Rand Report

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
the Ohio SSGN is bassed one the Ohio SSBN
so Don't forget most Modern Attack Subs Carry Cruise missiles too, but at the same time Cruise missiles can be mounted with nuclear Warheads and so can torpedoes
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Well, the thing is, the US military doesn't need to destroy every air defense unit, missile launcher, or radar unit China fields. While I do doubt your claims of the ability of China's air defenses to be able to absorb "tens of thousands" of cruise missile attacks, I do know China’s air defenses have become significantly more extensive recently. China does have a top notch air defense system. The issue for the US military is depletion, reducing effective coverage, and spreading of air defense resources. Limiting the amount of things they can actually defend. And forcing China into a defensive posturing. This is currently very doable.

The whole goal would be to not only put China on the defense, but it would also be a contemporary goal to further eliminate their ability to conduct effective operations against Taiwan. Basically shutting down their ability to sustain any kind of invasion, or successfully holding on to any gains. RAND would never address this accurately. How could this be done? Well firstly it would have to be rather quick. Using B-2’s would be a part of it, but yet that as a solution on it’s own is quite inadequate. F-22’s also. Seriously China will not be able to build up any serious force composition to conduct this kind of operation in any secretive fashion. And assymetric strategies will only get you so far. I’m mostly impressed by China’s anti-access strategies, yet they are not yet mature enough to prevent carrier battlegroups from operating in the area in total. Nor could they prevent them throughout an entire conflict as we have means to destroy their anti-access components without using naval air.

China’s anti-access have their own vulnerabilities as well. Not to mention that in order for them to work, they would have to be prepared to attack and go to war with more than one other country in the Western Pacific like Japan, and South Korea. That’s already a complete disadvantage. What the US could bring immediately on day 1 is something I believe China could not fully cope with. In a scenario of growing hositilites leading to an invasion scenario, I’m fully ready to think we would deploy all 4 SSGN platforms fully loaded for battle. That’s a total of 616 battle force cruise missiles plus 12 SSN (12 VLS). If we deployed this small percentage of total US assets, that equals 760 cruise missiles, and you can add coastal B-2 strikes conducted at night. Probably on night 1. Basically in a 24 hour period, we could destroy over 1000 Chinese targets. Those targets would be fuel storage, fuel handling/transport stations, fuel refiners, airfield targets(including tracking radar stations/aircraft on flight lines), important targets (logistics-platforms-support) at naval bases, SAM radars/launchers/support, and probably weapons manufacturers/support services (Chengdu/Shenyang/shipyards), and some Command and control targets, and perhaps some BM sites. I don’t care how robust you think China’s air defenses are. They would not be able to stop much of this, especially if they were on the move to prevent their own losses. Plus with a current force of 4,000 TLAM’s, 3,000 SLAM/SLAM-ER’s, 2,500 AGM-86 ALCM’s, and many other varieties of weapons usable from aircraft, we could do this for a couple of weeks before we brought serious naval air components.

Let me relate one more thing. A war like this would bring other things out. When I went to that Seapower 21 symposium that I’ve brought up in a few threads here, they also discussed using B-1 bombers in the SEAD role. With their extensive jammers/ECM, countermeasures, surveillance capabilities, low level and supersonic speeds, plus the ability to carry a whole lot of AGM-88E’s, it would be well suited to conduct SEAD/DEAD against a nation of robust air defense capabilities. I think they had a country like China in mind over the straits. B-1 would be easily fitted for this with minor modifications. That’s just one point here. Another is the conventional Trident missile from Ohio class submarines. This has been seriously discussed. Do the math. 24 missiles with 12 1 ton high explosive warheads on 2 Ohios equals a lot of destructive and high speed firepower. Those could carry 12 warheads as they are non-nuclear warheads and are not limited by any strategic arms limits. And would be a low cost solution modification for the Ohio Class. China has no defense against this type of solution. And RAND does not address that because they are addressing an area of concern to USAF planners. And again not viewing the context of a war scenario. And I haven’t even got into how the US military would use naval mines against bases in the South China Sea to slow them up from there. This RAND report as such can only go so far. It does make it’s point, but like I said, their own scenario simply doesn’t address the more larger points of strategy. It specifically addresses a naroow subset of possibilites to highlight a concern over the use of 1 component. But simply doesn’t address the larger picture. RAND puts out studies like this for a specific reason. And I'm not sure many understand these scenarios vs. actual real world application.
well, I put a blog entry up posting some of my thoughts on the report.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In general, it seems that you are frustrated that RAND report is under-selling US capability in a possible conflict and I would agree with that. But this report is also under-selling PLA capability too (whether you agree or not, that's the truth). So, I think the point is to not look at RAND report as what will happen (that's too complicated to be discussed here), but to get people think harder about certain scenarios. If you really want to get into a numbers game, I can do that.
 

Finn McCool

Captain
Registered Member
Argument does not change. SSMs launched from a submarine will be taken as a nuclear attack. Do you seriously think one would be stupid enough to wait for the warheads to hit ground before you would determine if they are conventional or not?

The SSMs being launched against Taiwan are all land based and they're small short ranged ones., This is easily determined by radar and satellite right off as they launched. ICBMs are not going to be located near Taiwan or have trajectories heading to Taiwan. It is also quite clear that the Chinese won't be using nuclear weapons on Taiwan or Japan unless you hit them first with such. Or make them think you would. Nuclear weapons are not going to be put on small SCUD like DF-11s, which makes up the majority of the missiles aimed at Taiwan. DF-11s are all armed conventionally. You can certainly tell a DF-11 launch from a DF-5 or DF-31 which are your IRBMs and ICBMs.

If Chinese 094s would launch their ballistic missiles that too would be taken by the US as a preemptive nuclear attack.

For conventional use, there is the Ohio SSGN that launches Tomahawks. Cruise missiles are not going to be regarded as nuclear attack.

The last thing I'm gonna say on this issue is that using conventional BMs fired from SSBNs is a very risky strategy but I doubt that the Chinese would interpret it as a nuclear attack requiring immediate, massive retaliation because it would not be in the context of a massive nuclear attack against China as a whole. Rather they would see several missles approaching targets supporting an invasion of Taiwan; they would not be threatening China's ability to retaliate. Thus they could afford to hold their fire, besides doctrine and common sense dictate that even in the worst case scenario for the Chinese, that those missles are carrying nukes and the US is tactically nuking China's assets used in a Taiwan scenario, it would not be appropriate to launch a strike against the CONUS; the next level of escalation would be hitting, say, Kadena and Guam with tactical nukes to inflict the same sort of damage on the US. Even then China could afford to wait until after the missles landed because their ability to retaliate and maintain an intact chain of command would not be threatened.

And with that I am doine with throwing rhetorical nukes around, the mods don't like it.
 

Sea Dog

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Argument does not change. SSMs launched from a submarine will be taken as a nuclear attack. Do you seriously think one would be stupid enough to wait for the warheads to hit ground before you would determine if they are conventional or not?

It depends on how much reaction time they actually have. 6 minutes or so is not exactly a whole lot of time to react especially dealing with processing the data, then running it through a command and control/chain of command system, then prepping for launch to actually launching. Response is not automatic and takes a number of minutes to actually respond. Not only that I believe in this day and age many command chains from around the world would wait to determine what type of attack it was. They would know conventional Trident is a deployed and viable weapon system, they would see if weapon deployment and targeting was specific in nature, and think perhaps over-reaction by the targeted nation may actually result in the Tridents with the thermonuclear warhead variety to be deployed instead of the conventional ones. There are also a number of factors such as how many missiles were launched. There’s a big difference between 24 missiles with 12 warheads separating all at once ( similar to how a nuclear first strike would be conducted) with 1-2 missiles of the same variety targeting specific targets.

crobato said:
The SSMs being launched against Taiwan are all land based and they're small short ranged ones., This is easily determined by radar and satellite right off as they launched. ICBMs are not going to be located near Taiwan or have trajectories heading to Taiwan. It is also quite clear that the Chinese won't be using nuclear weapons on Taiwan or Japan unless you hit them first with such. Or make them think you would. Nuclear weapons are not going to be put on small SCUD like DF-11s, which makes up the majority of the missiles aimed at Taiwan. DF-11s are all armed conventionally. You can certainly tell a DF-11 launch from a DF-5 or DF-31 which are your IRBMs and ICBMs.

It hasn’t been clarified if some DF-11’s carry nuclear warheads. But anyway, you’re arguing merits of such a system for the Trident missile. The point is moot really. Many people this past year have argued such merits, yet the capability remains. One of the major science panels for the DoD have argued in favor of such a system and completely torched the “miscalculation” angle. Ultimately, if we were to deploy this very low cost modification to a Trident, or redeploy a new medium range missile to target China from South Korea or Japan, it ultimately wouldn’t make too much difference. The land based option would be cost prohibitive (Would require the partners to pony up the funds), and would effectively tear up the treaty which prohibits this type of forward deployed medium ranged missile (not desirable). The Trident missile is the best option, is low cost, is technologically feasible, and could be made ready very quickly. And it has a whole lot of deterrent value and striking power if needed. Regardless how you feel about the merits, it has become a very real possibility. And if you want my honest opinion, we will field it if it becomes necessary. We need a quick strike solution to such a scenario, and the DoD intends to get one. If it’s Trident, it will be deployed. My own wishes are that the hypersonic land attack system gets the necessary funding so we don’t need the Trident. More flexibility and better results with a hypersonic cruise missile. But if this scenario were to happen 1 year from now with a potential build-up towards it, you can bet that Trident will be configured accordingly. The arguments of “miscalculation” simply won’t matter. This past year has proven it. The funding stopped for the program, yet the Navy still is working the issue for FY09. I’m betting that conventional Trident will eventually become a short term solution for something better.

crobato said:
If Chinese 094s would launch their ballistic missiles that too would be taken by the US as a preemptive nuclear attack.

For conventional use, there is the Ohio SSGN that launches Tomahawks. Cruise missiles are not going to be regarded as nuclear attack.

Yes, because we know that China has land-based medium ranged missiles in place. Missiles slated for use in the 094 are known to be only used as a part of their nuclear deterrence role only. China has no need for a conventionally armed sea based missile. As far as Tomahawks go, they can be deployed with nuclear warheads, although we have removed those warheads from active service.

tphuang said:
well, I put a blog entry up posting some of my thoughts on the report.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In general, it seems that you are frustrated that RAND report is under-selling US capability in a possible conflict and I would agree with that. But this report is also under-selling PLA capability too (whether you agree or not, that's the truth). So, I think the point is to not look at RAND report as what will happen (that's too complicated to be discussed here), but to get people think harder about certain scenarios. If you really want to get into a numbers game, I can do that.

Thanks for the link. I'll read on it a little later and respond to you about it. For this thread, actually it’s not frustration at RAND corporation. I understand this report and how it was written. This is how they normally approach concerns to US military planners in relations to increased/demonstrated capability in potential hostile militaries. They produced something quite similar when China was purchasing Sovremenny Class Destroyers from Russia. And showed that threat from a very narrow subset of conditions to specifically highlight things which may be of concern to Navy leaders. Just like this report is drawn up. There were many people then who did not understand RAND reports, and assumed the report was showing that 4 Sovremennys for China meant that the entire US Navy was doomed. Those of us who had been in the 7th fleet knew how ludicrous some of these voices were. It ridiculously turned into a spin that Moskit missiles were "invincible" and "unstoppable". Those of us who were onboard these ships at the time understood the Sovremenny/Moskit combination to be just another threat system to be dealt with. Nothing of major concern. RAND doesn’t play down American strengths, they simply don’t display those strengths in the context of overall strategy; that which would be suitable to the issue they are specifically addressing. They’re not doing war-gaming here. If they would, you’re right. It would turn into something of a numbers game. And the outcome would be quite different. RAND doesn’t know US military strategy or contingency planning that US military planners have for this region. Nor could they account for the “preparation” of the battlespace that we have the capability to do. That’s why the F-22 “running out of fuel”case only shows a narrow subset of concern to USAF planners. It takes nothing into account if forward PLAAF airfields, fuel supplies, and a number of SAM/GCI radars were actually attacked successfully prior to any real gains being made in an invasion scenario. If the USA truly does commit to the defense of Taiwan during an invasion, the US Navy would commit to this and many other tasks, and very quickly.
 
Last edited:

Mr T

Senior Member
I understand this report and how it was written... RAND doesn’t play down American strengths, they simply don’t display those strengths in the context of overall strategy; that which would be suitable to the issue they are specifically addressing.

Excellent point, Sea Dog - I completely agree. Various people have tried to take this report as somehow being reflective of a probable outcome of US intervention in a war over Taiwan. However, as you say, it dealt with a very specific set of circumstances - to the point where one could argue (though only on suspicion) that they were deliberately contrived to try to secure extra funding for F-22 procurement and/or other projects that might aid such an intervention.

In the end, a study can only ever try to be reflective of the exact scenario it deals with. That applies to science, politics, military strategy and everything else. When people try to push beyond those boundaries they can make whatever they want of the research such that it becomes next to meaningless.
 

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
I'm sorry but there is no way you can distinguish a conventional Trident from a nuclear Trident. I'm sure there is no way you can distinguish a conventional Tomahawk from a nuclear Tomahawk, but politics and treaties have defined this, which is why nukes have been removed from the Tomahawks. In fact, all this was made to be clear to the Soviet Union during the latter stages of the Cold War, ballistic missiles = nukes, cruise missiles = conventional. When they set the limit for SSBNs to 12, the excess (6 Ohios out of the 18) are "conventionalized" not by turning their Tridents into conventionals but by turning them into using Tomahawks.

China's geography means assets related to any PLA invasion means any trajectory from the Pacific Ocean is going to overfly vital population centers. Why don't you check the map for God sakes? Do you have any idea that Chengdu and Shenyang are cities? That all the Chinese shipyards are all near and inside cities?

This strategy is so out of touch with reality. Check Google Earth mind you.

Missiles slated for use in the 094 are known to be only used as a part of their nuclear deterrence role only. China has no need for a conventionally armed sea based missile.

Oh really? if you start using conventional SLBMs, there is no reason for the Chinese not to do so and purposely even build a fleet of 094s for that. Already 094s have been speculated if the SLBMs can be used for both anti carrier and anti satellite use. This opens up a greater list of possible targets extending farther and deeper into the Pacific. This also opens up for the Chinese to use their otherwise nuclear armed IRBMs in a conventional manner.

All this results in a massive missile build race where it is impossible to distinguish nuclear from conventionally armed IRBMs or even ICBMs on ground and on sea, making it impossible to preempt, and making the world a far more dangerous place.

If China accepts the SLBM = Nuke, TLCM = Conventional, then you would force the Chinese into understanding that a BM attack on a US base using at least a medium range missile would be considered a WMD attack and would force equal and proportional retaliation. The Chinese would have to use cruise missiles to attack US bases in Okinawa and Guam, and likewise, their ships and subs have to be modified appropriately. This is actually a much better scenario for the US but most helpful for both combatants to make the conflict strictly conventional without misunderstanding.

As for DF-11s, they are far too short ranged to be used as a nuclear weapon. I don't know where you got this thing about not being confirmed. China's original nuclear assets were aimed at the Soviet Union, where the target centers are far out of reach from DF-11s. That's the reason why longer ranged missiles like the DF-15 are placed in the north such as in Inner Mongolia.

Nuking Taiwan is certainly not China's goal and destroying something what you want returned defeats the purpose. Not to mention the outrage among the Chinese people themselves since that will be horribly viewed Chinese nuking Chinese in a genocidal scale. Not even the CCP or the PLA will go that far. Other than a border war, the range of DF-11s does not permit any other form of conflict other than Taiwan.
 
Last edited:

Sea Dog

Junior Member
VIP Professional
I'm sorry but there is no way you can distinguish a conventional Trident from a nuclear Trident. I'm sure there is no way you can distinguish a conventional Tomahawk from a nuclear Tomahawk, but politics and treaties have defined this, which is why nukes have been removed from the Tomahawks. In fact, all this was made to be clear to the Soviet Union during the latter stages of the Cold War, ballistic missiles = nukes, cruise missiles = conventional. When they set the limit for SSBNs to 12, the excess (6 Ohios out of the 18) are "conventionalized" not by turning their Tridents into conventionals but by turning them into using Tomahawks.

China's geography means assets related to any PLA invasion means any trajectory from the Pacific Ocean is going to overfly vital population centers. Why don't you check the map for God sakes? Do you have any idea that Chengdu and Shenyang are cities? That all the Chinese shipyards are all near and inside cities?

This strategy is so out of touch with reality. Check Google Earth mind you.

Cold War is over. This is a new world with new capabilities and potential opponents. Actually, it's not out of touch with any reality. It is indeed a true reality and a true capability, and is being sought out as a means to provide quick strike options to military commanders. Basically, if China is willing to strike many targets in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and perhaps Guam with ballistic missiles, we would need a quick strike to be able to not only retaliate in kind, but to further assure the inability of China to be able to sustain a serious war effort in the very short term. For the reasons listed above, China not only would not have the time to respond adequately, but would have means of knowing the difference between conventional Trident, and nuclear Trident. We're currently unsure if China would field nuclear tipped MRBM's against Pacific bases due to accuracy questions into their own missiles. Actually we have 4 Ohios in the SSGN configuration for Tomahawk.....not 6. And we currently have 14 SSBN configured Ohios with 8 nuclear warheads on 24 missiles. And the current plan, if implemented in the near term, is to make 2 of those missiles per each submarine into conventional warhead missiles. And I absoltely know where Chengdu is, where Shenyang is, where the major shipyards are. But if we're talking war, they will be targeted. They provide support services to fighter aircraft units, and manufacture new aircraft. The shipyards support PLAN. If you don't think they won't be targeted for elimination, if China decides to target Kadena AB, Guam, Osan in South Korea, etc. you have your head in the clouds. We have the accuracy in this system to do just that without nuclear warheads. Sounds shocking, but a war that lights up the Far East and invasion of Taiwan would be a shocking event as is.


Oh really? if you start using conventional SLBMs, there is no reason for the Chinese not to do so and purposely even build a fleet of 094s for that. Already 094s have been speculated if the SLBMs can be used for both anti carrier and anti satellite use. This opens up a greater list of possible targets extending farther and deeper into the Pacific. This also opens up for the Chinese to use their otherwise nuclear armed IRBMs in a conventional manner.

I forgot, Chinese military internet forum. Means we are in the land of grossly exaggerated capabilities, overly speculated weapons systems, and the heavily photoshopped military. Not trying to be rude but seriously, China simply has no need for it, and indeed have nothing like it. They have means to deploy short to medium ranged missiles on land already. And are not limited by treaty. Plus the quality of the 094 is in question. I'm not sure that this current build standard of submarine is adequate to be able to deploy, remain hidden, and have the survivability against the SSN's that would be tasked to trail. If the PLAN did try this, you can be sure that 094 would be a much greater target track for USN SSN's.

All this results in a massive missile build race where it is impossible to distinguish nuclear from conventionally armed IRBMs or even ICBMs on ground and on sea, making it impossible to preempt, and making the world a far more dangerous place.

I think China's already started this "missile build race" crobato. But anyway you are again merely arguing the merits. The capability for us to do it exists. Doesn't matter how you feel about it. The DoD simply will configure Ohios for this role if the mission is suitable and the risks were acceptable. With the amount of deterrent potential they would provide (being able to strike hundreds of targets by conventional means in minutes) I think it's worth it. We may not have to actually use it as the numbers of cruise missiles we could provide on day one would be plenty of firepower. But the presence of one of these things could potentially prevent hostilities. I'm not worried at all about 094 being built like this.

If China accepts the SLBM = Nuke, TLCM = Conventional, then you would force the Chinese into understanding that a BM attack on a US base using at least a medium range missile would be considered a WMD attack and would force equal and proportional retaliation. The Chinese would have to use cruise missiles to attack US bases in Okinawa and Guam, and likewise, their ships and subs have to be modified appropriately. This is actually a much better scenario for the US but most helpful for both combatants to make the conflict strictly conventional without misunderstanding.

I'm simply not going to argue for the Trident missile in this configuration in this way as what we believe here is simply not going to be considered by the decision makers who will make it a reality. You are free to your own opinion, but it doesn't take away the fact that it is an ability in which we have and can use.

As for DF-11s, they are far too short ranged to be used as a nuclear weapon. I don't know where you got this thing about not being confirmed. China's original nuclear assets were aimed at the Soviet Union, where the target centers are far out of reach from DF-11s. That's the reason why longer ranged missiles like the DF-15 are placed in the north such as in Inner Mongolia.

I guess you never heard of the Pershing missile? Or some of the other missiles that were deployed by the Soviets?Ever heard of low to medium yield warheads? Too short ranged? It's not at all a negligible consideration crobato.

Nuking Taiwan is certainly not China's goal and destroying something what you want returned defeats the purpose. Not to mention the outrage among the Chinese people themselves since that will be horribly viewed Chinese nuking Chinese in a genocidal scale. Not even the CCP or the PLA will go that far. Other than a border war, the range of DF-11s does not permit any other form of conflict other than Taiwan.

Perhaps not Taiwan, but I'm not so convinced that Beijing wouldn't consider our bases on Guam and Japan as a nuclear target to ensure elimination of those bases. Of course that leaves open the possibility of the traditional nuclear deterrence model and possible retaliation from it. Basically if we deployed this system, China may not actually launch their ballistic missiles at these targets at all. And we in kind may not have to retaliate with conventional Trident or the other option. This is an excellent deterrence against China launching conventional bm's all over the Far East. I don't believe you understand how deterrence works. If China decides not to launch conventional BM's at these targets, they simply have nothing to worry about. Although an invasion scenario without launching of ballistic missiles still invites cruise missile attacks, mine warfare, and other means of retaliatory warfare.
 
Last edited:

crobato

Colonel
VIP Professional
Cold War is over. This is a new world with new capabilities and potential opponents. Actually, it's not out of touch with any reality. It is indeed a true reality and a true capability, and is being sought out as a means to provide quick strike options to military commanders.

Sorry but it is out of touch. These treaties were meant to go beyond the Cold Wars and provide a stable balance of power.

Basically, if China is willing to strike many targets in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and perhaps Guam with ballistic missiles,

Which is ridiculous. While Taiwan can be hit by short ranged missiles going to Japan and to Guam requires much larger missiles of sorts. These kinds of missiles can be construed as going nuclear.

we would need a quick strike to be able to not only retaliate in kind, but to further assure the ability of China to be able to sustain a serious war effort in the very short term. For the reasons listed above, China not only would not have the time to respond adequately,

Which is ridiculous. If you already threatened a nuclear posture, and threatened that any IRBMs launched can be considered a nuclear attack and would respond in kind, China or anyone else won't be using IRBMs in a conventional manner.



but would have means of knowing the difference between conventional Trident, and nuclear Trident.

And how is that accomplished? The US declares each missile launched as conventional or nuclear? How can you differentiate this from radar? How can you differentiate this by trajectory.

We're currently unsure if China would field nuclear tipped MRBM's against Pacific bases due to accuracy questions into their own missiles.

China won't *use* nuclear tipped missiles against you if you don't use nuclear missiles against them. They have reiterated their no first strike policy. Launching conventional Tridents however, can result in them going nuclear.

Actually we have 4 Ohios in the SSGN configuration for Tomahawk.....not 6. And we currently have 14 SSBN configured Ohios with 8 nuclear warheads on 24 missiles. And the current plan, if implemented in the near term, is to make 2 of those missiles per each submarine into conventional warhead missiles.

And how is that enough for a preemption. There is nearly over 1000 DF-11s and DF-15s alone. In mobile TELs.

And I absoltely know where Chengdu is, where Shenyang is, where the major shipyards are. But if we're talking war, they will be targeted.

If you got a Trident headed to a population center, what exactly are they going to think of? Sure. They will press the red button. Thank you for starting World War III.

They provide support services to fighter aircraft units, and manufacture new aircraft. The shipyards support PLAN. If you don't think they won't be targeted for elimination, if China decides to target Kadena AB, Guam, Osan in South Korea, etc. you have your head in the clouds. We have the accuracy in this system to do just that without nuclear warheads. Sounds shocking, but a war that lights up the Far East and invasion of Taiwan would be a shocking event as is.

You sound ridiculous. Any BM will never be as accurate as a CM. The faster the missile flies, the less its opportunities for flight correction. Which means to compensate, you still need a bigger blast. Even with a conventional warhead, these warheads, with over 1 ton each of advanced explosive, can produce an explosion that can be mistaken as a small nuclear weapon. It's ridiculous to think that China will have to check the explosions for radioactivity before it decides the weapons fired are conventional or nuclear. This does not even cover "conventional WMDs" like the possibility of biological and chemical attacks through the conventional Tridents.

And what makes you think that China won't have the ability to respond with precisely accurate conventional BMs? Their ASAT test shows they got atomic clocks and very precise inertial navigation systems that are right to cutting edge. That's an accuracy of 4m2 CEP against 865 kilometers on a target moving at orbital speeds. Their space launches always have their reentry landings right precisely on cue, never farther from their intended mark by a few kilometers.

The only one with his head in the clouds is you, thinking this won't escalate into a nuclear war.

I forgot, Chinese internet forum. Means we are in the land of exaggerated capabilities, speculated weapons systems, and the photoshop military.

And frankly I see as much ridiculous and exaggerated things on other forums like Strategypage.

Accuracy of Chinese missiles are no longer an area of speculation. Its a fact if their development programs are an indication.

Not trying to be rude but seriously, China simply has no need for it, and indeed have nothing like it. They have means to deploy short to medium ranged missiles on land already. And are not limited by treaty.

Sigh. Again, rampant with speculation. I don't think any paper right now seriously considers DF-11s to have nuclear. Estimates only put the number of Chinese warheads to be around 100 to 120. Given their limited number, they would only be put in the most powerful of rockets. Much of the buildup centers around DF-11 and possibly extremely large MLRS like the WS-2, whose introduction might be counted by Taiwan as among the missiles aimed at them. These are weapons of a tactical nature.

Plus the quality of the 094 is in question. I'm not sure that this current build standard of submarine is adequate to be able to deploy, remain hidden, and have the survivability against the SSN's that would be tasked to trail. If the PLAN did try this, you can be sure that 094 would be a much greater target track for USN SSN's.

The problem is you cannot give an absolute guarantee about it right? The full extent of the 094's capability is not very clear, and PLAN submarines appeared to have slipped before. The Russians have much noisier SSBMs than 094, and you can base this from the fact these subs got twin shafts and screws while the 094 only has one of each, and the screws are not the slow turning, low cavitation type that you see on the 094. You have built a strategic ASW strategy against much noisier Typhoons and Deltas. If the SSBN has the potential to be much quieter that seriously screws up your long range detection possibilities which are tuned to Cold War twin shafted, conventionally screwed subs.

And the 094 isn't the end of the development trail since we know they're working on even quieter propulsor units like pumpjets. And these 094s will be escorted by 093s. This opens scenarios that you cannot guarantee each pair or group will be _stopped in time_.

I think China's already started this "missile build race" crobato.

I'm sorry but no one seriously thinks this missile build race China has is based with nuclear weapons. Nuclear watchers are only looking at the DF-31A, not the DF-11.

But anyway you are again merely arguing the merits. The capability for us to do it exists. Doesn't matter how you feel about it.

And the capability for the Chinese to do it also exists.

The DoD simply will configure Ohios for this role if the mission is suitable and the risks were acceptable. With the amount of deterrent potential they would provide (being able to strike hundreds of targets by conventional means in minutes) I think it's worth it. We may not have to actually use it as the numbers of cruise missiles we could provide on day one would be plenty of firepower. But the presence of one of these things could potentially prevent hostilities. I'm not worried at all about 094 being built like this.

24 Tridents vs. 24x6 Tomahawks, that ratio sucks. How are you going to preempt hundreds of mobile TELs all over the country? Each Trident is far less stealthy than a Tomahawk, which can give the TELs warning time to move out.

Furthermore, maybe you don't understand that many of the PLA bases are underground. Chances are, BMs don't have the required accuracy to close off an entrance as a Tomahawk or a JDAM can.

I'm simply not going to argue for the Trident missile in this configuration in this way as what we believe here is simply not going to be considered by the decision makers who will make it a reality. You are free to your own opinion, but it doesn't take away the fact that it is an ability in which we have and can use.

I can trust decision makers not to stoop to this lunacy.


I guess you never heard of the Pershing missile? Or some of the other missiles that were deployed by the Soviets?Ever heard of low to medium yield warheads? Too short ranged? It's not at all a negligible consideration crobato.

What makes you think I'm ignorant of such eh?

All these missiles and warheads are thrown into scrap in both the US and the SU thanks to the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
I'm sorry, did you say the Cold War is over? The Cold War is over but the participants who signed that Treat AREN'T. They are still here, with Russia in place of the Soviet Union. And so are the lessons from the Cold War.


Perhaps not Taiwan, but I'm not so convinced that Beijing wouldn't consider our bases on Guam and Japan as a nuclear target to ensure elimination of those bases.

Sigh. China has already mentioned they have a no strike first policy.

Basically if we deployed this system, China may not actually launch those missiles.

Nonsense. The Chinese never has any intentions for a first strike, knowing their dense population centers would put them in a serious disadvantage in a nuclear exchange.

And seriously, a very limited number of conventional Tridents isn't going to stop the mobile TELs. Not exactly that easy telling a DF-21 TEL from a DF-11 TEL from space. If you hit a DF-11 TEL, you're already on the losing side because the cost of these missiles are much less than a Trident. You're expending a Trident against something like a Pershing or a Scud. That does not represent a cost effective exchange.

And we in kind may not have to retaliate with conventional Trident. I don't believe you understand how deterrence works. If China decides not to launch, they simply have nothing to worry about. Although an invasion scenario without launching of ballistic missiles still invites cruise missile attacks, mine warfare, and other means of retaliatory warfare.

Oh please. I know exactly how deterrent works. Your conventional Trident does not fare any better against all other alternatives in terms of numbers, accuracy and cost effectivenes such as B-2 with JDAMs to Tomahawks. Not to mention the supply of Tridents themselves are limited,. you use them up, what are you going to replace them with? You still need the nuclear deterrence scenario, and you're asking and castrating a strategic nuclear asset to do a conventional job that a bunch of B-2s can do with far more cost effectiveness, less possibility of collateral damage and without a serious escalation in the nuclear threat level.
 
Last edited:

Sea Dog

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Sorry but it is out of touch. These treaties were meant to go beyond the Cold Wars and provide a stable balance of power.

You haven't been paying attention to what the Dept. of the Navy has been talking about. We've already taken steps to move beyond them. Russia has not been happy about some of our actions. But a changing world creates the need to change conditions.

Which is ridiculous. While Taiwan can be hit by short ranged missiles going to Japan and to Guam requires much larger missiles of sorts. These kinds of missiles can be construed as going nuclear.

That's true, and is what I was talking about. We aren't exactly sure how China intends to equip those missiles. But if they are conventional, a Trident missile that is equipped the same may be an option.


Which is ridiculous. If you already threatened a nuclear posture, and threatened that any IRBMs launched can be considered a nuclear attack and would respond in kind, China or anyone else won't be using IRBMs in a conventional manner.

I don't think you understood my point.


And how is that accomplished? The US declares each missile launched as conventional or nuclear? How can you differentiate this from radar? How can you differentiate this by trajectory.

I don't think you actually read my posts. What I said before was "Not only that I believe in this day and age many command chains from around the world would wait to determine what type of attack it was. They would know conventional Trident is a deployed and viable weapon system, they would see if weapon deployment and targeting was specific in nature, and think perhaps over-reaction by the targeted nation may actually result in the Tridents with the thermonuclear warhead variety to be deployed instead of the conventional ones. There are also a number of factors such as how many missiles were launched. There’s a big difference between 24 missiles with 12 warheads separating all at once ( similar to how a nuclear first strike would be conducted) with 1-2 missiles of the same variety targeting specific targets. " I'm thinking China doesn't want to be annihilated here. Am I correct to assume that? The other point is that we wouldn't use this system in anyway unless China began launching BM's at third party nations. China cannot expect to light East Asia on fire and expect no retaliation. Nor can they define how that retaliation should occur.


China won't *use* nuclear tipped missiles against you if you don't use nuclear missiles against them. They have reiterated their no first strike policy. Launching conventional Tridents however, can result in them going nuclear.

Well, again, this system seriously would not need to be used unless China began launching ballistic missiles at third party nations and other targets in the Far East. what you're not getting is the true potential for deterrence that exists in this system. At least the Dept. of the Navy has explained it that way in not so many words.

And how is that enough for a preemption. There is nearly over 1000 DF-11s and DF-15s alone. In mobile TELs.

I wasn't particularly talking preemption on this point. Conventional Trident in this case would be more retaliatory on high value assets and war-sustaining necessities. We would need another solution for TEL's and yes, that's a tall order to fill. I understand that.

If you got a Trident headed to a population center, what exactly are they going to think of? Sure. They will press the red button. Thank you for starting World War III.

You don't understand how this system would be used. We would have no need to use it unless China began launching BM's all over the Western Pacific. It would be they who would start this march into hell. Conventional Trident is simply a non-nuclear deterrent capability with tremendous striking potential if needed.

You sound ridiculous. Any BM will never be as accurate as a CM. The faster the missile flies, the less its opportunities for flight correction. Which means to compensate, you still need a bigger blast. Even with a conventional warhead, these warheads, with over 1 ton each of advanced explosive, can produce an explosion that can be mistaken as a small nuclear weapon. It's ridiculous to think that China will have to check the explosions for radioactivity before it decides the weapons fired are conventional or nuclear. This does not even cover "conventional WMDs" like the possibility of biological and chemical attacks through the conventional Tridents.

Right, this is what some have been trying to relay to those who believe in the applications of anti-ship BM. Not exactly a viable solution. On another note, did you know that Trident D5 is the first and only true sea-based missile that has the accuracy and viable ability to be used as a counterforce first strike weapon? Do you know the significance of that? The Soviets knew and hated it. Now consider dropping 12 1 ton non-nuclear explosion into that CEP zone. You're going to get your target.

And what makes you think that China won't have the ability to respond with precisely accurate conventional BMs? Their ASAT test shows they got atomic clocks and very precise inertial navigation systems that are right to cutting edge. That's an accuracy of 4m2 CEP against 865 kilometers on a target moving at orbital speeds. Their space launches always have their reentry landings right precisely on cue, never farther from their intended mark by a few kilometers.

I do know they have improved. But it took a few tries for them to get there as well. I do also applaud them on their manned efforts. The USN did destroy a satellite at a lower orbit which means faster orbital speed and less time in the visible horizon. This was also done from a sea-based mobile system. And did it on the first try with 1 missile. I'm not taking away anything from China's ASAT test. But some perspective needs to be placed.

I also have to say that landing a manned capsule which is constantly slowing on re-entry is also different from placing a warhead from a bus on target accurately. And doing so with a demonstrated consistent pace.

The only one with his head in the clouds is you, thinking this won't escalate into a nuclear war.

No. You misunderstand. I see a potential for this. But China shooting missiles around loosely would be the only reason to retaliate in any kind. We simply won't allow that. It would also be a losing strategy for China which I won't elaborate on further as some political implications would have to be factored into that discussion. So I part company with that thought.

And frankly I see as much ridiculous and exaggerated things on other forums like Strategypage.

Never heard of Strategy Page. But yes, the Internet is full of alot of crap. There is a whole lot on Chinese bbs. And despite Sinodefenceforum being a top notch site, a number of posters here have very vivid imaginations. And no, I'm not talking about you crobato. And I'm not talking about Tphuang either since I've addressed him in this thread. But I've had people on a thread during a forum session tell me how Aegis algorithms work, what information can be processed onboard Arleigh Burke ships and how they go about tracking and engaging targets, what their limits are, how they datalink, what they carry in terms of weaponry, how anti-ship missiles engage, etc. It was complete junk. Yet they were absolutely convinced of their uninformed opinion. I've actually worked CIC onboard DDG-56 and found it to be utterly ridiculous. Anyway, you're right, crap is everywhere on Internet forums.


Accuracy of Chinese missiles are no longer an area of speculation. Its a fact if their development programs are an indication.

Numbers of missile builds do not indicate anything.


The problem is you cannot give an absolute guarantee about it right? The full extent of the 094's capability is not very clear, and PLAN submarines appeared to have slipped before. The Russians have much noisier SSBMs than 094, and you can base this from the fact these subs got twin shafts and screws while the 094 only has one of each, and the screws are not the slow turning, low cavitation type that you see on the 094. You have built a strategic ASW strategy against much noisier Typhoons and Deltas. If the SSBN has the potential to be much quieter that seriously screws up your long range detection possibilities which are tuned to Cold War twin shafted, conventionally screwed subs.

And the 094 isn't the end of the development trail since we know they're working on even quieter propulsor units like pumpjets. And these 094s will be escorted by 093s. This opens scenarios that you cannot guarantee each pair or group will be _stopped in time_.

What you see on the outside concerning submarine development, gives an indication of what you get on the inside. Neither of these submarines show me anything developmentally that has built anything into them equivalent to our last generation of builds here in the US. Sorry guys. No offense intended. I'm not concerned about neither of them. It looks like a generational step for China. Especially 094. However I see some lines in there that don't exactly please me in terms of generated flow noise. That's about it. 093 is similar for me. The real simple low-down here. We are way ahead of them in this area. I'm extremely confident in this. In terms of sensors it harder to judge, but these things typicaly go hand and hand. Never seen it otherwise. And our ASW is factored around any sub type. Not just Delta's and Typhoons. If you think Virginia's are solely designed to go after Typhoons under the ice, you haven't exactly been keeping up. And unlike China, you can actually get pretty good indications of some very impressive and innovative technologies built into these submarines. They've opened up portions of them to the press. It truly takes away nothing for them to do this and shows a real confidence in their design.

I'm sorry but no one seriously thinks this missile build race China has is based with nuclear weapons. Nuclear watchers are only looking at the DF-31A, not the DF-11.

True to a certain extent.

And the capability for the Chinese to do it also exists.

Also true to another extent. Although like I said, they don't particularly need them. And it would increase their likelihood to be a major strategic loss for China in that role. With what I see regarding China's current nuclear submarines, I'm not so convinced of a high likelihood of survivability.


24 Tridents vs. 24x6 Tomahawks, that ratio sucks. How are you going to preempt hundreds of mobile TELs all over the country? Each Trident is far less stealthy than a Tomahawk, which can give the TELs warning time to move out.

Actually it's 22x7 for the SSGN. The other 2 tubes are used for storage and SEAL lockout. And it's 24x8 for the SSBN's. It potentially could be 24x12 for the conventional Trident program.Stealth regarding Trident is a non-issue as response time would be severely limited. You think these conventional warheads would go only after TEL's? No. they're going after mostly fixed sites like logistics, command and control, airfields, bases, and perhaps some BM's. Yes, Tomahawks, SLAM-ER's, B-2's and such (if intel is good that is), would be more suitable in that role.

Furthermore, maybe you don't understand that many of the PLA bases are underground. Chances are, BMs don't have the required accuracy to close off an entrance as a Tomahawk or a JDAM can.

Right. However warhead design does have penetration capability not found in some cruise missiles. Both have their advantages. This issue is more complex than you give it credit for.

I can trust decision makers not to stoop to this lunacy.

Can you trust China's decision makers not to fire off ballistic missiles all over the Western Pacific including Taiwan. Seriously the USA is in no mood for war. But deterrence is a vital interest. That means hostilities if necessary.


What makes you think I'm ignorant of such eh?

All these missiles and warheads are thrown into scrap in both the US and the SU thanks to the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty.
I'm sorry, did you say the Cold War is over? The Cold War is over but the participants who signed that Treat AREN'T. They are still here, with Russia in place of the Soviet Union. And so are the lessons from the Cold War.

I didn't say you were ignorant. Nor do I believe you are. But I'm hoping the Chinese have an understanding of some things.

Sigh. China has already mentioned they have a no strike first policy.

They can say anything they want. Do you think all the people of the Far East buy this?

The Chinese never has any intentions for a first strike, knowing their dense population centers would put them in a serious disadvantage in a nuclear exchange.

Plus their lack of a credible second strike element. But yes, the USA has no desire to nuke anybody anyway. Nor does the USA want to fight such a war. The Chinese hopefully will realize where they may put us if they began launching BM's at Japan, Guam, and other placxes of strategic interests. Seriously crobato, your view seems to be that the USA should allow China to target anybody, and the USA responding in kind or finalizing the deterrent role adequately is destabilizing. I adamantly disagree. If China doesn't launch, they have nothing to worry about.

And seriously, a very limited number of conventional Tridents isn't going to stop the mobile TELs. Not exactly that easy telling a DF-21 TEL from a DF-11 TEL from space. If you hit a DF-11 TEL, you're already on the losing side because the cost of these missiles are much less than a Trident. The target ain't worth it.

Like I said, BM's would not be a primary target. Fixed targets of extremely high value, and targets of war-sustaining value would be.

Oh please. I know exactly how deterrent works. Your conventional Trident does not fare any better against all other alternatives in terms of numbers, accuracy and cost effectivenes such as B-2 with JDAMs to Tomahawks. Not to mention the supply of Tridents themselves are limited,. you use them up, what are you going to replace them with? You still need the nuclear deterrence scenario, and you're asking and castrating a strategic nuclear asset to do a conventional job that a bunch of B-2s can do with far more cost effectiveness, less possibility of collateral damage and without a serious escalation in the nuclear threat level.

Well, you're seriously arguing merits again. Like I said, argue with the DoD and the Navy. They're the ones seriously considering this alternative plan. No offense, but I'll defer to their judgement over yours as to the potential of such a system and it's risks. And anyway, my whole point on the statement before everybody went crazy was that we do have this capability. Whether you like it or not, it is a potential. It is merely something that can be used. You are seriously wasting time arguing over why we shouldn't deploy it. I'm not interested in that as it does have a possibility to be a deployed system. Right now it's not. But in the RAND war here, you never know. My own view is the deterrent factor outweighs the risks. Even if such a war proceeds we may not need to use it. But it's presence does have value. You don't agree, it's OK.
 
Last edited:

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
The point of the Rand report is to illustrate that US Strategic Policy of being able to fight/win very high intensity but also very short wars by overwhelming numerical and technological advantage is seriously flawed when faced with an adversary of moderate technological development and strategic depth.

The points specifically being

a) If the Haymaker does not deliver, then the US has little current capacity to deal with a long term high intensity conflict.

b) That an adversary with even a limited degree of Strategic reach can even prevent the Hay maker from landing in the first place (the point about only 6 F'22 being able to make it too the Straits).

The obvious conclusion is that either there has been a Strategic blunder in the DOD of colossal proportions or there is deliberate policy to ensure that major powers are unable to face each other directly and that only proxy wars against clients will ever be countenanced.

Very clearly this is a given against China, highly indicative, post South Ossetia, of being a given against Russia and indeed now questionably even a given against Iran.

These would be mighty enough problems to deal with even in good times, impossible though, in the current recession and the verys low post recessionary period that will follow thereafter.
 
Top