I disagree. Nukes might lead to a fast and clear victory, either way. But my instincts are that a massive invasion force is MUCH MORE vulnerable than a CBG. It is slow, large, on a fairly predictable course until it reaches a point of landing, where it is locked in place for days. One bomb and the whole point of the invasion is moot. I think China won't go this way because someone will point this out - kind of like why didn't Germany use nerve gas? Because it was much more vulnerable than its enemies to CW.

Are you saying that you have seen reports of cases of negligence and operational indolence when there was NOT a serious consequence in subsiquent events?

Can you please link the threads that you are responding to? Because you react in volume it's sometimes hard to work out what you are reacting to. When the headers are identical it can become a nightmare trying to establish which one (with an identical header) that you are reacting to. As soon as they drop off it's a pain to try and search as the search facility is hopeless, and if it's within 24-48 hrs, google doesn't necessarily find it.

"And to quote an ONI analyst, good intel in a closed society is hard to get. IF we don't have perfect understanding of how THESE PARTICULAR missiles are guided, we cannot fool them.... No such thing as "that will get some." It is "that MIGHT get some." " -- ElCid ---- But there is such a thing as: It is extremely likely that we will know how to defeat some of their missiles using ECM, since our Scientific and Technical Intelligence capability is second to none and we develop similar countermeasures all the time for all kinds of weapon systems, so it is perfectly reasonable to say 'that will get some' because virtually everyone knows this translates into 'that might get some' in the way that you mean. Displacedjim

>> I thought we knew the exit points of all Chinese ICBM tunnels (there are more than 120). We do not.<< Doesn't matter if we don't know all the tunnels. We simply have to know the mountain. Furthermore, a demand for their immediate and unconditional surrender would be broadcasted at the same time. I don't think that they're all that suicidal..

>>Nagato was thrown VERTICALLY into the sky - I have a picture in which its shadow is visible for its last few seconds of existence.<< That's bullscheisse Elcid. The Nagato survived Able with some damage, and was sunk by Baker, but it sank five days after Baker..

You certainly have a lot to say but I would also like to ask you to link your replies. And let me just say that while you seen to be speaking from experience. The tone of your post takes on a very dire tone. Kind of like all the 10000+ KIA if we go into Iraq predictions. Or the Saddam will use WMD by phase line x-ray ect. You are wise to consider the worst case but geez!

No elcid, I'm not suggesting that it's impossible that confusing scenarios might happen. But I'm assuming we've got a tense situation. Granted, I think you're right in saying we'd sent the first CSF there with its hand tied behind its back...we don't want to be accused of setting off the bomb. But I'd argue that on a peacetime footing, you simply have a very good shot at getting a potshot in on anything, including the escorts of a CSF, simply due to different operational procedures. If you're expecting hostilities and there's a really hot inbound, you're not going to hesitate to shoot. As for the distances...there's always the possibility it's a publicity shot, and I was using ship lengths to judge distances. If what you said is true, and I'm sure you've got the experience there, your figures are probably right...although it's still nowhere near the 100sq mile configuration.

USN-MID, that was a finger typo on my part which I've only just realised. It's supposed to be a WVR box typically 10sq miles - I think I stuttered on my zeros and didn't pick it up until Boris mentioned it. ( Although there have been instances of CBG's at a BVR footprint during the Cold War years )

"Likewise if the Flankers carry an all-R-77 load out. I'd load them with four R-73s and eight R-77s, or six R-77s and two R-27ERs. Hell, give them a dual launch-rail for the inner-most wing pylon and you'd carry eight R-77s and two R-27ER/EMs for your BVR loadout. Unfortunately, the R-77M is some way from entering service, but if it was operational, it would dramatically change the air battle, with Flankers launching initial missiles at 100km+. The Super Hornet's reduced frontal RCS wouldn't be very spectacular when it's carrying a full load of AMRAAMs and external fuel." Wonderful numbers, but in a war of guys toting that many "silver bullets"(we're of course going to assume the R-77s/R-27ERs will work perfectly...while the AIM-120 will simply perform up to its record), if it comes down to a missile rippling contest, the guy's who're outnumbered win if they've got good enough avionics to target effectively. Why? B/c if your entire Flanker force demolishes the entire Hornet force, then you've got the Hornet forces ~500 AMRAAMs to account for. And where the lowered RCS does comes to play when you're going up against someone whose RCS is larger than their weapons. Once you shoot, your RCS drops off. Firing AAMs at long ranges forces them to use their datalinks to get updates from the launching aircraft. Put the pieces together. "By the time the Flankers are in position to attack they would have used much of their auxiliary tank (but still leaving them with over 6000kg+ fuel), so they'd be much more manoeverable for those doppler-lock breaking manoeveres. As for the Prowler/Growler, they'd be a welcome addition to carrier defence, but I sure wouldn't want to be in one of them. The R-77's home on jam feature would come in really useful (same for AMRAAM vs. Tu-22PD)." The Hornets won't sit still either...the issue is clearly too complicated to figure out ourselves... Jamming is a range factor. EW will be behind the friendly fighter force, and it will degrade the radar of YOUR fighter force. Helps my guys shoot first. "Unfortunately, the AIM-120D will enter service before the R-77M, but I wouldn't think the Flankers would fail to down any Super Hornets. The Flankers could execute a series of Cuban turns to break lock. A significant number would survive. If the Super Bugs were determined to prevent the incoming air-strike from reaching the CSF they'd have to close with the Flankers to finish them off. They'd then be within R-77/27ER range and suffer casualties of their own, and if both sides deployed their fighters in two waves the engagement would end in a furball, where my money is on the lightly laden Flanker." Well then the Hornets would go in two waves and then blah blah, theoreticals. Are the Flankers boring in with radars blaring? AIM-120Ds are silent killers. As silent as BVR missiles get. That's why they're so good for the F-22...you have no clue it's in the area until the missile goes to terminal phase...and you want to replicate that effect for your Hornets by creating an artificially enhacned friendly environment for the LO features they got. "The bombers could disengage and then come around for another attack-run and then disengage, and then come around for another attack-run, and disengage. This action alone will result in the expenditure of many SAMs, and eventually the Americans will wait for the Backfires to get in closer before launching more SAMs (to increase kill probability). That's when you launch the Kh-15s." You willing to lose an entire regiment of Backfires while you're doing that from running out of gas? They take a long time going around and coming back for another fuel guzzling run in. How many times you wanna try that game? Against missile that may or may not be on the way...