my profile | register | search | faq | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
»  COMBATSIM.COM Forum Archive   » Real Military Discussions   » Air Defense, Weapons, Platforms   » Getting a Sunburn in the Straits

   
Author Topic: Getting a Sunburn in the Straits
Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 07-12-2000 07:50 AM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
www.washingtontimes.com/national/default-2000712224212.htm
Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 07-12-2000 08:18 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Spectre,
You know to me this Sunburn thing is getting way out of control. How does China propose that even with 4 new destroyers, that they will be able to close to within 65 nm of a battle group? In a time of war, those ships would be sunk within minutes from hundreds of miles away by naval air. If you think they can shadow a CVBG, forget it. Even our sole forward deployed CVBG from Japan doesn't hang out in the straits. How does CHina even get any of these destroyers anywhere near it?? The limitations of the SAN-7 make it very vulnerable to HARM/HARPOON/TALD combos. Or better yet, how does it protect itself from one of the SSN's attached to the CVBG? Sorry, I'm just not shaking in my boots.

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
_ALEX_
unregistered

posted 07-12-2000 10:15 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sure, you dont take on a CVBG in blue water just with DDs!

Unless you have figured it out already, Chinese are busy building their own CVBG. With all bells and whistles, including planes, subs, and - what a surprise - adequate destroyer escort.

And they are equipping the battlegroup's destroyers with something considerably better than Harpoons. Not a very welcome news for US Navy, I guess.


IP: Logged
Toecutter
Member
Member # 436

posted 07-12-2000 12:07 PM     Profile for Toecutter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
In that case Alex an Israeli style preemptive strike seems inevidable...

I mean what`s the point in lettin` them acually get equipped? The aim is obvious...

It`s either pay now...or pay later...tho the price later will be much higher...


Posts: 1724 | From: States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 07-12-2000 02:30 PM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Hey...I just post the articles as I see them

If US Navy officials are concerned then they are MUCH better qualified to be concerned than you and I.

Good news though....it appears that Israel has listened to reason and has decided not to sell their Phalcon airborne radar to the Chinese. THAT would have been a tremendous force multiplier for the Chinese over the Straits.

One thing that Sun-Tzu always said: NEVER underestimate your enemies strength...but at the same time never overestimate their strength either


Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
El Diablo
Member
Member # 1229

posted 07-12-2000 04:13 PM     Profile for El Diablo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
One thing I find interesting is this: the Chinese are building up and modernizing their own military, and we don't complain too much, but when we do it, they bi†ch and moan all over the place. I think that it would be quite dangerous to listen to what they say we should and should not do. We should accelerate the modernizing of our own military (including any kind of missile defense system), if for no other reason than their hypocrisy.

El Diablo


Posts: 95 | From: NY, USA | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged
bob671
Member
Member # 5165

posted 07-12-2000 07:42 PM     Profile for bob671   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
65 miles!?

The Sunburn is capable of much greater ranges than that...
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/moskit.htm


Posts: 263 | From: Canberra, Australia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
bob671
Member
Member # 5165

posted 07-13-2000 12:54 AM     Profile for bob671   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
The US based Heritage Foundation wrote a very good, detailed article on this...
http://www.heritage.org/library/categories/forpol/asc146.html

Posts: 263 | From: Canberra, Australia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Akulashaker
Member
Member # 148

posted 07-13-2000 02:42 AM     Profile for Akulashaker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Let's put things into perspective here: the Sovremenyy/SS-N-22 combo is a dangerous weapon system, true (though not the most dangerous - try the Kirov/Oscar/SS-N-19 combo for a real hellraiser). But it does not, by itself, drastically alter the balance of naval power in the region.
True, it does give the USN's AAW officers something to be really careful of, and it considerably increases the anti-air protection of any group centered around the Sovs (the SA-N-7 is a really good missile, similar in many features to the SM-2 - the only real drawback is that not an awful lot of them are carried aboard, and the export version does not have the autopilot necessary for SARH time-sharing as in SM-2/Aegis).
But in both cases it does not create a threat that the Yanks cannot deal with (they'll simply have to task more assets to it). Let's try and be realistic here.
Such articles have been appearing in the US press (actual and virtual) every time "someone" decides its a good time to ring the fearmongering alarm.
The Chinese are not yet a credible threat to US interests in the region. The Russians, for all their financial troubles, are still far more capable.

------------------
___________________________________________
The Europe-88 Project: World War III in Germany
http://skpc11.iai.fzk.de/E88/


Posts: 488 | From: Greece | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
_ALEX_
unregistered

posted 07-13-2000 05:15 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Rather funny. Number one recomendation of this report on Heritage Foundation site is:

"Insist that Russia halt its sale of missile destroyers to China. Russia should be put on notice that its sale of missile destroyers and other high-tech weapons to China ... betrays America's generous foreign aid support and goodwill."

Thing is, as far as I understand the whole situation, there is nothing USA can do to stop this 10 bln USD deal, short of buying 10 bln USD worth of "made in Russia" stuff for themselves.

For Russia, selling high-tech weapons is now the only way to preserve her advanced manufacturing capacities. I hear, engineers and skilled labor are in deficit in some parts, and getting decent salaries. That's such a good news for the country, that no amount of foreign aid can be better.

"Loans are bad. You take somebody else's money for a time, and you have to give back your own money forever."


IP: Logged
bob671
Member
Member # 5165

posted 07-13-2000 05:33 AM     Profile for bob671   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
True, some of the recommendations are a litte... strange... but apart from that the article is useful.
Posts: 263 | From: Canberra, Australia | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
Red Ant
Member
Member # 5468

posted 07-13-2000 05:34 AM     Profile for Red Ant   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Well, then wouldn't it really be a good idea
if the USN were to replace its crappy harpoons with a supersonic ASM? I mean this missile has got to be something like 20 years
old now. I fear the US is making the same mistake it has done so many times before.
After an extended period of (relative) peace,
the US begins to neglect its armed forces,
thinking they're already strong enough anyway. Just think of US Shermans facing German Tigers and Panthers, or USN F4 Wildcats and F2A3 Buffalos getting kicked ass
by Japanese Zekes. Only 5 years after WW 2 :
green and ill-organized US ground forces getting butchered by masses of Chinese infantry.
Sure, in the end the US usually comes out as
the winner, but the price they paid could have been MUCH lower if they had been prepared from the beginning.

Posts: 447 | From: Germany | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Toecutter
Member
Member # 436

posted 07-15-2000 10:27 AM     Profile for Toecutter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Alex:

Funny thing...that market economy...
PAYNOW...OR PAY LATER...

....and the winner is: 99 out of 100: the one that has the moneys to pay now.

Yeah ...round and round we go...till someone breaks the circle

[This message has been edited by Toecutter (edited 07-15-2000).]


Posts: 1724 | From: States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
JKT
Member
Member # 5011

posted 07-15-2000 12:40 PM     Profile for JKT   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
quote:
Originally posted by _ALEX_:
Thing is, as far as I understand the whole situation, there is nothing USA can do to stop this 10 bln USD deal, short of buying 10 bln USD worth of "made in Russia" stuff for themselves.



Makes sense to me to do so, didnt we buy a couple hundred Mig-29 c models a couple years back?

Posts: 54 | From: Aurora,Colorado,USA | Registered: Jun 2000  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 07-16-2000 08:54 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
China's ongoing military buildup doesn't scare the US. Despite the fearmongering that we hear from our military industrial complex (for obvious reasons), I doubt our leadership is concerned. Even if the US sat still and progressed no further militarily, it would still take the Chinese 50 years to even catch up with us. And we are most certainly not standing still.

No, the people that are justifiably worried about China's buildup are Taiwan and India, and to a lesser extent Vietnam and the Phillipines. It is these countries who are in China's gunsights, so to speak. It is they who will pay the price when China gets bolder. And these nations know all to well they can't count on the US to help them if/when China decides to really start imposing its will. It is China's neighbors, NOT the US, who should be engaging in rapid military buildups. And the US should stop whining about it when China's neighbors take steps to defend themselves. It's rediculous how we keep refusing to let Taiwan buy arms from us, and how we bully India all the time over their nuclear program. What kind of **** is that? We should be happy these countries aren't relying on us for everything.


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Rosco
Member
Member # 1779

posted 07-16-2000 10:53 PM     Profile for Rosco   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I partially agree with Mbaxter, though I think the Chicoms could be a viable threat with 15 years, not 50. The best way, I think, to deal with them is call their bluffs and support theatened countries like India, Taiwan and even Vietnam.

------------------
"And if you don't like it, eat a gun"


Posts: 984 | From: Hazzard County | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged
MACTEP
Member
Member # 832

posted 07-17-2000 03:20 AM     Profile for MACTEP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Guys what ya think abt this: US doesn't wanna have anybody strong but itself.
Forget abt arming to the teeth (w/latest technology) third parties.

Russia needs money - loanes are good to make weaponry and sell them like hot cakes on a price that western world cannot afford to compete with. Primary Russia's goal is to arm China to rival US in control of asia - Taiwan is very rich technological place - producing many hardware components for consumer and gov/military technology markets. Chines need Taiwan more then air to have power over prices... remember quake in Taiwan and long period of high prices for memory in US?
US can't let prices to be controlled by Chines - halts in money making over hightech consumer goods in US bad for business. Letting south koreans or anyone else business with highly developed economy to control prices is bad for iner economy situation in US. It's very costly for rich american investors to share markets (will have to exchange shares and control in markets with foreigners in hightech, automobile industry isn't an issue, its a recovery from almost a devastating blow from japanese)... etc etc etc
Think abt it - who sees many chips with label "made in China"? What we generaly think of many cheap goods that make to US market from China - low quality. Why? -> old factories in China producing mostly crap. BUT ITS IN GENERAL.Assembling business is different story. Now we get all the taiwanes factories where westerners invested a whole lot more -> weak government and country. Good competition to european and korean makers of hightech components.

Russians know that west wants to see it weak, and Russia economicaly is weak. Yes and only way to preserve its military high tech is to sell to those who's willing to buy it. Military high tech is only way for Russia to be a player. Cause everything else is drainage. Russia learned its lesson from Afganistan -> someone else must do the dirty work. China wants to be player too and Taiwan is the key.

USA needs to rethink its policy not twice but seven times this time. Cause there is a russian criminal saying: Greed is the reason for gangster's fall - Zhadnost fraera pogubit

So another Falklands? How many years are left?

P.S. cumbersome...but wanted to share my thougts with you guys

This one is off topic, but do you know/guess/think which place in Euroasia is going to be the next piece of the pie = key in achieving economical=political power?


Posts: 181 | From: East Side | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
MACTEP
Member
Member # 832

posted 07-17-2000 03:51 AM     Profile for MACTEP   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
P.S. Guys - armed conflict is only good for those who makes huge profits out of it in expense of us -> major tax payers. Don't wanna sound like a marxist but who realy ends in paying 99% of all the taxes? Even though our paychecks contribute to 1/3 - 1/2 of a cost of a product which we consume.

Who consumes military products that we the working people produce? (why we? whose money government pay to buy them?) Some other poor workers in forms of all kinds of explosives dropped on their heads.

Just by some weird logic we are in the war of exterminating ourselves. Darwins laws of nature applied to human kind and God has nothing to do with it.

And whome to blame?
1st -> those who govern us no matter what type of ideology is used.
2nd -> our stupid selves that allow to be fulled by those in power and dragged into these stupid conversations abt whose "thing" is bigger and longer.

We are stupid kids in kindergarden banging each other heads with our toys and our nanny is either taking a long brake or just freaking doesn't care no more.


Posts: 181 | From: East Side | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
_ALEX_
unregistered

posted 07-17-2000 06:59 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
You know, deliberations that China is 50 years back, 15 years back etc remind me strongly of similar things that some decision makers were saying about Germany in early 30-s.

50 years back? What is that supposed to mean? That chinese are armed with weapons of 1950 vintage? That they don't have access (for a price) to the latest technological developments? Does "Los-Alamos spying scandal" ring a bell? Or those Sunburns and Sovremenny destroyers discussed above?

If some evil bug bites the chinese, they can be a viable threat to US regional forces much quicker than in 15 years. It's not the same as being a viable threat to the whole USN, but that's what they need to be able to mind their own regional business.


IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 07-17-2000 08:53 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Okay guys,
Did some more research. There are 2 models of the Sunburn, 3M-80 and 3M-82. The 3M-80 is limited to roughly 120 km/65 nm. The 3M-82 (offered for export around 1992) has a range of 250 km/134 nm. I believe the Chinese bought the 3M-80(E version providing guidance improvements but not the larger range) but I'm not sure. Anyone have any info??
Relative to our disussion, even the 3M-82 equipped Soveremennyy destroyers are not going to penetrate the security zone of a CVBG. Again, how does this destroyer close to launch range? I would think even one of their noisy subs would have a better shot. Yes it may be the most capable anti-ship missile but 4 destroyers does not make the PLA invulnerable and as I stated, the SA-N-7 will not adequately protect these assests. All it requires for defeat is a few TALD and HARM salvos followed up by a couple of HARPOON. Not very challenging. When the PLA possess a significant number of these type assets, the threat will have been realized. I would think a minimum of 10-20 Sovermennyy's and 5-10 Slava class cruisers for AAW protection.
The follow-on sub program is a joke. They have attained Victor III performance, a submarine from the 70's and now are looking to purchase 2 Typhoon SSBN as indigenous designs are inadequate. (The Typhoon itself is being phased out of the Russian fleet as the Delta IV is more capable.)

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
_ALEX_
unregistered

posted 07-17-2000 09:46 AM       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Suppose, the Sov is in range and fires full salvo. When you say that it will not penetrate security zone of CVBG, what is your opinion based on?

From what I understand, supersonic speed and extremely low altitude make intercept probability of these missiles comparatively low. And leaves no time for a second SAM launch, if first salvo misses.

Which probably means that you'll have to shoot, say, 10 SAMs where 2 would be adequate for a subsonic SSM. And it's still probability games, rather than science.

Besides, PLAN is not supposed to be capable of offensive operations against USN in blue water yet. It's rather an active defense element.

Ex, looking at charts, it seems that with all these new chinese toys a CVBG commander would think seven times, instead of just twice before sailing Taiwan Strait in any kind of tense suituation. Or detaching a cruiser for a separate mission.


IP: Logged
Akulashaker
Member
Member # 148

posted 07-17-2000 10:00 AM     Profile for Akulashaker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
_ALEX_ makes a good point here: any assumptions that OPFOR forces will fight any sea battle the "Western way" are premature and based on the notion of symmetrical warfare. the Chinese, like the Russians, have practiced assymetrical warfare for decades. Even if the US CVBG commander completely denies battle to the Chinese forces by simply staying at a safe stand-off distance, he has immediately made concessions to his available firepower: whereas before he could throw everything he had on land strike missions (for example), he will now have to rely on TLAMs and only a small portion of his aircraft force (the rest acting as tankers).
So, even if they are not used offensively against US assets, the new Chinese units will have accomplished their mission of making the USN's position a more complex one, by simply being there.
This principle is similar to the "virtual attrition" that SAMs cause to air strikes even when they don't actually shoot anything down.

------------------
___________________________________________
The Europe-88 Project: World War III in Germany
http://skpc11.iai.fzk.de/E88/


Posts: 488 | From: Greece | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 07-18-2000 07:16 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Akulashaker,
Your presuming that China will be able to deny access to the straits based on 4 destroyers??!! That's absurd! If China were engaged with the U.S. (and Taiwan), the CVBG would only need to knock out these 4 inadequately defended ships to attain success. The Aegis cruisers and destroyers would provide a sufficient defense against all other assets (ships/aircraft) and the CVBG would have clear access in a matter of hours as it cruised into the straits. Remember, the CVBG primary mission would be to disrupt an amphibious assualt. This could be simultaneously accomplished while destroying all Sovermennyy's. Remember, the CVBG would need only to remain within strike distance of the strait, not necessarily sit next to the coast of China. Asymetrical warfare is pretty useless when you only have a handful of viable platforms. With 50 strike aircraft and 50-60 TLAM, a single CVBG could simultaneously attack all of the Chinese air bases and ports while picking off the inadequately defended "amphibious group". Sure, a few ships might actually make it to the coast, and China's strength is there ability to demolish Taiwan with rocket strikes from M-9/M-11 but even a meager effort from Taiwan would be more than a match for the stragglers that make it across.
Taiwan has 900+ heavy MBT (mostly M-60A3 and M-48H), well over 1,000 TOW's, 240,000 active duty and another 1,500,000 reserves. It would take a sustained amphibious assualt from China to ever hope to defeat Taiwan. This is something a single CVBG can currently prevent.

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 07-18-2000 02:54 PM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
All this talk of Chinese amphibious assaults on Taiwan is silly. It's not going to happen like that. China is most certainly not that stupid, and they definitely can't pull off an operation on that scale.

Militarily, China can do things to convince Taiwan to agree to reunification, without engaging in massive D-Day style assaults. For example, China could simply blockade Taiwan. Maybe even just for a week or so. Then lift the blockade. Then, a few months later, do it again. And again. Fire more missiles near Taiwan. Invade their airspace frequently. This kind of stuff would hurt Taiwanese market values big time, without even engaging in real combat. The idea is to convince Taiwan their economy will suffer too much if they continue to defy Beijing, that they are better off just giving in and becoming part of China. Over time, this strategy could work very well. Actually, we're already seeing the beginnings of this kind of strategy in China's increased bluster over the last year and their new pattern of sending fighters into Taiwanese airspace on a regular basis.

Or, if China really wanted Taiwan in a big hurry, they could simply nuke all their military bases with low-yield weapons and/or neutron bombs, follow up with a massive conventional air/missile bombardment, then start landing troops (they wouldn't need a huge sealift capability to overcome an already devasted Taiwanese military). It's sounds crazy on the face of it, but actually, using nukes has two advantages. For one, with China having gone nuclear from the get-go, it's practically a 100% probablility the US will not get involved. Secondly, by using nukes the PLA can make up for its shortcomings and successfully invade Taiwan. But there is a slim chance China could face sanctions from various countries if they did this, and there is also a chance Taiwan has nukes, too.

So I think the first method is the smartest and most likely thing to happen. Gradually increasing intimidation until Taiwan just gets sick of it and calls it quits.

[This message has been edited by mbaxter (edited 07-18-2000).]


Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Toecutter
Member
Member # 436

posted 07-18-2000 06:15 PM     Profile for Toecutter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
IMO the Q is: What are the chances China might be able to equip those Sunburns with nuclear warheads, and deny the USN access to projecting power in the region. Not even the UN can deny, that they are dealing with an internal problem, and symply an approximity strike to a carrier task-force without any casualty or damage to it WILL give them ability to enforce embargo on Taiwan. That`s all it`ll take, `cos I also believe, that the US is NOT willing to accept casualties, to enforce policy this day and age.
Posts: 1724 | From: States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
mbaxter
Member
Member # 191

posted 07-19-2000 11:47 AM     Profile for mbaxter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
If the Chinese wanted to be that crazy, they don't need Sunburns. They can easily put atomic warheads on their Silkworms, which can be fired from shore batteries or aircraft.
Posts: 1687 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Toecutter
Member
Member # 436

posted 07-19-2000 12:31 PM     Profile for Toecutter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I don`t think MBaxter that it`s " crazy "...

Other than: it`s a threat, to be taken seriously by the US...and anyone else as far as that goes...

The fact is mah man, that tho I`m not lookin` forward to it, mankind has never been able to contain anything...that is...available.

If the Chicoms are truely searching for a power position in the region: they WILL have to call the US nuclear bluff...

Bluff in the sense of a threat...that will never b used...unless in a desperate self-defense scenario...

I`d say a nice 30 mile proximity blast from the task force WILL clean out the Navy nicely form the area of interest...

We have NO business of interfering in their affairs...and should concentrate on domestic issues...while we still have a "country"


Posts: 1724 | From: States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Spectre
Member
Member # 41

posted 07-19-2000 01:17 PM     Profile for Spectre   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
I'm going to agree with Toecutter. China is not crazy and I believe that their methods of diplomatic maneuvering are rather consistant.

Taiwan, whether we (the US) accept it or not, IS a breakaway province. Few Nations have actually gone out of their way to diplmatically recognize Taiwan and the reason here is economics. Sure Taiwan has a thriving semiconductor industry but so what. China also knows this and they would like to take it intact...like they did with the HK exchange

We have to recognize that the political spectrum is slowly being forced back into a multi-polar world with regional players dominating certain areas. The US, and you can get this from any senior military official, is no where near their Gulf War heights. Not even close. Taking on China near their home turf is not an easy undertaking. Our Pacific theater forces are not the same as the ones that have been stationed in Europe and/or the Middle East. They are mostly light divisions with navy/Marine support.

Here's something else to think about. Where would we operate from? Japan? No way. The Philipines? Too far. S. Korea? You're asking for trouble on the peninsula if you try that. Vietnam...? Hmmm...now you guys know why Vietnam and the US are getting chummy once again. Anything is possible against a common foe, i.e., China.

I'm sorry to say but China is not overly concerned about a few carrier battle groups. Toecutter is correct: a close proximity detonation would render our forces quite vulnerable and make us think twice about really going all out. What would be the political risks? All we're doing is defending an island with very little strategic value.

Let's face it...China will become the regions dominant force within the next 20 to 30 years. When we go there we play by their terms.

BTW, did you guys know that Chinese are streaming across the Sino-Russo border as we speak. They're basically illegals setting up shop and house and the Russians are defenseless to kick them out. Looks like the Russians will be losing turf sooner than expected and without firing a shot.

For the time being, China is more important as our next big market than our next big enemy. I'm more concerned about their connections with the muslim world...


Posts: 900 | From: Colorado | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Toecutter
Member
Member # 436

posted 07-19-2000 02:50 PM     Profile for Toecutter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Sigh....there goes the last untouched wilderness...Siberia.

Fn. chinks...I`m startin to agree with Ruben here...nuke`mall....while we got a chance...while our political processes are indenpendent enough from their lobbying mechanisms...

or are they?


Posts: 1724 | From: States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
Toecutter
Member
Member # 436

posted 07-19-2000 02:53 PM     Profile for Toecutter   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Jus` kiddin`...in case ya somewhat "ironically" challenged...

Think`bout it tho...


Posts: 1724 | From: States | Registered: Sep 1999  |  IP: Logged
TWalt
Member
Member # 4647

posted 07-20-2000 11:40 AM     Profile for TWalt   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message   Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote
Fellas,
Lets get back to the point. Point was that the purchase of a measely 4 destroyers doesn't significantly change the PLAN's capabilities. Nukes have already been a reality and no one has answered how any Chinese destroyer could close to launch range of a CVBG. Popping off a nuke carries grave consequences even for the Chinese. A tactical response would be in order, not a withdrawal of forces. Remember, the CVBG can stay well out of reach of any PLAN weapon and still inflict tremendous damage. This would also escalate the US response. How would the PLAN stop a tomahawk strike on their harbors/C3I/supply depots?
Sure they could always nuke Taiwan but that is pointless. They need the booming economic growth of Taiwan, not a smoldering, radioactive wasteland. Also, the use of any nuke would be too risky. The world-wide impact and possible tactical retaliation from the U.S. makes this a useless, counter-productive option. Even North Korean knows this lesson!
The only accomplishment of these destroyers is that it will tie up a few assets from the CVBG, albeit not for a significant amount of time.

Posts: 171 | From: | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged

All times are MST (US)  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | COMBATSIM.COM Home

© COMBATSIM.COM, INC. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin Board 6.04b

Sponsor
© 2014 COMBATSIM.COM - All Rights Reserved