Why 183 Raptors is NOT enough.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT

DarthAmerica Summary 7/1/2009 11:13:13 PM

The United States isn't going to attack the Three Gorges Dam over Taiwan. For starters, while we do provide arms to Taiwan, the USG does not even fully recognize Taiwan as independent of China. Second, doing so would be an actual War Crime. It would immediately end any legitimacy to a US response and absolutely kill allied support more effectively than any PRC attack. That doesn't even begin to touch the very real military options that would open up for the PRC in retaliation which could include the use of WMD.

-DA

Quote Reply

Herald12345 7/2/2009 4:01:03 AM

Again, Herald, stop with the stupidity. All you are doing is embarrassing yourself and it's actually quite entertaining to watch you implode as people start to realize and/or openly acknowledge that you really don't know what you are talking about. I'm qualified to drive almost every wheeled and tracked vehicle in the US Army inventory. Why on Earth you think that is an insult is beyond comprehension but it you want to further demonstrate how much of a fool you are be my guest. The issue isn't knowledge of Physics or Airpower. Its knowledge of War and obviously you are SEVERELY lacking.

-DA

So what? What does that demonstrate to me that you know anything except how to steer and check the oil? You are more ignorant than you can possibly imagine.

As for KISS, treaty and idiots (like you) dictate the complex approach to solving a SIMPLE problem.

Figure it out, why I used a tweo staged kinetic approach to the problem yet? WP gabe you a cliuwe and I filled in the details but you Mister "Expert" are so full of yourself, uoi paid no attention to the data and the explanations for the WHYS.

So I will summarize.

The PRC bandoits are electricity and water hobbled. They have too many people and not enough range to support without t5hose two resources. The Three Gorges power hoises and the DAM is the major achuilles heel that the PRC's sipplied us that in a single strike reduces their war potential by roughly 1/3. Got that, "expert"?

With it gone they are back to 1976 all over again. Not enough electricity, plagued by periodic floodimg, back to barely controlled famine conditions, and falling back on a decaying infrastructure of coal fired electric plants. Their war machine goes nowhere as they have to START OVER.

It would be as catastrophic for them as Aswan gone would be for Egypt.

But of course you can't see this because you never had any strategic, technological, or business policy training to go wiith your driving expertise. You should get some of that, you know. It will teach you about wrong energy policy, peak oil lomits that drive current grand strategy, and even WHY China is so heavuly invested in AFRICA (She is running out of raw materials of all kinds especially the types she needs for advanced technology like jet engines..^1

Things are not as you fantasize them to be, poster. Especially as you try to put your; limited parochial and not relevant experience to the PACRIM specifically.

Herald

^1 Tell me do you even know why you need hypersonic cruise missiles by 2020 to take down the PRCs?

Quote Reply

Herald12345 One more thing, poster. 7/2/2009 4:14:05 AM

We signed the Washington and London naval treaties which contained clauses about unrestricted submarine warfare.

READ....

I am amused when amateurs invoke TREATIES as if a scrap of paper would matter after Andersen becomes a smoking hole.in Guam.

I also remind you that there are treaties to which we are signatories that prohibit ASSASSINATION in war.

READ. ...

By International Law, that is a WARCRIME. Are we at war with Pakistan?

Herald

Quote Reply

Herald12345 7/2/2009 5:27:50 AM

Herald,

I actually enjoy the exchanges between you and my mate Darth, they usually actually contain decent info of great interest to me, however do me one small favor, dont ever ever refer to folks in the supply/support echelons of the Armed Forces as Weenies. I dont care how well trained our trigger pullers are or how dominant our equipment is if that is backed up by a whole dedicated support structure of competent supply and maintenance personnel that you may as well give the Grunts pointy stick!!!

At this moment in time an awfull lot of our supply and maintenance guys have done their deployments as regular infantry pounding the streets of Iraq or teh mountains of Afghanistan. My boys from 5th Battalion 10th Marine Regiment (An Arty Unit) Are right now humping the hills of afghanistan, and thats not just teh 0811 Cannon Crewmen its everyone from their Arty Mechs, their Vehicle Mechanics from Motor T, their Optics Techs, their Supply and Ordnance Officers, EVERYONE. So to reiterate less of the "Weenie" terminology.

Thanks in advance

Arty

Apologies to you about that, AE, the LOGISTICS soldier today does one hell of a job, but as for that loudmouth and incompetent: he, specifically, gets exactly what he deserves from me. As an example of the specific example not to be used as the general rule he shows that bias error left over in me from twenty years of work, when I dealt (and still do) with "experts", like him,.on a routine basis; All mouth, and no results type was/is the model..

Herald

Quote Reply

mustang22 7/2/2009 10:21:12 AM

As this discussion progresses Im getting the impression (possibly incorrectly) that folks are of the opinion that our Ground Forces are "Defensless" in the face of an enemy who is able to contest the Airspace and may actually be able to get strike packages over our forces in the absence of our ability to have "Absolute Air Dominance". I think thats quite a disservice to an entire brach of service, you may have heard of them, they are known as the Air Defence Artillery and last I heard were equipped with some rather nice gear of their own ;)

Arty,

I can only speak for myself in regards to your post but by no means am I insinuating that Ground Forces are any less of an importance to our war fighting doctrine. I fully embrace all facets of the Military and any attemp to discredit a particular service would be unfair. If I thought the Army needed more Apaches or Abrams tanks I would say so without reservation. Until someone can prove to me that 187 is enough to maintain complete air dominance to ease the burden on the ground forces, I will continue to argue for more. I don't believe that small scale conflicts will be our ONLY area of concern in the future, will we fight a war on the WWII scale, most likely not. If there are Generals that are in the business suggesting that price should be overcome by value to meet requirements then there has to be a degree of truth to the argument.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 7/2/2009 10:44:01 AM

I jump in just for a moment .

Striking the Chinese Dam will lead to 2 things :

-1) a medium to massive Chinese Nuclear retaliation on US soil (within hours)

-2) the loss of all possible US allies

Herald is out of his mind , his idea is going to get millions of Americans dead .

China is NOT affraid of a nuclear conflict with the USA gentlemen , keep that closely in mind .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

mustang22 7/2/2009 12:20:23 PM

"My concerns

about the Raptor are more along the lines of sheer numbers. Clearly

superior technology is often decisive, but only to a point. When you

are out of missiles you are out of missiles. Two F-22s will be

winchester(out of ammo) before 4 F-15s, simple as that. So at some

point quantity has a quality all its own. Our national warfighting

policy places total air superiority as our first objective so that no

US ground force needs to worry about an enemy air force. The question

is are 185 F-22s enough to obtain this prime objective. I dont know the

answer to that."

My response to your friend would be to ask a few questions, like 1) so what happens when 4 F-15s run out of ammo, 2) why would we send 4 F-15s into that battle but only 2 F-22, 3) what do we do now if there aren't enough F-15 around but we still need to shoot down more bad guys, 4) why wouldn't we do the same thing as in 3) if there aren't enough F-22 around, 5) what possible scenario in the world today is going to run out of enough F-22/F-35/F-15/F-16/F-18, and how does more F-22 change that scenario, and 6) is the cost of more F-22 solely in order to alleviate that scenario worth it (factor in the likelihood of its occurance, and not just the danger of its occurance, and also factor in the missed opportunity cost if the money could have been spent elsewhere)?

Warpig,

Not sure where you are going with this post. He was merely making a statement on the quantatative aspect of air combat in a hypothetical scenario. It a fact that an F-15 can launch more missiles than a LO F-22. It is also a fact that SU-27 series aircraft can do the same. If basing and support is the issue at hand it makes sense to deploy the least amount of aircraft to get the job done, assuming it doesn't turn out to be a turd in combat, the F-22 does everything better than the F-15 with less aircraft. Against a numerically superior enemy the point of running out of missiles before all enemy fighters have been eliminated is the quantitative vs. qualatative advantage. In terms of cost, the F-22 is far from one dimensional and can and will be used for many other aspects besides knocking Flankers out of the sky. The aircraft is still maturing as all platforms do, adding a myriad of capabilities will only shorten an already stressed fleet. Everyone is so worried about sacrificing something to buy more but that hasn't stopped the bailouts, executive bonuses or a trillion dollar health care reform so people that don't want to work can afford health insurance. If we can find money for irresponsibility then we can build more Raptors

Quote Reply

mustang22 7/2/2009 12:23:49 PM

I jump in just for a moment .

Striking the Chinese Dam will lead to 2 things :

-1) a medium to massive Chinese Nuclear retaliation on US soil (within hours)

-2) the loss of all possible US allies

Herald is out of his mind , his idea is going to get millions of Americans dead .

China is NOT affraid of a nuclear conflict with the USA gentlemen , keep that closely in mind .

Cheers .

Exactly what evidence supports that deranged conclusion?

Quote Reply

Reactive 7/2/2009 1:00:12 PM

I jump in just for a moment .

Striking the Chinese Dam will lead to 2 things :

-1) a medium to massive Chinese Nuclear retaliation on US soil (within hours)

-2) the loss of all possible US allies

Herald is out of his mind , his idea is going to get millions of Americans dead .

China is NOT affraid of a nuclear conflict with the USA gentlemen , keep that closely in mind .

Cheers .

Whilst a strike on the Three-Gorges dam is possible in a full-scale strategic conflict it is hard to imagine it being an option ont the table in anything other than total-war. The humanitarian disaster that would unfold would lead to huge ramifications - Herald is correct in the sense that China is heavily reliant on this 22GW installation for power, irrigation, water supply, but wrong (in my opinion) about the scale of effect it would have on the chinese warfighting capability, China is actually one of the few nations that has the ability to RAPIDLY add surplus generation capacity to its grid - the oft-cited "three coal fired powerstations a week" is somewhat overstating the situation but 22GW isn't actually a significant percentage of the domestic energy consumption.

Historically, even in the 20th century they have dealt with several natural disasters that have had death tolls in the millions. It is not to say that its effects would not be catastrophic, but the crisis would primarily be humanitarian, rather than military - for a nation that treats its entire population as a never-ending resource, it would be stirring the hornets nest.

Having been across China I think that we often forget the degree to which the population is disinterested in foreign policy, it is a nation that, at least at the societal level, is introspective in the extreme, most people are far more interested in emulating newfound capitalist ambition and improving their respective domestic prospects.

In other words, a major infrastructural attack on a project that is both a major symbol of aspiration and achievement (somewhat like the great wall in many eyes), and an essential resource for the development of the region (hubei, and obviously Shanghai). It would turn the chinese population towards nationalism, would be regarded as a war crime without parallel. Given that China IS developing at pace, it would lead to an entire generation of 1+billion people having a hatred of the US that would exceed that seen in the muslim world.

Suitable only for use when the alternative is nuclear, it would be counterproductive in the extreme. I think we have to remember that the Chinese population is broadly pro-western, they are nationalistic on demand, when prompted to be so for publicity, but fundamentally admire the values and ideals of the west, just as we should (if we have any sense) admire many of the values they hold dear. When you look at the relative freedoms that people enjoy in the cities relative to 20 years ago it is to be hoped that the new, ambitious, outspoken middle class will have more impact on policy at the national level, until that point, the last thing we would ever want to do, in any conflict, would be to reverse course, accrue the combined hatred and resentment of a nation that is, at some point (40 years?), going to have technological parity with the west, believe it.

BW, China isn't afraid of a full scale strategic nuclear war?

China has a relatively small nuclear stockpile, estimates are often conservative but it certainly doesn't have the capability that many people ignorantly assume it to.

In other words, it would come out far worse for China than the US by an order of magnitude (assuming no russian involvement).

When you look at the value of current chinese reserves of USD, you can see that china already has its own "nuclear" option, the effect of which would lead to a price crash never before seen, I think the biggest single factor in averting conflict between the US and PRC is the level of economic reliance that exists between the two countries.

In other words, china has the ability to virtually bankrupt the US economy, they know it, we know it, it's a far more potent potential "strike" than hitting the three-gorges.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 7/2/2009 1:14:08 PM

^1 Tell me do you even know why you need hypersonic cruise missiles by 2020 to take down the PRCs?

LOL funny. THis is why you aren't taken seriously. WHO GIVES A FERK WHY you think we need hypersonic cruise missiles. That has ZERO to do with the thread topic and ZERO to do with the unnecessary and illegal action of drowning thousands of innocent Chinese by breaking that Dam. I read what Warpig said and it sounds an awful lot like he thinks you need to get an education on the practical application on the art of war and specifically Lawfare. Several other posters mentioned that too. Instead of being humble and admitting to a mistake which is clear and undeniable, again you get indignant and start trying to stray off topic and obfuscate with silly words and bold print like SCRAMDART which obviously you don't understand.

I can admit I did not know that attacking Three Gorges was specifically illegal prior to yesterday. But because I have actual military experience, common sense and have had to use EOF as a daily tool of survival. Something about that suggestion just did not sound right. So I bounced it off a search engine, IN OTHER WORDS I DID SOME RESEARCH, and I see that it is illegal. Thats the benefit of prior experience and why you should at least listen to people with experience in subject matter where you have none.

So you have started a thread supported by esteemed organizations such as the APA, you think Somali fishermen should be blown up at 1000 meters by guided rockets fired by civilians and now you think it's cool to kill innocents because you hate the Chinese. Dude you are on a roll. Before we even get into such things as SCRAMDARTS lets just fix the basics and help you get a rudimentary knowledge of war and the very real rule sets that govern nation state warfare. There are very real and valid reasons why we choose to fight within these limits Herald and your failure to grasp this concept is why you make such egregious errors in judgement.

Rule sets limit the scope and scale of the collateral damage when civilized nations go to war so that there is something worth having after the fighting. Otherwise we could just nuke people into ashes anytime we have a dispute. Fortunately, From Bush to Obama to Hu to the Iranian Supreme Leader most nations choose to follow these rule sets more or less. Platforms like Raptors, F-35's, SCRAMDARTS, M4s and even nuclear weapons are all designed to fight within these context Herald. "The West" and to an extent the Soviets defined these rules that most choose to follow. Unfortunately some of our 4GW opponents and even some traditional potential foes are exploiting these rule sets to gain military advantage. That's why we can't continue to buy up hundreds of F-22's and other high tech weapons that were designed with Cold War era rule sets in mind beyond what's necessary and neglect the kinds of forces that can be applied to these new threats. If you don't want to take my word because of your biases then just ask AE about the conditions of our ground components specifically with regard to maint and OR. If you want to keep the debate air power centric then look at the kinds of platforms that are most in demand and support assets like tankers and helos that are to this day greatly needed and still being neglected while we are engaged in a war we haven't decisively turned in our favor after 8 years.

Humble yourself, debate and ask questions. Ditch the vitriol and nonsense. It's only making you look worse....

-DA

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NEXT