Sukhoi passes into obselence as the 50th Raptor is delivered.

The B2 and B1-B lancers can carry cruise missles as well and wouldnt even have to do an over flight of chinese land they could fire from out at sea.

sea dog never learns...
i appreciate how you compliment china in all of your posts, but thats no excuse for ingnorance. "hundreds" of low flying tomahawks will not simply appear out of thin air to attack china. i dont think guam has that many, nor do the missles have the range to attack china. as for hundreds of missles vs 2 b-2s, id say the missles have a greater chance of winning. its not like the radars cant see the b-2.

MIGleader said:

sea dog never learns...
i appreciate how you compliment china in all of your posts, but thats no excuse for ingnorance. "hundreds" of low flying tomahawks will not simply appear out of thin air to attack china. i dont think guam has that many, nor do the missles have the range to attack china. as for hundreds of missles vs 2 b-2s, id say the missles have a greater chance of winning. its not like the radars cant see the b-2.

Click to expand...

Well, thanks Mr. Migleader. I just call it like I see it. Before you accuse me of ignorance (a personal attack IMO), you must take what I say at face value. You have to look at what the USN has actively deployed throughout the region and exactly what naval doctrines are applied. You assume the USN and USAF are asleep at the wheel. I assure you, they're not. There are usually enough USN AEGIS surface combatants and VLS LA Class subs out in the Pacific to launch several hundred TLAMS at anytime. I beleive that to be much more than what China's currently listed and fielded air defense units can handle. That's not out of thin air. They do carry quite a bit of those TLAM's you know. And their range is more than adequate to target whatever they need to destroy. As far as the B-2 vs. SAM radar. The SAM radar would never even detect any B-2. There was an eastern radar (Russian?) at an airshow that said they could detect a B-2 that flew overhhead. But they also said they could only see it less than 1Km range, and the signal was barely noticeable. And in sweep mode, they couldn't even see it at close range. This tells me that Chinese radars would not even see this attack coming. Especially since any B-2 would be much further than 1Km at any angle. So the answer is No..... Chinese radars cannot see the B-2 from what we know. And yes, EternalVigil is quite correct to say that B-1's, B-52's, and B-2's would likely conduct LACM missile strikes beyond any initial action. Without overflying China's mainland.

And before we talk about retaliation, the USN is working on denying China's first strike missile attack that prompted this conversation. There has been alot of success in the SM-3 program. Expect the USN to become much more capable in this field every single year.

Keep the personal opinions out of this Mig...
Are you forgetting the US has bases in Diego Garcia, Japan, South Korea, and Afghanistan?
And that all USN SSN and the four new SSGN (4x154 Tomahawks) carry the Tomahawks?
Out of no where? Lets see a SSGN parked 100 Km of the coast of China, can hit anywhere within 1100 Km range (that's basically all major Chinese cities)...
They don't even need the sea to do that.. from Seoul to Beijing is around 1000 Km (970.25 Km to be exact)...
A USN Sub parked off Kumamoto (East Coast of Japan) can reach Shanghai...

sea dog

hundreds of missiles dont appear out of no where they need to lunched from ships aircrafts etc

if the american use base in JAPAN for the attack there will be protest to nuke the F**k out of japan if you use korea then all china has too do its to unlesh Kim and it will go globle

if they americans try ships they will encounter the "great wall at sea"

also you underestmite teh reslove of the chinese goverment if there in a hundred missile attack then the pla will most likely intensify its effort will most balistic missile strikes

plus a large amount of the tomehawks will also be shot down by chinas missile defence given they are not fast nor do they fly high

Just look at what happen in serdia

sea dog and swimmer, i know america has plenty of places to lauch these missles. but china has 750 s-300s, and unknown hq-15s, ft-2000s, hq-7s, and ground based aaa to defend the shoreline. seeing how china fired missles at a us military base, the u.s is not supposed to fire missles openly on chinse cities, but on chinese bases, where security and protection is at its max.

the sm-3 is under testing. lets not bring in what it can do.

chinese radar does not nessacerily equal russian radar. im sick and tired when you (sea dog) keep assesing chiense abilities based off of what russia can do.

darth sidious said:

sea dog

hundreds of missiles dont appear out of no where they need to lunched from ships aircrafts etc

if the american use base in JAPAN for the attack there will be protest to nuke the F**k out of japan if you use korea then all china has too do its to unlesh Kim and it will go globle

if they americans try ships they will encounter the "great wall at sea"

also you underestmite teh reslove of the chinese goverment if there in a hundred missile attack then the pla will most likely intensify its effort will most balistic missile strikes

plus a large amount of the tomehawks will also be shot down by chinas missile defence given they are not fast nor do they fly high

Just look at what happen in serdia

Click to expand...

Remember, in this particular scenario, "China launches strike on Guam"....USA retaliates. Not "USA attacks China for no reason". My point, why would China take such action with such overwhelming firepower ready to be returned. Some here can't deal with the fact that USN AEGIS ships and VLS subs are out there in the Pacific, with active TLAMS, and there are alot of them out there. And they can be targeted and launched in minutes. And you forget, most TLAM's in Serbia hit their mark. Most of the ones that failed were for technical failures. And those were pretty low. Serbian SAM's were not able to deal with what was sent. The amount of TLAM's sent will always be in proportion to the level of SAMS present and will be more than the assesment says they need for mission success. And that accounts for Electronic warfare methods as well. Next Generation Tomahawks fly lower and have a very low RCS. Some of these are able to conduct electronic warfare missions ensuring penetration. And these missiles can be re-directed as well assuring mission kills in a changing defensive environment. You say Tomahawks are slow, so that means they are inneffective. Speed has nothing to do with it. Especially with such electronic warfare methods and low-observable technologies being utilized. And like I said, we would launch more than China can handle. I guarantee the Pentagon knows the number it would take. Add B-2 strikes and follow on strikes from B-1's, B-52's, round the clock strikes from a carrier or two, and follow up Tommie strikes and the picture gets even starker. I actually think the B-2 strikes would be for known SAM sites and command centers. The Tomahawks would go after everything else. What is the "great wall at sea"????

Maybe F-22 would be useful in a situation like this one as well.

@Migleader - Like it or not, China has and still relies heavily on Russian technological assistance. So we can infer some similarities in capabilities.

the entire pacific fleet is not going to mobilize and get together in minutes to attack china. that would take a few days. if china decided to lauch an attack on guam, it would prepare for the aftermath. the great wall at sea is china's sub fleet.

but thanl u for bringing the f-22 up, for we are really off topic. since this whole thing weve been debating is highly unrealistic, lets get off it.

point is, f-22 aint going to guam. how could it serve "national defence" on an island 3000mi from home?

sea dog

so you think the chinese will be cowed and back down simply deacause of some missiles even in the korean war china did not give in what makes you think they will do so now

Funny how you manage to compare the 40 year old SA-3 to the s-300 and HQ-7 china also has large numbers of flak gun for use aginst such target

when i refered to serbia i refered to the damage the missiles caused

where did i say that ageis ships and carriers are not in pacific

great wall at sea= chinese fleet

darth sidious said:

sea dog

so you think the chinese will be cowed and back down simply deacause of some missiles even in the korean war china did not give in what makes you think they will do so now

Funny how you manage to compare the 40 year old SA-3 to the s-300 and HQ-7 china also has large numbers of flak gun for use aginst such target

when i refered to serbia i refered to the damage the missiles caused

where did i say that ageis ships and carriers are not in pacific

great wall at sea= chinese fleet

Click to expand...

SA-3, S-300, HQ-7, heck even S-400. Doesn't matter. They are all susceptible to certain electronic warfare methods. And they have serious limitations in engaging massed, low-altitude, low-RCS, cruise missile targets. And from what we know and have been demonstrated, B-2's are basically invisible to these systems. Combine the three and you can't miss the facts of the matter.

USA has a pretty large wall at sea wouldn't you say? Lots of Cruisers, Destroyers (all cutting-edge of technology), 12 carriers, lots of SSNS, soon to have 4 SSGN's, and combined forces that are highly connected and integrated.