You dismissed Penghu as a minor island when I brought up.

Dear sir. I advise you next time, to take 3-4 minutes before replying to any particular sentence I have posted…to make sure you understand the meaning of the sentence. No matter how simple it may seem.

For the 4rd time in a row you have managed to completely invent an alternate meaning and reality to what I have said, and then proceeded to put words in my mouth. First you put words in my mouth about some “attacks on civilians”, then something about “pearl harbor”, then something about “nuclear war”…and now something about “minor islands”. What I said, was that if the Chinese “plan” (a public PR plan, meaning its rubbish from the get-go) is some vague assault on Penghu islands, than this IS a limited attack. Penghu is an island cluster…many of which are uninhabited or undefensable. Which islands are they talking about…to begin with?

Such a plan, if it has any merit (which I don’t doubt it doesn’t), is a tacit admission that both the intentions, and the capabilities, of the Chinese…are limited and don’t include any such scenario where a B-1R would be needed.

I am certain you will manage to twist this around into some alternate meaning, as well.

Is the F-22 anywhere near a Striker

What’s a “striker”? You mean ground-attack? Sorry I don’t understand.

I said an striker three times larger than F-35

Why three times larger? What does size have to do with it?

I presume you would base the B-1s at bases such as Diego Garcia its a long flying distance but to be honest the US involvement would be atleast a few days after any strike on Taiwan (if it was to get involved).

Well again no one is taking into account the realistic limitations on a strike on Taiwan. Any preparations would have considerable lead time, and be observable a long time prior to hostilities. The likelihood of a “surprise” attack, is not realistic.

But quick reaction is key here, which is what carriers provide, and what F-22s in Okinawa provide. The B-1R concept just doesn’t fit anywhere.

Yes, we should know better than to try and have a mature discussion with an obvious fanboy who ignores every single comment he cannot argue with and just comes up with more nonsensical wild claims and illogical assumptions and acts as if it’s all fact.

You mean like claiming that J-10 is JUST like Eurofighter? :rolleyes:

No they fly copies of Kh-55.

And

And…this means they are not missiles which are going to be flying at 20 feet altitude

as some sort of excuse to escalate.

Wow! Great job at making things up.

Yep, you were in the caves. you think they still flys old converted silkworms with analogue electronics? don’t ya?

No they fly copies of Kh-55.

I think it is rather interesting that while SSGN based pre-emptive strike is talked about as an option to finish off J20s off on the ground in a potential conflict

Talked about by whom? The same guys who photoshop everything?

If you think a potential bomber offensive against chinese targets on ML is a deterrent for limiting chinese options, then I think your estimation is off. this is already factored in their calculation.

The typical reply in this forum, when an obvious glaring problem is pointed out…is “oh and you think xxx didn’t already think about this?!”

Well, thinking about it doesn’t mean you have addressed the problem.

Because Chinese airpower is not the primary tool to achieve aerial superiority over Taiwan

In which case F-22 also isn’t the primary tool of preventing this 😉 You see, hopefully, why this fantastical scenario falls apart very quickly.

Their ’96 plan calls for a full amphibuious assault on Penghu.

Right, so their plan involves a limited small-scale assault on a couple of isolated islands.

Sounds like the kind of limited strike I was talking about 😉 Of course, I doubt the PLAN has the capability to even pull this off, if the USN is involved.

The above scenario would be better served by F-35Cs off from a CBG. Faster reaction time and better survival rates for the F-35s compared to the B1-R.

Yep. Sounds to me like someone is conveniently forgetting thats what carriers are for (possibly someone connected to the USAF)

ah, I see more blabbering then any thing. this crippling missile attack is when shooting already starts. no pearl harbor scenario here. just good ole’ fashioned firepower. of course they know US will send whatever they have at them. that’s part of their calculation and that’s part of the bargin. and btw you gonna to bomb civilian targets when your military bases are hit? like an angry bully? retaliate with what? with nukes?

I have no idea what you’re talking about, or how it relates to anything I said. You’ve just made up a looot of things I never said.

The issue is, there can be different types and levels of US involvement. The US can be involved in providing a shield to Taiwan, it can be used to provide an active defense to Taiwan…OR…it can be used to counter-attack China directly.

All this depends on the level the Chinese want to commit. If they commit with ballistic missiles, or if any US bases are attacked…the gloves are likely to be off and the US will no longer be a defensive player. None of this has to do with “civilian targets” or “pearl harbor”.

if your think playing catch with a cruise missile skimming 20 ft above waves is something any one is comfortable doing, then great. now times that with 100.

Chinese cruise missiles are in their infancy, especially land attack missiles. And they don’t fly at 20 feet during their entire flight path. And flying over water, thats exactly what USN ships and AWACS platforms are designed to detect and intercept.

and they don;t need to have “a proper navy and amphibious capacity” to achieve what they want.

Thats obviously not what I meant, or related to what I was addressing. What I was addressing was the question raised, that why would Chinese air power not be sufficient to achieve aerial superiority over Taiwan? Wouldn’t the Chinese government know this?

Yes they would…for the same reason their naval capacity isn’t sufficient either.

Which is why talk is cheap…Their intentions are not to invade or establish aerial superiority over Taiwan, or even conduct anything more than isolated strikes in case things go really bad politically. Thats the realistic limit of what they can do.

those ballistic missiles are conventionally armed and many of them specially designed to take out airfields and bunkers. a quit of number of them. and their forces are trained, equipped, and drilled to specifically for that task for years now. 500 x 1000 lb payload divided by number of your bases, that is how much damage they can do to your infrastructure. and that’s how much ballistic firepower china has at any given moment since late 90s.

Yes I’m well aware. I wasn’t implying they would be nuclear armed. Nevertheless…a Chinese ballistic missile attack on Taiwan, or against US forces…is likely going to trigger a full all-out retaliatory strike from the US; not nuclear…but the US’s role will not be defensive at that time but there will be B-2s over Beijing at that time. For all its “paper strength”, China is not willing to commit suicide for “diplomatic” significances of Taiwanese independence.

China knows that its only realistic military options against Taiwan, are at best skirmishes over the strait.

add on top of it the plethora of LACMs that bloomed in the late 90s. all of them launched from mobile launchers and for added affect old but updated H-6 platforms. orbiting behind their own air defenses.

Chinese cruise missiles would have to fly over water, and be faced with USN assets and AWACS. I don’t think thats a very impressive trick.

Considering conformal fuel tanks are likely down the pipeline, I wouldn’t call it irrelevant…

We’ll talk about it when it happens.

Each to their own then.

Hmm, not really. Comparing apples to watermelons isn’t going to convince anyone. The two planes are completely different in every respect.

At the end of the day neither of us can say definitely what range and patrol time the J-10 can have just by looking at it

We can guess pretty close. There’s not many platforms out there with realistic combat radius of greater than 500 miles, without the advent of aerial refiling. There’s not many air forces out there that could maintain a tempo of attacks, with such aircraft, over those distances, for the needed intensity it would take to achieve aerial superiority over Taiwan.

By comparison, NATO operations against Serbia were carried out from bases about 350 and 500 miles away from Kosovo (though most flights were shorter ranged and further up north into Serbia). NATO managed to maintain high operational tempo…But even at those ranges, HUNDREDS of aerial tankers were employed. I believe close to 50% of the US tanker fleet was used.

China doesn’t have a fraction of the capacity NATO has to maintain and support such an intensive aerial campaign. Flankers and JH-7s are about the only aircraft capable of such operations, but they represent a manageable force.

but I’d be astounded if the PLAAF in the eighties and nineties hadn’t factored in a Taiwan air battle scenario and the capability to operate from less vulnerable bases in said scenario, into the future mainstay of their fleet.

China never had the capacity of challenging Taiwan’s sovereignty, and still doesn’t. If the Chinese didn’t even have a proper navy and amphibious capacity to cross the strait, why would they be thinking about establishing and maintaining aerial superiority over Taiwan?

I don’t think those were ever their intentions, even today.

:rolleyes:

I didn’t “pick” any number. I pointed out that the closest major airfields are about 400 miles away, and that there are only 4 within a closer distance than that.

These numbers have significance only in thinking about how many fighters China has that have a 400-500 mile combat radius, and can remain to fight once there. The answer is, the majority of their fighters don’t have that capability.

I don’t see how one can compare Eurofighter or Rafale with J-10. The first two happened to be twin-engined aircraft, while the later single engined. I don’t think I need to really address why the comparison is outlandish.

The burden of proof on “numerical superiority”? Considering that Taiwan’s AF has about 350 modern 4th gen fighters, concentrated in a relatively small area…unless the PLAAF can mass massive waves of aircraft involving about 2/3 of their entire operational fleet capable of making the journey…individual engagements are not likely to have any significant numerical bias on China’s side.

Now if the assumption is that “Taiwan can’t get all its birds in the air” (no one ever made such a claim, and its obvious that this is not how the AF is going to operate), why would I assume that the PLAAF would be capable of performing a similar feat (and thats what it would take, essentially)?

This whole discussion is a sad joke. PLAAF capabilities are respectable, but nowhere near capable of overwhelming Taiwan or challenging a US task force. What could 50 F-22s in theater do? More than is necessary.

You are the only person I have ever encountered who is adovating this rather silly notion that the PLA would not have numerical superiority against the ROC.

Numerical superiority on paper. Planes based in Tibet are not going to be threatening Taiwan very much. Neither are J-7s or Q-5s. The issue is how many can be committed to such long-range flights.

I don’t mean to drag this side-topic (or maybe its important to the B-1R concept) any longer, but…

Extracts regarding air bases are:

“The PLA has 27 airbases within 500nm of Taiwan, while the USAF has 1”

500nm = 575 miles

Here’s what I said:

There’s only 4 airfields closer than 350 miles from Taiwan. The majority of the airfields are nearby Guangzhou and then around Shanghai…in a 400-500 mile radius from Taiwan.

:rolleyes:

A Typhoon has an AA combat radius of 1,400km while a Rafale can go up to 1,800km. Both are of a similar size and configuration to the J10

Of course they’re not.

The few bases near the coast are small for rapid reaction forward units to respond quickly to intercept any suspicious flights in peace time. In war time, the bulk of the hitting power will come from the second string of bases.

Thats what I said. Which means only a limited number of aircraft of the PLAAF can participate in this. No numerical superiority there.

It is simply absurd to suggest that the Chinese somehow got their maths wrong and built them too far away for them to be of any use in a Taiwan scenario.

Or rather, it build them far enough to avoid being bombed by enemy planes from Taiwan

Yet more swarming nonsense, as if the only way the PLAAF could win in a Taiwan conflict is to ‘swarm’ more fighters than could be shot down.

Thats the justification for the B-1R. Otherwise, there’s no rationale to it.

If J7s are to be used, they will most likely be employed defensively

Thats what I said. Congratulations.

So you can only attack something by flying directly over it?

No.

But by the time that happens, chances are the PLA would have already won air superiority over Taiwan

With what?

their J8, J10 and flanker fleets would be more than sufficient

Most J-10s can’t reach Taiwan and fight there. J-8s have even worse range. Flankers are limited in number and don’t represent a serious numerical superiority in an all out war, to a dedicated Taiwanese defense or to a USAF/USN task force. And thats the point of all this…if all China can muster up now, and in the foreseeable future, is a respectable sized force, but certainly within the capabilities of being matched…than there’s no justification for this B-1R over-reaction. Spend the money on more F-22s, or on F-22 upgrades.