So the plan is to put the best assets at range of medium-short range cruise, drones, hypersonic and ballistic missiles. That is not counting at the range of land based stealth radars and AWACs
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
You can't defend because you can't defend. You don't get banned for defending; you get banned for saying things that are too stupid.
Both Guam and Japan are in Chinese missile range. Neither will be operable.
That's exactly what it means. Bring them into range and they become radioactive reefs.
That's not what you said before. You said America's chances are much higher than China's. If you just said "possible," I don't have anything to say to that. It's possible a chicken can kill its butcher so whatever.
That just means that the US is waning in comparison to China and that's true.
This is the correct place to discuss this.
Here's an idea for you. Maybe, just maybe, the view that you and mainstream Western media hold about the chances of a general war between American and China is wrong. You can use weaselly little terms like "agree to disagree" all you want, but if you continue to bring up a view that you can not defend on close examination, you will continue to be belittled and insulted and generally not taken seriously on these forums for practically any topic. The correct course of action in this situation is for you to critically examine WHY you hold the view that you do and maybe understand that it is time to heavily modify or outright discard that incorrect view.
Personally, I'm curious to hear WHY you think the U.S. will win. And don't give me the crap about 11 carriers and 1000 F-35s.
Being able to carry 14+ is not the same as the question of how many are being equipped by those 11 carriers right now.
Again, have you considered the possibility that your overall view is wrong?
Personally, terms like "agree to disagree" really ought to be banned on these forums because it's just as annoying as phrases like "concession accepted'. If you are pushing an idea that you can't properly defend, either drop the idea or just stop defending the idea.
No. There isn't enough naval version of F35 to equip on all carriers. Most of the planes are land-based. 5th gen planes aren't found in many carriers included Ford class.
tbh, it will end up a stalemale. US will stay far behind at hawaii, guam or second island chain. It will be a missile and long range drone shooting contest. US will quickly run out of cruise, A2A and ballistic missile in 1 month.
The transpacific delivery logistics and production rate is the bottleneck for US. You fight a war at someone's backyard, they are able to replenish their missiles much quicker
This is the last time since I feel it’s getting off topic and don’t want to be banned again.
But yes the US war fighting experience is only against terrorists and insurgents but that does give them stress testing and even if it’s not what modern war it was still combat, China doesn’t really have that.
the US has alot more than just subsonic and short range glide bombs, while that’s the majority that doesn’t mean their useless
The US has the ability to use ally bases.
ally stockpile wouldn’t run out within a month
But yes the US war fighting experience is only against terrorists and insurgents but that does give them stress testing and even if it’s not what modern war it was still combat, China doesn’t really have that.
the US has alot more than just subsonic and short range glide bombs, while that’s the majority that doesn’t mean their useless
The US has the ability to use ally bases.
ally stockpile wouldn’t run out within a month
Again like I said multiple times that I don’t want to get banned not that I can’t back it up and I don’t think I ever said the US would win, I just said it’s alot more likely they would if war started today than they would in 2027
Generally agree with what you said, but that the quoted line is not technically true. I believe one of the U.S. Pacific carriers is currently operating a squadron or two of F-35Cs.
The original plan was to have 2 squadrons x10 F-35s per carrier, but they couldn't get so many so it's 1 squadron x14 for the three certified carriers.
Why do you believe that moderators on this site would ban you for defending an idea, especially when you are doing it in the correct forum in the correct thread?
If there's any thread for discussing a hypothetical U.S. vs China kinetic conflict, it's this one.
Because I have been banned before twice and I don’t want to do anything to risk getting banned permanently. If I knew I wouldn’t have a possibly to get banned again I would but for now I’ll just agree to disagree and stick to my original point of it’s more likely if war started today the US could win than they would in 2027
-South Korea probably wont want to deplete their arsenal in a war that has nothing to do with them.
-The Europeans are too busy dealing with Russia.
That leave you with Japan and Australia that have their limitations. I don't count the Philippines because they can barely feed their people let alone building a decent arsenal.
Basically the US is alone.