What's new

US aircraft carrier group deployed for ‘routine patrols’ in S. China Sea

That is self answering your question: why US still need carriers, Okinawa, Guam, Osan if she want to attack China mainland.



You seems to have amnesia?

Do you remember your argument saying that US can paralyze China's missiles battery etc? that means it will be total war in mainland, and we have agreed on that. Why now you dwindle back to SCS?

In SCS conflict US will face Chinese assymetric weapon.
In mainland conflict US will face both numbers + assymetric weapon.



Why not? one DF-26 is enough to damage the airfield, then the rest Air Strikes will do the rest.
If airfield damaged you cant fly those f-15/f-16/f22 until it is repaired (as you said take 6 hours), then 2 sequence missile in 3 hours interval will be enough until the fighter bombers arrive.

Or, alternatively => DF-25 with EMP warhead.

1 send to Guam, 1 send to Okinawa, 1 send to Osan.

1 EMP blast would destroy all avionics and electronics that will paralyze 400 F-15 and F-16 and other hundreds of planes in the field.

China is not producing missiles and bombs 18 months ago, she has made and accumulate missiles and bombs more than 10 years ago.

IF any satellites can render like GPS satellites, then why we still need GPS Satellites? By your logic Indonesia could serve GPS service as well with our telco satellites, we dont need to depent on US GPS or Chinese Bedou.

yeah, a single DF-26 can destroy a Carrier, F-22, Destroyer, Cruiser or even my uncle's 25ft fiberglass leisure yacht. In fact, China do not need a Navy, Air force, or even AA/SAM, just have 340 DF-26 with EMP or whatever hoo-hah in it, and the US Navy will be defeated, the Chinese is quite stupid to develop all these ships, aircraft and anything when any enemy can be done with DF-whatever series.

So China will win and all hail Chinese the great.

Is it okay with you? Am not going to discuss anything with you from now on. What is the point? DF-21 and DF-26 can see all, kill all? US ship are nothing but targets. Isn't it what you believe?

Adios
 
yeah, a single DF-26 can destroy a Carrier, F-22, Destroyer, Cruiser or even my uncle's 25ft fiberglass leisure yacht. In fact, China do not need a Navy, Air force, or even AA/SAM, just have 340 DF-26 with EMP or whatever hoo-hah in it, and the US Navy will be defeated, the Chinese is quite stupid to develop all these ships, aircraft and anything when any enemy can be done with DF-whatever series.

So China will win and all hail Chinese the great.

Is it okay with you? Am not going to discuss anything with you from now on. What is the point? DF-21 and DF-26 can see all, kill all? US ship are nothing but targets. Isn't it what you believe?

Adios


LOLs. DF-26 is intercontinental missile and ASBM missile, not to shoot F-22.

It is combination of DF-21/DF-26, HQ-9, anti satellite missiles, AWACS, Intercontinental missiles, massive number of modern fighters and bombers that will defend her from US attack.


http://www.pressreader.com/oman/times-of-oman/20160224/281818577902285 :)
 
Yes, Afghanistan PHYSICALLY defeated Russia that mean they are better than Russia in that war, unless you are saying otherwise.

Again, if Iraq any better than China, why not try your hand on these Iraqi Insurgent and see for yourselves. You are big with words, but I don't see any action. If China is that almighty, you should be able to defeat ISIS in a jiff..

Why not just try it?

The reason is very simple!

Iraq / Afghanistan doesn't have the capability that China has.

For example:
=> China can send ballistic missiles with EMP warhead to paralyze war machines and defence system thousands KM away such as in Okinawa - Osan - Guam, Hawaii, etc.

Afghanistan can't do that! Is Iraq capable to do that?

That is just 1 example. There are many more. ;)

By the way. I am not going to discuss this with you, you are obliviously out of your mind. When you see someone saying 75 DF-21D can destroy 75 Aegis Destroyer, this is a cue for me to stop commenting with you. You can believe whatever you want, You can believe 1 HQ-9 can shoot down 1 F-22, 1 DF21D can kill a aleigh burke class destroyer. I mean that is your business, but I only discuss with serious member only, and by saying what you said, it's time for you to see a doctor.

On the other way round: It is you who have ridiculous belief.
Why don't you explain the reason if you believe HQ-9 won't be able to shoot down F-22?
Why don't you explain the reason if you believe DF-21D won't be able to shoot Aegis destroyer?

It is you who are ridiculous if you think F-22 with full load of boms, JDAM, missiles, and probably fuel tank will remain stealthy as you want to believe :lol:

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/10/15/2010101500924.html
https://warisboring.com/china-s-isl...out-the-u-s-air-force-a465b617f7e8#.3n9yrkgtf
 
We never know how the US and China war will turn out, till the actual war start between the 2 nation.

When China form at least 3 aircraft carrier group in SCS along with those artificial island will be a formidable naval powerhouse against any nation navy in the SCS.

For now China navy still lack the quantity to fight against the US navy in SCS.
 
China’s Island Missiles Can Effectively Shut Out the U.S. Air Force
China has deployed the powerful HQ-9 air and missile defense system to Woody Island — also known as Yongxing — in the Parcel archipelago, marking a new level of escalation in Beijing’s quest to control the South China Sea. The disputed island — which has been inhabited by about 1,000 Chinese citizens since 1956 — is also claimed by Vietnam and Taiwan.

The addition of the HQ-9 — which was first reported by Fox News on Feb. 17 — would greatly increase the People’s Liberation Army’s air defense capabilities in the region. Like the Russian-made Almaz Antey S-300 air defense system, the HQ-9 has the ability to render vast swaths of territory into virtual no-fly zones. Only the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber can safely operate in the vicinity of an HQ-9 for any length of time.

Like the S-300P — on which it was partially based — the HQ-9 has a range of roughly 120 miles and can engage targets flying at 90,000 feet. However, there are significant differences between the Russian and Chinese systems. Indeed, according to the Claremont and George C. Marshall Institute’s Missile Threat project, the Chinese system incorporates technology from the U.S. Patriot missile defense system. Further, some sources suggest that the HQ-9 — unlike its American and Russian contemporaries — uses active electronically scanned array radar technology.

According to Missile Threat, the Chinese developed much of the HQ-9’s technology from a Patriot battery Beijing acquired from Israel. As such, it is possible that the HQ-9’s guidance system is modeled on the Patriot’s. Which means that the HQ-9 might use the Patriot’s “track-via-missile” guidance system — allowing the HQ-9 interceptor to fly directly at an incoming missile.

The HQ-9 — like the Patriot — would either explode as it nears the target or directly hit the incoming missile. Either way, the incoming target is either destroyed or knocked off its trajectory.

0*PKJgaFKyrgQc0ODp.jpg

Above — an HQ-9 missile launcher seen after a military parade in Beijing on Sept. 3, 2015. IceUnshattered/Wikimedia photo. At top — an HQ-9 launcher in naval pixel camouflage. Jian Kang/Wikimedia photo
The HQ-9 is competitive with Russian and American air defense systems — indeed, NATO member Turkey had intended to purchase a variant of the weapon until the deal eventually fell through late in 2015. However, the very fact that the HQ-9 could compete for an international missile tender against American, Russian and European systems — and win — is an indication of just how capable the Chinese weapon is.

According to Fox News, which reported its findings based on satellite imagery from ImageSat International, the Chinese have deployed two batteries of HQ-9s consisting of eight launchers. While the Pentagon confirmed the apparent HQ-9 deployment, Beijing dismissed the reports — saying that the defenses had been in place for years.

“As for the limited and necessary self-defense facilities that China has built on islands and reefs we have people stationed on, this is consistent with the right to self-protection that China is entitled to under international law so there should be no question about it,” Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi told reporters in Beijing, according to Reuters.

News of China’s missile deployment to Woody Island also comes on the heels of U.S. President Barack Obama stating that the militarization of South China Sea must stop. “We discussed the need for tangible steps in the South China Sea to lower tensions, including a halt to further reclamation, new construction and militarization of disputed areas,” Obama said during a U.S.-ASEAN press conference in Rancho Mirage, California, on Feb. 16. “Freedom of navigation must be upheld and lawful commerce should not be impeded,” he added.

Despite Obama’s calls to halt the militarization of the South China Sea, Beijing’s deployment of the HQ-9 is likely just the beginning. China seems intent on building up its forces on various islands in the area to shore up its territorial claims and to further its goals of pushing the U.S. military out of the western Pacific. It’s all part of China’s emerging anti-access/area denial strategy.

This article originally appeared at The National Interest, where Dave Majumdar is defense editor.

https://warisboring.com/china-s-isl...out-the-u-s-air-force-a465b617f7e8#.3n9yrkgtf
 
China project their naval capacity in SCS 10 yrs from now. Lot of new weapons platform in the development state if US not fight a war with China now, just forget bout fight a war with China 10 yes from now.
 
You need to wish these people are in charge of the Chinese Military so you will have maximum bargain from the PLA when Vietnam have to deal with them in any political and military issue, because by then, the PLA will simply go into full retard mode.

I missed discussing things with serious member. But meh, I guess you win some you lose some in this forum.

Alternatively, if you are not into all these DF-whatever "wonder weapon", why not discuss how US will destroy the Chinese Navy here in this thread, this thread is monitored and patrolled by mod, ensuing serious discussion only

https://defence.pk/threads/what-if-china-and-us-went-on-a-full-scale-war.475889/

which is not at all protecting by the same mod in this section.
 
Members, rather than discussing other members and nationality, it would be better that we remain on topic and discuss the content contrary to the Nationality/Flags. As repeatedly said, use report button for any offensive/off-topic etc post and move-on without quoting back.

Enjoy the topic.

Regards,
 
China project their naval capacity in SCS 10 yrs from now. Lot of new weapons platform in the development state if US not fight a war with China now, just forget bout fight a war with China 10 yes from now.

US can not be sure to win a war at SCS with China even now!What can you call it as a win?
 
I'm glad you brought this up. Indeed, it would be an incredibly selfish, cowardly, and pathetic display of "masculinity" to threaten to nuke someone - especially someone much weaker than you - you know, like defenseless women and children.



When Nixon Threatened to Nuke Vietnam:
https://warisboring.com/when-nixon-threatened-to-nuke-vietnam-a00bc0f73909#.6wm8uyxdj

Of course, since you're an "oldman", you probably remember when America did just that. America nuked an already defeated Imperial Japan's civilian population with two nuclear bombs - the only two ever used on civilians in human history. I'm sure that was part of the "Christian" civilizing mission you people are so fond of.

And so what? Anybody questioned about Japanese atrocities on China especially Chinese posters? You guys celebrating the atomic attacks on Japan. Even the firebombings on civilians.

And if you look at the war, we sure weren't taking on weak enemies especially Japan which was more powerful than the U.S. militarily for few months.
 
Last edited:
You need to wish these people are in charge of the Chinese Military so you will have maximum bargain from the PLA when Vietnam have to deal with them in any political and military issue, because by then, the PLA will simply go into full retard mode.

I missed discussing things with serious member. But meh, I guess you win some you lose some in this forum.

Alternatively, if you are not into all these DF-whatever "wonder weapon", why not discuss how US will destroy the Chinese Navy here in this thread, this thread is monitored and patrolled by mod, ensuing serious discussion only

https://defence.pk/threads/what-if-china-and-us-went-on-a-full-scale-war.475889/

which is not at all protecting by the same mod in this section.


While a war today would be costly for the U.S., China’s increasing anti-access, area denial arsenal as well as its growing carrier capability and aircraft strength could make it impossible for the U.S. to establish military dominance and achieve a decisive victory in 2025, the report by the RAND Corporation says.
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/rand-report-war-with-china-us-loses-2025


Both belligerents have anti-satellite weapons that are nearly invulnerable to attack, meaning that both countries will be able to destroy a substantial portion of each other’s satellites. The destruction of the American satellite constellation would be especially problematic for the rest of the world since nearly all GPS units connect to American satellites.
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/rand-report-war-with-china-us-loses-2025
 
While a war today would be costly for the U.S., China’s increasing anti-access, area denial arsenal as well as its growing carrier capability and aircraft strength could make it impossible for the U.S. to establish military dominance and achieve a decisive victory in 2025, the report by the RAND Corporation says.
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/rand-report-war-with-china-us-loses-2025


Both belligerents have anti-satellite weapons that are nearly invulnerable to attack, meaning that both countries will be able to destroy a substantial portion of each other’s satellites. The destruction of the American satellite constellation would be especially problematic for the rest of the world since nearly all GPS units connect to American satellites.
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/rand-report-war-with-china-us-loses-2025

Not really into science fiction......sorry.

Believe what you want, all you want, that does not mean I want to be a part of dicussion on what you want to believe.

And please, DO NOT EVER QUOTE ME AGAIN. I am not into a mood to use my time on some 12 years old member.
 
Not really into science fiction......sorry.

Believe what you want, all you want, that does not mean I want to be a part of dicussion on what you want to believe.

And please, DO NOT EVER QUOTE ME AGAIN. I am not into a mood to use my time on some 12 years old member.


But your inability to respond properly my arguments - questions - and evidence show who the 12 years old really is :)

Btw the youtube video you post in another thread says similarly with mine, only they discount the "asymetric-warfare".
 
But your inability to respond properly my arguments - questions - and evidence show who the 12 years old really is :)

Btw the youtube video you post in another thread says similarly with mine, only they discount the "asymetric-warfare".

Dude, what do you want me to say when you say 75 DF-26 can destroy 75 Arleigh Burke Class destoryer? And ASAT can destory the GPS when GPS is in MEO (which is 2000 km + above the earth) when ASAT in any service capacity can only reach LEO (Which is lower than 1000km), let alone there are more than 1000 satellite up there in different orbit? Yes, i am unable to response to your "Imaginative scenario" for that, you will need George Lucas or whoever wrote and produce Star Trek.

AS i said, I don't do science fiction, you want to believe all these, that's up to you, you don't need to share with me or find anyone for recognitizion.

Don't quote me again, please.
 

Back
Top Bottom