
USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
USS Antietam (CG-54)
USS O'Kane (DDG-77)
USS Halsey (DDG-97)
USS Howard (DDG-83)
USS Jarrett (FFG-33)
USS Preble (DDG-88)
USS Rentz (FFG-46)

The USN also has warships based in Pearl Harbor; these include:
USS Russell (DDG-59)
USS Paul Hamilton (DDG-60)
USS Hopper (DDG-70)
USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93)
USS Chosin (CG-65)
USS Lake Erie (CG-70)
USS Port Royal (CG-73)
USS Crommelin (FFG-37)
USS Reuben James (FFG-57)
USS Los Angeles (SSN-688)
USS Bremerton (SSN-698)
USS La Jolla (SSN-701)
USS Olympia (SSN-717)
USS Chicago (SSN-721)
USS Key West (SSN-722)
USS Louisville (SSN-724)
USS Pasadena (SSN-752)
USS Columbus (SSN-762)
USS Santa Fe (SSN-763)
USS Charlotte (SSN-766)
USS Tucson (SSN-770)
USS Columbia (SSN-771)
USS Greeneville (SSN-772)
USS Cheyenne (SSN-773)

That's a significant amount of firepower that can be brought against China within a week's time. If you include the units of the Japanese Navy and even the ROC Navy, it grows even more.

$$ is also better spent on your own missile shield.

Click to expand...

Depends on the single-shot hit probability of the kill vehicle. Also ICBMS can be MIRVED. In a hypothetical situation where the kill vehicle has a 80% hit probablity against a ICBM with 4 MIRVs (Russian/US missiles have upwards of 8-12 MIRVs), about 8 interceptors will be needed to ensure with 96% accuracy that not a single one of those MIRVs will hit. In a hypothetical situation using those numbers, in order to defend against 500 ICBMs, a nation will have to expend 4000 interceptor missiles and still suffer 20 detonations. Of course, all those numbers are just hypothetical and meaningless, yet they illustrate the cost equation of more warheads vs a defense shield. Also some MIRVs even release decoys, so the actual number of targets a missile defense system will have to cope with can be far larger. Of course if you can hit a missile in the boost phase or before the MIRV separates it will change up the game a bit... although that is impossible with today's technology. Maybe as ASAT tech advance it'll be possible to hit the missile right before the MIRVs separate...

I've already crunched the numbers using Harpoon 3 ANW. Unless the Chinese have a 5:1 advantage in fighters, a 5:1 advantage in bombers, and a 2:1 advantage in large, modern warships; they will not be able to inflict significant damage to a single CVBG. In fact, if they were to clash NOW; the Chinese air force would be non-existent after day 8, and the navy would be already be gone by day 6 of active fighting, using USN ships based in Japan:

Click to expand...

Can you explain how you arrived at those numbers?

It seems some individuals on this forum seem to think that US cruise missiles and weapons systems are somehow unstoppable, and able to completely bypass any Chinese AD system while no Chinese system can even put a dent in a Aegis network...

Furthermore some seem to view all Chinese assets as simply targets without giving any thought to their capabilities... for instance what if the 052Cs just sit together in port acting as air defense for the forward air bases? Are those air bases and 052cs still going to end up destroyed as a result of, "The Chinese navy and Chinese air force will be completely obliterated within 7 days." ?

Scratch said:

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?

Click to expand...

The subs would know if they were being pinged. If the were not pinged, they would know that they are undiscovered.

The fact that PLAN subs are known to hang around Japanese territorial waters and shadow USN ships means that they have a very high degree of confidence. It's quite obvious that they come and go at will.

Scratch said:

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.

Click to expand...

China is very invested in electronics and information warfare. It's radars are cutting edge and it has a huge variety of information warfare platforms. There's maybe a half-generation gap between it and the US here.

Pointblank said:

The same Japan that detected, tracked and hounded a Chinese submarine out of what they claim as their waters... for which the Chinese apologized for.

Click to expand...

:rofl: Do you have sources for this at all? The part about China apologizing seems more like a figment of your imagination.

Pointblank said:

In the areas that the Americans will likely place a CVBG, diesel subs won't be an effective tool; I will expect the Americans will place their CVBG on the east side of Taiwan in the Philippine Sea. On the east side of Taiwan, it is open ocean.

Click to expand...

Right, and that's where the diesel subs will lie in wait.

Pointblank said:

Unless the Chinese wished to leave the rest of their borders undefended, the Chinese lack the aircraft to overwhelm the Americans. Furthermore, the maximum amount of aircraft is limited to the capacity of the various airfields on the coast.

Click to expand...

Every single 4th generation aircraft would be involved in a battle. And add to that hundreds of J-8's with BVR missiles and J-7's for defense against cruise missiles.

China is a massive country with huge numbers of airfields and supply facilities. Many times more than anything the US can field in the theater.

Pointblank said:

I've already crunched the numbers using Harpoon 3 ANW.

Click to expand...

LOL. I don't think I need to anything more about this one.

Pointblank said:

The USN also has warships based in Pearl Harbor; these include:
USS Russell (DDG-59)
USS Paul Hamilton (DDG-60)
USS Hopper (DDG-70)
USS Chung-Hoon (DDG-93)
USS Chosin (CG-65)
USS Lake Erie (CG-70)
USS Port Royal (CG-73)
USS Crommelin (FFG-37)
USS Reuben James (FFG-57)
USS Los Angeles (SSN-688)
USS Bremerton (SSN-698)
USS La Jolla (SSN-701)
USS Olympia (SSN-717)
USS Chicago (SSN-721)
USS Key West (SSN-722)
USS Louisville (SSN-724)
USS Pasadena (SSN-752)
USS Columbus (SSN-762)
USS Santa Fe (SSN-763)
USS Charlotte (SSN-766)
USS Tucson (SSN-770)
USS Columbia (SSN-771)
USS Greeneville (SSN-772)
USS Cheyenne (SSN-773)

That's a significant amount of firepower that can be brought against China within a week's time. If you include the units of the Japanese Navy and even the ROC Navy, it grows even more.

Click to expand...

Are you aware that it takes 3 weeks to go from Pearl Harbor to Taiwan? That's assuming no time for supply or bad weather conditions.

Are you aware that it takes 3 days to go from Guam to Taiwan?

China is a massive country with huge numbers of airfields and supply facilities. Many times more than anything the US can field in the theater.

Click to expand...

The US even ran into SEVERE shortage of munitions in BOTH Iraq Wars... yet some claim that there is a secret arsenal of thousands of cruise missiles that will magically appear and annihilate the Chinese bases... completely ignoring any and all defenses...

Just like ramjet-powered AhSM are just one threat the the USN has to and is able to counter, Tomahawks and B-2 launched LACMs is just another threat that the PLA is able to cope with. Once again... it is absurd to claim that AEGIS will completely neutralize the Chinese missile threat (although not verbatim this is what some forum members here will like for us to beleive) while US missile systems are able to just have a field day through Chinese airspace.

The part about China apologizing seems more like a figment of your imagination.

Click to expand...

The Japanese navy did spot one Chinese sub operating in its waters:



China admitted to the infringement later on but did not apologize. The submarine was a Han-class nuclear sub- which is an aging platform and China's first nuclear-powered submarine class that is far louder and easier to detect than their diesels.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Can you explain how you arrived at those numbers?

It seems some individuals on this forum seem to think that US cruise missiles and weapons systems are somehow unstoppable, and able to completely bypass any Chinese AD system while no Chinese system can even put a dent in a Aegis network...

Furthermore some seem to view all Chinese assets as simply targets without giving any thought to their capabilities... for instance what if the 052Cs just sit together in port acting as air defense for the forward air bases? Are those air bases and 052cs still going to end up destroyed as a result of, "The Chinese navy and Chinese air force will be completely obliterated within 7 days." ?

Click to expand...

It's more like forcing the Chinese to operate AWAY from their defences than the Chinese being on the defensive; by forcing the PLAAF to fly OVER Taiwan to engage the USN, you can pick the Chinese off very quickly by carefully manuevering forces into position into traps with both aircraft and SAM's.

I used the DB2000 v10.0.0 database using a custom map with 3 sides (2 player playable, US and China). Using current ORBAT (or closest equivalent), I quickly determined that the Taiwanese will bear the brunt of the anti-air war; the Chinese will be forced to expend a number of their high end fighters against Taiwan. Although the Taiwanese air force was rendered impotent after day 2, they did manage to severely damage the PLAAF to require reinforcements from other military regions.

From then on, it was a running air battle over Taiwan; using electronic signatures, I lured the Chinese fighters into areas where I can sneak up behind them and overwhelm them. I utilized my limited numbers of F-22's to sneak up on Chinese AWACS and neutralized them so the Chinese lacked a radar picture over and past Taiwan. After gaining a somewhat stable air superiority picture over Taiwan after Day 3, I turned my attention to the PLAN. I used my aircraft to locate the PLAN's units and then tried to identify them; with quick snap attacks on weaker and more vulnerable units. As such, the FAC's were neutralized by day 4, and by then, I was moving my attack submarines into position for combined attack with my aircraft. I believe the remnants of the PLAN were comprised of one battle damaged Type 52C, a single Type 54A, a Kilo, plus 1 Type 22 FAC from the South Seas Fleet. The submarines from the East Seas Fleet did not play a role in the battle as they were out of position for most of the battle, while the surface fleet was picked off very quickly due to the poor self defensive systems on the majority of the ships comprising the fleet (took 2 Harpoons to set the majority of them on fire, while the Sovremenny's, with their tougher self-defensive suite, took 8 Harpoon's each fired from multiple bearings to overwhelm).

Primarily, the key advantage I had was distance. Because of the distances involved as I had placed my CV's to the east of Taiwan, the Chinese were forced to fly over Taiwan (and therefore were required to eliminate all air resistance from Taiwan), and were occasionally required refueling to reach my fleets. Furthermore, the distance neutralized the Chinese SAM's, and the conventional submarines as they lacked the speed to even get in range, and if they tried, they became detectable targets for my ASW assets. Of course, Taiwan played the role of sitting duck, but it did remove the threat of invasion as the Chinese could no longer protect their invasion convoys. If the Chinese plan was to annihilate Taiwan's military capability, then of course, the Chinese would have gotten a Pyrrhic victory.

What game did you use? Harpoon? You got a mod to play this scenario?

^ He's giving us a play-by-play using an amateur "database" of military specs called DB2000 v10.0.0

It's basically like trying to calculate China's military capability using information from strategypage.com and globalsecurity.org

:roll: