F-22 will see no more orders, VH-71 cancelled

[KrazyHorse]

GePap, any study about what happened in the gulf has virtually no bearing on a hypothetical conflict with China centered on Taiwan.

Iraq did NOT have precisely those assets I mentioned in the context of China.

CVNs let you get in striking distance of almost any country on Earth without having to ask permission. They do NOT stand up well against an adversary with sufficiently accurate missiles and intelligence and (possibly) good enough subs. In a situation like that land-based planes are a hell of a lot more effective. Land-based runways can be repaired easily after an attack instead of ending up under 1000 feet of water.

In a war against China over Taiwan CVNs would probably (looking at a map) be put in the South China Sea to hit targets on the mainland not reachable from Taiwan (or for which there were simply not enough land-based planes). If both SK and Japan resisted putting planes on their territory then the carriers could be put up north to hit stuff in the north mainland.

But when you have the choice, putting planes on land is better. MUCH better.

[KrazyHorse]

Google was less than forthcoming with their information concerning Chinese satellites, but it appears that besides one basic mapping satellite for getting targeting data for their ICBMs, the rest of their satellites are actually photograph type ones that require actual reentry and recovery to DEVELOPE the pictures as of right now

This sounds like total bull**** to me. Why the **** WOULDN'T they put up sats which can fax stuff? I know you're basing this off google, so it's not your fault, but it sounds like nonsense.

[Patroklos]

China has the resources to know exactly where CVNs in the Western PAC are at all times.

Yeah, but how? Even assuming they have state of the art satellite recon, even we can't instantly find surface ships at will with our assets.

They do NOT stand up well against an adversary with sufficiently accurate missiles and intelligence and (possibly) good enough subs.

Is this not itself speculation?

In a war against China over Taiwan CVNs would probably (looking at a map) be put in the South China Sea to hit targets on the mainland not reachable from Taiwan (or for which there were simply not enough land-based planes). If both SK and Japan resisted putting planes on their territory then the carriers could be put up north to hit stuff in the north mainland.

I don't think this would be the case. I'd imagine that initially the carriers would be placed behind Taiwan so that they could assist in its defense from the air and by controling the airspace of the straight itself to resist invasion. Chinese shore based anti ship missile batteries can reaty 100-150nm into the litorals, and unlike Iran I have no doubts about the effectivness of Chinese shore defenses.

If I were the US/Japan/China (I can't see any scenario where Japan can tolerate even a chance of China winning such a conflict) I would use carriers for sea control and to assist island protection, and once China has exhausted offensive missile and aircraft assets breaking itself over our defensive forces, using USAF assets to press the attacks into the mainland to make the point that China has lost and further conflict is fruitless clear to them.

Even a month of China being cut off from maritime trade will do the trick, this is not going to be a war of attrition.

This sounds like total bull**** to me. Why the **** WOULDN'T they put up sats which can fax stuff? I know you're basing this off google, so it's not your fault, but it sounds like nonsense.

I thought it odd as well. The joint satellites they have with Brazil do transmit the data but the specs seemed totally inadequate for maritime search and I don't know if China can use them if Brazil objected.

I will note that the best articles I found were from 2007, so maybe they have launched more since then.

[KrazyHorse]

Yeah, but how? Even assuming they have state of the art satellite recon, even we can't instantly find surface ships at will with our assets.

Dude, there's only...10 carriers in the USN? And only a certain number of them in theater at once. I'm not talking about tracking frigates here. These ****ers are HUGE, and there's a very limited number of them. I really doubt that the US has any flattop in western PAC (and a large part of Indian ocean?) that China is not constantly tracking.

Is this not itself speculation?

It's very reasonable common sense. Carriers sink. Airfields do not. And while air defenses of carrier groups are impressive, they are fighting a losing battle. China's a reasonably sophisticated nation nowadays. Compared to carriers missiles are cheap.

Carriers are, in my view, one of the best things the US has going for it. But for other reasons (flexibility!) than being fortresses against better-equipped countries.

Could the US CVNs survive? Maybe. I don't know if the chicoms would sink even one. But I do know that they are more vulnerable than airfields.

I don't think this would be the case. I'd imagine that initially the carriers would be placed behind Taiwan so that they could assist in its defense from the air and by controling the airspace of the straight itself to resist invasion. Chinese shore based anti ship missile batteries can reaty 100-150nm into the litorals, and unlike Iran I have no doubts about the effectivness of Chinese shore defenses.

a) Defending strait is what I meant by "handle whatever was too much for ground-based" i.e. too many targets

b) South China Sea is big enough to place carriers outside littoral combat zone of China

If I were the US/Japan/China (I can't see any scenario where Japan can tolerate even a chance of China winning such a conflict)

I agree

I would use carriers for sea control and to assist island protection, and once China has exhausted offensive missile and aircraft assets breaking itself over our defensive forces, using USAF assets to press the attacks into the mainland to make the point that China has lost and further conflict is fruitless clear to them.

Yes. Which places the CVNs further out of harm's way.

I'm not saying they wouldn't be there. I'm saying you don't want them sitting in the middle of the fight. Furthest forward planes would be ground-based. Because ground-based are more robust against attack.

Even a month of China being cut off from maritime trade will do the trick, this is not going to be a war of attrition.

Nope. The US would hand China a dose of whoop-ass.

I thought it odd as well. The joint satellites they have with Brazil do transmit the data but the specs seemed totally inadequate for maritime search and I don't know if China can use them if Brazil objected.

The thought that China would be relying on BRAZILIAN tech is ridiculous to me. My guess is that real estimates of what China has are highly classified

I will note that the best articles I found were from 2007, so maybe they have launched more since then.

I doubt it was true even in 2007. It's pretty easy to put whatever you want in a satellite and just lie about it. And whatever is figured out by other countries is not exactly going to be broadcast.

[KrazyHorse]

My point is RELATIVE vulnerability of land vs sea-based air power.

Sea-based is flexible, can go anywhere in blue water. Land-based doesn't sink. For a country which can't find it's own ass given a map (Iraq) then sure, maybe sea-based is invulnerable because they don't know where it is. For a country like China this is not true. Maybe the air-defenses will make mincemeat of the Chinese missiles and the subs will get knocked off in the first hour. Great. But they're still more vulnerable than they would be on land.

[Patroklos]

Dude, there's only...10 carriers in the USN? And only a certain number of them in theater at once. I'm not talking about tracking frigates here. These ****ers are HUGE, and there's a very limited number of them. I really doubt that the US has any flattop in western PAC (and a large part of Indian ocean?) that China is not constantly tracking.

With what though? shadowing them with submarines? They certainly aren't doing it with aircraft.

The Chinese Kilos (12) are really the only creditable threats to US ships outside the island chain due to their range and large armament, their nuclear subs nothing special (7). Their Song/Yaun class (16) is the real reason I would not have our carriers anywhere near the Chinese coast until our own subs have a few weeks to clear out the area.

It's very reasonable common sense. Carriers sink. Airfields do not. And while air defenses of carrier groups are impressive, they are fighting a losing battle. China's a reasonably sophisticated nation nowadays. Compared to carriers missiles are cheap.

Carriers are, in my view, one of the best things the US has going for it. But for other reasons (flexibility!) than being fortresses against better-equipped countries.

Could the US CVNs survive? Maybe. I don't know if the chicoms would sink even one. But I do know that they are more vulnerable than airfields.

I in no way want to give the impression that they are a more desirable base for aircraft than a dedicated airfield in most cases, I was saying that only concerning your assumptions concerning their survivablity against opposing naval assets.

I'm not saying they wouldn't be there. I'm saying you don't want them sitting in the middle of the fight. Furthest forward planes would be ground-based. Because ground-based are more robust against attack.

Agreed.

I doubt it was true even in 2007. It's pretty easy to put whatever you want in a satellite and just lie about it. And whatever is figured out by other countries is not exactly going to be broadcast.

We can speculate, but given that their naval assets just reached 1980 levels of US capability, I would not overestimate the sophistication of whatever satelittes they have up. There is a lot of sea space down there, and besides the difficulties of finding ships in the first place there is the far more difficult prospect of doing something about them once you have that time sensetive knowledge.

[KrazyHorse]

I in no way want to give the impression that they are a more desirable base for aircraft than a dedicated airfield in most cases, I was saying that only concerning your assumptions concerning their survivablity against opposing naval assets.

I think we're agreeing. My point is relative, not absolute survivability.

[KrazyHorse]

I understand that reading my posts could give the impression that I'm saying china would sink all the carriers. This was not my intent whatsoever. You should bear in mind that I was mainly responding to GePap's suggestion that land-based planes are sitting ducks and carriers are invisible fortresses.

[Patroklos]

Yeah, I see that now. I was doing the same thing in regards to Drakes posts.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I was doing the same thing in regards to Drakes posts.

You obviously didn't understand my posts. I was pretty clear that US carriers are only guaranteed to be dead if they get close to the Chinese coast. The area between the First Island Chain and the Second is becoming increasingly dangerous, but it's probably safe for US CSGs to continue to operate in that area in the near future.

[Patroklos]

Okay, then we are in complete agreement across the board

[KrazyHorse]

Except for GePap.

[Kuciwalker]

[KrazyHorse]

[GePap]

I like how people are claiming I am making absolute statements about airfields vs. carriers. Last time I looked, the point of the discussion is TAIWAN.

Thus:

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=903927&lang=eng_news&cate_img=logo_china&cate_rss=CHINA_eng

The Pentagon very recently stated that the current military balance is such that the TAF can no longer assure control of the airspace over the Taiwain straits, this being the result of a lag in taiwanese defense spending, plus a large expansion of the number of more modern aircraft in China's air fleet and the continued expansion of its short range missile arsenal, to over 1100 across the Strait.

Given the political reality of this three way relation, no US forces nor US support mechanism will have been in Taiwan prior to the start of any hostility. Now you guys are talking about moving not only aircraft but their necessary support mechanisms to bases UNDER ATTACK? Sorry if I think that unlikely, AT BEST.

Comparing this situation to the fact that our bases in Western Europe were all at risk during the Cold War is specious because: THOSE WERE ALREADY OUR BASES, ALREADY STAFFED WITH THE SUPPORT PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT, ready to handle new deployments, or make repairs to continue operating. This is obviously NOT going to be the case with Taiwan's bases.

Yes, Carriers are vulnerable, but they are self-contained US airbases, with everything needed to keep their airwings carrying out combat operations. This is why they would most certainly be moved into the theater, to augment Taiwanese air power, given that our closest base, as the RAND study showed is 450 or so nautical miles away.

And as always all of you are blithely ignoring the political realities of the situation, which is many ways supersede all the talk about weaponry. Again, the US isn't going to be based on Taiwan prior to the conflict. Even after the conflict begins, there are bound to be questions about the US basing itself there - one reason at suspect that the nerds at RAND didn't talk about how the US would be moving its forces to Taiwain. and I doubt that S. Korea would allow the US to use bases on its soil for combat missions against China, and the Japanese could very well also put limits on whether their bases could be used to conduct offensive strikes against Chinese soil. After all, that would open Japan itself and its bases to attack.

As for the notion of a sea blockade on China that Patty desribes - yeah right. China is the world's producer. Yeah. watch prices of everything in Walmart soar upward, then tell people that its all worth it to keep Taiwan free....The Global economy is such that everyone else, including us, would suffer from any attempt to cut China out of the world economy, specially given they have the piggy bank most everyone else needs. This all assume we are talking about something going on soon, and not in ten years when who knows what the economic balance will be.