October Surprise: my prediction for war

[UKBengali]

China does not need to invade Taiwan. China just needs to destroy Taiwans infrastructure and industry and bring then to their economic knees.. that is when Taiwan will need to surrender. China will make the conflict last for years, and have the west lose interest, while it progressively degrades Taiwans capabilities. Taiwan does not have the economic might to sustain a sustained war with China....

China will not engage the USA unless USA forces itself into the fight. The Chinese will wait for the Americans to make the move on that.

Technology has moved on a lot in the last decade, and the "current" modern value of an aircraft carrier is highly suspect. Any conflict that takes place, will validate if aircraft carriers have a future or not, any more.. will they have value or go the way of the dreadnoughts?

This thread is about China invading and capturing Taiwan in 7 days and hitting 3 US carriers to boot!

Therefore we need to bring full US might into the chances of Chinese success at an invasion and run with this scenario.

ASBM - Let China even carry out a single exercise on a moving target out in the open ocean and then we can start taking them more seriously.
In real life, Chinese will have no accurate idea of where the US carriers are and they will be protected by ABMs, decoys and evasive manoeuvres. Chinese submarine and surveillance aircraft cannot get close enough to US fleet due to US defending assets(SSNs and fighters) that are superior to what China can muster.
We cannot really count them as major factors as there are so many unknowns and lots of ways to protect carriers against them.

 

[UKBengali]

LOL at the Bangladeshi refugee deluding himself silly because of China's ASBM

"Bangladeshi refugee"?

Please try some actual reasoned arguments as it looks like you resort to labels like this when you have none.

 

[Surya 1]

How would a J-20 with inferior 4th gen engines going to fight effectively with F-22s and F-35s that both have 5th gen engines.
Also the F-35 has the world’s best radar and has been successful in jamming the upgraded F-22 radar even.

Come back when J-20 has a proper 5th gen engine.

Inferior engine, poor aerodynamic, large RCS, substandard radar, and Chinese electronics and weapons. It is Chinese 5th generation plane.

 

[UKBengali]

Inferior engine, poor aerodynamic, large RCS, substandard radar, and Chinese electronics and weapons. It is Chinese 5th generation plane.

I think the frontal RCS of the J-20 is quite good as 80% of stealth is shaping and Chinese just copied this from USA.

Radar, electronics and weapons will also be pretty good as the Chinese have made a lot of advances over the last 2 decades but still J-20 will be no match for F-35 radar and electronics and probably a little behind that of the F-22 as well.

Chinese local mainland advantage still cannot overcome US overwhelming technological advantage and the almost unlimited firepower of the USN/USMC that the US can throw at them.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

"Bangladeshi refugee"?

Please try some actual reasoned arguments as it looks like you resort to labels like this when you have none.

You don't use sources other than brochures. It's impossible to converse with you.

 

[j20blackdragon]

I want to remind everyone that China doesn't NEED any ASBMs.

150 H-6K, H-6N, and H-6J can carry 900 cruise missiles.

150 * 6 = 900 cruise missiles.

The YJ-18 is a massive Tomahawk-sized cruise missile. Paraded last year.

A Tomahawk-sized missile should have Tomahawk range.

 

[Journeyman]

All of these started because the Chinese want to dethrone the annual 2 trillion petrodollar market of the American. History has proven that those who try to dethrone the petrodollar system will be destroyed (Iraq, Libya) . Anyone who try to destroy the petrodollar is literally trying to destroy the U.S and the U.S will respond heavily if you try to destroy them. If you consider the $500 billion trade deficit the U.S have with china is big, consider another $2 trillion petrodollar the Chinese try to snatch away from the U.S; that's a total of $2.5 TRILLION dollar on an annual basis that the U.S is losing to China . The U.S can get the rest of Western Europe on the same anti-China train because the petro Euro is in the process of being replaced with the Yuan too. This is the real trade war on the grand scale.

 

[UKBengali]

I want to remind everyone that China doesn't NEED any ASBMs.

150 H-6K, H-6N, and H-6J can carry 900 cruise missiles.

150 * 6 = 900 cruise missiles.

The YJ-18 is a massive Tomahawk-sized cruise missile. Paraded last year.

A Tomahawk-sized missile should have Tomahawk range.

Problem is getting a good enough track on the US fleet as you cannot launch volley after volley of cruise missiles and just hope for the best.


F-35s will protect from the air and SSNs will protect under the ocean.

Cruise missiles have the same problem as ASBMs and that is getting a good enough track of the US fleet.

 

[Feng Leng]

Cruise missiles have the same problem as ASBMs and that is getting a good enough track of the US fleet.

LOL at the inferiority and jealousy

 

[UKBengali]

LOL at the inferiority and jealousy

Ok, what proof is there as to what is tracking what exactly?

How does this relate to tracking a carrier group in the vast expanses of the ocean anyway?

Your thread assumes that the US carrier is 1000km east of Taiwan and that could be in an area the size of some 100,000 square kms or more.

 

[Feng Leng]

Ok, what proof is there as to what is tracking what exactly?

How does this relate to tracking a carrier group in the vast expanses of the ocean anyway?

Your thread assumes that the US carrier is 1000km east of Taiwan and that could be in an area the size of some 100,000 square kms or more.

LOL at the Bangladeshi going bonkers from humiliation

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

LOL at the Bangladeshi going bonkers from humiliation

"A satellite tracking a plane proves nothing! There's no way it can track a ship moving 10x slower with 10x bigger area!"

 

[UKBengali]

"A satellite tracking a plane proves nothing! There's no way it can track a ship moving 10x slower with 10x bigger area!"

How the hell does a satellite track a plane like that on video?

There is no way that could be a low orbit military satellite.

Are you aware of the orbital speed of a satellite that could take a shot like that?

5km a second no less which means it will only make a fleeting pass over the plane. Every second the satellite and plane would be getting at least 5km away from each other and so the camera would have to keep changing direction and focus to keep the clear image of the plane.

Yes a carrier group is larger and can be located by satellites but again it still relies on a certain amount of luck in making sure the satellite passes over the fleet with each pass.
China would need to launch many dozens of satellites and they would be targets to be shot down by US missiles on their destroyers.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

How the hell does a satellite track a plane like that on video?

There is no way that could be a low orbit military satellite.

Are you aware of the orbital speed of a satellite that could take a shot like that?

5km a second no less which means it will only make a fleeting pass over the plane. Every second the satellite and plane would be getting at least 5km away from each other and so the camera would have to keep changing direction and focus to keep the clear image of the plane.

Yes a carrier group is larger and can be located by satellites but again it still relies on a certain amount of luck in making sure the satellite passes over the fleet with each pass.
China would need to launch many dozens of satellites and they would be targets to be shot down by US missiles on their destroyers.

For imaging purposes the angular velocity is what matters, not linear velocity. It's why we can image asteroids even though they're moving far faster - their angular velocity is tiny.

At 5 km/sec relative speed from a 700 km orbit and assuming perpendicular relative motion the angular velocity is just 0.4 degrees/sec. So the speed of tracking is not the issue.

US has shown no evidence it can shoot down arbitrary satellites without transponders or at the height of Chinese satellites. US ASAT tests have only been conducted against a 240 km apogee satellite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA-193) and 545 km apogee satellite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solwind).

China's 2007 test occurred at a distance greater than the 2 US tests combined.

2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[UKBengali]

For imaging purposes the angular velocity is what matters, not linear velocity. It's why we can image asteroids even though they're moving far faster - their angular velocity is tiny.

At 5 km/sec relative speed from a 700 km orbit and assuming perpendicular relative motion the angular velocity is just 0.4 degrees/sec. So the speed of tracking is not the issue.

A military satellite that has any hope of taking a video like that must be a lot lot closer to the earth's surface - maybe around 300km at most. That is the orbital altitude of the typical spy satellite and some even get down to 200km.

Also we need to take into account that the satellite would be looking into the earth's atmosphere and that would cause image distortion, and looking at the size of the buildings in comparison the plane seems to be quite close to the earth's surface.
I see no evidence of the camera adjusting it's focus as it tracks the plane moving across the earth's surface.

Asteroids tend to be much much more larger than a fighter aircraft and so much farther away, hence low angular velocity, unlike that of the fighter that this "satellite" has videoed.

Sorry but this looks to me like a high flying plane taking a video of a low flying plane. China has not come up with some futuristic technology to be able to shoot a video of a flying fighter aircraft from space.