US invasion of China.

they are not looking for blue navy that can match US. they are concetrate on asymetric warfare such as AsBM, anti-ship missile, cyberwarfare, anti-sat, Subs, UAV, electric warfare etc. they plan to win a limited conflic in case of taiwan or south china sea. they don't plan to match US navy ship by ship. their plan is control western pacific NOT challege US all over the ocean.

 

During combat conditions, a carrier is largely blacked out electronically. However, the fleet around her is raiding an unholy amount of noise.

Patrol Aircraft? Do you think patrol aircraft are going to be able to operate anywhere even close to the carrier fleet, let alone the carrier?

And Over The Horizon RADAR is not anywhere close to being able to do this. It is more of a detection aid, not a precise tracking system. It can tell you "A fleet is this far away, in that direction". It can't tell you "This ship is at this precise location".

Trust me, the moment such a launch is detected, you will see two things happen almost at once.

First, every RADAR on all of the escort ships are going to go into full-power mode, blasting away at anything incoming, with the intent of shooting it down. Every Destroyer, Frigate and Cruiser is going to absolutely saturate the airwaves with enough EM to make it impossible to see anything through it but electronic noise.

And the Carrier is going to go dead silent, and change both course and speed.

QUOTE=s002wjh;1060855866]
just like Radar can calculate the exact location of plane or missile once it narrow its search area and raise its resolution. DF21D likely has some kind narrow field of view RF sensor, once location information is update from satelite, it can active its homing RF sensors.
[/QUOTE]

That is more commonly known as HARM, High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missile. Or in laymans terms, an anti-RADAR missile.

That is only of use if there is either RADAR operating, or it can get an exact fix on where it last saw RADAR operating. And that might be good for striking a fixed land target, but it is largely worthless when used against a mobile target like a ship or aircraft.

Yes, there have been experiments with remote aircraft in guiding missiles into targets be providing course corrections. And we have been guiding missiles by LASER for decades.

But first, the aircraft has to be alive to be able to do that. Do you honestly think such an aircraft will be able to survive inside the air defense zone of a carrier task force on full alert?

It's lifespan would be roughly as long as it would take for a missile to go from the nearest destroyer to said aircraft. A minute or less more then likely.

OK, 2 large differences here, see if you can keep with me here.

Aircraft operate in a 3-dimensional operating area. Yes, you can spot an aircraft from hundreds of miles away from your location with RADAR. Because there is a direct line-of-sight between you and the target. As long as you can possibly see him, and the power of the RADAR is 2X his distance, you can see him.

But we are talking about spotting a target on the surface, a 2-dimensional target. Now you no longer have elevation to assist in your being able to see him at a distance. In fact, RADAR power is no longer much of an issue. The problem is that you can only see him through line-of-sight. And your restriction there is not power, but the curvature of the earth.

We call this "Line Of Sight Propagation". In other words, how far can you see before the curve of the Earth affects your line of sight. And to add in even more, you have to program in any barriers between the RADAR and the potential targets, so things like mountains and water towers and buildings are not detected as potential threats.

And when detecting ground targets, you now have to throw in "Ground Clutter". These are things on the ground that get between you and your target. Your own ships, other ships, even waves have a great impact on this.

And the farther away you are, the harder to get any kind of precise location of a ship on the curface from a ground based RADAR. And even from airborne RADAR, it gets harder because all of the random reflections from waves will make things more and more hazy at a distance.

But remember what I have said several times about blackout. First, the missile is going to be bombarded by RADAR singnals from a dozen different ships. All among the most powerful RADAR systems ever designed. It is going to have to try and filter out all of that crap, and hope it can somehow "hear" what little emmissions will be coming from the Carrier.

You have a better chance of listening to a girl whispering on the other side of a football stadium in the middle of a Metallica concert.

 

without the support system sat etc DF21D is useless, they not gonna sell it. each version is improve upon previous version, use to catch up western standard. if you check type 80 to type 99 youll see the tech improvement over each, same with ships. they build few for trail/prototype purpose then improve it, then build more and repeat.

how long take them to develop from J7 to J10 to J20. J7 was 60's, J10 80-90's, j20 is more advance than J10.

look at timeline of their development, then calculate if same growth happen for 10-15yrs.

 

Yea, China may have done a land test of the DF-21D. Big whoop-de-do. We know the DF-21 is a functioning missile, I have never questiong that part of the system at all.

A "land test" is not an "operational test". Let them test it on a randomly moving ship at sea, and I will start to change my mind on this.

And look back at my latest post to see just some of the problems.

And your comparison for timeline of the jet development is nowhere near the same.

The J-7 is a Chinese made MiG-21. Soviets flew them in 1955, China in 1966. And they were given the plans to build them. It still took them 10 years.

The J-20. Only 2 of them built, not expected to actually see production for another 5-10 years. Provided nothing goes wrong during the test phase. And it uses a lot of technology from the 30 year old F-117.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12274807

So they will once again soon have some of the capabilities we have had for decades. This does nothing to convince me that they have the capability to do something that no other nation is capable of doing at the moment.

And since the system requires satellites, that is easy to solve also. Once hostilities start (or shortly before), the Navy uses it's SM-3 missiles and destroys such birds.

Now the DF-21D is a lawn ornament.

 

you can detect ship via SAR, its done before. there are many ways to detect and track ships at seas. and there are many way to counter it. but it all depend on command decision, capability etc etc.

as for electric warfare, lets just leave at that, because it could swing to either side. US could jam the datalink of DF21D or the DF21D & its system can pass those defense. its unknown

the same argument is done before, and its inconclusive, because it could can either way.

there are multiple paper on detecting & track ship via satelite. also Subs, AWAC, OTH, UAV can be used combine with sat.

 

Surrender quickly.

They make all of our computer components, including those in our military hardware. They also make our clothing and shoes. So unless you think naked soldiers weilding sticks are going to take on a modern industrial army, we aren't gonna do real well.

 

alot people say tech from F117, i have my doubt, 1st they only bought some material not electronic etc. so no one really no the capability of J20, it may has some foreign design in it, but it does not mean its base on F117.

once missile lunched US only has few mins to fire and reach satelite(not enough time), also satelite might just be one of the system they use. its better to disable statelite before the lunch rather than after.

 

I was not even talking about ECM. That is the technical term for jamming. I was talking about just the standard emissions from all the other ships and their RADAR and other systems. That is a lot of clutter to sort through, even without counting their ECM systems.

And AWACS, how long will those surcive? Once things go hot, they will not get within 200 miles of the fleet, let alone the carrier.

Same with any other system. The moment they "go active" and start to report these updates, every US system will spot them as if they had a billion candlepower spotlight on them. And it may be UAV, Submarine, stealth aircraft, that does not matter. Once it starts to transmit, everybody knows exactly where it is, and it is goodbye charlie.

Meanwhile you still have a carrier making radical evasive movements. And with a flight time of 10-20 minutes, it can be so far away from where it was predicted to be that it does not have a chance of relocating and hitting the carrier.

25 years ago, the Marines had this nifty device called the MULE. Officially known as the AN/PAQ-3 Modular Universal Laser Equipment. This was a laser designator, that could be used to "paint" an enemy target with a laser beam. THen we could fire a variety of weapons at the target, from bombs and missiles operated from aircraft to the Copperhead artillery anti-tank round.

And this was a good thing to have, until the Soviets started to design and build laser detectors. The planned use of these items quickly changed by the 1990's. After all, what good was this really, when the enemy would know you were getting ready to attack them, and then engage the poor grunts on the ground that were armed with little more then a fancy flashlight?

Now the modern version of the MULE is mostly used for friendly force identification if the enemy might possess detection equipment. Instead of calling the airplane and saying "Here is the target, shoot it", they aim it at a near-by ground feature, and say "I am 100 meters East of the designated location, the enemy is 250 meters West".

The same reason that this type of correction would fail is why such systems as the MULE are no longer used against technilogical opponants. They know you are useing them, and do everything in their power to take them out before any incoming rounds can strike them.

AWAC, gone when hostilities start. Other aircraft, same thing. Even if they somehow evade detection, once they begin to transmit, they are gone.

Submarines? Same thing. During an active conflict, sonobuoys will be so think in the area you can almost walk across them. No subs will be able to operate in that environment without being detected. And once they start to transmit updates, everything in the area will be converging on them within moments.

It is not for nothing that a US Carrier Task Force is considered to be the most heavily defended space on the planet. Other then the carrier's aircraft, every ship is designed for a single primary purpose: to protect the carrier.

Most of the experts say nothing of the aircraft design, nor it's avionics. The main claim is that the aircraft coating is what was duplicated.

And no, they do not nessicarily have "a few minutes". An ICBM of this design has a flight time of 10-20 minutes. And it has to travel both directions, up and then down. The AST weapon only has to go up. And it's target is flying along a very well known path. No way to evade.

But since the system is not yet tested or operational, I do not worry much about it.

 

flight time of DF21 is about 12min to its Max range. that give little time for SM3 to disable satelite before it send mid course correction data to the missile. they have to first ID/track the satelite, there are thousands up there, do you know which one is used for this purpose? then SM3 has to get in range and fire the missile, take few mins to get there, by then it will be too late.

lets consider this

1. subs locate CVBG, transmitt location to DF21 via secure datalink. US find it destroy it but not before it transmit the location.
2. satelite and other platform used to verify and track CVBG.
3. lunch missile, US has about few mins to intercept missile or sat.

once the missile is lunched, there is not much that can counter it. Modern datalink, communcation are very secure, and its diffcult to jam it. unless you know the EM signature of such communication decode/jam is diffcult.

you can output alot EM in the area, but it depend how sophiscate is the satelite communication during terminal phase, and DF21D sensors. if its active radar it look for particualr type of signal, and usually only the receiver know what it is. not only the signal is frequency modulate in certain band, but might have pulse modulation, amp modulation withing carrier wave, pulse on pulse, and might have other tricks as well. one of the reason our Elint plane hoover near china coast is to gather these signal and analyze it. again this get into EW field.

of course it will be sometime before china can field such missiles. they still has issue to overcome. this is one of the threat we have to prepare.

 

Does China know whether its satellites in low earth orbit have had explosive charges attached to them?

 

It is you that made the rediculous claim that China had 20 nukes capable of hitting the US .. when your own sources say have over 100.

Your efforts to constantly defend the absurd position that an invasion of China would be a success are just as rediculous.

Carrier groups and accompanying navel fleed trying to invade China would be destroyed.

If the conventional stuff did not work China would send in the nuclear cruise missiles.

Some folks are not so full of themselves that they are ok claiming when they do not know something.

Perhaps you should try it sometime.

 

The F-117A was late 1970s technology by the way.

 

That was not me, yet another thing you do not know. I gave a number higher then 20.

I gave the number as 32. And that is counting their ICBMs. Because thhose are the only nukes that can reach the US at this time.

You can add in the SLBMs, provided the submarines are in a location within range of the US to launch their payloads. And that has never happened. Not a single time. So effectively, those are totally out of the picture.

I could add in their conventional nuclear bombs also. But since their bomber fleet is even more ancient then their ships (a Chinese version of the 1950's era Tu-16 bomber, which the Russians retired over 20 years ago), I did not even bother to count those at all. Sure they have the capacity, but they lack the range to attack the US, and they would be shot down long before they reached the US in any event.

Just because they have a weapon, that does not mean it will be in a position where it can be used. Now if the OPTEMPO of their SSBN fleet started to pick up, and they started to actually do some patrols, I might get nervous. But at this time, that has never been done. So this is a non-issue.

Excuse me, what is that?

*cleans out ears*

Did you say I thought the US could successfully invade China?

No, I did not think so. I have never said anything of the sort. In fact, I think the idea is largely laughable. I was only commenting on the capability of the DF-21D and other missile systems, as well as fleet tactics and equipment.

So you are wrong yet again. I would love for you to go back and find where I had ever said that the US could successfully invade China.

You really gotta stop making these assumptions here. I have never said anything of the sort.

And this is where I keep informing you that you are wrong. Dead wrong. And no, they would not start throwing around nukes.

Tell you what. Find me proof that China has stated that they will use Nuclear Weapons in a first strike capacity. If you can do that, I will start to take what you are saying seriously.

Because I can show you where China has expressly pledged to do no such thing.

http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/6/81.full

Earlier this year, China published a defense white paper, which repeated its nuclear policies of maintaining a minimum deterrent with a no-first-use pledge.

And this is official Chinese Government policy. Translation, they will only use a nuke if somebody else uses a nuke against them.

This mirrors the policy of every other current nuclear nation, short of North Korea (which to my knowledge has never made any official policy as to their use).

So there you go, wrong yet again.

You are wrong as to the number of nukes I claimed. You are wrong that I said the US could win an invasion of China. And you are wrong about the Chinese policy on the use of their nuclear weapons.

Care to be wrong about anything else today? I got facts to back me up, you have nothing.

And is that not enough? Here are a few more references, all confirming China's claims that they will never be the first to use nuclear weapons, they are only for use in a retaliatory capacity.

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/94-422s.htm

China's detonation of its first atomic bomb in 1964 followed strong criticism of "fraudulent" U.S.-Soviet arms control arrangements seen in the Limited Test Ban Agreement of 1963. Beijing portrayed that treaty as a thinly disguised superpower effort to preserve their nuclear supremacy while limiting China's and other countries' ability to develop nuclear weapons. Beijing similarly rejected the 1968 multilateral Non-Proliferation Treaty. China declared that it would not assist other countries in developing nuclear weapons, but defended the right of non-nuclear states to acquire such arms. At the same time, Beijing repeatedly declared that it would not be the first to use nuclear weapons and affirmed its interest in a total ban on and thorough elimination of nuclear weapons.

No First Use of Nuclear Weapons

Ever since China's first atomic test in 1964, Beijing has repeatedly pledged that it will not be the first to use nuclear weapons and has urged the other nuclear powers to join in this policy. More recently, it has suggested that the United States and Russia adopt such a pledge before requiring China and other nuclear weapons states to begin talks on ending nuclear tests.

In fact, follows is the official announcement stating such a policy. It was made by Lieutenant General Li Jijun in July 1997:

China’s nuclear strategy is purely defensive in nature. The decision to develop nuclear weapons was a choice China had to make in the face of real nuclear threats. A small arsenal is retained only for the purpose of self-defense. China has unilaterally committed itself to responsibilities not yet taken by other nuclear nations, including the declaration of a nofirst-use policy, the commitment not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states and in nuclear-free zones. . . . In short, China’s strategy is completely defensive, focused only on deterring the possibility of nuclear blackmail being used against China by other nuclear powers.

And yet another reference:

Since the inception of its nuclear weapon programme in 1955, Chinese leaders and strategists have perceived nuclear weapons as limited in their military utility, a view reflected in their no-first-use policy and limited strategic arsenal. Today, official Chinese policy declares an absolute commitment to a no-first-use policy and a limited strategic nuclear arsenal.

And the above quote comes from Yang Jiechi, the Chinese Foreign Minister of the PRC.

So please, please, please, prove me wrong. Give me a single PRC reference that says they will change over 60 years of official policy, and decide to strike first with nuclear weapons.

Please? Official policy, not just your rather questionable opinion.

http://books.sipri.org/files/insight/SIPRIInsight1004.pdf

 

That is true. That is one of the reasons why they have all been retired. At the time the F-117 was designed, the computers were not powerfull enough to compute the radar reflection and cross sections of curved surfaces. That is why the F-117 is configured into what Ben Rich called the "Hopeless Diamond".

But the RAM that was used on the surface is still way advanced of what anybody else is using. In fact, RAM and SAM materials have long been a US secret, and why their stealth aircraft and submarines have been so successful.

I am not much worried about somebody stealing the design of the F-117. Nor am I worried about the capture of the avionics. The newest Airbus liners probably have avionics as advanced as those in the F-117. However, the outer coating was still a tightly held secret until 1999.

 

I agree with Mushroom on pretty much everything except that I think the U.S. could be successful in an invasion, but it wouldn't make sense at this time. I didn't even claim that China has only 20 nuclear weapons capable of hitting the U.S. I was pretty much saying it in the form of a question because I got the number 20 from another forum which is obviously not a very reliable source. That is just the first thing I could find.

 

Thanks. And what I find so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed funny in all of this, is that the people arguing the most with me have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

They accuse me of getting all my facts from Wikipedia. Even though I provide dozens of references, nont of them being Wikipedia. They say all my References are from the US, even though one of my primary references is from the UK, and I provide them from all over, even Canada and China itself.

They give unsubstantiated claims, or claims way far off what I am saying, without any kind of reference, just their own uninformed and incorrect beliefs. And tell me I am wrong.

How many of them get a diagnosis of Cancer, then tell their doctor they are wrong, it is just an ingrown toenail. Or have a mechanic tell them their transmission is shot, and they claim that their car just needs a tune-up.

Of course, knowing the opinion of many of those of the military in general, I am not really surprised at their total ignorance of military subjects. But you would at least think they could use logic.

 

My bad for misquoting you. At this point I agree that the subs are not in position but in the future it is quite likely that this will be a threat.

It seemed to me like you were. Glad that you do not seriously consider the US invasion of China viable.

I totally get that the Chinese nuclear strategy is one of defense.

My point is that if pushed up against the wall, as in a full out invasion by the US, there is a definite risk that they would use them "defensively" against an invading force after all other options were expired.

 

No, it will not. They have had SSBN subs now for over 30 years. And they have never sent them on patrol. Ever.

Not even to the Central Pacific. Let alone to the region of Hawaii. Let alone between Hawaii and the mainland US.

This is not the Soviet Union we are talking about. Yes, they were a real threat with their SSBNs. They were constantly on patrol in the oceans of the world, and could have launched from where they were.

What we have here is a static group of submarines, that have never patrolled even close to where they would have to be to launch against the US.

I would not call that "quite likely" at all. More like "very remote chance".

And if you know how these subs were designed, and the horrible issues with them, you would be less concerned. The Type 092 is well known as having an incredibly noisy and inefficient power plant. That is probably why the sole remaining ship has only been used for test purposes.

The Typo 094 has similar issues. While a more quiet vessel, it is still has roughly the acoustic signature of the Soviet boats of 30 years ago (most notably the Victor III class subs of the 1970's).

And to give an idea of how "stealthy" they are, back in 1981 the USS Drum (late 1960's Sturgeon class SSN) actually collided with a Victor III (K-324)while trying to get photographs of some recent modifications.

The Soviets never knew the US sub was in the area until the collision happened.

Now this is basically the same class of boats that China has. And the US boat in question is a class that was designed in the early 1960's, and preceedes the Los Angeles class of boat.

But there have been questions of their quality control, especially in the wake of the reactor incident last year.

One thing we try to never do in the military is panic at any little development by a potential adversary. We study them, we learn what they have and do not have, we watch their training and operations.

And since the Chinese SSBNs all appear to be "wharf queens", there is pretty much no chance they will be of any threat. And even if they took to sea next week, expect a Los Angeles class sub to be dogging them every step of the way.

 

Which of course is despite the thread title here, there would never be an actual "U.S. invasion" of China.

At most the U.S. would destroy their air force and navy and then mine all their major ports. Effectively blockading them and destroying their economy.

Modern mines can be delivered easily by U.S. aircraft quickly and precisely or if complete avoidance of detection is warranted, U.S. submarines can each delivery upwards of 50 of the most advanced mines available.

The Chinese aren't going to start launching nuclear weapons just because their economy is going to the dogs.

 

This thread is as dumb as a box of rocks.

The US will not invade China.

Nuke 'em? Maybe.

Invade 'em? No way.

 

a invasion into deep china terro will cost territory tremendous american death. destabilize the entire region, WWIII.
on top of that china coastal anti-ship defense and IADS are well equiped. unless you want millions american die to invade china.

 

You've completely misunderstood the point of the thread.

 

yea good luck try to penetrate into china IADS. you need about few thousands jets to acheive this. that is US can get those jets to a base near china. right now US don't even have time and logistic to intervane in a sundden taiwan conflict. there are only handful of F22 at guam, legacy jets F15 won't be able to reach taiwan without worry about chinese IADS. CVBG can't get there fast enough without worry about china AA/AD system.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/08/rand-study-now-china-wins-taiw.html

 

The U.S. might take 24-48 hours to mount a significant response...but when it did it would wreck the Chinese invasion force and effectively ruin any chances of a successful invasion. The Chinese Navy is no match for the USN.

 

Plus the US would see such an action comming days if not weeks in advance.

China can't assemble the kind of assets to invade Taiwan without the US finding out about it. We are talking about a major naval operation, assembling the ships, moving troops and equipment to the ports and loading the ships, etc, etc, etc.

From the time they first started doing that, at least one CVBG would be steaming to the area they most likely thought such an attack would land (most likely Taiwan). Generally we have at least one such group within 3 days travel of the island.

And all sorts of air assets would also be traveling there. From Guam, Okinawa, Japan, Korea, Alaska, Diego Garcia, and anywhere else within range.

Personally, I think that any kind of attack on Taiwan is unlikely. And the island even provides China an important role, in allowing a place for those unhappy with the system to emmigrate to, and also a "boogieman" to use against their own people.

I simply don't ever see the US getting involved in a land conflict in China ever again. Unless the government dissolves into civil war, and we step in like we did 100 years ago to help stabilize parts of the country.

However, I do see a remote chance of naval and limited shore engagements, depending on how expansionist China may feel in the future. But once again, that would be in response to a crisis, not with the intention of conquering the country.

The US "invading" China is about as likely as the US "invading" the Soviet Union in 1979.