China's huge military advantages against US

[Martian2]

This is stupid.

Air refueling is a combat tactic on its own and one that the PLA have no experience with, as we remind you of that. You are under the misconception that there are a few tankers constantly on stations. YOU ARE WRONG. Unlike you, the USAF is not that stupid. The scheduling for air tankers are highly coordinated to maximize the numbers of fighters one tanker can service in the shortest time on station. Those orbits are unknown and would be outside of ground based radars on mainland China, which would be either destroyed or degraded on day one from high altitude B-2s and low altitude B-1s.

China's underground bases ? Access would be either denied or restricted from the same B-1s and B-2s.

The J-20s ? As I posted in the past that the US have effectively defeated 'stealth', if you want to bring in the J-20, the USN's F-35s will shoot them out of the sky long before each J-20 pilot can begin to search for the tankers.

The US have always have the mentality of fighting from a numerically inferior position and with our real world combat experience, your PLA WILL lose.

You have it backwards.

B-1s are not stealthy, so they are not even worth discussing.

B-2s are stealthy, but they need F-22s to clear the skies for a clear flight path.

In the original post, it is abundantly clear that F-22s cannot even reach the coast of China.

This means slow-moving subsonic B-2s will be swatted out of the sky by Chinese J-20s. The J-20 can use its EOTS and EODAS to detect a B-2 in infrared.
----------

China has plenty of HQ-9 SAM sites to shoot down non-stealthy aircraft. HQ-9s can also be used to shoot down stealth aircraft as long as they have approximate location data from KJ-2000 or KJ-200 L-band radars. Alternatively, HQ-9s can be guided by ground-based anti-stealth Chinese VHF or UHF radars.

IMINT & Analysis: The HQ-9 SAM System: A Site Analysis

"HQ-9 site outside Beijing"

 

[j20blackdragon]

I can't emphasize enough just how vulnerable an airbase is.

I'll provide a civilian example. Here are the fuel storage tanks at JFK airport.

http://blog.pennlive.com/lehighvalley/jfkairport.jpg

Most military airbases won't have this much fuel, and JFK is one of the largest and busiest airports in the world. But the concept is the same. Most fuel storage tanks at military airbases are above ground tanks similar to the ones above. All you would need are a few well placed missiles and all of the fuel storage tanks would go up in flames.

This is why it is folly if you believe it is a good idea to go to war with either Russia or China. Russia has GLONASS. China has BeiDou. Both can deliver precision guided weapons directly at your fuel supply. And without fuel, the war is over. Trust me on this one.

 

[KAL-EL]

I can't emphasize enough just how vulnerable an airbase is.

I'll provide a civilian example. Here are the fuel storage tanks at JFK airport.

http://blog.pennlive.com/lehighvalley/jfkairport.jpg

Most military airbases won't have this much fuel, and JFK is one of the largest and busiest airports in the world. But the concept is the same. Most fuel storage tanks at military airbases are above ground tanks similar to the ones above. All you would need are a few well placed missiles and all of the fuel storage tanks would go up in flames.

This is why it is folly if you believe it is a good idea to go to war with either Russia or China. Russia has GLONASS. China has BeiDou. Both can deliver precision guided weapons directly at your fuel supply. And without fuel, the war is over. Trust me on this one.

Chinese and Russian airbases are just as 'vulnerable' That is unless they've suddenly developed indestructible force fields and have suddenly become invulnerable to retaliation.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Japan's Shibushi oil stockpile site:

File:Shibushi Oil Stockpile Site 2009.JPG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is part of Japan's strategic petroleum reserve. As an island country, Japan has no oil reserves. All of Japan's oil imports come in by way of oil tankers. And the oil is stored in the large depots you see above. A couple of missiles and Japan's entire economy goes up in flames, so to speak.

This is why I believe Japan will be sitting on the sidelines during any US-China war. They have too much to lose and nothing to gain by joining in.

 

[yusheng]

if war happened, not to mention the unclear weapons used, no matter China took taiwan or not, the outcome was both China and us were deeply hurted in all aspects, then the EU or russian will be the no.1 and no2 on the earth, will China and us be happy to take this results?

 

[terranMarine]

Each passing year the gap keeps getting smaller, it is foolish to think the US is capable of protecting Taiwan indefinitely. With our growing defense budget, modernizing our military assets, PLAN and PLAAF will be a mighty force in the near future capable of power projection in the East Sea and SCS combined with our wide spectrum of missile choices at our disposal. This does not mean China is eager to invade Taiwan. As long nobody is foolish enough to repeat what Chen did back in 1995 everything is cool between both sides. The US told that idiot to shut da f*ck up and the crisis was mitigated. First of all the US wants is to prevent an invasion from Mainland and secondly it always discourages Taiwan to seek independence otherwise it will mean war (that goes without saying). It's not the 80s nor the mid 90s anymore, PLAN is rapidly building up transforming into a blue water Navy. The US is not stupid, based on their calculations today to 3-4 decades later their assessments will continue to adjust based on Chinese military developments. Eventually the Americans will have to face the inevitable decision, either lose a forest for some isolated grass or lose the isolated grass and keep the friendly relation with the gigantic forest (today it's 1.4 bln and in the future much larger customer base for US companies).

Taiwan is a China province, a core interest thus a red line that the Americans understand very well not to cross (independence is a taboo that no US politician wants to talk about it). Again China doesn't want to kill our Taiwanese brethren unnecessarily or bomb the island to pieces. Both sides will continue to collaborate further on many fronts basically. But make no mistake, unification is one of Mainlands goal and it will happen in the future whether it will be peaceful one or through bloody means it's bound to happen. By then China will be one mother fucker power that even US will have to drop Taiwan or face hefty losses. And for the record Indonesia, Japan, Vietnam nor India want to get involved in this unification process that doesn't concern them. Nor will there be international boycott from Europe unless they want to suffer huge economic blows.

 

[jhungary]

China can reclaim Taiwan any time.

Father of Singapore, the late Lee Kuan Yew

Can, could, shall, should. all they say does not matter. What China do does, and fortunately, Chinese leadership is not some kind of nut job appear in PDF and keep saying "China can retake Taiwan anytime"

And LOL if you think US will not involve.

No one is starting a war except USA, the neo-imperialist. This thread is all about the BIG FAT IF.

Therefore, everyone should stop being so dramatic.

And yet I only see Chinese member talking about attacking this, retaking that. Is USA the only one starting war? Maybe, but there are a lot wannabe like yourselves in between.

You're going to put actuators to control flow of oil to the boom of another fighter? You know how expensive it is to modify the print of an existing part? That's why planes don't go through major changes after CDR, which after production in this case, is well past CDR.

In addition, you're going to limit the small combat radius of fighters simply to allocate fuel to other fighters? Where is the logic in that?

You do know there are adaptor used to control oil flow right? Not everything you need to add comes out at having to redesign the whole design.

And then obliviously you have not heard about the external fuel prod that EA-18G is using...First, if a fighter is designated to be a buddy refueler, they would have minimal armament and peel off after refuelling. Second, by adding external refuelling pod, they can extend any given fighter for their range without sacrifice their own range.

But then I guess you just open your mouth without knowing all these.

Chinese and Russian airbases are just as 'vulnerable' That is unless they've suddenly developed indestructible force fields and have suddenly become invulnerable to retaliation.

In all, as I said some post ago.

US will not do anything to retaliate when China start bombing the US infrastructure in Japan, Guam and Korea.

US cannot do anything even if they want to, because of the uber advanced J-20 and DF-Whatever

War is fought when PLA do what they want and how they want to do it, and comes out exactly like what they anticipated.

In other word, PLA is the god of war, case closed...

All hail the mighty PLA

I mean, if only Chinese Military Official thinks like that, the US would have a easy war next time against the Chinese, but unfortunately, their leadership is not as dumb as the PDF Chinese brigade, so no dice.

 

[gambit]

You have it backwards.

I have it more correct than you EVER will.

B-1s are not stealthy, so they are not even worth discussing.

Neither was the F-111 and the Soviets were practically terrified of it. I have been 50 meters over the water in an F-111. How about you ?

B-2s are stealthy, but they need F-22s to clear the skies for a clear flight path.

No...They do not. We know how to operate the B-2 in high EM threat environments far better than the PLA can practice how to detect an F-117 class body.

 

[jhungary]

you are right, but the thing is defeating China will make sure US will lose its Military might in entire Asian Region ..and i hope you agree with it ..

Well, as per my previous analysis, US lost will quite depend on how quickly and far Chinese take over the situation before US main force were involved. But I would have to say Most of the US Far East asset will be depleted (Either used up or destroyed) but then US will comes out ahead of China in case of war as it is fighting over in China which will damage Chinese mainland quite a lot but US mainland would generally be untouched.

So, what happened is that US will sacrifice existing Far East Infrastructure to draw down China, which US can rebuild them easy (As most of US mainland is untouched and most of it does not belong to the US anyway in the begining) but China would have a hard time to rebuild.

sometimes i never understand why China is so obsessed with Taiwan ? i mean they can focus on other things ..
I doubt that China will escalate into a Nuclear war but they will if they mainland is threatened .. after all Nukes works as a boggy man over the decades ..the reaction of US and China will also depend on the nature of War right ? If world see China as aggressor than it will be a negative point for Chinese ..but if US interfere in a Minor dispute between China and Taiwan than it will effect US Operations in Asia ..

The problem is, If and When China decided to retake Taiwan by force, this will be in no way a "Small Dispute" the way it is heading, this scenario have a minimal chance of occurrence, unless something dramatic happened during the near future.

China always think Taiwan is a Runaway province, their thinking is that Taiwan is an eyesore not because of economic might (It was before) but about the illegitimacy of Taiwan as an independent nation. That is why China is obsessed with Taiwan.

Agree to that for Russia its better to stay and watch US and China fight .. so after one party falls Russia comes into the picture ..but i still doubt that US will risk its entire Military might in Asia , to protect Taiwan , for Japan or S.Korea i would have understand .. but for Taiwan ... it will also be difficult for US to defend Taiwan as its geopolitical close to China ..

It would be a good trade off for US to use existing far east infrastructure to set China down for 20 to 30 years back. You need to know this, the existing structure in Far East is already paid for and if China actually try to retake Taiwan, that is the ultimate sign of Chinese Aggression, which the US can use it to sell China like the Former Soviet Union. The US will portrait as "today Taiwan, tomorrow, who?" type of situation

And this could be a motivated sign to have a war of Uniting Asia to go up against China and after that happen, basically all of Asia would be ruined, and it will increase the US Allies in Asia to depend on US even more.

As for can US defend Taiwan? It don't need to. Taiwan is close to China, but the problem is, Taiwan is a small Island means China cannot possibly use all her Military might to take Taiwan. And Taiwan can simply go underground and raise an insurgency warfare, and fight China until US come to aide with a NATO combine force. They have done it in South Korea, it would have been the same result for Taiwan.

 

[General Observer]

You do know there are adaptor used to control oil flow right? Not everything you need to add comes out at having to redesign the whole design.

And then obliviously you have not heard about the external fuel prod that EA-18G is using...First, if a fighter is designated to be a buddy refueler, they would have minimal armament and peel off after refuelling. Second, by adding external refuelling pod, they can extend any given fighter for their range without sacrifice their own range.

But then I guess you just open your mouth without knowing all these.

Yes, I do know there are actuators to regulate flow of fuel, between an external fuel tank, and the wings. How is this refueling a 'buddy' fighter? You're flying with an excess of fuel for your own consumption.

Unless you create a new fuel line feeding off an existing one, which in turn feeds to an external boom through an actuator, perhaps through this tertiary fuel line you could use to fuel others. Then again, you're changing an existing design aren't you, how is this different from what I said previously???

 

[Martian2]

Chinese and Russian airbases are just as 'vulnerable' That is unless they've suddenly developed indestructible force fields and have suddenly become invulnerable to retaliation.

No. The United States is prohibited from possessing intermediate-range ballistic or cruise missiles (see INF Treaty citation below). By the way, China has at least 41 deep-underground airbases (see Assessing PLA Underground Air Basing Capability).

This gives China a huge advantage. Chinese intermediate range missiles can reach out to destroy every one of those seven US bases in Asia.

The US only has short-range ballistic or cruise missiles. Alternatively, the US can use a valuable ICBM or SLBM to hit a minor target (which it isn't going to do).

There is an asymmetry in China's possession of a huge arsenal of intermediate-range ballistic and cruise missiles.
----------

http://fas.org/nuke/control/inf/

"Provisions
The INF Treaty eliminated all nuclear-armed ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers (about 300 to 3400 miles) and their infrastructure. The INF Treaty is the first nuclear arms control agreement to actually reduce nuclear arms, rather than establish ceilings that could not be exceeded. Altogether it resulted in the elimination by May 1991 of 846 longer-and shorter-range U.S. INF missile systems and 1846 Soviet INF missile systems, including the modernized U.S. Pershing II and Soviet SS-20 missiles."

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

you do realize we can hit you from the other side.

B2 range is 6000 miles.

 

[Martian2]

you do realize we can hit you from the other side.

View attachment 276316
B2 range is 6000 miles.

Give me a break. Did you bother reading my earlier post?

I already said that an unprotected slow-moving subsonic B-2 would be shot down by roaming squadrons of J-20 with EOTS and EODAS. A B-2 emits an infrared signature and it's a goner if undefended.

Stop repeating points that have already been answered (see post #68 on previous page).

 

[jhungary]

Yes, I do know there are actuators to regulate flow of fuel, between an external fuel tank, and the wings. How is this refueling a 'buddy' fighter? You're flying with an excess of fuel for your own consumption.

Unless you create a new fuel line feeding off an existing one, which in turn feeds to an external boom through an actuator, perhaps through this tertiary fuel line you could use to fuel others. Then again, you're changing an existing design aren't you, how is this different from what I said previously???

But you do know external fuelling pod as used in F/A-18 have its own fuel line and actuator to control the flow of fuel from the tanker-buddy to the fighter-buddy right? Why do you need to redesign a fuel reception line and the actuator of an FA-18 or V-22? You just refuel using the external pod and drop the pod like any drop tank once the refuelling is done.

http://www.cobham.com/about-cobham/...elling-pods/31-300-buddy-store-datasheet.aspx

you do realize we can hit you from the other side.

View attachment 276316

View attachment 276317
B2 range is 6000 miles.

You forgot J-20 see all and kill all, that's his point, there are no use to fly any flight, stealth or not to and from China, J-20 will launch from nowhere and shoot them time out of thin air...

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

You forgot J-20 see all and kill all, that's his point, there are no use to fly any flight, stealth or not to and from China, J-20 will launch from nowhere and shoot them time out of thin air...

But we can counter argue there's no use for China to send any of their shipping/air freight out since once they are outside their mainland air cover they are complete sitting ducks. This whole post is a big "i do this" and then "we do that" nonsense. So I guess they are just going to close their borders for 100 years.