Go | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| Member |
As in blowing them up? ...then you have debris scattered all about the orbits of everyone else's satellites to include your own. Anti-satellite tech is not so much destruction but, removing your enemy's platforms so they are ineffective. Deploy little thruster units to attach onto your enemies satellite and give it a push or, take one of your aging platforms that has some fuel remaining, get up against your enemy's and shove it out of its orbit. Done, scratch one satellite. There's been a variety of reports that Russia has a service satellite orbiting around, with deployable arms able to conduct 'service work'. Its been spotted matching the orbits of our own satellites, shadowing them, getting close-up visuals...dry-run? | |||
|
Void Where Prohibited |
I meant taking them out of service. I wouldn't think explosives would be a good idea, either. As you said, you wind up with a mess. It would just take a means of repositioning them so they can't do their job, or slowing them down so they de-orbit. Or, they could just fly one of theirs close by and electronically jam ours. I'm sure there's other ways to do it, also. "If Gun Control worked, Chicago would look like Mayberry, not Thunderdome" - Cam Edwards | |||
|
| Member |
If the Chinese try to take Taiwan, their carriers will not matter. They have about 80 submarines, plus their long range anti ship-missiles which I believe will be a problem. Hopefully Taiwan has a large supply of artillery and missiles. If their anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense can keep the Chinese rockets from doing too much destruction, I believe the Taiwanese can hold off China off for a very long time. Hopefully the US subs could take out most of the Chinese subs relatively quickly. Their subs will probably be protecting any ships sailing toward Taiwan. Hopefully the Taiwanese have the ability to sink ships from a distance. -c1steve | |||
|
His Royal Hiney |
They have the best technology that can be stolen. But technology is not the backbone of their strategy. I think their strategy is still from the North Korean war - human canon fodder and lots of it. Plus the best politicians around the world that money can buy. "It did not really matter what we expected from life, but rather what life expected from us. We needed to stop asking about the meaning of life, and instead to think of ourselves as those who were being questioned by life – daily and hourly. Our answer must consist not in talk and meditation, but in right action and in right conduct. Life ultimately means taking the responsibility to find the right answer to its problems and to fulfill the tasks which it constantly sets for each individual." Viktor Frankl, Man's Search for Meaning, 1946. | |||
|
Member |
I think there are fellows on the great Sigforum who can answer this question more definitively, but their bosses would have to neutralize you if they told you. So far then my guess is nobody knows for sure. You guys discuss facts based on our our military history, all true for sure, but what I'm asking about is the new game that China has embarked on, and how that quality may be changing the game for us. Maybe their pilots are still flapping their arms really fast to stay in the air, but it doesn't look like that will necessarily continue. Isn't that the point of fifth-generation fighters ? China's version is based on stolen technology from the US and I'm guessing not in the same ball park with quality, systems integration, and pilot experience and training, but what if the damn thing still works ? What if they produce four times the number of 5 gens to our F22s and get good enough for a 1 to 4 kill ratio with our F22s. Then what ? Predicting future experience based on past experience is the best predictor in static environments (and in my simple world), but with the China calculus rapidly changing, I feel like we need a better answer. The potus obviously doesn't need a better answer, but I sure would like to know. Maybe we're at the point where no-one really knows, not even the best people in the Pentagon, but I would doubt that. I'm guessing the people that are really in the know are solidly cloistered in very small communities. Lover of the US Constitution Wile E. Coyote School of DIY Disaster | |||
|
| 7.62mm Crusader |
We do indeed have a very limited amount of F22 fighters. It in itself is limited in dog fight capability with its few on board weapons. I've always had my reservations about the Super Hornet vs air superiority fighters. Most important to keeping our edge up on adversary is not allowing the tech to be stolen. Fuckers in DC act like we come up with a new mouse trap hourly. It's not so. We are steaming into the Era of UAVs now. Such craft can far out fly and do hellish battle sans the human element. Time is coming when a air battle will be fought by a operator from great distance on a joy stick, so to speak. It will have no advantage if we give away the technology. | |||
|
Fighting the good fight |
At the rate we're going, by the time dogfighting drone fighters are available, it won't even require a human with a joystick. We're going to be beyond the joystick phase, with AI-powered fighter drones dogfighting in the air. Computers can process information, make decisions, and enact them significantly faster than a human pilot could, especially when you add in the additional lag time for the signal to travel from the drone, across the world to the pilot station, and then back to the drone. (Though there likely will still be a human in the loop somewhere, most likely purely to approve targeting. As in, someone to initially verify that it's an acceptable enemy target and press the "OK" button, but then the AI does the rest as far as conducting the battle.) | |||
|
| 7.62mm Crusader |
Thats very accurate Rogue. I was watching helo UAVs fly from ships. They would use them to support ground troops. And sinse russia states our air tankers are a fair target, drone tankers are already flying mid air refueling. The F16 is being flown without a pilot now. We are learning. Oh, even underwater drones from attack subs. UUVs. | |||
|
Member |
The turbine engines they use for their military jets have half the life of their western counterparts. They have pursued turbine blade metallurgy secrets for years, sitting at the top of their exploitation list. The same could be said for certain Submarine machinery. They fear Western nuclear submarines to the point they see them in their nightmares. Wargaming conducted by Branch war colleges and think tanks tested 24 different scenarios focused on China attempting to seize the island by invasion in 2026. Crucial was the United States: without America’s help, Taiwan would be conquered by the People’s Liberation Army in three months or less. The war game assumed the invasion would begin with an EMP blast to negate ISR assets followed by an open bombardment by China that destroys most of Taiwan’s navy and air force in a few hours. The Chinese navy would encircle Taiwan and begin ferrying a landing force of thousands of PLA soldiers and their equipment across the Taiwan Strait. “The United States might win a pyrrhic victory, suffering more in the long run than the ‘defeated’ Chinese,” Chinese missiles would probably destroy US airbases in Japan and as far as Guam, and sink two US aircraft carriers and between 10 and 20 destroyers and cruisers as the invasion opened. But the Chinese invading force itself would be destroyed before it ever occupied any significant part of Taiwan and ultimately it would be prevented from its goal of capturing the island’s capital Taipei, according to most scenarios tested. The level of probability for each scenario. Blockade: This scenario is possible, but unlikely. A blockade aimed at pressuring Taiwan to negotiate might backfire, as it would necessitate actions that could severely damage the Chinese economy without delivering a victory. A blockade risks severely disrupting shipping through the Strait of Malacca; the strait is a vital artery for Chinese trade, 60 percent of which travels by sea. It could also sever undersea cables in the Luzon Strait and South China Sea crucial to global telecommunications. Occupation of outlying islands: This scenario is a realistic possibility. Retaking some Taiwanese-administered territory would be a significant propaganda victory for the Communist Party. The outlying Taiwanese islands are of marginal economic and political importance to the Asia Pacific region, and Western governments will find it harder to persuade electorates that they are worth fighting over. In light of the immense difficulty of occupying the main island of Taiwan – not to mention the potentially catastrophic consequences – this is a less inflammatory achievement. Amphibious / air invasion: A full-scale invasion before 2034 is a realistic possibility, although U.S. wargaming suggests the success of such an invasion is more remote. It would involve almost insurmountable problems: conducting one of the largest amphibious deployments in history across the Taiwan Strait; overcoming one of the world’s most sophisticated air defense systems; occupying a mountainous island suited to guerrilla warfare; running the risk of U.S. intervention; and surviving Western sanctions. However, the ideological winds may shift in Beijing, to the extent that the symbolic value of Taiwan outweighs the political risks. ______________________________________________ Life is short. It’s shorter with the wrong gun… | |||
|
| Big Stack |
Take the cluster bombs and DPICM artillery round out of mothballs, and build lots more, and see how well human wave works nowadays. Also the Taiwan invasion would start out as a naval battle. Infantry won't play until they can get full naval and air supremacy of the Taiwan Strait, then establish a beachhead. By then the war would likely be decided.
| |||
|
| Member |
Biggest worry is China’s hypersonic missiles. You can not stop what you can’t see | |||
|
| 7.62mm Crusader |
Just give Taiwan 200 nuke missles. Let their President, can't remember her name,send a message to Mr ping, lookey here neighbor, we gonna live peacefully now ain't we. | |||
|
| Member |
US subs are the ace-in-the-hole for the US. PLAN subs are noisy and limited in their capabilities; they operate a menagerie of diesel and nuclear subs that are suited for offshore patrol, versus blue-water usage like the US. The one undersea advantage China has is both the South China Sea and East China Sea are relatively shallow with many obstacles/floor protrusions. Large nuclear subs like the US can be detected in these environments, however US subs have sensors while allow much further detection and tracking.
Every scenario that's been played-out, where things get kinetic has shown the results to be very bloody and costly, for both sides. While the US will likely loose 1/3 to half of the Pacific Fleet, China will not only loose a significant chunk of its military manpower but, will see its economy plunged into darkness, as trade, energy and food supplies shrink dramatically. Whatever overseas debt Chinese investors are holding, will never get paid-off, as there's a belief that many CCP hawks are economically illiterate, and are unable to grasp the larger implications of a Taiwanese invasion.
US Congress needs to free-up all the obstacles in arms sales to Taiwan, this has been years in the making. While the US can help in the defense of Taiwan, Taiwan has recognized the need to invest and modernize its own armed forces ASAP. The outlaying Taiwanese islands are likely a goner, they're so close to the mainland that defense of them is nearly impossible whereas Taiwan island itself can be defended. Airpower will only be able to do so much, mines and torpedos will be the lynchpin to halting any mass movement of heavy assets by China. A contested amphibious assault is the stuff of fantasy, the idea of massed movement ashore is just too good a target, think 1991 Highway of Death in Kuwait but, add in undersea threats the invader has to consider. The recent AKUS agreement has all but confirmed that Australia and the UK will be taking up positions around the southern approaches into the South China Sea. Principally over-watching not only the Mallaca Strait but, also the Lombok and Sunda Straits as well; this will choke China's appetite for MidEast oil and natural resources from Africa. Japan and possibly S.Korea will patrol and watch the Northern portions of the region, as both countries Navy's and Air Force are amongst the world's best; they've both made large investments in their country's defense. This leaves the US to manage the Central portions and provide the heavy punch in Taiwan's aide. | |||
|
goodheart |
In regard to the OP's original question: I am reminded of the difficulties the Russians had early on in Ukraine with their trucks mounted with Chinese tires, and probably with very poor maintenance. I'm pretty sure the Chinese are better than the Russians at modern warfare--it would be hard to be worse. Talk about a paper tiger! I'm glad that NATO countries, especially in Central Europe, are now buying modern US (and Korean) equipment in large numbers. But the inability of the Russian army to roll over the greatly outnumbered Ukrainian forces has been an eye-opener as far as the Russian threat is concerned. It's only their nukes and advanced missiles that seem to be comparable to modern western arms. The idea of Russia rolling over Ukraine and going on to Poland now seems laughable--but certainly not to the Estonians, etc. Your Harbor Freight tool may fall apart the first time you use it. But what about your iPhone? _________________________ “Remember, remember the fifth of November!" | |||
|
| Member |
Lover of the US Constitution Wile E. Coyote School of DIY Disaster | |||
|
Member |
I reiterate my original point. China is not Russia - they have spent the last 30+ years building and training a military to counteract ours, both militarily and politically. If on day 1 of any “hot” war, China sinks 2-3 carriers, 20+ destroyers and other ships, bombs Guam, Japan, Okinawa and other bases… we are looking at just 20,000 sailors lost, with probably upwards of 10,000 more on land dead. Potentially 30,000+ dead in one day, and that’s for starters. Pearl Harbor was 2,400, and in a much different time. That’s 10% of the Navy gone. Politically, how would we react? We can’t possibly replace those ships for many years, we only have a couple active shipyards. In addition, given that these missiles are land based, there’s a high potential for some to be based outside of Southeast Asia specifically for this “Day 1” attack. One based in Djibouti would reach anything we have in the Gulf and Diego Garcia. What if it was 6 carriers? 60,000k deaths? Hell, if they mounted some of these on their ENORMOUS commercial shipping fleet (containerized launch platform), they could realistically cover every major shipping lane. Let me put it this way: using our WWII analogy, we are now Japan/Germany in our limited industrial capacity and inability to replace combat losses. China is the industrial behemoth… We likely have about a decade or so max to contain this threat, or this century will be Chinese. It will definitely be interesting times. One more thing to ponder: there was a time when the battleship was the undisputed king of naval warfare, and only in WWII did navies come to terms with the fact that the era of surface warfare was over, replaced by aircraft carriers. What if the reign of aircraft carriers is now over? | |||
|
| Member |
David Poyer’s fiction series focuses on this very event. The outcome is traumatic for everyone involved. His stories seem realistic and describe naval operations in detail. He is a former US Navy officer, although I don’t know how recent his knowledge of war tech is or how long he served. The recent reports of hypersonic tech supposedly developed by China seems scary to me if true. Supposedly it’s ahead of us. I’ve heard that our military elites say we can retaliate with stealth tech. But, can we stop their hypersonic missiles? Our admirals brag about our carrier groups and their invincibility. Do we have tech to defend against hypersonic stuff? If not, our carrier groups are nullified. I’m aware that we have secret backroom stuff unknown to the public but wonder what the Chinese know, in light of their penetration of our political and industrial base. In Poyer’s series, the Chinese take out a carrier group with a nuke. The US chooses not to escalate with an immediate nuke leading to a bloodbath in a conventional war for Taiwan. If our main card, the carrier group can be neutralized by hypersonic missiles with conventional warheads, against which we have no defense, seems to me like we’ve got a serious problem. | |||
|
| Member |
Roscone also wrote very good fiction envisioning a conflict with China and Russia. After watching how the Russian military performed vs how our Intel folks though they were going to perform eroded my confidence a little. That said there is open source intel on their next gen aircraft and Navy capabilities, but as far as I know they are unbloodied. I'd differ to our Navy and Air Force Breathern. Tech wise they seem to be using an amalgamation of US, Russian, European and Israeli tech. But, we haven't seen their high tech hardware being used yet. Also, alot of their strategy seems to be bult around information warfare, espionage and economic manipulation. They have gotten into US academia, industry, supply chain, etc. so It's a safe assumption that have or can get our designs. I've seen some open source info that they are having staffing issues and haven't been able to form a true joint command. This could really degrade their capabilities, especially if they can't recruit the right folks to operate their high tech gear I.E. Pilots, commo guys, etc. | |||
|
Member |
During WW2 (and I understand the next war will be different) didn’t a lot of manufacturers retool to make product for the war effort? Singer 1911’s for example. So who do we have left to make what we need? Too much of our manufacturing is offshore and in particular made in China. _____________________ Be careful what you tolerate. You are teaching people how to treat you. | |||
|
| 7.62mm Crusader |
America is catching up with hypersonic vehicle tech. I think I read on line we are going to use a island belonging to Japan to build airfields on. That puts us in closer range to things. Our partners in Sweden are always working on tech yet to come and they are some very intelligent people. Sweden is working on a system to screw up SAMs fired at aircraft. I don't know if Taiwan is worth the fight but, I have no doubt there are minds working out battle plans while we sleep. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata | Page 1 2 3 |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
© SIGforum 2024