I need help answering this one!

[exported_kiwi]

Hi folks, this was posted by a Chinese person on a BBS in China. Some of these people are so myopic that it boggles the mind and after 5 years of living here, I'm still amazed.
Mods, and folks, I don't want this to become an "us vs them" thread, just help on how to counter what's been written by the poster. I'll include the link also so you can see the originality of the post.
Please bear with me and help if possible....cheers!

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewth...54&pid=1478924&page=3&extra=page=1#pid1478924

The assassin's mace: China's anti-satellite weapons
Glee and ecstasy soon turn to shock as monitor screens suddenly go blank. Then all communication via satellites goes dead. China has drawn its second "trump card" (the assassin's mace) by activating its maneuverable "parasite" micro-satellites that have unknowingly clung to vital (NORAD) radar and communication satellites and have either jammed, blinded or physically destroyed their hosts.

This is complemented by space mines that maneuver near adversary satellites and explode. Secret Chinese and Russian ground-based anti-satellite laser weapons also blind or bring down US and British satellites used for C4ISR (command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance). And to ensure redundancy and make sure that the adversary C4ISR system is completely "blinded" even temporarily, hundreds of select Chinese and Russian information warriors (hackers) specifically trained to attack their adversary's C4ISR systems simultaneously launch their cyber offensive.

For a few precious minutes, the US and UK advancing carrier battle groups are stunned and blinded by the "mace", ie, a defensive weapon used to temporarily blind a stronger opponent. But the word mace has another meaning; one which is deadlier and used in combination with the first.

A mace can be a spiked war club used in olden times to knock out an opponent. Applied in modern times, the spikes of the assassin's mace refer to currently unstoppable supersonic cruise missiles capable of sinking aircraft carriers that are in China's inventory; complemented by equally unstoppable "squall" or SHKVAL rocket torpedoes and regular 65 cm-diameter wake-homing torpedoes, bottom-rising rocket-propelled mines, and "obsolete" warplanes converted into unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) firing anti-ship missiles from standoff positions and finally dive-bombing into the heart of the US and UK aircraft carrier armada.

Missile barrage on advancing carrier battle groups
A few seconds after the "blackout", literally hundreds of short and medium-range ballistic missiles (DF7/9/11/15s, DF4s, DF21X/As, some of which are maneuverable) pre-positioned on the Chinese mainland, and stealthy, sea-skimming and highly-accurate cruise missiles (YJ12s, YJ22s, KH31A/Ps, YJ83s, C301s, C802s, SS-N-22s, SS-NX-26/27s, 3M54s & HN3s) delivered from platforms on land, sea and air race toward their respective designated targets at supersonic speed.

Aircraft carriers are allotted a barrage of more than two dozen cruise missiles each, followed by a barrage of short and medium-range ballistic missiles timed to arrive in rapid succession.

Supersonic cruise missiles constitute China's third deadly "trump card" against the US – part of the so-called assassin's mace. These unstoppable cruise missiles may be armed with 440-lb to 750-lb conventional warheads (or 200-kiloton tactical nuclear warheads 10 times stronger than Hiroshima) traveling at more than twice the speed of sound (or faster than a rifle bullet).

The cruise missiles, together with the SRBMs and MRBMs (short and medium-range ballistic missiles) may also be armed with radio frequency weapons that can simulate the electro-magnetic pulse of nuclear explosions to fry computer chips, or fuel-air explosives that can annihilate the personnel in aircraft carriers and battleships without destroying the platforms.

Their effective range varies from less than 100 to 1,800 kilometers from stand-off positions. Delivered by long-range fighter-bombers and submarines, their range can be extended even further. In fact, stealthy Chinese and Russian submarines can deliver such nuclear payloads to the US mainland itself.

No US defense vs supersonic cruise missiles
The US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups do not have any known defense against the new supersonic missiles of their adversaries. The Phalanx and Aegis ship defense systems may be effective against subsonic cruise missiles like the Exocets or Tomahawks, or exo-atmospheric ballistic missiles, but they are inadequate against the sea-skimming and supersonic Granits, Moskits and Yakhonts or similar types (Shipwreck, Sunburn and Onyx - North Atlantic Treaty Organization codenames) of modern anti-ship missiles in China's inventory.

Not only China and Russia have these modern cruise missiles, so do Iran, India and North Korea. These missiles can be delivered by SU-27 variants, SU-30s, Tu22M Blackjacks, Bears, J6s, JH-7/As, H-6Hs, J-10s, surface ships, diesel submarines or common trucks.

Adding to the problems facing aircraft carriers are the SHKVAL or "squall" rocket torpedoes installed in some Chinese and Russian submarines and surface ships. At 6,000 lbs apiece, these torpedoes travel at 200 knots (or 230 miles per hour) with a range of 7,500 yards guided by autopilot. They are designed to sink aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. Again, it is unfortunate for the US and UK to have no known or existing defenses against this new generation of rocket torpedoes.

China's sea mines
Complicating matters for the US aircraft carrier battle groups are the hundreds of hard-to-detect, rocket-propelled, bottom-rising sea mines that are anchored and hidden on the sea bottom covering pre-selected battle sites in the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea designed to home in on submarines and surface ships, particularly aircraft carriers.

These sophisticated sea mines (EM-52s) have been deployed by Chinese and Russian submarines before the missile attack on Taiwan in anticipation of the major event that is to follow.

Finally, in addition to all these asymmetric weapons, the US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups will have to contend with the thousands of "obsolete" Chinese fighter planes converted into unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) launching missiles at stand-off positions and finally diving kamikaze-style into the heart of the carrier battle groups.

Chinese and Russian submarines fire their inventory of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and "squall" rocket torpedoes at the aircraft carriers and submarines of the US and UK as the carrier battle groups come within range. As the battle progresses, the Chinese and Russian submarines maneuver to the rear of the carrier battle groups to complete the encirclement.

In less than an hour after launching the saturation barrage of missiles on the US and UK naval armada, all the aircraft carriers and their escorts of cruisers, battleships and several of the accompanying submarines are in flames, sinking or sunk, turning the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea into a modern-day "Battle of Cannae".

Meanwhile, the Chinese fleet that conducted a strategic retreat forms a phalanx along the forward positions off China's coast, ready to augment the hundreds or thousands of land-based long-range surface-to-air missiles of China (SA-10s, SA-15s and SA-20s) with their own short, medium and long-range air defense missile systems.

Applying its long-held military doctrine of "active defense", China also launches simultaneous missile attacks on the forces-in-being and logistics-in-place of the US and its allies in Japan, South Korea, Guam, Okinawa, Diego Garcia and Kyrgyzstan, hitting these US bases with missiles armed with radio frequency weapons, fuel-air explosives and conventional warheads.

Source:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/china/HD20Ad03.html

That's it folks. Sorry for the length of it. Please, help needed.
Kind regards and thanks in advance.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Hi folks, this was posted by a Chinese person on a BBS in China. Some of these people are so myopic that it boggles the mind and after 5 years of living here, I'm still amazed.
Mods, and folks, I don't want this to become an "us vs them" thread, just help on how to counter what's been written by the poster. I'll include the link also so you can see the originality of the post.
Please bear with me and help if possible....cheers!

http://bbs.chinadaily.com.cn/viewth...54&pid=1478924&page=3&extra=page=1#pid1478924

The assassin's mace: China's anti-satellite weapons
Glee and ecstasy soon turn to shock as monitor screens suddenly go blank. Then all communication via satellites goes dead. China has drawn its second "trump card" (the assassin's mace) by activating its maneuverable "parasite" micro-satellites that have unknowingly clung to vital (NORAD) radar and communication satellites and have either jammed, blinded or physically destroyed their hosts.

This is complemented by space mines that maneuver near adversary satellites and explode. Secret Chinese and Russian ground-based anti-satellite laser weapons also blind or bring down US and British satellites used for C4ISR (command, control, communication, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance). And to ensure redundancy and make sure that the adversary C4ISR system is completely "blinded" even temporarily, hundreds of select Chinese and Russian information warriors (hackers) specifically trained to attack their adversary's C4ISR systems simultaneously launch their cyber offensive.

For a few precious minutes, the US and UK advancing carrier battle groups are stunned and blinded by the "mace", ie, a defensive weapon used to temporarily blind a stronger opponent. But the word mace has another meaning; one which is deadlier and used in combination with the first.

A mace can be a spiked war club used in olden times to knock out an opponent. Applied in modern times, the spikes of the assassin's mace refer to currently unstoppable supersonic cruise missiles capable of sinking aircraft carriers that are in China's inventory; complemented by equally unstoppable "squall" or SHKVAL rocket torpedoes and regular 65 cm-diameter wake-homing torpedoes, bottom-rising rocket-propelled mines, and "obsolete" warplanes converted into unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) firing anti-ship missiles from standoff positions and finally dive-bombing into the heart of the US and UK aircraft carrier armada.

Missile barrage on advancing carrier battle groups
A few seconds after the "blackout", literally hundreds of short and medium-range ballistic missiles (DF7/9/11/15s, DF4s, DF21X/As, some of which are maneuverable) pre-positioned on the Chinese mainland, and stealthy, sea-skimming and highly-accurate cruise missiles (YJ12s, YJ22s, KH31A/Ps, YJ83s, C301s, C802s, SS-N-22s, SS-NX-26/27s, 3M54s & HN3s) delivered from platforms on land, sea and air race toward their respective designated targets at supersonic speed.

Aircraft carriers are allotted a barrage of more than two dozen cruise missiles each, followed by a barrage of short and medium-range ballistic missiles timed to arrive in rapid succession.

Supersonic cruise missiles constitute China's third deadly "trump card" against the US – part of the so-called assassin's mace. These unstoppable cruise missiles may be armed with 440-lb to 750-lb conventional warheads (or 200-kiloton tactical nuclear warheads 10 times stronger than Hiroshima) traveling at more than twice the speed of sound (or faster than a rifle bullet).

The cruise missiles, together with the SRBMs and MRBMs (short and medium-range ballistic missiles) may also be armed with radio frequency weapons that can simulate the electro-magnetic pulse of nuclear explosions to fry computer chips, or fuel-air explosives that can annihilate the personnel in aircraft carriers and battleships without destroying the platforms.

Their effective range varies from less than 100 to 1,800 kilometers from stand-off positions. Delivered by long-range fighter-bombers and submarines, their range can be extended even further. In fact, stealthy Chinese and Russian submarines can deliver such nuclear payloads to the US mainland itself.

No US defense vs supersonic cruise missiles
The US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups do not have any known defense against the new supersonic missiles of their adversaries. The Phalanx and Aegis ship defense systems may be effective against subsonic cruise missiles like the Exocets or Tomahawks, or exo-atmospheric ballistic missiles, but they are inadequate against the sea-skimming and supersonic Granits, Moskits and Yakhonts or similar types (Shipwreck, Sunburn and Onyx - North Atlantic Treaty Organization codenames) of modern anti-ship missiles in China's inventory.

Not only China and Russia have these modern cruise missiles, so do Iran, India and North Korea. These missiles can be delivered by SU-27 variants, SU-30s, Tu22M Blackjacks, Bears, J6s, JH-7/As, H-6Hs, J-10s, surface ships, diesel submarines or common trucks.

Adding to the problems facing aircraft carriers are the SHKVAL or "squall" rocket torpedoes installed in some Chinese and Russian submarines and surface ships. At 6,000 lbs apiece, these torpedoes travel at 200 knots (or 230 miles per hour) with a range of 7,500 yards guided by autopilot. They are designed to sink aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. Again, it is unfortunate for the US and UK to have no known or existing defenses against this new generation of rocket torpedoes.

China's sea mines
Complicating matters for the US aircraft carrier battle groups are the hundreds of hard-to-detect, rocket-propelled, bottom-rising sea mines that are anchored and hidden on the sea bottom covering pre-selected battle sites in the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea designed to home in on submarines and surface ships, particularly aircraft carriers.

These sophisticated sea mines (EM-52s) have been deployed by Chinese and Russian submarines before the missile attack on Taiwan in anticipation of the major event that is to follow.

Finally, in addition to all these asymmetric weapons, the US and UK aircraft carrier battle groups will have to contend with the thousands of "obsolete" Chinese fighter planes converted into unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) launching missiles at stand-off positions and finally diving kamikaze-style into the heart of the carrier battle groups.

Chinese and Russian submarines fire their inventory of anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) and "squall" rocket torpedoes at the aircraft carriers and submarines of the US and UK as the carrier battle groups come within range. As the battle progresses, the Chinese and Russian submarines maneuver to the rear of the carrier battle groups to complete the encirclement.

In less than an hour after launching the saturation barrage of missiles on the US and UK naval armada, all the aircraft carriers and their escorts of cruisers, battleships and several of the accompanying submarines are in flames, sinking or sunk, turning the East China Sea and the Philippine Sea into a modern-day "Battle of Cannae".

Meanwhile, the Chinese fleet that conducted a strategic retreat forms a phalanx along the forward positions off China's coast, ready to augment the hundreds or thousands of land-based long-range surface-to-air missiles of China (SA-10s, SA-15s and SA-20s) with their own short, medium and long-range air defense missile systems.

Applying its long-held military doctrine of "active defense", China also launches simultaneous missile attacks on the forces-in-being and logistics-in-place of the US and its allies in Japan, South Korea, Guam, Okinawa, Diego Garcia and Kyrgyzstan, hitting these US bases with missiles armed with radio frequency weapons, fuel-air explosives and conventional warheads.

Source:http://www.atimes.com/atimes/china/HD20Ad03.html

That's it folks. Sorry for the length of it. Please, help needed.
Kind regards and thanks in advance.

1) No ISTAR (hugely important)

2) Only accounts for naval response

3) Unguided BM's are useless unless its a nuclear exchange, guided BM's are only slightly better

4) Simply having cruise missiles does not mean you can effectiveley target a CBG, what platforms and at what range again?

5) No account for IADS

6) No account for sub orbital comm nodes

7) The "encirclement" of the CBG is a funny line, obviously has no idea how naval maneuver and ASW works.

8) The USN doesn't have any "battleships"

9) These obsolescent UCAV's will all have to use takers to reach the battle space, unless these stupid gringo's plan on sitting right off the coast.

10) sea mines in blue water? this keeps getting better.

Pretty frigging silly if you ask me. :crazy

Apart from that, tell the guy all of that bullpoo (it is all bullpoo) will be hard to coordinate when US strategic air power decimates PROC's C4ISR capability. JASSM is just around the corner. Gesch we could go on for hours.

 

[Todjaeger]

The first thing that comes to mind, having read a bit of the thread, is the question on whether countering/debunking it is even worthwhile. Having gone and read some of the posts, it smacks of fanboy/nationalistic fantasy, exactly why such discussions are not allowed here.

Having said that, somethings came to mind, so here goes...

One thing I question, is why would China and Russia be working together, to coordinate a sneak attack vs the US/UK and allies? The article mentions coordinated attacks by China/Russia on US & UK orbital assets and comm system, as well as strikes within South Korea, Japan and Kyrgyzstan. As I read it, the intent is to allow the PRC to seize Taiwan, and I see no advantage in it for Russia, in starting a war Japan, the UK, the US, South Korea and Kurgyzstan.

The 2nd assumption that causes problems, is the sheer scope of effort needed to carry out the proposed "campaign" and in secret no less. It would require substantial re-positioning of forces, as well as changing target programming, all conducted at a nation-state level. Given the information gathering capabilities of the US and UK, not to mention Japan and South Korea, such drastic re-alignments would be noticed prior to Russia or China being in a position to launch the "sneak attack."

The 3rd assumption seems to be that China & Russia have the capability to mine space or attach what are effectively limpet mines to US/UK satellites, without either government noticing. I seriously doubt that the US space technology is far enough along to conduct such an operation against other advanced countries, nevermind China being able to slip something like this past NORAD. One of the things NORAD does, which the Chinese poster may well be unaware of, is track everything launched into space and where it goes.

I could go on into the other problems, like issues of accuracy with Chinese weapon systems or China's supposed ability to detect, track and target US/UK seabourne assets... But I find myself weary of such discussion. All I can hope is that the poster, and any others like them in mainland China, do not manage to prod or convince the PRC leadership that such actions would be a good idea or actually feasible. I am concerned that what seems to be a large amount of government propaganda and/or control of information could cause those in power on the mainland to think it would be as easy as the poster seems to, and then intiate such an operation. If that were to happen, I can forsee a large number of people dying, on all sides, and to no ones gain in what is essentially a bid for power.

All I can really suggest is that the poster should stop and think about what the gain would be, and what sort of retaliation the US and UK would engage in. If they do not think either could retaliate, ask them if they have ever considered that the US and UK likely have secret capabilities they know nothing about, just like they seem to think the PRC does.

 

[stigmata]

A couple of things comes to mind.
First: if russia and china begin throwing nukes at a carrier battle group, -US has enough nukes to turn both countries into radiactive dust, -and still have enough spare nukes to carry on with the rest of the world if they have a bad hair day.

Only if the leadership are in a kamikaze-mood would it be an issue.

Secondly: It is really hard to get close to a carrier battle group to even get a good-enough location to launch.

 

[Feanor]

The Soviet Union had several projects of space-based ASAT weapons, including suicide sattelites that could, under their own power, approach US and NATO sattelites and then selfdestruct, taking the NATO sattelites out with them. There was even plans for a space fighter, a robotic sattelite with a 20mm automatic cannon for taking out other sattelites. However to my knowledge the project was not completed. The rest of his discussion is not even remotely worth mentioning. It's some combination of Soviet Naval Doctrine (AVMF ASM barrages, saturation, nuclear ASMs for finishing blows), and his own deranged fantasies.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[StevoJH]

With China holding $518.7 billion worth of US treasury bills, you can be sure US will not honor those bills as part payment for the cost of any war with China.

When China starts paring down those levels of treasury bills to less than half that amount, that's the time to really start worrying...

1) Yes, Chinese Nuclear Arsenal might have a problem with those Pesky B2 bombers putting LGB's through the top of the silos.

2) In regards to Subs i suppose you could mention that the only Chinese subs capable of keeping up with a Carrier Group are the Nuc's and that at those kinds of speeds they'd be picked up by the ASW Screen or SSN's if they tried to get in torpedo range.

3) In regards to "Mace", does China have a domestic space launch capability? If not, i doubt either the Russians or Europeans would help.

4) I was under the impression that Ballistic missiles are stuck on a specific target once launched, making those useless since Carrier Groups are moving targets and would be maneuvering.

5) If the chinese was tracking the US battlegroup with MPA's to enable targeting by Anti-Ship missiles, they'd have to be above the ships radar horizon to detect them, and their emissions would give them away before then, meaning they would have a nice little escort of F-18F's to wave out the window at.

6) You'd need literally millions of mines to have a chance of clogging up the south china sea.

 

[djdrive]

Secret Chinese and Russian ground-based anti-satellite laser weapons also blind or bring down US and British satellites used for C4ISR

As the same Russians like to say: don't make my slippers laugh!

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Khairul Alam]

As the same Russians like to say: don't make my slippers laugh!

well as far as i understand that comment holds some water. a BBC report once mentioned that US officials did admit that a US intelligence satellite was "blinded" by some sort of a ground-based laser system. i leave it to DT's informed members to judge me.

 

[exported_kiwi]

Sorry to sound stupid but what's ISTARS and IDAR? Is ISTARS like JSTARS? If I'm gonna go at these idjits, then I'd better clue up a bit more. I did point out the USAF equation, regarding the posters idea that it'd be a purely naval equation. I did point out how B2s will "go at" the ICBM fields. I did point out that the old Soviet missile saturation attacks on CVBGs can effectively now be countered by AEGIS and the lesser version on the Arleigh Burkes. i did point out the sub factor and the noise they'd make. i did point out the targetting problems when trying to find a CVBG in so much open water. i wasn't too sure about the space based equation or the mines.
So far, thanks guys and more please, if there is anything else you feel relevant. Do I have permission to plagiarise what you've written here? I'll try to alter it a bit to make it not so apparent.
About folks in China.....they're so blatantly nationalistic here, they think Mao was a God. Nothing their gov't does is wrong (yeah right) and that the West is to blame for all the ills China has suffered and indeed, the world has suffered. They're a wonderful nation of people but some things they're so wrong about, it just ain't a joke, ya know! hell, on TV over here, they're still fighting WW2 which, incidently, they won on their own with no help from anyone. Apparently they won in Korea and Vietnam too. Try pointing out their mistake(s) and they're instantly hostile unless you know them really well. Hell, even my Chinese gf can say as she wishes about the West, but the moment I comment on tainted milk scandals, I'm on the sofa! it's like this here in the middle kingdom and despite having been here for 5 years, it's still hard to take sometimes.
P.S, mods, this isn't political, just asking to counter a poster on a BBS here in China. I was also answering someone here who said something about Chinese folks and the way they think.

 

[John Sansom]

Wow. Is Exported-Kiwi sure Jackie Chan isn't jerking his rope. Just askin'.
More to the point, however, he appears to be pointing to a national mindset which deserves careful examination.

Whatever the technical yeas and nays may be in his poster's scenario, it's the fact that he (the poster) envisions all of this as possible, perhaps even eminently practical in absolute terms. If it's an opinion shared by others, particularly in second-level government and military circles, it's cause for considerable concern.

China has always been a technically competent nation, even when the odds were all against its people. An enormous surge forward in recent history has understandably led to considerable chest-thumping. Let's hope this is not accompanied by dangerous miscalculations vis-a-vis the strength and abilities of other nations.

Then again, Kiwi, your poster may well be a very precocious 14-year old on a run. It happens.

Thanks for the insight...and try to avoid a discussion with this character, unless you want your gf to break the other arm.

 

[Todjaeger]

well as far as i understand that comment holds some water. a BBC report once mentioned that US officials did admit that a US intelligence satellite was "blinded" by some sort of a ground-based laser system. i leave it to DT's informed members to judge me.

There have been a few ASAT systems over the years, from both sides. IIRC there had been some Soviet IR laser systems which would temporarily 'blind' US intel satellites. Whether the systems are still active and effective... Is questionable given the time and resources the US has had available to develop other methods and countermeasures. A similar situation with the planned Soviet anti-satellite mine.

Regarding the "plan" to eliminate all the US/UK satellites... I am no expert, but I believe that is something like 400+ satellites, and some in rather high orbits. From reading done during the 80's-era Cold War, I do not think the Soviet Union had the capability to eliminate the US satellites prior to the US detecting the attempt and responding. I also believe that China (PRC), which does have a domestic launch capability AFAIK, does not have the overall capability in terms of detection, targeting and launching that the Soviet Union did 20 years ago, nevermind enough to simultaneously disable or destroy some 400 satellites in the space of a few minutes.

Not to mention what the US would likely assume was happening if all of the sudden their satellite constellations went silent. IMO that would be an opening scenario in a full nuclear exchange. And that is something in which no one wins...

 

[Feanor]

In regards to "Mace", does China have a domestic space launch capability? If not, i doubt either the Russians or Europeans would help.

Of course they do. They have even launched manned space missions, and have recently gone on their first space walk. They're just nowhere near weaponizing space.

well as far as i understand that comment holds some water. a BBC report once mentioned that US officials did admit that a US intelligence satellite was "blinded" by some sort of a ground-based laser system. i leave it to DT's informed members to judge me.

I think it was an incident during the 80's, that involved a ground-based laser blinding iirc a space shuttle, from Central Asia. Maybe I'm thinking of something else though.

I did point out that the old Soviet missile saturation attacks on CVBGs can effectively now be countered by AEGIS and the lesser version on the Arleigh Burkes.

It's just a matter of more missiles. Well..... much more missiles.

IIRC there had been some Soviet IR laser systems which would temporarily 'blind' US intel satellites. Whether the systems are still active and effective... Is questionable given the time and resources the US has had available to develop other methods and countermeasures. A similar situation with the planned Soviet anti-satellite mine.

Never entered service. Though arguably, a few nuclear warheads delivered into orbit under the pretense of a commercial launch could do the trick. Well admittedly more then a few, but 20-30?

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Sorry to sound stupid but what's ISTARS and IDAR? Is ISTARS like JSTARS? If I'm gonna go at these idjits, then I'd better clue up a bit more.

Sorry mate, jargon.

ISTAR stands for Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting, Acquisition and Reconnaissance. Basically he makes no account for how the PLA (peoples liberation army) is going to find and effectively target the CBG. The Ocean is an awfully big place and CBG's are quite spread out. Finding a carrier is no easy task and the PLA's ISTAR assets are rather primitive when your talking global player, I'm not even sure if they have an AEW&C/AWACS operational yet. Compare that with the US who will soon have a orbital Imaging Infra Red based system that will be able to track aircraft, two orders of magnitude of difference there i would say.

IADS is the Integrated Air Defence System, and the USN has the most effective and dense anywhere on the face of the planet, land or sea.

C4I stands for Command, Control, Communications, Computers and Intelligence. Consider this, right now, as we are typing US strategic air power could strike PROC command and communications infrastructure with near impunity, and there wouldn't be much the PLA/PLAAF could do to stop it. How is this hideously complex attack going to function when theater commanders can not communicate with their deployed forces?

So far, thanks guys and more please, if there is anything else you feel relevant. Do I have permission to plagiarise what you've written here? I'll try to alter it a bit to make it not so apparent.

Well the limpid mines are fantasy at the minute, and to think that US sats wouldn't notice their approach? "colliding" with a US sat would be an act of war.

The submarine stuff was a total joke, chinese submarines are PRIMITIVE compared to a LA class SSN, don't even think about a Sea Wolf or Virginia. Individual kilo's operating outside of the PLAAF/PLAN's ASW air cover will be toast, they are two generations behind in terms of SSN/K design. That's like an F-4 vs an F-22.

Again no one would need to strike the BM (ballistic missile) bases/positions because they are nearly useless as anti ship missiles. If they are unguided then there is no way in hell they would ever (and i mean ever) hit a target as small as a ship moving at 30 knots. Over a flight time of 30 minutes how far do you think a ship would move? That is assuming of course that Chinese unguided BM's are accurate enough to actually hit a ship, which somehow i doubt considering the origins and age of the guidance technology used. Even if the BM has a targeting seeker on the front its options for maneuver are severely limited, the trajectory of the missile is dictated in the launch phase. Once the Re entry vehicle (RV) leaves the rocket motor it can maybe change its impact point while its in space through small rockets, but that will be far too high for the seeker to acquire the target. Once the RV is entering the atmosphere its seeker will be useless because of the ionized plasma surrounding the RV, rendering IR and radar based systems useless. Once the RV slows down and passes into the troposphere it will have only seconds for the seeker to acquire a target and then attempt to move the RV to an intercept trajectory, maneuvering an RV in terminal phase of flight is like trying to turn a bus that's going down a steep hill with no front wheels. Thus the RV would have to be right over the moving target in order to have any chance for a hit, no small task if you ask me. Add to that SPY-1D would track the missile through most of its flight, singling out any incoming that have a threatening trajectory which can then be engaged with SM-3 and navalized PAC-3, both highly capable ABM missiles.

In short BM's are useless for this type of work, they are for private consumption only. The only time they would have an effect on a naval engagement is if they employed a nuclear warhead, and you think PROC wants to get into a nuclear exchange with the worlds strongest nuclear power with a couple of hundred BM's?

These "UAV's" are all short ranged and could not reach the battlespace in the south china sea without refueling which is not a capability PLAAF has on that scale as yet.

Oh yeah and why on earth are the Russians getting envolved over a conflict with taiwan again? You have to be frigging kidding me right?

The whole thing is a joke, it sounds like a strategy game.

About folks in China.....they're so blatantly nationalistic here, they think Mao was a God. Nothing their gov't does is wrong (yeah right) and that the West is to blame for all the ills China has suffered and indeed, the world has suffered. They're a wonderful nation of people but some things they're so wrong about, it just ain't a joke, ya know! hell, on TV over here, they're still fighting WW2 which, incidently, they won on their own with no help from anyone. Apparently they won in Korea and Vietnam too. Try pointing out their mistake(s) and they're instantly hostile unless you know them really well. Hell, even my Chinese gf can say as she wishes about the West, but the moment I comment on tainted milk scandals, I'm on the sofa! it's like this here in the middle kingdom and despite having been here for 5 years, it's still hard to take sometimes.

P.S, mods, this isn't political, just asking to counter a poster on a BBS here in China. I was also answering someone here who said something about Chinese folks and the way they think.

The politisized education system and media combined with instilled nationalism lead to stuff like that, and the fact that those attitudes are widespread throughout what will soon be the worlds second power is disturbing. Lets just hope as the spread of economic liberalism continues so will political liberalism, and maybe the China will feel secure enough to critisize itself. One can hope.

P.S. feel free to cut and paste.

P.P.S. Vietnam won with Soviet rather than Cino backing, that's why china backed the Pol Pot in Cambodia. Vietnem hated PROC almost as much as the US at the time, and it was Russian aid that got them through the war.

 

[OPSSG]

Hi folks, this was posted by a Chinese person on a BBS in China. Some of these people are so myopic that it boggles the mind and after 5 years of living here, I'm still amazed...

Dear Exported Kiwi,

The key words are "some people" in China. The way I look at it is that every country has its share of silly people (at least 1% to 2%). It's just that in China 1% of a billion people is a large number.

Reading his post, I suspect that no amount of rational and logical reasoning can convince him that you are correct.

To make matters worse, defence technology matters are inherently confusing to a layman and not everyone can understand the technical bits in "defence talk" type forums (DT). Due to my prior military service, I am better able to understand land forces matters.

As a Chinese Singaporean (who travels to China for business and had lived in UK), I often encounter cases of mistaken identity or even out right racism. I was on a habour cruise in Hong Kong once and having a chat with a Aussie gal. This American guy joined for for a chat. I told the American I was from Singapore and he asked me if it was in the Southern part of China. He proceeded to get sloshed as the evening wore on but the Aussie and I never corrected him.

Right now PLA is trying to modernise and its no surprise that the Chinese government uses the media to instill nationalism. IMHO, an important concern for the PLA is its legitimacy. That is why after the earthquakes, the Chinese leadership and the PLA are featured by the media in the act of rescue. And the media restricts its coverage of the people demanding justice for those who have lost their children from schools collapsing because of shoddy construction (due to corruption).

Bear in mind that not all Chinese believe what is being said. The country has a history of repression so don't expect the people who disagree to speak up. But this too will change over time. DT forum members will need to remember that this is a big country with big challenges and trying to reach first world standards in one generation.

Regards
OPSSG

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think the BBS post is symptomatic of the direction of the PLA. They're benchmarking against the US armed forces (a very high benchmark) as a basis to identify weaknesses in its own armed forces.

The fact that there are posts that suggest China can take on the US is already a sign of growing confidence in its military ability notwithstanding that a lot of it is fantasy.

Still, China's line of thought as the BBS post illustrates is very much 2nd generation in relying on many conventional technologies that permeates 80s and 90s thinking. Potent but a long way to go.

Stealth technologies are conveniently discounted and more importantly which is a key strength of US military power is its logistical support.

Its easy to see the PLA as a monolithic organisation but that's a flaw.
The flaw in Chinese military thinking has always been its segmented responsibility. Each area of the military is compartmentalised and responsible for its area of responsibility. There are advantages but also significant weaknesses that can be exploited.

In the opium wars, the chinese outnumbered 40,000 british massively but only focussed its forces under lin zexu to counter the british. Similarly in the Sino-Jap wars, China never was able to concentrate its armies and fought piecemeal (although individually, there were very effective units such as the 2 German-trained divisions). Even Korea saw the Chinese only entering Korea piecemeal. If it had concentrated more forces, the 1st Marine division wouldn't have been able to escape south.

Like Russia which only used its forces in the North Caucasus MD against Georgia, the Chinese ability (or lack of) to concentrate its forces is a key weakness. That's the same problem Russia faced in Finland 1939.

On the other hand, the US emphasises significantly on interoperability not only within its military arms but across its allies.

Also, 1,000 sukhois might overcome 100 raptors but the raptors are going to be supporting one another whereas the sukhois are going to come in waves each one likely to suffer a knock out. US CVs aren't going to face China one at a time, their going to be operating as a single unit under central command which sees any war as a single front and focal point.

In a war over Taiwan, the Nanjing MR will bear most of the initial responsibility not the whole China PLA. The ability of each MR to coordinate with the other is a question mark, the type and quality of coordination is another and there will be limitations.

That's not to say China doesn't know that. The problem is that China's traditions means and historical foundations = military regions/districts and compartalised thinking which like any large organisation will face significant challenges for change.

Thats a good point. Contemporary western military theorem emphasizes "Jointness", seamless operational efficiency between the various political and military divisions. Hence the Joint in front of everything, Joint Strike Fighter, Joint Direct Attack Munitions, Joint Stand Off Weapon, Joint Task Force, even the chain of command is being closely integrated between the services. This is a lesson that has been hard won, fighting modern wars over the past 50 years involving all three arms of the military, PROC has never fought a modern conflict (Korea was a modern war, neither was the Invasion of Tibet), and never relied heavily on its navy in a conflict. Obviously the PLA/AF/N has much clearer divisions between the military arms. Administratively this is a bonus but it wont help combat efficiency any.

 

[John Sansom]

Just a note to thank Ozzy Blizzard, Weasel, and OPSSG for the extraordinarily illuminating responses and discussions subesquent to exported_kiwi's request for help. Really, thanks guys. Let's hope the appropriate folk in China have also read, marked, learned, and inwardly digested. By "appropriate", I mean those who may agree with the poster who confounded exported_kiwi.