Future War with (Red) China Hypotheticals/Theorycrafting

[IndyFront]

I may be mistaken but if China invaded Taiwan wouldn't virtually the entirety of NATO be at war with China, or would it just be the U.S.? Because of course the U.S. is more powerful but China wouldn't be a pushover by any means, but if America's NATO allies got involved it would be a stomp

 

[LordsFire]

Wait, so they're going to be doing boarding operations in the South China Sea without having anything in the south China sea? Something like a Black hawk has roughly a 600 km combat range, which would require the launcher to be in the South China sea to carry these out. Flying unescorted helicopter within range of land based Chinese air assets also seems questionable.

Again, you don't seem to understand things that most of us military grognards consider basic. I'm not sure why you're bothering to have such a discussion when you know so little about these things.

I'll try to break it down for you.

1. When you are not in a shooting war, and don't expect one to start immediately (within a week), sending a Supercarrier Battlegroup through an area is a major flexing of military muscle, a display of capability and intent to use it.

2. If you're expecting things might get hot very soon, the Carrier pulls back, and enforces a cordon around it. Long-range anti-shipping missiles, the sort that the Chinese and Russians like to hype about having, require the non-buzzword version of a 'kill-chain' to work.

You need accurate data on where the target is, then you need a successful launch, then you need to not be intercepted getting to the area, then you need active targeting information within the area, then you need to not get intercepted as it makes the terminal attack run.

The US has equipment and doctrine designed to foil such an attack at any and all stages, and the first rule for that is 'don't let the enemy know where the carrier is,' thus, if there's a serious chance of things going hot within a matter of hours or days, the Carrier will withdraw from the immediate area with its escorts.

3. Just because the Carrier withdraws, does not mean that all other ships will. Ticonderogas, Arleigh-Burkes, and Zumwalts (both of them) can all carry helicopters, and that's perfectly adequate to start enforcing a blockade. They'll be the visible, more exposed potential targets that the Chinese will be able to see, while they'll see the perimeter defense and E-war aircraft of the Carrier, but not the Carrier itself.

4. If the Chinese actually start shooting, then the Carrier air wing rolls in and wipes out all local Chinese forces, including bombing their artificial islands. After there are no active threats in the area, then the Carrier and its close escorts move in closer, extending the zone of destruction its air wing can enforce across the entire South China Sea.

5. Now the Carrier is in position to more aggressively enforce the blockade, and has the ability to pre-emptively destroy PLAN ships and PLAAF aircraft now that the active shooting war is already on, unlike time of peace, where you can't just pre-emptively sink their ships for coming within 250 nautical miles.


In the theorized scenario, all of this is probably enacted by two Carrier Battle Groups working together in mutual support, possibly with tanker-extended long range support from Okinawa. If it doesn't happen in the near future, there has been talk about reopening Subic Bay or setting up a new large US base in the Philipines, which would also be well-positioned to support such.


Terminal stupidity on the part of American leadership is the only way the Chinese would get a serious chance to take out two Carrier Battle Groups. If they perform much better than is to be expected of a Communist military, they may by sheer weight of numbers be able to take out one Supercarrier, given that there are a lot of them, and they have a moderate amount of at least somewhat modern equipment. Even then though, they'd sustain horrific losses in the process, and almost certainly lack the ability to launch a second such strike.

Committing most of their J-20's to such an attack, which would basically be required for it to have a real chance at success, would also substantially weaken their air defense capability, and increasing the odds of a cascading failure there.

 

[Zachowon]

Siinking a Carrier would end with total war of US forces.
More super carriers would be moved into the Pacific.

 

[IndyFront]

In a straight-up war? Yes, the U.S. would win. Would the U.S. operate at peak competence and bloodlust?... is a different question altogether however.

The American public would certainly want blood if the U.S. was attacked in such a way but the way our dithering and corrupt, mealy-mouthed politicians and American leadership operate is another factor to consider.

Exclusive: How $1M from China-linked Groups Oiled New York Politics

A Newsweek investigation found campaign contributions from known "united front" figures and groups in the New York area.

www.newsweek.com

Contributions go back decades. Since 1990, a year after the Chinese military bloodily suppressed democracy demonstrations centered on Beijing's Tiananmen Square, more than 150 representatives of at least 80 associations linked to the united front have donated to 39 Republican and 133 Democratic candidates in New York and other states.

Among the biggest beneficiaries was Clinton, both for her Senate and presidential bids. Newsweek's review found over $55,000 in donations from association leaders alone, though the groups boasted about much bigger donations at the time—up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. Clinton's office did not respond to a request for comment.

 

[JagerIV]

Again, you don't seem to understand things that most of us military grognards consider basic. I'm not sure why you're bothering to have such a discussion when you know so little about these things.

I'll try to break it down for you.

1. When you are not in a shooting war, and don't expect one to start immediately (within a week), sending a Supercarrier Battlegroup through an area is a major flexing of military muscle, a display of capability and intent to use it.

2. If you're expecting things might get hot very soon, the Carrier pulls back, and enforces a cordon around it. Long-range anti-shipping missiles, the sort that the Chinese and Russians like to hype about having, require the non-buzzword version of a 'kill-chain' to work.

You need accurate data on where the target is, then you need a successful launch, then you need to not be intercepted getting to the area, then you need active targeting information within the area, then you need to not get intercepted as it makes the terminal attack run.

The US has equipment and doctrine designed to foil such an attack at any and all stages, and the first rule for that is 'don't let the enemy know where the carrier is,' thus, if there's a serious chance of things going hot within a matter of hours or days, the Carrier will withdraw from the immediate area with its escorts.

3. Just because the Carrier withdraws, does not mean that all other ships will. Ticonderogas, Arleigh-Burkes, and Zumwalts (both of them) can all carry helicopters, and that's perfectly adequate to start enforcing a blockade. They'll be the visible, more exposed potential targets that the Chinese will be able to see, while they'll see the perimeter defense and E-war aircraft of the Carrier, but not the Carrier itself.

4. If the Chinese actually start shooting, then the Carrier air wing rolls in and wipes out all local Chinese forces, including bombing their artificial islands. After there are no active threats in the area, then the Carrier and its close escorts move in closer, extending the zone of destruction its air wing can enforce across the entire South China Sea.

5. Now the Carrier is in position to more aggressively enforce the blockade, and has the ability to pre-emptively destroy PLAN ships and PLAAF aircraft now that the active shooting war is already on, unlike time of peace, where you can't just pre-emptively sink their ships for coming within 250 nautical miles.


In the theorized scenario, all of this is probably enacted by two Carrier Battle Groups working together in mutual support, possibly with tanker-extended long range support from Okinawa. If it doesn't happen in the near future, there has been talk about reopening Subic Bay or setting up a new large US base in the Philipines, which would also be well-positioned to support such.


Terminal stupidity on the part of American leadership is the only way the Chinese would get a serious chance to take out two Carrier Battle Groups. If they perform much better than is to be expected of a Communist military, they may by sheer weight of numbers be able to take out one Supercarrier, given that there are a lot of them, and they have a moderate amount of at least somewhat modern equipment. Even then though, they'd sustain horrific losses in the process, and almost certainly lack the ability to launch a second such strike.

Committing most of their J-20's to such an attack, which would basically be required for it to have a real chance at success, would also substantially weaken their air defense capability, and increasing the odds of a cascading failure there.

Being offended by clarifying questions is somewhat unbecoming, I have to say.

Okay, so the Destroyers will be sacrificial lambs, but the Carriers will be kept outside of air cover. Lets then look at a map of what this means. Thankfully, there is a website to draw circle on maps for this.

Draw a circle with a radius on a map

www.mapdevelopers.com

Based on ranges, we've got roughly 3 critical range categories:

500 km: this is about the range of view of surface to air or air to surface view. Also about the combat ranges of helicopters, about the limit of most anti ship missiles, and with most of the ships being able to do roughly 50 kmh gives 500 km roughly what can be done in a day sortie, going out and back. Red, extreme danger.

1,000 km: easily reachable by most planes within their combat radius, and about how far a warship can make in a day, without returning to port the same day. High danger, yell.

2,000 km: this seems to be roughly the edge of aircraft striking/surveillance. About 2 days out. Some danger, detection, but more risky. Green, as an area with some risk but not total.

So, some pictures, with Hong Kong, Shanghai, and Fiery Cross Reef, final one with the 2,000 km range circles removed for more clear.

So, your suggesting then the Carriers are going to be at least outside the yellow? And anything within that yellow is a likely casualty, and red is likely casualty/sunk?

 

[JagerIV]

This is in retaliation to the invasion if Taiwanese islands.
In which case it would be telling the Chinese to back off and stop if they want the blockade to be lifted.
Fighting it would just make things worse

Do you have a reason you think we would respond harder than in the 1950s, from a much weaker position? Your going to convince Governor Newland to close California's ports and Biden to trigger a recession in an election year?

 

[The Whispering Monk]

and Biden to trigger a recession in an election year

You mean like the recession we're already in? The one that's not really there because the fedgov changed the definition of recession?

 

[Zachowon]

Do you have a reason you think we would respond harder than in the 1950s, from a much weaker position? Your going to convince Governor Newland to close California's ports and Biden to trigger a recession in an election year?

Besides the fact not helping Taiwan would cripple his presidency faster then a little girl, ans that it would basically destroy good will with damn near every nation we are allies with.
Including our closest ones in the Pacific, Korea and Japan.
Which would then cripple our economy worse because they may see trading with us as a bad idea leading to China dominating the global sphere as hegdmon and the US is now its vassal.

 

[LordsFire]

So, your suggesting then the Carriers are going to be at least outside the yellow? And anything within that yellow is a likely casualty, and red is likely casualty/sunk?

Your numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but the basic principle is sound.

In the example you're giving, a US Carrier Group would make sure to be outside of the 'red' circle of enemy threat if there's a high probability of shooting starting, and depending on what the actual performance expectation of Chinese military hardware is, possibly the yellow.

After a war actually starts, superior hardware, training, and doctrine, means that the USN and USAF will rapidly clear out various threats, allowing safe advance to places closer in.

 

[JagerIV]

You mean like the recession we're already in? The one that's not really there because the fedgov changed the definition of recession?

There's recession, and then there's cutting out 20% of global GDP at a penstroke. This graph.

US directly has $756 billion, so that's a 3% direct hit to the US. Just about everyone we trade with also is trading with China, so everyone else is also likely to be in some manner of recession. Every company in the US is going to be lobbying to not put in a general blockade. Every business in most of the world is going to be arguing strongly against it.

Middle East is another big one there: 10 million barrels of oil per day trying to intercept is someone losing about $1 billion dollars a day. They are not going to like the US interfering with their gravy train, and likely are going to cut back production heavily in order to re-coup losses in volume and punish the west. Another energy crisis on top of the existing one in Europe is probably not appreciated. Lot of other raw material suppliers are going to have collapsing demand and thus probably collapsing prices followed by collapsing supply.

Lot of direct pain. I think people might be underestimating a bit just how much shit people are being asked to eat for Taiwan (a country most of them have agreed is part of China) to virtue signal to America, who many of them have some hostility to.

Besides the fact not helping Taiwan would cripple his presidency faster then a little girl, ans that it would basically destroy good will with damn near every nation we are allies with.
Including our closest ones in the Pacific, Korea and Japan.
Which would then cripple our economy worse because they may see trading with us as a bad idea leading to China dominating the global sphere as hegdmon and the US is now its vassal.

Entering a broad blockade is probably more crippling to the presidency, since it commits to an expensive, general war that if it doesn't go perfectly is going to require conscription and might lose the US Empire. Its also going to burn an immense amount of good will with most of our allies. Saudi Arabia already is very lukewarm on us. They are probably going to be very much not pleased if we enforce a blockade on Saudi Arabia that at least cuts off 10% of their GDP, and likely will hit 20-30% of it.

South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are also not going to want to do a general blockade and would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so. And if any of those three don't sign off on it, it basically immediately fails. They would be asked to eat an immediate 20-30% GDP hit with just a general embargo on trade with China. If China launches a counter blockade, your talking about potential 50%+ of the GDP at risk, and obviously a full blockade puts Taiwan on the path to starvation.

If the US forces a general blockade and then doesn't win quickly and decively, your turning a defense pact into a suicide pact, and dramatically increases the chance of those three jumping ship.

A general blockade risks far more than a localized, restrained response.

Your numbers are somewhat arbitrary, but the basic principle is sound.

In the example you're giving, a US Carrier Group would make sure to be outside of the 'red' circle of enemy threat if there's a high probability of shooting starting, and depending on what the actual performance expectation of Chinese military hardware is, possibly the yellow.

After a war actually starts, superior hardware, training, and doctrine, means that the USN and USAF will rapidly clear out various threats, allowing safe advance to places closer in.

Okay. So when you say rapidly, how quick are you seeing this occur? Because your committing a very small force against a very large area, against an enemy who' doctrine is to fight a people's gorilla war. As Yugoslavia and other conflicts have shown, destroying an air defense system trying not to die can take a lot of firepower and time.

Because if you move your ships out to where the Chinese can't easily observe the Carriers, you also can't easily observe the Chinese. Lets look at the 500 and 1,000 km radius pictures:

This basically suggests you will have no ships in the south China sea itself. So the Carriers are out past the Philippines, if the goal is to support Taiwan. This means long range radar from the shore (over the horizon radar can have 2,000-3,000) and other long range radar can still spot stealth aircraft, just not get good target locks. Though two carrier air wings your still at this point talking about f-18s, not F-35s generally, so two carrier wings is roughly 100 F-18s.

From the position out in the Philippine Sea, the AWACs attached to the carrier can see roughly through the yellow, but you have no direct real time observation into the red zone. This means you need to dedicate recon elements to even spot where the Chinese ships and aircraft are. SAM positions are also not going to be under constant surveillance and constant movement. You've also got now about 6,000 km for subs to sneak out through.

So, with Chinese forces a threat, Your practical strike package is greatly reduced. 100 Aircraft in this situation is probably 1-10 equipment casualties per day for the Chinese. Likely with some number of daily casualties too. Americans probably suffer something like something in the 0.1-1% casualties per sortie range, so between 0.1-1 casualty per day out of a force of a 100 aircraft, assuming nothing dramatic like the Carrier hitting a mine or falling into a trap.

All the Chinese Navy and Airforce technically have to do is not die and maintain a threat in being so the US Air Force and Navy can't be employed effectively, so other operations can be carried out and the US can be steadily attritted.

You seem to be implying a force now too small and too conservatively deployed to actually do all that much material damage in relavent time scales. And if you only have 100 planes, losing even 10 of them is going to be devastating to formation firepower.

 

[Zachowon]

A blockade would hurt us yes, but we can recover.
China can't.
Top Gun Maverick shows a good example of how the US military would orevent a response in a reasonable time.
You destroy the run ways.
Can they be repaired? Sure.
But not in time to contest the aerial assets the US has before your SAMs and Airfields are unable to launch aircraft.
The PLAAF and the PLAN aircraft would basically be grounded within days.

Because when you have aircraft with the radar profile of a bee.....and a whole fleet of 35s, B2s, and B21s, with more cruise missiles then one has air defense missiles.

You do not understand the might the USN can provide in a single theater, not including the AF

 

[LordsFire]

Snip.

...You, again, do not understand what you are talking about.

The USN is not going to be spending weeks or months being forced by the PLAN and PLAAF to stay out of the South China Sea.

The concern is that at the start of hostilities, the Chinese don't have an active targeting lock on a Carrier. That is basically the only situation where the Chinese have a serious chance at sinking a Carrier. There are other possibilities, but that's the only really risky one.

If a shooting war starts, within hours hundreds of US aircraft will be flying sorties. Within a day, every PLAN ship within a thousand kilometers of the CVBG will be sunk or surrendered. Shortly thereafter, their little flyspeck bases on artificial islands will be non-functional.

Then the USN will move into the SCS in force, and if the CCP isn't smart enough to call it quits, start systematically dismantling the Chinese air force, and the outer layers of their mainland's AA defenses.


You need to understand how crushing the US technological and training advantage is. The F-15, our prior generation's flagship combat aircraft, has literally never been defeated in aerial combat. The F-18 isn't quite as good, but it's still better than anything except the J-20 that the Chinese can put in the air.

Even without the F-22 and F-35, the USA would have a strong, possibly decisive advantage in quality of aircraft.

With the F-22 and F-35 taking to the air, the PLAAF and PLAN will be completely slaughtered. The J-20 might slow us down a little bit and actually inflict more than a handful of return casualties, depending on if it can actually perform at all meaningfully, but they do not have enough of them to change the outcome.


Incompetent political leadership is the only way the US could feasibly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if we go to war with China in the near future. I'm not God, so there's always things I'm not aware of, but all the information readily on the table says that the Chinese would get utterly crushed in an actual shooting war.

Sure, if we tried to invade and occupy the mainland, that'd be all kinds of stupid, but you don't need to do that in order to smash their military-industrial complex flat, and we absolutely have that ability.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

China’s only hope is to effectively blitzkrieg Taiwan and take control of its airfields so it can better deploy its land based aircraft against the USN Pacific Fleet. It isn’t very much of a hope mind you…

And China isn’t exactly weak. But the United States is simply the mightiest nation ever forged by the hand of man, and dramatically outclasses basically any would-be challenger. Any clash over Taiwan would likely reaffirm who, by arms and wealth, is master of the world.

 

[IndyFront]

There's recession, and then there's cutting out 20% of global GDP at a penstroke. This graph.

US directly has $756 billion, so that's a 3% direct hit to the US. Just about everyone we trade with also is trading with China, so everyone else is also likely to be in some manner of recession. Every company in the US is going to be lobbying to not put in a general blockade. Every business in most of the world is going to be arguing strongly against it.

Middle East is another big one there: 10 million barrels of oil per day trying to intercept is someone losing about $1 billion dollars a day. They are not going to like the US interfering with their gravy train, and likely are going to cut back production heavily in order to re-coup losses in volume and punish the west. Another energy crisis on top of the existing one in Europe is probably not appreciated. Lot of other raw material suppliers are going to have collapsing demand and thus probably collapsing prices followed by collapsing supply.

Lot of direct pain. I think people might be underestimating a bit just how much shit people are being asked to eat for Taiwan (a country most of them have agreed is part of China) to virtue signal to America, who many of them have some hostility to.



Entering a broad blockade is probably more crippling to the presidency, since it commits to an expensive, general war that if it doesn't go perfectly is going to require conscription and might lose the US Empire. Its also going to burn an immense amount of good will with most of our allies. Saudi Arabia already is very lukewarm on us. They are probably going to be very much not pleased if we enforce a blockade on Saudi Arabia that at least cuts off 10% of their GDP, and likely will hit 20-30% of it.

South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan are also not going to want to do a general blockade and would have to be dragged kicking and screaming to do so. And if any of those three don't sign off on it, it basically immediately fails. They would be asked to eat an immediate 20-30% GDP hit with just a general embargo on trade with China. If China launches a counter blockade, your talking about potential 50%+ of the GDP at risk, and obviously a full blockade puts Taiwan on the path to starvation.

If the US forces a general blockade and then doesn't win quickly and decively, your turning a defense pact into a suicide pact, and dramatically increases the chance of those three jumping ship.

A general blockade risks far more than a localized, restrained response.



Okay. So when you say rapidly, how quick are you seeing this occur? Because your committing a very small force against a very large area, against an enemy who' doctrine is to fight a people's gorilla war. As Yugoslavia and other conflicts have shown, destroying an air defense system trying not to die can take a lot of firepower and time.

Because if you move your ships out to where the Chinese can't easily observe the Carriers, you also can't easily observe the Chinese. Lets look at the 500 and 1,000 km radius pictures:

This basically suggests you will have no ships in the south China sea itself. So the Carriers are out past the Philippines, if the goal is to support Taiwan. This means long range radar from the shore (over the horizon radar can have 2,000-3,000) and other long range radar can still spot stealth aircraft, just not get good target locks. Though two carrier air wings your still at this point talking about f-18s, not F-35s generally, so two carrier wings is roughly 100 F-18s.

From the position out in the Philippine Sea, the AWACs attached to the carrier can see roughly through the yellow, but you have no direct real time observation into the red zone. This means you need to dedicate recon elements to even spot where the Chinese ships and aircraft are. SAM positions are also not going to be under constant surveillance and constant movement. You've also got now about 6,000 km for subs to sneak out through.

So, with Chinese forces a threat, Your practical strike package is greatly reduced. 100 Aircraft in this situation is probably 1-10 equipment casualties per day for the Chinese. Likely with some number of daily casualties too. Americans probably suffer something like something in the 0.1-1% casualties per sortie range, so between 0.1-1 casualty per day out of a force of a 100 aircraft, assuming nothing dramatic like the Carrier hitting a mine or falling into a trap.

All the Chinese Navy and Airforce technically have to do is not die and maintain a threat in being so the US Air Force and Navy can't be employed effectively, so other operations can be carried out and the US can be steadily attritted.

You seem to be implying a force now too small and too conservatively deployed to actually do all that much material damage in relavent time scales. And if you only have 100 planes, losing even 10 of them is going to be devastating to formation firepower.

Exactly none of this addresses the sheer military tonnage that the U.S. possesses over China however, yeah China has its missiles and its large manpower but that's not nearly enough to give the U.S. a run for its money in even a one-on-one fight.

 

[IndyFront]

Yes but like the British during WW1, concentrating even just most of our forces on China means pulling them away from other areas. Something that the US is even more poorly suited to do thanks to having a lot of manufacturing and materials, even military related ones, overseas. We’d need to keep those lanes open and secure. Same goes for the Army forces and so on.

Even if we do take out most of China’s armed forces, I don’t think it’s wise to assume that we’ll get the ‘WW2 Allie’s retaking Paris’ welcome. China will likely either keep fighting or splinter into warlords. Which means all the manufacturing in China isn’t likely going to be producing much. Manufacturing that we need. Which means the US and global economic situation is going to go bad.

We won’t be able to obtain victory just by bombing China from the air. It’s going to mean boots on the ground. Which means either Americans manage to get super patriotic when it comes to fighting in an overseas war (which is unlikely to say the least in the near future) or the military starts drafting people to get the numbers needed. Which is likely going to go badly for the government that tries it. Probably even ‘sparks second Civil War’ badly.

The Right has seen just how much contempt the government has for us and how poorly veterans have been treated even now the moment the government doesn’t have a need for them.

The Left won’t want to fight a war either. Especially the more socialist and communist ones when it comes to China.

Even if China does manage to gain the upper hand militarily at some point, it would be temporary or even short-lived as it wouldn't be long before NATO got involved, and if France, Britain and the United States alone teamed up they would wipe the floor with China in short order, could even be a decapitation strike due to how integrated the PLAN leadership structure is with the CCP, which it effectively acts as an armed extension thereof, which having such a small and concentrated elite group calling all the shots is a glaring weak spot and basically strategic malpractice.

 

[LordsFire]

We won’t be able to obtain victory just by bombing China from the air. It’s going to mean boots on the ground.

Why do you think this?

What reason is there to believe that bombing and blockade can't accomplish American war goals in such a conflict?

Keep in mind, nobody's interested in trying 'nation-building' now. 'China is no longer a military threat to its neighbors' is probably going to be the war goal, not 'turn it into an idealized western democracy.'

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Yes but like the British during WW1, concentrating even just most of our forces on China means pulling them away from other areas. Something that the US is even more poorly suited to do thanks to having a lot of manufacturing and materials, even military related ones, overseas. We’d need to keep those lanes open and secure. Same goes for the Army forces and so on.

False. The only forces required are the Navy and the Air Force. It's all about destroying any combat capability that can project force into Taiwan.

It’s going to mean boots on the ground.

Where? Where do we need to go in on the ground?

The only place I can possibly think of would be in Taiwan itself to help retake ground if China successfully makes a beachhead.

 

[DarthOne]

Why do you think this?

What reason is there to believe that bombing and blockade can't accomplish American war goals in such a conflict?

Keep in mind, nobody's interested in trying 'nation-building' now. 'China is no longer a military threat to its neighbors' is probably going to be the war goal, not 'turn it into an idealized western democracy.'

Please ignore everything I wrote, as i as half asleep and not thinking at all when i wrote all this. Because I am an idiot.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Please ignore everything I wrote, as i as half asleep and not thinking at all when i wrote all this. Because I am an idiot.

That's fair. I know I've been there!

 

[JagerIV]

A blockade would hurt us yes, but we can recover.
China can't.
Top Gun Maverick shows a good example of how the US military would orevent a response in a reasonable time.
You destroy the run ways.
Can they be repaired? Sure.
But not in time to contest the aerial assets the US has before your SAMs and Airfields are unable to launch aircraft.
The PLAAF and the PLAN aircraft would basically be grounded within days.

Because when you have aircraft with the radar profile of a bee.....and a whole fleet of 35s, B2s, and B21s, with more cruise missiles then one has air defense missiles.

You do not understand the might the USN can provide in a single theater, not including the AF

I'm not sure we would, better than the Chinese. A top gun Maverick situation would be a disasterous ratio which we would lose attempting against China.

There are several hundred airports, and an airport takes a large effort to temporarily disable, and can be repaired quickly. You have a few thousand missiles. So, you can suppress all the airports for a day, and then your out of missiles. Bombing missions have the issue of driving deep into SAM systems, which are mobile specifically to increase survivability, which we know they do, into situations your going to have very poor observation over compared to any previous wars.

Exactly none of this addresses the sheer military tonnage that the U.S. possesses over China however, yeah China has its missiles and its large manpower but that's not nearly enough to give the U.S. a run for its money in even a one-on-one fight.

I mean, much smaller forces have given the US a run for its money. This is the most balanced fight the US has ever fought in the last 100 years. Much more level than WWII even. China is very capable of inflicting casualties that will necessitate conscription.

...You, again, do not understand what you are talking about.

The USN is not going to be spending weeks or months being forced by the PLAN and PLAAF to stay out of the South China Sea.

The concern is that at the start of hostilities, the Chinese don't have an active targeting lock on a Carrier. That is basically the only situation where the Chinese have a serious chance at sinking a Carrier. There are other possibilities, but that's the only really risky one.

If a shooting war starts, within hours hundreds of US aircraft will be flying sorties. Within a day, every PLAN ship within a thousand kilometers of the CVBG will be sunk or surrendered. Shortly thereafter, their little flyspeck bases on artificial islands will be non-functional.

Then the USN will move into the SCS in force, and if the CCP isn't smart enough to call it quits, start systematically dismantling the Chinese air force, and the outer layers of their mainland's AA defenses.


You need to understand how crushing the US technological and training advantage is. The F-15, our prior generation's flagship combat aircraft, has literally never been defeated in aerial combat. The F-18 isn't quite as good, but it's still better than anything except the J-20 that the Chinese can put in the air.

Even without the F-22 and F-35, the USA would have a strong, possibly decisive advantage in quality of aircraft.

With the F-22 and F-35 taking to the air, the PLAAF and PLAN will be completely slaughtered. The J-20 might slow us down a little bit and actually inflict more than a handful of return casualties, depending on if it can actually perform at all meaningfully, but they do not have enough of them to change the outcome.


Incompetent political leadership is the only way the US could feasibly snatch defeat from the jaws of victory if we go to war with China in the near future. I'm not God, so there's always things I'm not aware of, but all the information readily on the table says that the Chinese would get utterly crushed in an actual shooting war.

Sure, if we tried to invade and occupy the mainland, that'd be all kinds of stupid, but you don't need to do that in order to smash their military-industrial complex flat, and we absolutely have that ability.

Your the one suggesting the US will perform in a war against China better than we did against Iraq, a much weaker opponent with a much less advantageous position, while we have an army weaker than what we had in 1990.

I don't think there's any evidence the US is as invincible as you suggest, or the Chinese as helpless. This just seems delusional. The US reserves are shallow enough that we'll run out of ammo pretty quickly if the Chinese countermeasures are at all effective. And if the US takes any sort of casualties, the US's depth of reserves means our ability to maintain offensive actions are going to peak fairly quickly too.

Even 0.1% casualties per sortie, Iraq war like casualties, means if your launching hundreds of sorties, the US is going to lose 1-2 planes per day, and SAM systems are survivable for months under much more intense air campaigns than the US can actually run against the relevant front. Iraq was against roughly a 500 km front. Your talking about suppressing a 4,000-6,000 km front, with a smaller air force, against a more powerful enemy, with much more strategic depth to retreat into. We could hit everywhere in Yugoslavia and Iraq with impunity, and with short range easy strikes. China meanwhile has 4,000 km to pull back anything they want to hide. That strategic depth alone makes destroying the PLA nearly impossible. They can actually keep reserves out of pratical strike range, and feed them into the battle zone as needed.

If we accept that China is even 10x stronger than Iraq, were then going to be looking at probably closer to 1-10% sortie casualty rate, depending on how aggressive the US military is, which would be 10-100 plane casualties per day of intense campaign. One week of campaign is going to cost more than we can build in a year. Which suggests the US is likely not going to be able to maintain offensive operations for more than 10-100 days.

I'm sorry, but the idea that China is weaker than Iraq just doesn't seem plausible to me.