The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 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
mustang22       7/1/2009 12:20:01 PM
Assuming unopposed use of Kadena and Andersen, what is the maximum number of F-22's that could be in the air simultaneously in a first day of war scenario in the Strait? This is also assuming full maintenance and tanker support. What would the maximum sortie rate be and how does the Rand study come up with only 6 aircraft for CAP?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    LB reply   7/1/2009 2:06:19 PM
You are clearly not understanding what I'm telling you. I'm telling you what actual war is like and not these theories from the internet. This is first person infantry experience so if you think it's in anyway "fanboy" then nothing I say is going to change your mind. We will just have to agree to disagree.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Says the guy who relies on air recon for land routes and movements.   7/1/2009 2:44:37 PM

You are clearly not understanding what I'm telling you. I'm telling you what actual war is like and not these theories from the internet. This is first person infantry experience so if you think it's in anyway "fanboy" then nothing I say is going to change your mind. We will just have to agree to disagree.







-DA 


Missed the POINT again, "rocket expert".. 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    warpig Reply    7/1/2009 3:35:10 PM

First, I think your point about Chinese reaction to U.S. forces on Taiwan is interesting.  I don't know enough to judge it, but I suspect it certainly might factor into the overall political limitations that would surely be in effect holding us back from thoroughly trashing China.

 
Of course. And it isn't just political. Simple economics makes such a conflict extremely unlikely where the USA and PRC fight. I think the most realistic worse case is the PRC imposing some sort of limited bombardment against the RoC using BM's which limit the scope of the conflict to just PRC vs RoC. Once they start shooting at US and Allied militaries and territory the price goes well beyond what a rational PRC leadership would consider worth it. Having said that, a US admin would be equally interested in containing such a conflict as well. Just like the Cold War where the USA and USSR picked proxies to fight rather than endure the hardships of a direct fight.

We could provide CAP and even strike against PLAAF and PLAN units directly engaged in the fight. We might even conduct limited SEAD against some of their longer ranged IADs. But physically bombing the PRC proper and putting US forces on Taiwan and having them actively engage PRC forces? Just the same, PRC forces bombing Japanese and US territory? Something like that could get wildly out of hand and even go nuclear. I think the politics will greatly limit some of the more "aggressive" strategies being suggested here. That was certainly the case in the war I was involved in and the risk to US interest were not nearly this great.

Not saying we should not prepare for all cases. Just that the more extreme suggestions are less likely. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Herald Reply    7/1/2009 3:38:12 PM

Missed the POINT again, "rocket expert".. 

No, and you would be well advised to shut up and listen. Of course you wont since you choose to comment on things you have no experience with but just the same. You have no idea whatsoever what I relied on or how we did what we did.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Theories From the Internet   7/1/2009 3:46:32 PM
The experience of a combat soldier at platoon and company level operations is important on myriad levels but in no manner whatsoever refutes the basic reality of the primacy of combined arms warfare.
 
I did not cite "theories from the internet" but rather basic realities as taught to your superiors in your chain of command at the US Army Command and General Staff College.
 
Find someone in your branch with command or operations responsibility at battalion and brigade level and ask them the importance of combined arms.
 
Israel fought a tank centric war in 1967 and had to relearn combined arms on the fly six years later in Sinai.  There have been just as many armor is the main player as your preferred the infantry is the main player advocates and you always have been and always be wrong.  Combined arms is a theory from the internet as much as gravity is a theory.  
 
In any case if you want to cite any published text from any US Army officer of any reasonable combat experience that supports your statements that combined arms is "Cold War" thinking, only for "conventional" conflicts, or simply theories from the internet then please do so.  Citing your own personal experience as an NCO at the platoon and company level does not refute what your chain of command instructs it's officers as a matter of basic doctrine.
 
Was as seen through your eyes might be all that war is to you but it's a small fraction of the totality of warfare.  The US Army fights all it's conflicts through the combined arms prism.  If you wish to refute that then you need to cite something published by the US Army, veteran, instructor, or perhaps military historian.  Theories from the internet indeed. 
 
 
 

You are clearly not understanding what I'm telling you. I'm telling you what actual war is like and not these theories from the internet. This is first person infantry experience so if you think it's in anyway "fanboy" then nothing I say is going to change your mind. We will just have to agree to disagree.







-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/1/2009 3:54:50 PM

Missed the POINT again, "rocket expert".. 

No, and you would be well advised to shut up and listen. Of course you wont since you choose to comment on things you have no experience with but just the same. You have no idea whatsoever what I relied on or how we did what we did.

-DA 

THINK HARD before you respond with something STUPID, poster.

 

 Herald

No, you don't. Now, the only thing stupid is continuing on about ourselves. Get back on topic about why you think 243 F-22s is a minimum and I'll show you why I disagree with it. Otherwise, you are being STUPID.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz    @ Herald   7/1/2009 3:56:39 PM
Do you really think the Three Gorgers Dam would be a realistic target in such a conflict? Would the US be will to risk the global condenmation for attacking such a large non-military target, nevermind the economic, environmental, and humanitarian catastrophies that would be caused by rupturing the dam?
 
That would also represent a rapid escalation from a limited conflict to attacking strategic targets, something the PRC could easily use to justify the use of nuclear weapons against American interests. It would not be a stretch to see Chinese ICBMs falling on Guam or Hawaii, or even the Hoover Dam or Los Angeles in response to an attack on Three Gorges.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/1/2009 4:46:07 PM

Do you really think the Three Gorgers Dam would be a realistic target in such a conflict? Would the US be will to risk the global condenmation for attacking such a large non-military target, nevermind the economic, environmental, and humanitarian catastrophies that would be caused by rupturing the dam?
 
 
The idea that we would breach the Three Gorges Dam as part of our reaction to China invading Taiwan (or even more extreme, the way Herald writes it, merely in reaction to China trying to blackmail Taiwan without even managing to set foot on it) is ludicrous.  Targeting power generation or navagation locks without unleashing the resevoir is a different story, but then that only makes it onto the target list if achieving those effects fits in with the commander's intent of the overall air campaign.  Perhaps some network analysis would determine the criticality of that node in that particular target set being high enough to merit becoming a target.  Personally, I've again got to wonder at what sort of war we're in where interrupting/degrading the electrical power grid to whatever extent that would do so is actually considered a worthwhile goal, and that's assuming it actually is used to produce power at all (I'm obviously not intimately familiar with the uses of that dam).
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/1/2009 4:57:01 PM

Do you really think the Three Gorgers Dam would be a realistic target in such a conflict? Would the US be will to risk the global condenmation for attacking such a large non-military target, nevermind the economic, environmental, and humanitarian catastrophies that would be caused by rupturing the dam?

 While the DoD would certainly have contingency plans for a target like this, outside of an extreme situation well beyond the PRC bombing the RoC this would not be targeted. The DoD is very conscious of not causing collateral damage and this kind of target would have very little chance of authorization. Think about this, the DoD cares about not harming Iraqi civilians to the point of prosecuting soldiers who hurt them out of negligence. That same applied in Afghanistan where the DoD actually modifies and makes the requirements for CAS more strict in an effort to prevent collateral. In Vietnam, the DoD was very careful not to bomb Hanoi in a lot of cases. In ODS and Allied force we limited ourselves as well. Modern wars are rarely if ever fought to absolution and more often than not within a framework of rule sets all parties generally follow.

That would also represent a rapid escalation from a limited conflict to attacking strategic targets, something the PRC could easily use to justify the use of nuclear weapons against American interests. It would not be a stretch to see Chinese ICBMs falling on Guam or Hawaii, or even the Hoover Dam or Los Angeles in response to an attack on Three Gorges.

Or even tactical use of nukes on "their" territory aka Taiwan. All of this has to be considered.

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Too Much Collateral Damage   7/1/2009 5:10:17 PM
Destroying 3 Gorges would be considered a WMD attack on the PRC with all the possible consequences thereof. IMHO not an option outside of general unlimited war...


Political Ramifications

Intro 
    Communism fell in China in 1976, and after years of struggle to repair the troublesome Chinese economy, the Chinese government has finally begun to establish a name for itself in the world market.  While the country is has not yet reached that point, the government has started construction on the Three Gorges Dam, which is the nation's great leap towards becoming an established economic and political power. Not only will this dam provide China with much needed income, China also hopes that, once completed, the dam will illustrate the fact that China is a force to be reckoned with. No dam of this size has ever been constructed, and the Chinese hope that this construction project will show the world that China is not a problematic third world country. Three Gorges is a step in the direction of a successful market economy, and will allow China to be a state to be taken seriously.

Dam Development 
    Dam development has been an extremely important venture in China's, as well as many other poor countries' grasps at economic development. Not only do dams provide hydroelectricity to thousands, they also can control floods and water shortages, and improve river transport. In fact, China has relied on dams for thousands of years to provide these benefits. The oldest dam in China is still in sound condition, and has been working for over 2000 years. China has over 200 dams, but none are as large as the Three Gorges, and none has created such extreme controversy.

The Cost 
    Economically, Three Gorges is a huge investment for China. While the plans for the dam have been in the works since the 1940's, construction was halted until the early 1990's. The reason was not ecological nor technological, but economical. It is estimated that the final monetary cost of this dam will be close to US$25 billion (200-240 billion Chinese yuan). One controversial issue of this dam as opposed to others is the fact that the investors that invest in nearly all dams worldwide are not investing in Three Gorges. There are many possible reasons for this dam investment change, but it has been offered that a likely reason for these normal investors (such as the World Bank, and the US Export-Import Bank) refusing to fund this project are the ecological implications, or sociological impact. It is more likely that these investors refuse to risk their money on something that has a high chance of potential failure. True, all ventures have a risk of failure, but it's possible that these investors felt that the risk of failure for Three Gorges was far greater than the risks of other investment opportunities. Nonetheless, China has found money for the project, and Three Gorges Dam continues without a monetary hitch.

Resettlement Funds 
    The money is certainly there for the construction of the dam, which the government would not sacrifice for anything, but money is lacking in other aspects of the project. Resettlement of the people of the Three Gorges region has become an immense task that few are willing to take on for the long run. Several billion yuan have been dedicated to this portion of the project, to cover moving expenses as well as compensation for lost land and construction for new homes. The budget for this portion of the project is already estimated by economists and sociologists to be much lower than the rate of fair compensation. Overlooking the already low budget, there has been mass corruption of government officials at the town, county and even extending to state levels. Officials in lower levels of the government have shown to be the largest problem with corruption. Many officials take on positions in the resettlement program, have smuggled money then have resigned from office. These officials manage to take thousands of yuan, yet it is hard to provide evidence, and even harder to find the officials themselves. This corruption has left the resettlement project without sufficient funds to relocate all of the inhabitants of the Three Gorges area, and no more money is being supplied. The result is thousands of families without the allotted budget to move from the Three Gorges area.

Potential for Disaster 
   Even after the dam is completed, there will still be political problems to face. The most crucial of these problems is the risk for mass destruction of the cities and towns downriver from Three Gorges. While the risk of earthquakes and other natural disasters are certainly worrisome, so is the risk from other countries. If China ever enters a war, the Three Gorges dam would be a prime target for their enemy. If the dam is destroyed, thousands of people down river from the dam are in immense danger, as well as the headquarters of Chinese military forces. The destruction of this dam from an enemy standpoint would be the only component necessary to win the war with China. 
 

    We have seen that there are many political problems and potential problems linked with the Three Gorges dam, but there are many more problems outside of that of the government, which the Chinese people will have to face. 

...something like this could certainly cause a limited conventional conflict to turn into general war or even nuclear war. We would probably lose basing rights in every country in the PACRIM for fear of the Chinese response. The PRC nuclear arsenal is limited against us but far more potent locally.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    3 Gorges   7/1/2009 5:24:12 PM
The issue is not breaching the dam, the issue is killing its power generation facilities.  They can be mutually exclusive.


The generators and turbines are legitimate military targets as they can contribute to the chinese military effort.  breaching the dams would be a whole different issue if done in absentia of a direct military response
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/1/2009 5:49:04 PM

The issue is not breaching the dam, the issue is killing its power generation facilities.  They can be mutually exclusive.

The generators and turbines are legitimate military targets as they can contribute to the chinese military effort.  breaching the dams would be a whole different issue if done in absentia of a direct military response

 
Concur, however, this is what was said...

"My favorite target of course is Three Gorges DAM as crackjing that lake will set back the PRC bandits a century." --Herald

...unless by "crackjing" he meant going after the power generation only. Except he said "set back the PRC Bandits a

 century." Killing power generation would only have a temporary effect so I think it's pretty clear what the suggestion was. Now, to me, this is right up there with suggesting that civilian merchants in Somali waters should have guided missile weapons to defend against pirates. The established pattern of behavior here is that Herald does not seem to demonstrate any knowledge of how wars are fought and that generally, nations don't simply just bludgeon each other to death absent any rules and strategy. That's why he doesn't understand that 187 F-22's can indeed be enough because the USA isn't planning for an all out no holes barred war of extinction against "PRC Bandits." A term which implies an internal bias that is probably clouding his better judgement when it comes to issues involving China. The Admin and most of the Rest of the world do not see Chinese Citizens or their Gov as "Bandits" and would not support physical destruction of that dam which would actually have the effect of FURTHER REDUCING numbers of F-22's over Taiwan because the nations where we have basing would not want F-22's or other US military present in the event that the PRC response to "Crackjing" 3 Gorges was nuclear. So whatever F-22's we deployed would have to come from Guam, Hawaii or Alaska and require so much tanking as to be impractical.


This is important when in every post you are constantly calling people stupid and incompetent. I suppose Herald is caught in his own trap...;)


Who can imagine the vitriol to follow...lol



-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    At ( bullion joules delivered ten times in a row.   7/1/2009 6:27:49 PM

Do you really think the Three Gorgers Dam would be a realistic target in such a conflict? Would the US be will to risk the global condenmation for attacking such a large non-military target, nevermind the economic, environmental, and humanitarian catastrophies that would be caused by rupturing the dam?

 

That would also represent a rapid escalation from a limited conflict to attacking strategic targets, something the PRC could easily use to justify the use of nuclear weapons against American interests. It would not be a stretch to see Chinese ICBMs falling on Guam or Hawaii, or even the Hoover Dam or Los Angeles in response to an attack on Three Gorges.


It is JUST the target I would tell the PRC bandits they risk. Non nuclear and the result is flooding. All they have to do to keep us away from it is BEHAVE.
 
Would you prefer nuclear weapons? I don't, not when I can bring them to heel so simply and sharply. And what of the innocents they kill now in their colonial imperialism; and the environmental damage they do in AFRICA and Southeast Asia? 
 
Why should the PRC bandits sow the wind and not reap the whirlwind?
 
As for world opinion, Rwanda massacre,.......Darfur....to hell with that so called "world opinion". 
 
Herald
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    One more thing.   7/1/2009 6:58:11 PM
You seem to want a nice clean limited war. Read Sun Tzu?: The best battle is the battle not fought. The next best is the one cheapest won. Three Gorges is a cheap victory if it comes down to shooting, even if we only hit the power house
 
I however am an EFFICIENT war sort of guy. Three Gorges  will do the most damage with the least expenditure of force and least loss of life among all the strategic targets I can conventionally hit.
 
 
As for the unqualified truck driver. Stow the hyperbole "expert" . You don't know what you discuss, as usual.
 
WP. A few million dislocated peasants is BETTER than our or Taiwanese slavery and ruin. How many would we kill in a bomb the invasion assembly areas campaiugn? Tens of thousands? How many would we drown? Tens of thousands?  DEAD is DEAD.
 
I don't deal in hypocrisy either.
 
Herald
 
.
 
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