China's huge military advantages against US

[Martian2]

Look at the map. China has at least 40 airbases. The US only has seven.

American Innovation: The Future of America's Eagles Part II

"United States airbases in proximity to China. Red aircraft icons represent PLAAF bases. Image credit: RAND, 2008."
----------

As I had mentioned previously, China has 41 underground airbases. The US has none. This means US oil tanks can be easily destroyed. You can't fight a war without access to jet fuel, munition supplies, or repair facilities.
Source: Assessing PLA Underground Air Basing Capability

Let's just assume the US has access to jet fuel. How does the US intend to refuel F-22s in the air? China can easily shoot down the KC-135 tankers. Without air refueling, the short-legged F-22 (with a combat radius of 400 nautical miles) will never reach the battlefield.

The United States needs 63 KC-135 tankers that fly 86 sorties per day. Squadrons of Chinese J-20 stealth fighters (with a combat radius of 1,200 nautical miles) can easily shoot down the KC-135 tankers. Without tankers, the war is over for the F-22s.

American Innovation: The Uncertain Future of America's Raptors - Part I Introduction

"Raptor sortie generation rates from Andersen. Image Credit: RAND, 2008."

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Unites States huge military advantages against China

Number of Chinese air bases: 0
Number of Chinese naval bases: 0
Number of Chinese army bases: 0

 

[Martian2]

Unites States huge military advantages against China

View attachment 276115

Number of Chinese air bases: 0
Number of Chinese naval bases: 0
Number of Chinese army bases: 0

Are you an idiot?

The scenario is a war over Taiwan, the East China Sea (e.g. Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands war), or a South China Sea war.

Look at the forum heading. It says "China and the Far East." It doesn't say "North America."

 

[anon45]

Yea, go ahead and attack Korean and Japanese soil. Might as well attack Australia and the Philippines while you are it it.


I'd say forcing them into a state of war on you would negate the tactical utility of striking these bases.


You would also leave yourself open to reprisals on China, and not just from the US.

My bet is China wouldn't be looking to expand the battlespace. Too many negative consequences.

 

[Beast]

Yea, go ahead and attack Korean and Japanese soil. Might as well attack Australia and the Philippines while you are it it.


I'd say forcing them into a state of war on you would negate the tactical utility of striking these bases.


You would also leave yourself open to reprisals on China, and not just from the US.

My bet is China wouldn't be looking to expand the battlespace. Too many negative consequences.

Same as SKorea or Japan will not allow a single US warplane launched from their soil or US military airbase to involve in any military conflict with China. It will mean their land is open to any retaliation from China missile.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Are you an idiot?

The scenario is a war over Taiwan, the East China Sea (e.g. Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands war), or a South China Sea war.

Look at the forum heading. It says "China and the Far East." It doesn't say "North America."

You have 100% of your military at the battlefield. The US is on the opposite side of the planet. What is your post supposed to prove???

You are stating the obvious.

If you don't think you have the obvious advantage you are nutz.

 

[Martian2]

You have 100% of your military at the battlefield. The US is on the opposite side of the planet. What is your post supposed to prove???

You are stating the obvious.

If you don't think you have the obvious advantage you are nutz.

Read US media and think-tank articles. They believe the US will win.

I disagree. I think the US loses on logistical disadvantages.

The F-22 is an excellent fighter. However, without fuel, it isn't going anywhere. The weak link is the KC-135 tanker.

By the way, if you think my threads or posts are obvious then go comment in someone else's thread.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Read US media and think-tank articles. They believe the US will win.

I disagree. I think the US loses on logistical disadvantages.

You can't be serious. The Taiwan strait is only 110 miles. You can almost have your men swim it.
How long does it take 10,000 boats with 50 men on each of them to go 100 miles?

 

[Jason Zhao]

Are you an idiot?

The scenario is a war over Taiwan, the East China Sea (e.g. Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands war), or a South China Sea war.

Look at the forum heading. It says "China and the Far East." It doesn't say "North America."

it doesnt matter, he is also finding the proud mind. we should accept it, but Far east, they can not get it, it is enough.

You can't be serious. The Taiwan strait is only 110 miles. You can almost have your men swim it.
How long does it take 10,000 boats to go 100 miles?

Go on selling the weapons to Taiwan~~~hahaha, I think one day we will get them all in peace~~

 

[jhungary]

You can't be serious. The Taiwan strait is only 110 miles. You can almost have your men swim it.
How long does it take 10,000 boats to go 100 miles?

I think what he refer to is the eventuality. US will win an engagement with China over Taiwan. Just not in the initial phase.

Had Taiwan come under attack from China, and if US were to involve, American will do so in the same fashion as with during the Korean War. Which means they will send the 2d ID and 7th ID to Taiwan to fight a delay action. Coordinate with Taiwanese Defence Force and they will hold on until US can mobilise their main force, purposely with NATO or even UN and land in Taiwan. This will take approximately 14 to 28 days.

The battle would have eventually won because China will not be facing US themselves alone, they will face an US led Coalition (Britain, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippine and so on) and given the Chinese lift capability and the land size of Taiwan, as well as the determination of Taiwanese to fight the Chinese and raise a Guerrilla warfare, the war will most definitely ended in favour of US and its Allied. Reason behind is, had Taiwanese not willing to fight from the start, they would have agree to a peaceful reunification at the very beginning, For China to recover Taiwan with force, that would only mean one thing and one thing only, Taiwanese are not willing to under Chinese Rule. And eventually it will turn into multiple front war.

The only problem is this, had US involve in a war with China over Taiwan, both China and Taiwan will be relegated into a non-factor in world's political stage and economic stage. But US would also suffer serious setback had they decided to slug it out over Taiwan issue. How much it hurts the US depends on how far gone was Taiwan when the US main force were involved. If Taiwan was totally occupied by China by the time US Main force were mobilised, then the damage will be maximum to the US. And if the Chinese cannot capture all the Taiwanese land before the Main Force mobilise, the damage done to the US will be less.

China knows that, Taiwan knows that and US knows that, hence there will be no war.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

I think what he refer to is the eventuality. US will win an engagement with China over Taiwan. Just not in the initial phase.

Had Taiwan come under attack from China, and if US were to involve, American will do so in the same fashion as with during the Korean War. Which means they will send the 2d ID and 7th ID to Taiwan to fight a delay action. Coordinate with Taiwanese Defence Force and they will hold on until US can mobilise their main force, purposely with NATO or even UN and land in Taiwan.

The battle would have eventually won because China will not be facing US themselves, they will also face the US Led Coalition (Britain, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Philippine and so on) and given the Chinese lift capability and the land size of Taiwan, as well as the determination of Taiwanese to fight the Chinese and raise a Guerrilla warfare, the war will most definitely ended in favour of US and its Allied. Reason behind is, had Taiwanese not willing to fight from the start, they would have agree to a peaceful reunification at the very beginning, For China to recover Taiwan with force, that would only mean one thing and one thing only, Taiwanese are not willing to under Chinese Rule. And eventually it will turn into multiple front war.

The only problem is this, had US involve in a war with China over Taiwan, both China and Taiwan will be relegated into a non-factor in world's political stage and economic stage. But US would also suffer serious setback had they decided to slug it out over Taiwan issue. How much it hurts the US depends on how far gone was Taiwan when the US main force were involved. If Taiwan was totally occupied by China by the time US Main force were mobilised, then the damage will be maximum to the US. And if the Chinese cannot capture all the Taiwanese land before the Main Force mobilise, the damage done to the US will be less.

China knows that, Taiwan knows that and US knows that, hence there will be no war.

Certainly it would be in China's best interest to do a Hong Kong type resolution to this instead of some hasty brute force mess and have the world frown on them and turn them into North Korea.

 

[jhungary]

Certainly it would be in China's best interest to do a Hong Kong type resolution to this instead of some hasty brute force mess and have the world frown on them.

lol, it's quite depends on whether or not Taiwan accept these proposition. I would have to say, coming from Hong Kong myself, the 1 country 2 system is a total failure if you asked me, basically it give nothing to the local government and turn the local government into "Yes Man" and I am not talking about foreign affair, i am talking about the affair within Hong Kong itself and Taiwanese must have see this too (The inability of Hong Kong Government).

If China want to peaceful reunite with Taiwan, they need a better proposal than One Country Two System.

Look at the map. China has at least 40 airbases. The US only has seven.

American Innovation: The Future of America's Eagles Part II

"United States airbases in proximity to China. Red aircraft icons represent PLAAF bases. Image credit: RAND, 2008."
----------

As I had mentioned previously, China has 41 underground airbases. The US has none. This means US oil tanks can be easily destroyed. You can't fight a war without access to jet fuel, munition supplies, or repair facilities.
Source: Assessing PLA Underground Air Basing Capability

Let's just assume the US has access to jet fuel. How does the US intend to refuel F-22s in the air? China can easily shoot down the KC-135 tankers. Without air refueling, the short-legged F-22 (with a combat radius of 400 nautical miles) will never reach the battlefield.

The United States needs 63 KC-135 tankers that fly 86 sorties per day. Squadrons of Chinese J-20 stealth fighters (with a combat radius of 1,200 nautical miles) can easily shoot down the KC-135 tankers. Without tankers, the war is over for the F-22s.

American Innovation: The Uncertain Future of America's Raptors - Part I Introduction

"Raptor sortie generation rates from Andersen. Image Credit: RAND, 2008."

just so you know, US did not just have 7 airbase in the region, the graph have missed the US Carrier and Naval Air Station in the region.

US have 2 aircraft carrier (7 if they call in 3rd fleet as well) as well as 2 Naval Air Station in Japan (NAF Atsugi and NAS Yokosuka) and Navy Base with active airfield (Apra Harbor in Guam, Wake Field in Wake Island) and 3 Marine Corps Air Station in japan and 1 in Korea.

Plus, basically all the airfield in Japan and Korea can be used as Military Air Base.

@gambit would have love this thread lol

 

[cloud4000]

lol, it's quite depends on whether or not Taiwan accept these proposition. I would have to say, coming from Hong Kong myself, the 1 country 2 system is a total failure if you asked me, basically it give nothing to the local government and turn the local government into "Yes Man" and I am not talking about foreign affair, i am talking about the affair within Hong Kong itself and Taiwanese must have see this too (The inability of Hong Kong Government).

If China want to peaceful reunite with Taiwan, they need a better proposal than One Country Two System.

It's China that needs to change, not Taiwan. China should adopt a multi-party democracy. The last thing Taiwan wants is to be another province of China, paying fealty to CPC.

 

[Martian2]

lol, it's quite depends on whether or not Taiwan accept these proposition. I would have to say, coming from Hong Kong myself, the 1 country 2 system is a total failure if you asked me, basically it give nothing to the local government and turn the local government into "Yes Man" and I am not talking about foreign affair, i am talking about the affair within Hong Kong itself and Taiwanese must have see this too (The inability of Hong Kong Government).

If China want to peaceful reunite with Taiwan, they need a better proposal than One Country Two System.



just so you know, US did not just have 7 airbase in the region, the graph have missed the US Carrier and Naval Air Station in the region.

US have 2 aircraft carrier (7 if they call in 3rd fleet as well) as well as 2 Naval Air Station in Japan (NAF Atsugi and NAS Yokosuka) and Navy Base with active airfield (Apra Harbor in Guam, Wake Field in Wake Island) and 3 Marine Corps Air Station in japan and 1 in Korea.

Plus, basically all the airfield in Japan and Korea can be used as Military Air Base.

@gambit would have love this thread lol

Did you bother to read the original post?

The issue is the number of KC-135 tankers necessary to sustain F-22s in an Asian war.

For your information, F-22s cannot takeoff or land on a carrier.

No serious military analyst would compare the underpowered F-35 and its long acceleration time, its small radar, inferior 4.5G maneuverability, and low service ceiling against the Chinese J-20 heavyweight stealth fighter.

 

[jhungary]

Did you bother to read the original post?

The issue is the number of KC-135 tankers necessary to sustain F-22s in an Asian war.

For your information, F-22s cannot takeoff or land on a carrier.

No serious military analyst would compare the underpowered F-35 and its long acceleration time, its small radar, inferior 4.5G maneuverability, and low service ceiling against the Chinese J-20 heavyweight stealth fighter.

You do know US have other tanker aircraft, right ?

Especially KC-130 which operated by both Navy and Marine, as well as V-22 and also F-18 Superhornet can be used tobuddy refueling, just because Air Force and Navy were in a different Branch, that does not mean they use different jet fuel....

And for your information, KC-130 and V-22 and F-18 can take off and land on an aircraft carrier

And your F-35 comment is just too face palm to reply...