Tango01 | 25 Nov 2014 11:05 p.m. PST |
"In 1991, Chinese military officers watched as the United States dismantled the Iraqi Army, a force with more battle experience and somewhat greater technical sophistication than the People's Liberation Army (PLA). The Americans won with casualties that were trivial by historical standards. This led to some soul searching. The PLA hadn't quite been on autopilot in the 1980s, but the pace of reform in the military sector had not matched that of social and economic life in China. Given the grim performance of the PLA in the 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War, as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union, something was bound to change. The Gulf War provided a catalyst and direction for that change…" Full article here link Amicalement Armand |
Lion in the Stars | 25 Nov 2014 11:34 p.m. PST |
That's a nice Executive Summary, where's the rest of the report? I won't deny that watching the Iraqi army completely collapse in a matter of days (what was it, 100 hours for the ground operations?) should have sent a terrifying chill down the Chinese leadership's collective spine. For a nation that is highly centralized in terms of command and control, the idea that a warfighter would intentionally attack (and could attack with near impunity) the command and control sites and use that intentionally-created confusion to destroy entire divisions should not have been much of a surprise, though. The US basically showed the entire world how to do a modern blitzkrieg. When an organizational culture actively discourages independent thinking and operation at relatively low levels (company and battalion), this makes the entire organization extremely vulnerable to deliberately induced confusion. And the US built several entire systems around the idea of deliberately attacking highly-defended targets with the minimal amount of risk to the attacker. Today, we call them the Stealth Fighter and the Stealth Bomber. And the Stealth Fighter has been significantly superseded by the F22 and F35, both of which can carry at least as much payload as the F117, plus a couple air-to-air missiles for self protection, farther and faster than the F117 ever thought of flying. The B2 has flown combat missions over Iraq and Afghanistan from it's home base in the US, which is very close to the exact opposite side of the earth! That rant over, we can see the Chinese finally applying these lessons with the 'carrier killer' ballistic missile and their J20 and FC31 stealth aircraft. I would really hope that the Chinese haven't based their carrier-killers in the same area as their actual strategic missiles. The US (or Russia) detecting a launch from the location of the strategic missiles would not end well for China. The USAF recipe for Peking Duck starts out with "preheat Peking to 3500degF", after all… |
Only Warlock | 26 Nov 2014 3:11 a.m. PST |
Well those ship killing missiles won't do jack against laser AA batteries. They might as well be standing still. Then the rail gun rounds will start arriving. Most of the juiciest targets on the Chinese mainland are within 50 miles of the coast. |
GarrisonMiniatures | 26 Nov 2014 6:45 a.m. PST |
They found a weakness and there're making a start at correcting the problem. One thing I always find interesting on TMP – the contradictions. Anything Chinese or Iranian comes up, it's how rubbish they are – then an American post will come up and it's how weak the US is making itself because, well, new aircraft rubbish, need more carriers, (add own point) – the fact is, the US has such a big military bugdet that they can pretty much counter any threat at will. At the moment. Not very good with a crystal ball, but go forward 20 years and China is liable to be far more technically competent than they are today – that's when all the work they're doing now will pay dividends for them. |
Legion 4 | 26 Nov 2014 8:18 a.m. PST |
The small losses suffered by the Coalition, and rapid destruction of the Iraqi forces many using Russian and PRC equipment. Must have given both a reason to pause and think or rethink some things, and in some cases it was reported as such. the fact is, the US has such a big military bugdet that they can pretty much counter any threat at will. I'm a Yank and right or wrong I agree on that point … And I'd like to quote ThomasHobbes, who I try to match wits with often here in verbal debate. And we don't always agree, however he pointed something out to me which I have to agree. … America is the key cornerstone of Western defence. It's the underpinning of the Western system. It's the backbone for our way of life.If it's bleeding out fighting pointless battles then that's bad for all of us in the Western world. |
Pan Marek | 26 Nov 2014 8:34 a.m. PST |
Legion4's quote from Hobbes highlights how effective US strength is conventionally, while reminding us that a committed insurgency can largely negate US technological advantages. |
Legion 4 | 26 Nov 2014 9:02 a.m. PST |
Yes, COIN does negate some of the US tech advantages. Much of that dealing with collateral damage, ROE, etc. However, do not sell the US Grunt's ability with or without supporting arms to fight CION effectively. In SE Asia, A'stan and Iraq the US gave as good as it got. And in most/many cases were tactically victorious. Regardless, what we learned and our enemies learned or relearned. It's their backyard. Sooner or later if they kill enough of the "round eye" or infidels, they will go home. And in all these case the local gov'ts were ineffective with in many cases incompetent military home team forces … War are still won by "the poor bloody Infantry" … Hopefully/usually with support by his other brothers in arms. Tanks, FA, CAS, etc. … |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 26 Nov 2014 9:55 a.m. PST |
Since Iraq's humiliating defeat in Desert Shield and Desert Storm, no country can or will even try to take on the US in a conventional war. Asymmetrical/insurgency (formerly called "guerilla") warfare, which was first seen in 'Nam, negates or at least diminishes the overwhelming advantage in American firepower, seeking to bleed US forces slowly and counting on the American public's lack of patience for long, protracted wars with minimal gain. As long as American public attitude remains fixed on quick victories and lacks the patience for such wars, insurgency warfare will be the norm for the rest of this century. |
Legion 4 | 26 Nov 2014 10:01 a.m. PST |
COIN is never quick and never cheap, in blood or treasure … Which is a good reason not to get involved. Especially if the local military forces are ineffective … |
Zargon | 26 Nov 2014 10:03 a.m. PST |
I do like that recipe, But it needs to be applied to other dishes as well, I personally think that 'cooking a few dishes' in the near east and north of the Khyber could do with a cook up, but I advise not to burn the ingredients. The locals may not like the taste but it could be a meal well served ;) Cheers from the Food channel:) |
skippy0001 | 26 Nov 2014 11:39 a.m. PST |
China could pull a 'Pearl Harbor' on us if political and economics were in her favour. Coordinate a hacking strike on our power grid with air, sub, missile attacks on our carrier groups with multiple amph invasions on a variety of targets. The question is how angry we get. If we went on a WWII-power curve recovery then a land war in Asia could be won by us. Well, the areas that don't get stir-fried anyway.:) |
David Manley | 26 Nov 2014 11:43 a.m. PST |
"Well those ship killing missiles won't do jack against laser AA batteries." Check back in a decade or two. Effective "Laser AA" batteries are still some way off. And I wouldn't be at all surprised to see ASCM delivered penaids making a serious appearance in the not too distant future either. |
Weasel | 26 Nov 2014 1:27 p.m. PST |
China and the US have nothing to gain from an armed confrontation. If one happened, I can't even begin to fathom what "victory" would look like for either side. |
Legion 4 | 26 Nov 2014 2:13 p.m. PST |
And IMO that is the bottomline … and you could even generally say that about the Russians, as well. Unlike fanatics driven by religious zeal, traditional ethnic and factional hated, etc., who don't care if they die, etc. … Like we see in the Middle East and SW Asia. The West, Russians and China see things a little more "realistically" … |
Deadone | 26 Nov 2014 2:58 p.m. PST |
China is not Iraq even if the Chinese are far more incompetent than even the worst Iraqi generals and even if all their equipment was still 1950s junk. Geography alone makes the place far more difficult to act against China.
It's a huge country with a dispersed industrial base. It's far more homogenous culturally unlike the Western invention that is Iraq. It has a long and proud history. Oh and there's over 1.2 billion of them. And they have nuclear weapons. 1991 Iraq was an outlier with historical circumstances that have never been repeated again and won't ever be repeated |
15mm and 28mm Fanatik | 26 Nov 2014 4:28 p.m. PST |
Hypothetically speaking, a short-but-intense war between the US and China over the latter's potential overreach in making its SCS and ECS territorial claims is possible, however unlikely. The 'Asia Pivot' and AirSea Battle doctrine were adopted to deter Chinese territorial ambitions and the US intentionally kept its intentions vague as to whether or not it will intervene on behalf of Japan and the Philippines if China ever decides to militarily assert its ECS/SCS claims. A limited conventional war such as this may or may not escalate into nuclear war, but considering rational leaders and the stakes involved I should think (and hope) not. Still, if China decides to take over some of the disputed islands, it will most likely lose the conventional AirSea battle. This is the only thing that's staying China's hand right now. |
skippy0001 | 26 Nov 2014 7:06 p.m. PST |
As long as it stays just a wargame, I'm happy. |
Deadone | 26 Nov 2014 7:34 p.m. PST |
28mm Fanatik – you raise some very good points. The US has in recent times supported Japanese control of Senkakus, ramped up support for Philippines and offered military assistance to Vietnam including P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft (more potent than any equivalent systems in Chinese service even if neutered with poorer electronics).
Still, if China decides to take over some of the disputed islands, it will most likely lose the conventional AirSea battle. Indeed! The US would smash China with ease in a limited Air Sea battle. I actually don't think the US would suffer any casualties save accidents as the PLA is still so far behind in basic capabilities, let alone long range power projection capabilities which are virtually non-existent. The bigger problem is neutralising China itself or something like Taiwan where geography favours the Chinese and allows them to focus force more effectively than in the various seas surrounding China. |
Lion in the Stars | 26 Nov 2014 8:18 p.m. PST |
China and the US have nothing to gain from an armed confrontation.If one happened, I can't even begin to fathom what "victory" would look like for either side. Assuming no nuclear exchange, about like 1919 in Europe. Hopefully. If things went badly for the Chinese and still did not go nuclear, Europe (or Japan) in 1945-1950s. Lots of cities pounded flat. If things went nuclear, I dunno. Per wiki ( link ), China has a very limited number of missiles with the range to hit the US. On the order of 100 birds with a low number of MIRVs (if any). Sure, that's going to suck for me personally (I'm within 50 miles of a major USAF base), but it's REALLY going to suck to be on the Chinese end of things. The at-sea Trident missiles alone outweigh the entire Chinese arsenal, and that's not counting any land-based bombers or ICBMs. So the Chinese could hurt the US pretty badly, but the US could utterly END China. And since the Chinese Communist Party isn't stupid and/or suicidal, I cannot imagine there being an "accidental" use by a "rogue general." Not after the US developed and freely donated Permissive Action Locks to anyone who asked for them. |
Legion 4 | 27 Nov 2014 8:38 a.m. PST |
As I have said before, at this time, not counting the NUC option. Since China has little force projection capabilities. Unless the PRC can walk or ride to attack. They are a very limited threat to all, save for those states that border them … |
Deadone | 27 Nov 2014 3:35 p.m. PST |
Legion 4 totally agree. The Chinese threat is overstated. And provided the US maintains current capabilities or even half the current capabilities, the Chinese might take 20-30 years to get anywhere. Their next carrier for example is due sometime in 2020s, provided no delays. The US has 11 super carriers and a similar number of LHA/LHDs which once F-35B comes into service, are more capable than Chinese carrier with its Su-35s. Their power projection logistics systems are virtually non-existent – virtually no naval transport capability and only a very small strategic transport fleet (around 20 Il-76 roughly comparable to C-141). Long range bomber force is 120 aircraft comparable to shorter ranged B-52s armed with cruise missiles. Some nuisance capability here. Same applies to tankers, maritime patrol, AWACS, advanced air defence (ala AEGIS), space based communications/reconnaissance (e.g. satelites) and all those other things that are critical to Air Sea battle concepts.
|