These numbers contradict Ukrainian original numbers and are far more optimistic.
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
If you dont know the difference between subsonic cruise missiles and MRBMs with MARVs and HGVs then it would be nothing more but a waste of my time to engage further with you.
Iran used half of its MRBM stockpile to cause at most casualties in the low hundreds to a Israeli city with not even 5% the population of Shanghai. You vastly underestimate the number of munitions needed to even remotely disrupt industrial production.
Last edited:
I guess if the war stops after China drives the US out of east Asia while taking some damage itself could be considered an American victory, though that's doubtful. But even if that's the case, why do you think the war stops there? The natural course of action next would be for China to take some of the islands like Okinawa and Guam, and then the move on to Hawaii and then the US mainland.
That's the real reason the US would be hesitant to get involved in a war with China over Taiwan. If they lose in East Asia then the war could move further east and see the Chinese move onto Hawaii and Central and South America. While neither side is really under any threat of an invasion of its respective mainland, the peripheral territories and/or spheres of influence can be lost.
This is true, even the Americans reviewed a Taiwan under PRC control and assessed that it would offer little military advantage, but with other negative associated costs such as the loss of credibility with its allies in the region, as you mention.
So What? Reassessing the Military Implications of Chinese Control of Taiwan
Soviet/Russian doctrine did not require air superiority, but assumed some degree of parity, as air support was heavily considered. For example, they had many tactical attack aircraft, attack helicopters, an entire branch of the military dedicated to using massive cargo aircraft to drop paratrooper divisions and their heavy equipment (Soviet/Russian airborne troops are not light infantry like the US/UK, they are mechanized infantry).
Air superiority is not necessary for successful ground operations, air parity is, which means denying the enemy the advantage without having it as well. This war is defined by air parity, both sides are equal in that.
As @gelgoog said, the Russians use fighters as air defense, even in the USSR they used interceptors along with GBAD to form a defensive layer and achieve air parity.
This user has been in some denial for a few months now about the Chinese GBAD network:
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
I don't think china's sam system network is as good as russia or us. Russia has like 1500 s-300/s-400. US has 1000+ patriots. Compared to that China only has 300 HQ-9 launchers overall and out of which only 100 HQ-9B. It only has 2-300 s-300 from older generation as well. It's simply inadequate...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
Ground based air defenses cannot cover everything in a large country. That is why the Soviets had aircraft plugged into the IADS with GCI. It was so automated that master ground controllers assigned slave interceptor aircraft to individual targets and they would be guided by autopilot to the interception area.
Because the Soviets had a hard time miniaturizing radar to put on aircraft they mostly relied on ground based radar. Even if the aircraft had radar back then their radar range was typically much smaller than today.
But there were also large interceptors like the MiG-31. This aircraft was a master node in the IADS. Its large radar augmented the sight picture of the IADS, it had a datalink to the IADS network, this could be used to plug gaps in the radar coverage. The guy in the backseat of the MiG-31 could also assign targets to other interceptor aircraft like the Su-27 or MiG-29. Just like a ground controller would.
The MiG-31 itself also had formidable armament. Its radar was designed to detect low flying NATO bombers and cruise missiles against the ground clutter. Its missiles had enough range to outmatch most opposing aircraft except the F-14. And a huge warhead able to take down a bomber.
The whole Soviet doctrine was based on their experiences on WW2. Where they had to fight against a much superior air force.
Because the Soviets had a hard time miniaturizing radar to put on aircraft they mostly relied on ground based radar. Even if the aircraft had radar back then their radar range was typically much smaller than today.
But there were also large interceptors like the MiG-31. This aircraft was a master node in the IADS. Its large radar augmented the sight picture of the IADS, it had a datalink to the IADS network, this could be used to plug gaps in the radar coverage. The guy in the backseat of the MiG-31 could also assign targets to other interceptor aircraft like the Su-27 or MiG-29. Just like a ground controller would.
The MiG-31 itself also had formidable armament. Its radar was designed to detect low flying NATO bombers and cruise missiles against the ground clutter. Its missiles had enough range to outmatch most opposing aircraft except the F-14. And a huge warhead able to take down a bomber.
The whole Soviet doctrine was based on their experiences on WW2. Where they had to fight against a much superior air force.
Russian VKS is not Soviet‘s. It is far smaller.
Which war are you referring to?
I have read claims here that China would only have to face forward deployed US aircraft and a single US carrier in the worst case but I think that underestimates the problem. The US would send all their available carrier battlegroups to the Pacific and funnel more aircraft there across the Pacific.
China would have to bomb all the aircraft concentrations in their rear areas, fuel depots, etc.
China would have to bomb all the aircraft concentrations in their rear areas, fuel depots, etc.