The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why 183 Raptors is NOT enough.
Herald12345    6/28/2009 2:53:01 PM
Study results follows in next post.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT
DarthAmerica       7/3/2009 2:40:43 AM

All of your arguments are based on hope and paper aren't they? What happems when the SHOOYING starts?

 SHooting isn't going to start there in case YOU FAILED TO NOTICE THE DETAILS.

Your house of cards collapses. CREF treaties against assassination and violation of national frontiers to stage air attacks.

 YOU DONT HAVE A CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT...LOL

If we do0n't respect TREATY framework now, what makes you think we'll respect such  treaties in WAR?

BECAUSE I'VE FOUGHT WARS MORON AND YOU HAVEN'T. I know how CURRENT DoD and Allied militaries view collateral damage because I've been trained over and over on the matter. YOU HAVEN'T. WE NEED ACCESS TO FOREIGN BASES AND OVERFLIGHT if we intend to get the USAF into the fight. We aren't going to do things that would COMPEL Allied politicians to deny us access for fear of PRC retaliation.



Like I said elsewhere this becomes  an ego defense for you once you lose on the physics and strategy and now yoi frabkly grasp at foolish and OUTDATED straws.

 You know neither Physics or Strategy.
 

Easy to see at this point.


 SEE WHAT? A GLCM that cant reach the target and has an inappropriate payload to destroy it?

As for your pretty map, RUSSIA. Even the PRC bandits are not that INSANE, though apparently you are. Just how does a spasm attack on Russia or a US toer one ally serve the Chinese people in the negotiation and conflict resolution phase? 

You incompetent. WTF are you talking about Russia for? Look South to the ALLIED NATIONS WHERE OUR BASES ARE. 
 

This is what I mean by your complete lack of strategic vision or COMMON SENSE. You don't know this part of warfare at all.

Herald

No, you don't know what you mean. You don't know anything about war, strategy and you have ZEROcommon sense. If you did, you would not make the simple rookie mistakes you do about EOF and collateral damage issues among many of your other glaring errors such as when you actually thought giving missiles to civilian ship crews was more appropriate than pistols, rifles and MG for EOF. You're act is over. We know Herald. It's obvious. STOP PRETENDING TO KNOW.

-DA 







 

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/3/2009 8:13:55 AM
So many new thoughts.
 
I think you've both made several astute observations, and that it is not a question of binary "yes/no" but rather a tactic the Chinese are aware of that may, in extremis, become palatable.
 
It is a military contingency that has been (openly, by the DOD) discussed, this is not by accident but a very calculated move to point to the infrastructural weaknesses of Chinese dams, this on its own provides a level of deterence.
 
I think there IS a point in the theoretical conflagration that such measures might become attractive militarily for the resources they would require.
 
a) If PRC action had indiscriminately targeted civilian infrastructure in Taiwan, including, ironically, dams. (The shihmen dam for example.) In this case the concern for the Chinese citizenry, would, I believe, be secondary to destroying the capability for a sustained offensive against ROC. If casualties in Taiwan were in the tens or hundreds of thousands then the gloves might well come off and, much like Hiroshima/Nagasaki, the effects may not be regarded as a crime against humanity, but an expedient way of ending a conflict that could otherwise continue indefinitely at great cost.
 
b) If there had been widespread, well documented incidents of civilian deaths, burning villages, scorched earth, depending on the degree to which PRC had intentionally or otherwise caused a humanitarian trajedy.

c) If major USN losses had occured, the loss of one or more carriers.
 
 
As a warning other smaller, less important dams could be hit first, or nearby structures could be targeted, if China genuinely faced the sort of catastrophe that Herald has suggested, would be a risk that it simply couldn't afford to take. 
 
Darth, I think you've made numerous astute observations about the reluctance (geopolitically) as well as in terms of third-party assistance to cause large scale civilian casualties on the mainland, whilst I absolutely agree it is a huge factor, it might become something that seemed less of an issue if there were mass casualties in Taiwan, as far as I am aware, PRC would need to target a lot of dual-use infrastructure (even dams) in order to effectively stop the Taiwanese war machine.
 
I think an attack on the dam is far from a certainty, but it is technically a possibility, and depending on the extents of several major variables in the potential conflict, there is the possibility that it could be hit. The point is, China has the most artificial reservoirs in the entire world, there's plenty of smaller dams that can be hit in order to demonstrate the capability.
 
The overall conclusion I have reached is that it's unlikely, but possible. That it would represent a last-ditch response, one which, assuming it does have the impacts Herald suggests, would represent too great a level of risk (and deterence) for the PRC to ever find out for sure whether the treaties against such attacks mean anything when the chips are down.
 
 I never know why you guys roundly condemn each other so much. You surely have areas of expertise that are, if not in identical areas, to be respected.
 
 
ReactivE
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/3/2009 9:20:39 AM
It also has a good effect on the ruling party in the PRC, it forces them to think defensively where they had previously been able to anticipate that the mainland itself would largely be able to emerge unscathed. The point that the DOD made about targeting the dam was that merely in demonstrating the capability, one does not have to demonstrate the will. 
 
Chinas policy towards nations that say things it doesn't like the sound of, get too friendly with taiwan, is to throw toys out of the pram, it relies on an "all or nothing" approach to diplomacy, one that, whilst powerful in peacetime (all or nothing, in or out), loses impact when a potential enemy has nothing to lose. Does it not speak volumes that the country that openly discusses and plans for invasion of a sovreign nation state is so hugely offended and full of vitriol at the very temerity of the ROC suggesting high value targets in China would become fair game? Could it be that they don't have an answer to the problem?
 
I think the key thing is that in all cases, in this conflict, China is the aggressor. If such aggression poses a real risk to their orderly administration and control of the mainland due to retaliatory strikes on such high-value targets.
 
I very genuinely think the chance of military action over Taiwan has peaked, the consequences in so many areas make it counterproductive in the extreme for all sides, PRC and ROC are engaging in polite, amiable discourse in public, hardliners on both sides are less predominant (at least openly). 
 
So every analysis that points to the ability of the defending nation (or its allies) to decisevly affect the capability of the PRC to  wage a sustained war is a good thing, in that it encourages all parties to consider worst-case scenarios, and those are unpalatable for a Ruling party that thrives on maintaining a status quo.
 
There's also one last point I'd like to make about civilian casualties: The US is fighting in theatres of conflict where their greatest risks are insurgency, and the need for an insurgency to rely on unspoken anti-american sentiment in order to operate within local tribal areas. It is essential to maintain support (or at least grudging acceptance) in those areas. The importance of having "friendly" civilians/tribes/towns/local army reduce the ability of insurgents/taleban to proliferate, provides us with a lot of intelligence, and enables us to operate in areas that could become hostile (and associated IED's, suicide bombings, ambushes etc). Mosques are symbolic structures that have the effect of uniting ALL muslims in condemnation, so they are roundly counterproductive in an ultra-conservative islamic nation. The situation in China would be very different, in that the opinion of people on the ground has little or no impact on the ability of the country itself to wage war in the air and out at sea, in other words, there is more reason to be careful at the moment regarding civilian deaths in sensitive regions, than would be the case in a war waged with China. I would like to believe that morality would be the overriding factor behind such doctrine but I think it is always closer (in my opinion) to operational effectiveness, and to what extent such actions adversely affect other operations. Destroying the 3 gorges (assuming it was not partially drained to pre-empt such an attack) would turn the Chinese population against us, but wouldn't lead to any difference in the theatre of conflict (in the air, over sea) and if it reduced the ability of the enemy to fight in that arena to any degree, the civilian damage might well be regarded as operationally insignificant.
 
ReactivE
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @ReactivE    7/3/2009 11:35:46 AM
ReactivE,

I've spent the last two years learning first hand why it's important for the USA to avoid Collateral damage. While it is nice to think that America is the benevolent and compassionate war fighter, the reality of the situation goes beyond that. Things like the Geneva Convention, nonproliferation Treaty and even organizations like the United Nations are all tools of diplomacy designed to give us advantages in war. No sane rational nation wants to fight an unrestricted total war for obvious reasons. For instance, there are a lot of countries that have the technical capability to create nuclear weapons. Most if not all of them do not because of these restrictions. Now one might ask why would they do this to themselves? The answer is because they've been compelled to by the superpowers. Because they want to exist inside the framework of a global economy and developer standards of living beyond the 1940s, they have to do business with nations are also choosing to abide by the same rules. As a benefit, sometimes but not always, nations choosing to live under these rules also benefit from security guarantees from the more powerful signatories. The net result of this is that when nations fight wars, generally, you don't have to worry about nuclear weapons, chemical weapons or the destruction of civilians and civilian infrastructure. At least not to levels that would be unrecoverable. Think of it as an artificial defense system but with tangible benefits.

As the world's sole remaining superpower, it is fundamental to the interests of the United States that nations choose to continue to follow these rules. That way the global economic system and war fighting paradigms that define the way we provide for national defense remain the same. If the United States disregards the very rules that help to create to achieve an unjustified nonmilitary objective it would be creating a self-fulfilling prophecy. The artificial paper defense systems that protect so many of the world's nations would suddenly lose their value. Much like the devaluation of currency. This is a fundamental concept understand because security is the United States chief export. Without these guarantees, the first order effects would be that nations would be unable to provide military aid, basing and over flight rights for fear of Chinese response. While there is no question that the United States has and would use nuclear weapons to defend itself. There are questions about what conditions would justify that. If the Chinese response was to use a nuclear weapon against Taiwan or Japan, perhaps against a military target such as the Japanese islands 200 miles to the east of Taiwan were civilian casualties would be negligible, with the United States be willing to further escalate the conflict? If the answer is yes then we are in nuclear war or we risk American cities. If the answer is no then we are telling the Japanese and Taiwanese that the nonproliferation treaties and other agreements are meaningless and those nations might be compelled to develop their own nuclear weapons with all the resulting consequences. It's a lose lose proposition to toss out the rule sets we created by attacking that target unprovoked.

As was mentioned by GF, using precision weapons to disable the power generation capabilities is no problem. But the intentional physical destruction of the structure and resulting human and ecological catastrophe is just plain not logical. It is not my intention to insult and denigrate any poster. In fact, I've tried many many many times to both resolve and ignore such behavior from Herald. However, as you can see, is insistent on making personal attacks on other people and me in particular. If he is interested in making that stop, I will return the favor in kind. I don't want to waste too much time on this so lets just see if Herald is able to let go past grievances as I am and remain both courteous and respectful as I will if he reciprocates. That doesn't mean we have to agree on topics, just respect that there are different opinions.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/3/2009 12:09:28 PM
1)  I consider it well into the "absurd" category to think that we (and by we obviously I mean America) will breach the dam in the course of fighting a conventional war over Taiwan.  Period.  Relying on ignoring some other treaties in the past about things like political assassinations is just a non-sequitor to apply to the geo-political entirity of this scenario.  If somehow this war escalated into a global war between America and China (e.g., if Congress actually grew a pair and literally declared war for the first time in 68 years and several wars) it could then be possible that such an attack could become thinkable, but until that happened--and therefore we had moved far beyond merely fighting because of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan--it's just not realistic to even plan for it.
 
2)  China's means to conventionally attack Guam are sorely lacking.  Yes, assuming USAF/USN take a holiday, they could get a few dozen H-6 within LACM range.  I don't really know the PLAN's current and near-future LACM capabilities from submarine, but I'm sure it's reasonable to assume they can do it from some of their boats, so throw that in too.  If they commit everything it does seem like a reasonable estimate would be about 100 missiles, maybe even 200 within ten years, as you allowed for.  Once.  I bet that might take a day to clear the wreakage and another to fly in some replacement aircraft, before the airfield was open again and we resumed essentially full-scale air operations.  A few more days and it will be a memory.
 
However, for this to be a surprise attack at the beginning of the war, then actually it won't accomplish the destruction of that many aircraft as we don't currently keep all that many aircraft there, and the large majority of anything we'd be fighting the war with will deploy in the first few days.  If the attack came after those first few days so as to catch a larger number of aircraft, then it will be too late to gain surprise, USAF/USN will not be asleep, and some of the Chinese bombers will die and some cruise missiles intercepted.  Furthermore, if this happens in five or ten years, I'm guessing that Guam will be much better defended by then, even on a permanent basis, but I admit I that's merely a feeling/desire and I'm not aware of any actual plans regarding increasing Guam's defenses.  Plans seem to include making it a much more important base in the near future than it even is now, and I would hope that will include establishing some air defense.
 
3)  If now you have moved the goalposts and are saying it's the Taiwanese that will breach the dam, then please explain what they have that will generate this 9GJ impact on the Three Gorges Dam.  Furthermore, I find that idea not as unlikely as us doing it, but still unlikely.  I'd guess that about the last thing the Taiwanese government and military wants to do is give the Chinese an excuse to drop a couple nukes on whatever passes in Taiwan for their main government and defense bunkers, which most of the world (probably including me) would not blame the Chinese for doing if Taiwan had first broken the dam.
 
4)  By the way, DA has not been flailing about or whatever you said, and in fact has clearly been on target throughout this thread.
 
5)  I am very glad to see ReactivE stepping forward, as you clearly have some detailed insight into China.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    Additional Info Re: Mitigation.   7/3/2009 12:09:48 PM

For the past nearly two decades, during design and construction of the dam, planners have engaged in a low-key effort to make sure it is protected from hostile forces -- whether terrorists or nations at war with China.

The measures they have come up with range from building an extra-solid structure, to posting elite paramilitary troops in the immediate vicinity of the dam and, if all else fails, quickly emptying the reservoir.

"The security of the dam, and in particular protection against terrorist attack, is something we take very, very seriously," said Cao Guangjing, vice president of the China Yangtze Three Gorges Project Development Co.

"We paid special attention to preparation against military attack in the preliminary design phase of the dam," he said.

The spirit of immense confidence and pride that permeates the entire Three Gorges project also affects most engineers' attitude towards the idea of an attack on the 2.3-kilometer-long (1.42-mile-long) dam.

"Nothing will happen," said Feng Zhengpeng, director of hydropower complex management. "China is rising and I'm not afraid any nation will attack. Anyone that wishes to attack China today has to think very carefully about it first."

That may be, but history shows dams are tempting targets in war.

In 1943, at the height of the Second World War, Britain's Bomber Command destroyed two dams in Nazi Germany, wreaking havoc on its infrastructure and killing more than 1,000 people.

In its 2004 report to US Congress on China's military power, the Pentagon also suggested that an attack on the dam might be one of Taiwan's options in case of war with China.

"Since (Taiwan) cannot match Beijing's ability to field offensive systems, proponents of strikes against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats to China's urban population or high-value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion," it said.

In one of the more obvious signals of China's security precautions, a detachment of the paramilitary People's Armed Police is kept just next to the dam.

"What you can actually see is just one piece of the effort," said Cao. "We have emergency plans to cope with all possible eventualities."

According to earlier reports in the state media, China has deployed military helicopters, patrol boats, armored vehicles and bomb disposal units near the 180-billion-yuan (22.5-billion-dollar) project.

China has conducted several rounds of anti-terrorist exercises in the area, including one that simulated an assault with a boat brimming with explosives.

The dam is robustly built, and officials say it will be able to withstand any conventional attack, whether from terrorists or from hostile foreign powers.

It is also located more than 1,000 kilometers (620 miles) from any coastline, making it a harder target, Cao argued.

The worst-case scenario would be an assault with a nuclear weapon. In that case, China has only one option, according to Cao.

"If there's a nuclear attack, the main procedure will be to draw down the whole reservoir," he said. "The Three Gorges dam is equipped with sufficient flood discharge capacity."

The crucial job to get done before the enemy can strike is to empty the reservoir of the 22 billion cubic meters (770 billion cubic feet) accumulated above the 145-meter mark.

That could be done in as little as two to three days, as the dam is able to release up to 110,000 cubic meters per second, Cao estimated.

It takes a lot less time for a nuclear missile to strike, and if these precautions fail, and the dam takes a direct hit, disaster would be impossible to prevent. The only question would be how much it could be curbed.

But officials claim computer simulations have shown that the damage would not go all the way down to Shanghai where the Yangtze spills into the East China Sea.

"While preparing for the dam, we conducted a lot of studies into what would happen if it were destroyed," said Wang Xiaomao, deputy chief engineer at the Yangtze River Water Resources Committee.

"Even if there is a war and the dam is wracked, there'll be limited damage."

The state-controlled China Daily newspaper reported last year that channels had been dug out downstream to divert excess water released from a wrecked dam.

Officials said probably the best argument for going ahead with the dam was the idea that nothing would ever be built if you were overpowered by anxiety that it might be broken.

"The construction of the Three Gorges dam will be very beneficial to China's economy, and we should not give up this development opportunity just because we fear war," said Cao.

 
Total Resevoir Capacity (full) 39.3 km3
Maximal Discharge/second (claimed) 110000m3,
 
Time to complete maximum possible drainage cycle. 357 272 Seconds
357 272 seconds = 4.13 days
 
This means (on paper) the chinese can effectively mitigate the risks associated during wartime, but that any unusual levels of drainage at the site should provide an early warning, or indication (assuming that the reservoir would be drained before any invasion created an immediate risk of counterattack.
 
I wonder to what extent the above citation is propoganda, I think it would be somewhat unusual for a state official in China to suggest that a failure would lead to the deaths of millions, even if it were the case, but I do wonder to what extent the river bed can contain the maximal discharge cited by Cao.
 
 Darth, as usual you make a lot of very good points, I'll get back to you later when i'm back in the bunker, todays workload has suffered as a result of my newfound fascination with dambusting.
 
ReactivE
 

 

 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/3/2009 12:21:28 PM
Furthermore, regarding 3) above, if now it's actually Taiwan that's attacking the dam, then what has that to do with needing/getting and having in operation, before the next 5-10 years and the Chinese attack occurs, 60 more F-22 and some sort of hypersonic bomber that isn't even in development, much less acquisition, much less production, much less operation?
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    Additional Info Re: Mitigation.   7/3/2009 12:31:38 PM
I have cited draining the entire reservoir capacity, as cited in the article above the 145m mark presumably refers to the lowest extent of water that could be expected to have negligible impact downstream in event of a breach.
 
The water level downstream is @ 65m. This gives a 80m differential that would be maintained even with drainage to 145 m.
 
And it comes to around 2.3 days for that level of discharge to happen,
 
An 80m differential dam may well be harder to breach due to the reduced loads on potential bomb/missile damage, it may well be that there simply isn't enough weight of water to induce catastrophic failure.
 
Assuming things work as they say, it is a scenario that can in theory be mitigated, as long as PRC dicatate the time of conflict and ROC/USN does not carry out pre-emptive action, which is clearly inconcievable.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    of Dams, Taiwan, and Raptors...   7/3/2009 2:50:10 PM
 
Interesting thread but for the rude herald rants. Would that herald could learn to express himself in an adult manner. There would likely be larger participation and more genuine information traded in a spirit of polite disagreement. herald has good ideas but does not know how to face factual rebuttal. Perhaps he should spend a year in kindergarten to develop those skills before returning here and renewing his relationship with US.
 
As to the topic as it has evolved: We won't bomb dams. Period, full stop. Although it might be considered a legitimate target within the structure of a all out conflict with China like WWII was, it is problematic since should we prevail in the war we will have to pay for the rehabilitation as part of our "Marshall plan" to rebuild our enemy (we rebuild every enemy we defeat. Vietnam should have surrendered to US then we would have turned them into a modern Japan by the mid 80's). That repair work would just cost too damn much. Second, killing civilians wholesale was proved to be a stupid tactic in WWII since it makes the enemy's civilian population become more aligned with their despotic rulers and fight harder against US. Bombing the dam isn't a logical choice in this conflict in particular since we would be attempting to support Taiwan and we can effectively neuter the dam by cutting it's power stations without busting the dam itself. The job of busting the power grid is a whole lot easier than dealing with the effects of a shattered dam deluging thousands of square miles of farmland and villages. Case closed on that silliness.
 
A Question to carry the debate into current US foreign policy: We agree here that the US must act quickly in the event of all out war between Taiwan and PRC. We would have about a week or so to provide meaningful support before Taiwanese leaders might begin to bend under the stress of continuous missile bombardment and a naval blockade, perhaps an outright invasion.
 
Would we intervene militarily in Taiwan? or would our current political leadership attempt to negotiate a settlement? We have not intervened in Central America where Venezuela has moved upon Honduras, Niciragua, and other formerly friendly nations. Chavez is acting overtly in support of very bad people and against our former allies in the area. This constitutes a rollback of the Monroe Doctrine. We have sided with the Iranian backed Hamas/Hezzbollah in The Palestinian Territories. We have given $900 million to them in spite of their acts of direct aggression against our former ally Israel. That money is in direct support of those that have been our enemies. No debate there is there? We are not going to stop North Korea from shooting missiles at Hawaii but instead stand ready to use our interceptors. Wouldn't it be better to stop the missile on the pad if it appears it will be shot over Japan at US? Simply put, we aren't going to stop anybody militarily from doing anything are we?
 
Given our demonstrated shift away from confrontation, why would China expect US to intervene? IF they attack our bases then yes we would probably have to respond, but if they simply gin up a reason to invade Taiwan and leave US alone, might they expect to face our diplomatic prowess and nothing else? Hillary Clinton is the very essence of a China friendly US agent. Why would she be expected to stand up to China when her husband gave China the ability to target US with modern ballistic missiles? Obama can't find enough offense to even speak out on behalf of Iranian dissidents let alone Chinese dissidents. Given the current US position wouldn't it be up to other interested parties in the region to interevene if any military intervention was expected at all? That wouldn't be likely either because any parties who might defend Taiwan would do so against the threat of US sanctions.
 
We don't need any Raptors if we never intend to use them do we?
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/3/2009 3:27:05 PM

All of your arguments are based on hope and paper aren't they? What happems when the SHOOYING starts?

 

Your house of cards collapses. CREF treaties against assassination and violation of national frontiers to stage air attacks.

 

If we do0n't respect TREATY framework now, what makes you think we'll respect such  treaties in WAR?
Herald

I just want to add a little bit more RE: treaty and int Law. Comparing assassination and violation of air space ect to overtly causing hundreds of thousands of casualties and displaced civilians and ecological disaster is invalid. Most often, assassinations and air space violations are conducted with extreme care to things like discression and covertly and they emphasize a concept called plausible deniability. That provides a degree of protection to the offending party and limits the options of the victim nation. An air attack that has to penetrate ~1500km into the PRC and using ordinance designed in the West will not be deniable. And short of killing a national leader, its hard to imagine that the death of individuals or even several hundred will compare to destroying millions of acres of land and killing/displacing hundreds of thousands. We'd give the PRC carte blanche to respond in a way we would prefer they didnt and the PR victory would be huge.
 
Also, AFAIK, the RoC has no "scramdarts" or other weapons and aircraft capable of attacking that structure. They could slam a 2-3 large body air liners into it if you are insistent on 9 billion joules but that's just speculation and not meant to be taken as a serious option even though we know such methods do work in surprise attacks.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/3/2009 5:06:36 PM
just to reiterate, short of total war, and short of needing to completely dislocate chinese battle rythmn, I see no benefot or need to target the dam - it makes more sense to disable the nodes - and surrounding generation infrastructure than to expend effort on on something og less importnat military gain - but mainly symbolic gain.

couple of quick pointers.

there are and continue to be some problems with the contruction of the 3 Gorges.  There has been some concern that parts of the structure were not allowed to cure in time and are either thermal or struc tural plasticine nightmares in waiting

although china is building numerous large nuke and coal powered generations plants, she (like the US and the west in general) ais moving towards distributed power.  ie, kill one node and the load balancing will re-ord into every other generation asset on that grid - ie they are working on a structured, load balanced, articulated (in concept) national grid system

ie, catastrophic losses on singke nodes are minimised by the nature of the grid.  that means shutting chinas production and energy lifeblood means implementing national global strikes on all critical energy generators within the grid.  otherwise the load will be balanced and she will be back on an adjusted capacity within days - if not hours.

3 Gorges is in that sense, more symbolic than strategic.  Attacking the grid and other nodes simultaneously however is tactical (as long as its legitimised that the plants are directly linked to military use etc...  The use of load balanced disributed national grid makes the legal determination  and approval for for delivery such strike packages all the more interesting in a future conflict.  The west will abide by the conventions etc...  but I seriously doubt that china will as she regards the use of international law and conventions as another tactical and strategic weapon (when its not an embuggerance)
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Not sure   7/3/2009 5:20:51 PM
In my opinion the F22 must be combined with electronic warfare planes.
 
Getting dedicated EW planes would be real high on my priorities list.
 
Maybe the USAF should buy F18 Growlers.
 

 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/3/2009 7:31:03 PM

In my opinion the F22 must be combined with electronic warfare planes.

 

Getting dedicated EW planes would be real high on my priorities list.


 

Maybe the USAF should buy F18 Growlers.

 






 
EW jammer/SEAD aircraft like EA-18G are always useful when you're penetrating enemy airspace and when attacking surface targets, but not so much when defending your own airspace.  Of course even LO aircraft will be happy to receive EW support, and it's the F-35 that primarily will benefit from EA-18G support as they conduct ground attack missions.  Hopefully the Navy will continue to honor their commitments and continue to provide support with DoD's only dedicated offensive jamming platform, just like they originally agreed to when the decision was made to retire the EF-111A and have the entire DoD rely on EA-6B support.

 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Growlers and the USN   7/3/2009 8:00:48 PM




In my opinion the F22 must be combined with electronic warfare planes.



 



Getting dedicated EW planes would be real high on my priorities list.






 



Maybe the USAF should buy F18 Growlers.



 















 

EW jammer/SEAD aircraft like EA-18G are always useful when you're penetrating enemy airspace and when attacking surface targets, but not so much when defending your own airspace.  Of course even LO aircraft will be happy to receive EW support, and it's the F-35 that primarily will benefit from EA-18G support as they conduct ground attack missions.  Hopefully the Navy will continue to honor their commitments and continue to provide support with DoD's only dedicated offensive jamming platform, just like they originally agreed to when the decision was made to retire the EF-111A and have the entire DoD rely on EA-6B support.



 


There's no agreement to honour.  It's a memorandum that expires in just a few years.  The USAF is SUPPOSED to develop an EA capacity, but so far has failed, miserably.  "In From the Cold" will give you a nice, depressing summary, of the USAF's unwillingness or inability to replace the EF-111.  The Navy is going to probably let the memo expire...the USAF was SUPPOSED to develop its own EA capacity.  it has failed to do so...

 
In part because of a focus on CSAR-X, the Tanker Debacle, and a desire to build 240 F-22's...even if it leaves the TOTAL force a little or a lot short in OVERALL capacity...but the USAF would much rather have the world's greatest F/Int A/c rather than some kind of prosaic EA a/c that no one will EVER get their name in the paper flying...and after all do the guys and gals who fly EW a/c have cool monikers like "Goose" or "Maverick"?
 
So I guess Herald had almost convinced me that we need 240 F-22's until this came up...the USAF needs 183 F-22's UNTIL it can produce a usable Electronic Attack capacity, otherwise the USAF is just doing what it always does, looking for the really kewllll fighter at the expense of its overall mission.  CAS, EA, Interdiction, and Transportation.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/3/2009 8:19:52 PM
I did not know that... arrangement... expires in a few years.  Thanks for that.  Do you or anyone else know just when it actually does expire?
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy