China prepares for ‘sudden, cruel & short’ modern war

[Elim Garak]

more an issue of collateral damage. When you squash a fly like IS or AQ, you have to worry about collateral damage. How you're viewed during and after the war. Against someone like china there would be no mercy. Short of nuking each other, we'd roll over china as quickly as we rolled over iraq.

Chinese military would make you roll over?

[Wycked]

Chinese military would make you roll over?

quite the opposite. There are a few advantages to spending many times more on the military than every other country in the world. One is the knowledge that you're troops are better armed, better equipped, and better trained than anyone else in the world.

[Flurryfang]

Haha! Short war xD Yeah right! That is a great joke xD

Unless anybody is ready to use nukes, short wars are never gonna happend again. It is so easily for the commond people to get fire arms in this modern day, that unless you completly destroy a nation/areas population, there will always be war in that area xD

[Ulmita]

Two things, modern US cruisers and destroyers are far more capable than the bulk of the fleet in the 1980s, and while CSGs are smaller it is only because they do not need larger escort groups for the missions they actually are undertaking right now. However, the Navy is fully capable of augmenting the size of a carrier's escort should it feel the need. Take CSG1, it actually consists of 1 carrier, 2 cruisers, and 6 destroyers. 4 of those destroyers are usually conducting independent operations, but they are readily deployable as a unified DESRON.

In 1980 the most powerful air defense cruiser class was the Virginia Class with 68 SM-2 missiles. The Ticonderoga's have 122 SM-2/SM-6 missiles. The most common air defense destroyer in 1980, the Adams Class, had 40 SM-1/2 missiles, compared to the Burke's 90-96 SM-2/SM-6 missiles. The size of the fleet has gone down, but not the amount of firepower in a significant manner (1/2 the ships carrying 2x the missiles). The same thing has happened with the aircraft, they are fewer in number but far far far more accurate. The Super Hornets are also not really short legged compared to other naval aircraft, like the F-4 and F-14.

No, it is you that is being willfully ignorant. I have been very clear I am talking only about state on state military action, not occupation, not asymmetric warfare, not nation building. The failure of grand strategy is a political failure, not a military failure in these cases. Quit being obtuse.

China cannot afford to wage a war beyond the SCS, it has far too much to lose. They are as vulnerable as the US w/o the power projection capability.

The F6F-5 had a maximum range with external fuel of ~1560nmi with no other external stores. It could not have a 800nmi combat radius with 4000lbs of bombs. The F/A-18E/F has a max range of ~1660nmi with external fuel and 2 AIM-9s btw. And again the Hornet can refuel in flight, the Hellcat cannot.

The USAF's own fact file points out the B-52s maritime uses.

Your own source proves what I said, a Nimitz can conduct extended flight ops of 1.2 sorties per aircraft per day. It takes no major planning to conduct surge operations, and the toll is on airframes far more than aircrews. I have witnessed surge operations exceed 2 sorties per aircraft per day. It is not sustainable, but it is usually not needed to be sustained either.

The Mk-84 is a 2000lbs bomb filled with 945lbs of explosive, when used as part of a guided bomb, the entire Mk-84 is considered the warhead, same with the BLU-109.

The article is a bit old but i invite you to read it.

https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/12/...ahmos-missile/

Considering a salvo of 8 BrahMos and that the missile travels at 1km/sec, the Burke has about 25-30 seconds to react. Launching long range missiles would be futile at this point because the missiles are closing in on the ship fast. The Medium range option available on the Burke is the 50 km range Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) which is quad packed and hence large quantities are available. This is very useful as one cell packs 4 MR-SAM compared to 1 LR-SAM. While intercepting supersonic anti-ship missiles, a large number of SAMs are fired to ensure successful interception. So in this case, we can consider about 16-24 ESSM ripple fired from the Burke towards the incoming missiles. We have 4 SAMs targeting each BrahMos missile and the probability of interception is ‘theoretically’ 100%. Practically, the BrahMos may break through these defenses.

Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)But there’s a big flaw in this if you haven’t noticed. Firing 24 ESSM takes 24 seconds, 4 ESSM will target 1 BrahMos, so 24 of these can target 6 BrahMos and by that time the last few ESSM have been fired, there are still 2 BrahMos missiles left untargeted and speeding towards the Burke. So what’s the flaw? Think ……….If 16 BrahMos missiles (the capacity of new gen Russian frigates and Indian destroyers) were fired instead of 8, the defense of the Burke would be saturated if it’s operating alone. The Phalanx CIWSand Softkill countermeasures would probably manage to counter 2 more BrahMos, but then you have 6 remaining supersonic anti-ship missiles with 300 kg semi-armor piercing warheads ramming at full speed into a 9000 ton destroyer. Hence we can assume the saturation limit for a single Burke stands at 12 BrahMos missiles approaching simultaneously. So if it goes one-on-one with a Russian frigate or Indian destroyer carrying 16 BrahMos, it’s not returning home.

The solution to Burke class is build ships that carry more anti ship missiles. Russia is already on it and India as well. I am pretty sure china will catch up soon on the notion.

Actually build cheap, small and light ships that can carry many advanced anti ship missiles and send lots of them out there to swarm aegis.
Combined with subs and aircrafts swarming the defenses of a carrier group shouldn't be unimaginable.

My money are that USA will not even try such scenario as loosing even one group would mean huge political turmoil. China's military although behind USA has came far to become formidable. Also, don't forget that when defending there is an advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

But there isn't going to be such war.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-navy-s...032823201.html

[Deleted]

yes. Google it to get for news about Romania

Romania tried to create a black sea battle group, when Bulgaria refused to take part, the whole thing fell apart. It wouldn't if Romania had something resembling a navy.

[ParanoiD84]

There is no short modern wars, there was short wars you could win with just one decisive battle back in the days but not anymore.

[Kellhound]

The article is a bit old but i invite you to read it.

https://defencyclopedia.com/2014/12/...ahmos-missile/




The solution to Burke class is build ships that carry more anti ship missiles. Russia is already on it and India as well. I am pretty sure china will catch up soon on the notion.

Actually build cheap, small and light ships that can carry many advanced anti ship missiles and send lots of them out there to swarm aegis.
Combined with subs and aircrafts swarming the defenses of a carrier group shouldn't be unimaginable.

My money are that USA will not even try such scenario as loosing even one group would mean huge political turmoil. China's military although behind USA has came far to become formidable. Also, don't forget that when defending there is an advantage.

- - - Updated - - -

But there isn't going to be such war.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-navy-s...032823201.html

The AEGIS system was developed to face saturation attacks from Soviet ASuW systems. Your little article likes to take into account the delay between launching of the SAMs, but ignores the delay between the launching of the SSMs btw.

Too bad that the US doesnt send a single ship to defend a carrier with no aircraft. The smaller the ship the less capable of self defense and the smaller the warhead needed to negate it. Plus, the addition of too much firepower reduces the sea keeping ability of a ship, a major issue in blue water ops. Carriers have a major advantage in finding and attacking surface forces. Chinese air power is minimal in the SCS, and their primary long range bomber is a locally produced Tu-16.

And China was part of RIMPAC 16, doesnt change the dynamics at play in the region.

- - - Updated - - -

Romania tried to create a black sea battle group, when Bulgaria refused to take part, the whole thing fell apart. It wouldn't if Romania had something resembling a navy.

Well, they do have 2 Type 22 frigates that are about on par with the last of the US Perry frigates in 2015.

[ringpriest]

Two things, modern US cruisers and destroyers are far more capable than the bulk of the fleet in the 1980s, and while CSGs are smaller it is only because they do not need larger escort groups for the missions they actually are undertaking right now. However, the Navy is fully capable of augmenting the size of a carrier's escort should it feel the need. Take CSG1, it actually consists of 1 carrier, 2 cruisers, and 6 destroyers. 4 of those destroyers are usually conducting independent operations, but they are readily deployable as a unified DESRON.

In 1980 the most powerful air defense cruiser class was the Virginia Class with 68 SM-2 missiles. The Ticonderoga's have 122 SM-2/SM-6 missiles. The most common air defense destroyer in 1980, the Adams Class, had 40 SM-1/2 missiles, compared to the Burke's 90-96 SM-2/SM-6 missiles. The size of the fleet has gone down, but not the amount of firepower in a significant manner (1/2 the ships carrying 2x the missiles). The same thing has happened with the aircraft, they are fewer in number but far far far more accurate. The Super Hornets are also not really short legged compared to other naval aircraft, like the F-4 and F-14.

You're correct that modern cruisers and destroyers are more individually capable (of course, let's not forget that the Navy is doing its absolute best to retire the cruisers, even in the face of congressional opposition), but the USN also has far fewer of them - which really just means that they're putting the same number of eggs in fewer baskets; something that comes with a number of problems - it means that any casualties (maintenance or otherwise) take down proportionately more firepower. You're also neglecting how much of the modern Navy's firepower is tied up in VLS cells - it's convenient for propagandists because it lets you truthfully throw out some very impressive numbers... but at the same time its deceptive, because seldom does it get mentioned that the available VLS cells need to be split between Standard Missiles, ASROCs, Tomahawks, and Sea Sparrows. Sure, the Ticos can pack 122 Standard missiles for long-range air defense... at the cost of much (if not all) of their short-range air defense, anti-sub, and land attack capability.

And again, you're handwaving the fact that you get to go to war with the force you have, not the force you have on paper and that can be re-assembled weeks or months down the road (and you're doing the same handwave thing with the current CAG range, it's "only" 3/4 of what it used to be).

No, it is you that is being willfully ignorant. I have been very clear I am talking only about state on state military action, not occupation, not asymmetric warfare, not nation building. The failure of grand strategy is a political failure, not a military failure in these cases. Quit being obtuse.

China cannot afford to wage a war beyond the SCS, it has far too much to lose. They are as vulnerable as the US w/o the power projection capability.

Yes, the US military is very, very good at fighting WWII, but what you (and, to be fair, a great many other US military cheerleaders) seem to miss is that no one else is particularly interested in fighting WWII (or state on state military action, if you prefer) - the North Vietnamese weren't interested, the Pashtun weren't interested, and even Saddam Hussein and the Sunni in Iraq weren't particularly keen on going a second (third, for them) round of good old WWII vs. the US of A. I highly doubt the Russians, Chinese or anyone else are going to willing sit down with the US for an all-or-nothing game of "hey, let's play that one game where I'll kick your ass". (They doubtless will cheerfully grab parts of the board while a hypothetical President Trump is busy telling committed allies who made the mistake of trusting a nation dumb enough to elect him that they need to pony up more of their GDP.)

Sure, the US military always wins its wars... for certain, highly select and particular definitions of "wins" and "wars". You're creating a magical special case, and then pretending that's the only way America's opponents are ever going to fight (and worse, you're pretending it's actually decisive, when it pretty clearly is not). To repeat a famous exchange between US and North Vietnamese officers at the tail end of the war,

"You know, you never beat us on the battlefield."

"That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."

(That the North Vietnamese did sometimes beat the US on battlefield just drives home the very same mindset that you're demonstrating now, Kellhound.)

If China finds itself (deliberately or accidentally) in open warfare with the US, then anything they're going to lose abroad has to be considered already lost (unless they win) - and once again, you're making the assumption that because the Chinese military is not in a position to fight WWII globally, that they'll be unable to strike or otherwise exercise power globally, which is ridiculous. Look at the impact Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have had - then consider that compared to China they are stupid, broke, clumsy, and so small as to be insignificant. There's a not-insignificant chance that the United States has already been fighting a World War with China (and/or Russia) for years now, mostly without realizing it.

[Kellhound]

You're correct that modern cruisers and destroyers are more individually capable (of course, let's not forget that the Navy is doing its absolute best to retire the cruisers, even in the face of congressional opposition), but the USN also has far fewer of them - which really just means that they're putting the same number of eggs in fewer baskets; something that comes with a number of problems - it means that any casualties (maintenance or otherwise) take down proportionately more firepower. You're also neglecting how much of the modern Navy's firepower is tied up in VLS cells - it's convenient for propagandists because it lets you truthfully throw out some very impressive numbers... but at the same time its deceptive, because seldom does it get mentioned that the available VLS cells need to be split between Standard Missiles, ASROCs, Tomahawks, and Sea Sparrows. Sure, the Ticos can pack 122 Standard missiles for long-range air defense... at the cost of much (if not all) of their short-range air defense, anti-sub, and land attack capability.

And again, you're handwaving the fact that you get to go to war with the force you have, not the force you have on paper and that can be re-assembled weeks or months down the road (and you're doing the same handwave thing with the current CAG range, it's "only" 3/4 of what it used to be).



Yes, the US military is very, very good at fighting WWII, but what you (and, to be fair, a great many other US military cheerleaders) seem to miss is that no one else is particularly interested in fighting WWII (or state on state military action, if you prefer) - the North Vietnamese weren't interested, the Pashtun weren't interested, and even Saddam Hussein and the Sunni in Iraq weren't particularly keen on going a second (third, for them) round of good old WWII vs. the US of A. I highly doubt the Russians, Chinese or anyone else are going to willing sit down with the US for an all-or-nothing game of "hey, let's play that one game where I'll kick your ass". (They doubtless will cheerfully grab parts of the board while a hypothetical President Trump is busy telling committed allies who made the mistake of trusting a nation dumb enough to elect him that they need to pony up more of their GDP.)

Sure, the US military always wins its wars... for certain, highly select and particular definitions of "wins" and "wars". You're creating a magical special case, and then pretending that's the only way America's opponents are ever going to fight (and worse, you're pretending it's actually decisive, when it pretty clearly is not). To repeat a famous exchange between US and North Vietnamese officers at the tail end of the war,

(That the North Vietnamese did sometimes beat the US on battlefield just drives home the very same mindset that you're demonstrating now, Kellhound.)

If China finds itself (deliberately or accidentally) in open warfare with the US, then anything they're going to lose abroad has to be considered already lost (unless they win) - and once again, you're making the assumption that because the Chinese military is not in a position to fight WWII globally, that they'll be unable to strike or otherwise exercise power globally, which is ridiculous. Look at the impact Al Qaeda and the Islamic State have had - then consider that compared to China they are stupid, broke, clumsy, and so small as to be insignificant. There's a not-insignificant chance that the United States has already been fighting a World War with China (and/or Russia) for years now, mostly without realizing it.

Warships and crews are not cheap. The last non-VLS ships also used their (much smaller) magazines to house ASROC, they carried no Sea Sparrows, and if armed with Tomahawk missiles they had 8. So your comments are a bit lacking. You really think the USN cannot add escorts to a carrier... Also, the only range really lost since the 90s is in the Intruders, which doesnt matter unless they didnt require fighter escort.

State v state to control territory is still waged with conventional forces. The NVA was interested, just not capable. Saddam is no more. The Taliban no longer control most of Afghanistan. ISIL has had an impact, but they have also suffered significantly, as has Al Qaeda. I do not think the Chinese leadership really wants to end up like bin Laden. China also has lots to lose in retaliatory strikes, I do not think they would be happy to lose the Three Gorges Dam for example.

Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan all have one thing in common; the US was/is trying to hold land against non-state combatants blending into the civilian population. News flash, there is no civilian population to blend into on the Spratly Islands and the US is not going to invade mainland China.

I am quite well aware the NVA won a few battles, but they lost far more than they won. This despite the major handicaps the US military was forced to deal with. And what mindset is it that I have? That I know the difference between military defeat and political defeat? That I understand the US is far more likely to win than lose a war in the SCS?

I like that,"they will lose unless they win"... That might be the most intelligent thing you have ever said. I also laugh that you think the US does not realize it has been waging war against China and Russia.

[Elim Garak]

I guess Napoleon won too then, he won most of the battles and even took Moscow, funny how he then ended up on Elba. Bad luck? I guess, according to local American history rewriters.

[Deleted]

I hope modern countries have grown out of the whole nationality phantasm soon. We are all one within the iris, and the world should be like Ankh-Morpork . Wanna conquer? Just feel free to do it.

[Kellhound]

I guess Napoleon won too then, he won most of the battles and even took Moscow, funny how he then ended up on Elba. Bad luck? I guess, according to local American history rewriters.

Funny thing, he lost the state-on-state military conflict.

[ringpriest]

Funny thing, he lost the state-on-state military conflict.

Nope. He was sold out by the French Senate and his generals - a political failure (at least by your reasoning).

[Kellhound]

Nope. He was sold out by the French Senate and his generals - a political failure (at least by your reasoning).

That was caused by his military defeat during the War of the Sixth Coalition (since we are talking about his exile to Elba).

[ringpriest]

That was caused by his military defeat during the War of the Sixth Coalition (since we are talking about his exile to Elba).

Wrong. The War of the Sixth Coalition ended because even though Napoleon never got his 900,000 fresh conscripts (a political failure), he still won (against incredible odds) the Six Day's Campaign - then Paris surrendered (a political failure), his Senate deposed him (a political failure), and his general officers mutinied (another political failure), even though his army was intact with high morale.

[Macaquerie]

Trying to draw distinctions between military and political defeats sort of ignores the fact that force is just one instrument of policy and that, more often than not, an actual war represents a monumental failure of policy. The whole point is to use the threat of war to advance your interests as much as possible without actually having to fight one. Only idiots go out seeking a war for its own sake, spending billions to send thousands of men to their deaths solely for the purpose of making your country look strong is pretty much never actually in a nation's best interest.

[Elim Garak]

The funny thing about Vietnam is that American Armchair War Experts fail to realize that political shitstorm against the war was the military goal of China and USSR. They made Americans pay in blood to force the American public to go bananas over it and pussy out the troops. That's exactly what happened.

[Kellhound]

Wrong. The War of the Sixth Coalition ended because even though Napoleon never got his 900,000 fresh conscripts (a political failure), he still won (against incredible odds) the Six Day's Campaign - then Paris surrendered (a political failure), his Senate deposed him (a political failure), and his general officers mutinied (another political failure), even though his army was intact with high morale.

His political failures were the direct consequences of his military failures. He was defeated even when facing near even odds and forced to fall back to France. Yes he won the Six Day's Campaign, but he was attacking an over extended small portion of the advancing allied troops. He stood no chance against the full body of Schwarzenberg's army. His strategic and operational situation was unwinnable. That is why his commanders refused to fight.

As for 900,000 conscripts, that was an impossible request to begin with. Even when invading Russia the Grande Armee only numbered ~680,000.

- - - Updated - - -

Trying to draw distinctions between military and political defeats sort of ignores the fact that force is just one instrument of policy and that, more often than not, an actual war represents a monumental failure of policy. The whole point is to use the threat of war to advance your interests as much as possible without actually having to fight one. Only idiots go out seeking a war for its own sake, spending billions to send thousands of men to their deaths solely for the purpose of making your country look strong is pretty much never actually in a nation's best interest.

War always represents a failure of policy.

- - - Updated - - -

The funny thing about Vietnam is that American Armchair War Experts fail to realize that political shitstorm against the war was the military goal of China and USSR. They made Americans pay in blood to force the American public to go bananas over it and pussy out the troops. That's exactly what happened.

It wasnt a very bloody conflict actually. The US suffered about the same KIA in Korea as we did in Vietnam even though we had more troops in Vietnam and it lasted longer. The American population had just become wimps, and are even more so now. That is the clay feet of the US military, it is "backed" by a country of wimps/cowards.

[ringpriest]

His political failures were the direct consequences of his military failures. He was defeated even when facing near even odds and forced to fall back to France. Yes he won the Six Day's Campaign, but he was attacking an over extended small portion of the advancing allied troops. He stood no chance against the full body of Schwarzenberg's army. His strategic and operational situation was unwinnable. That is why his commanders refused to fight.

As for 900,000 conscripts, that was an impossible request to begin with. Even when invading Russia the Grande Armee only numbered ~680,000.

So... political failures happen because of lack of military success? What matters is the ultimate outcome and not some arbitrarily defined subset of conflict?

[Elim Garak]

I always wondered why is it that when you talk to patriotic (like almost any) Americans about USA their responses almost always shift into Orwellian territory.