Posted on 10/07/2004 6:46:59 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
3rd Wing Explains 'Cope India' Exercise Aviation Week & Space Technology 10/04/2004, page 50 David A. Fulghum Elmendorf AFB, Alaska
3rd Wing explains what happened when U.S. pilots faced innovative Indian air force tactics
Indian 'Scare'
The losing performance of F-15Cs in simulated air-to-air combat against the Indian air force this year is being perceived by some, both in the U.S. and overseas, as a weakening of American capabilities, and it is generating taunts from within the competitive U.S. fighter community.
The Cope India exercise also seemingly shocked some in Congress and the Pentagon who used the event to renew the call for modernizing the U.S. fighter force with stealthy F/A-22s and F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.
The reasons for the drubbing have gone largely unexplained and been misunderstood, according to those based here with the 3rd Wing who participated. Two major factors stand out: None of the six 3rd Wing F-15Cs was equipped with the newest long-range, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars. These Raytheon APG-63(V)2 radars were designed to find small and stealthy targets. At India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the use of simulated long-range, radar-guided AIM-120 Amraams that even the odds with beyond-visual-range kills.
These same U.S. participants say the Indian pilots showed innovation and flexibility in their tactics. They also admit that they came into the exercise underrating the training and tactics of the pilots they faced. Instead of typical Cold War-style, ground-controlled interceptions, the Indians varied aircraft mixes, altitudes and formations. Indian air force planners never reinforced failure or repeated tactics that the U.S. easily repelled. Moreover, the IAF's airborne commanders changed tactics as opportunities arose. Nor did U.S. pilots believe they faced only India's top guns. Instead, they said that at least in some units they faced a mix of experienced and relatively new Indian fighter and strike pilots.
Maj. Mark A. Snowden, the 3rd Wing's chief of air-to-air tactics and a participant in Cope India, spoke for the 13 U.S. pilots who attended the exercise. They flew six F-15Cs, each equipped with a fighter data link for rapid exchange of target information, AIM-9Xs and a Joint Helmet-Mounted Cueing System, he says. The aircraft had been to Singapore for another exercise and for the long, six-week jaunt it was decided not to bring along the additional maintenance package needed to support AESA-equipped F-15Cs.
Cope India was held Feb. 15-28 at Gwalior, about 150 mi. south of Delhi, where the Indian air force has its Tactics Air Combat Development Establishment, which operates late-model MiG-21 Fishbeds as fighter escorts and MiG-27 Floggers as strike aircraft. Aerospace officials who have heard the classified brief on the exercise say the MiG-21s were equipped with a "gray-market" Bison radar and avionics upgrade.
Mica-armed Dassault Mirages 2000s are also stationed there. Brought in for the exercise were Sukhoi Su-30s (but not the newest Su-30 MKIs) carrying simulated AA-11s and AA-12 Adders. There also were five MiG-29 Flankers involved in a peripheral role and an Antonov An-32 Cline as a simulated AWACS.
"The outcome of the exercise boils down to [the fact that] they ran tactics that were more advanced than we expected," Snowden says. "India had developed its own air tactics somewhat in a vacuum. They had done some training with the French that we knew about, but we did not expect them to be a very well-trained air force. That was silly.
"They could come up with a game plan, but if it wasn't working they would call an audible and change [tactics in flight]," he says. "They made good decisions about when to bring their strikers in. The MiG-21s would be embedded with a Flogger for integral protection. There was a data link between the Flankers that was used to pass information. [Using all their assets,] they built a very good [radar] picture of what we were doing and were able to make good decisions about when to roll [their aircraft] in and out."
Aerospace industry officials say there's some indication that the MiG-21s also may have been getting a data feed from other airborne radars that gave them improved situational awareness of the airborne picture.
Generally the combat scenario was to have four F-15s flying at any time against about 12 Indian aircraft. While the U.S. pilots normally train to four versus 12, that takes into account at least two of the U.S. aircraft having AESA radar and being able to make the first, beyond-visual-range shots. For the exercise, both sides restricted long-range shots.
"That's what the Indians wanted to do," Snowden says. "That [handicap] really benefits a numerically superior force because you can't whittle away some of their force at long range. They were simulating active missiles [including] AA-12s." This means the missile has its own radar transmitter and doesn't depend on the launch aircraft's radar after launch. With the older AA-10 Alamo, the launching fighter has to keep its target illuminated with radar so the U.S. pilots would know when they were being targeted. But with the AA-12, they didn't know if they had been targeted. The Mirage 2000s carried the active Mica missile. Aerospace industry officials said that some of the radars the U.S. pilots encountered, including that of the Mirage 2000s, exhibited different characteristics than those on standard versions of the aircraft.
The U.S. pilots used no active missiles, and the AIM-120 Amraam capability was limited to a 20-naut.-mi. range while keeping the target illuminated when attacking and 18 naut. mi. when defending, as were all the missiles in the exercise.
"When we saw that they were a more professional air force, we realized that within the constraints of the exercise we were going to have a very difficult time," Snowden says. "In general, it looked like they ran a broad spectrum of tactics and they were adaptive. They would analyze what we were doing and then try something else. They weren't afraid to bring the strikers in high or low. They would move them around so that we could never anticipate from day to day what we were going to see."
By comparison, the U.S. pilots don't think they offered the Indians any surprises. The initial tactic is to run a wall with all four F-15s up front. That plays well when the long-range missiles and AESA radar are in play.
"You know we're there and we're not hiding," Snowden says. "But we didn't have the beyond-visual-range shot or the numerical advantage. Eventually we were just worn down by the numbers. They were very smart about it. Their goal was to get to a target area, engage the target and then withdraw without prolonging the fight. If there were a couple of Eagles still alive away from the target area, they would keep them pinned in, get done with the target and then egress with all their forces.
"All their aircraft seemed to be capable of breaking out [targets] and shooting at the ranges the exercise allowed," he says. "We generally don't train to an active missile threat [like the Mirage's Mica or the AA-12 for the Russian-built aircraft], and that was one of the things that caused us some problems."
USAF planners here see Cope India as the first step in an annual series of exchange exercises.
I read something over the weekend on this, and they were blaming the fact that the US flew without any of it's normal E3/AWAC coordination.
Well India won't be getting an AWACS till around 2008,when it's first Israeli Phalcon systems come to town-so I think that was pretty much even(though the IAF has been known to use refitted Avros & AN-32s in a rudimentary AEW role).
I think "Rokke" our F-16 driver mentioned that in the real world if they bad guys got close we had messed up 9 different ways. Apparently the rules of this test ensured the bad guys could get close.
However, I am sure that that the Indian Air Force is good, and they are on our side. This is good.
So, you didn't go to this exercise? :-)
What I heard in this was an evaluation why they got their clock cleaned. I think it was the best thing that could have happened. The best lessons are the ones that hurt your pride a little bit. They sting a lot. The point about underestimating the enemy is a lesson relearned at the beginning of many wars.
I think they will learn from this and if it ever happens again they wont go in with the same old tactics against an opponent they don't respect. Getting smacked around in training saves lives in real life.
Throughout history countries have lost battles and wars because they underestimate their opponent or don't have good intelligence about their tactics and capabilities.
It's perfectly obvious from the post that the US didn't have good intel about the Indian AF capability or equipment. Even for an exercise with a friendly force, you'd expect that we'd know about their capabilities.
Were we too lazy to distribute the intel information or did we simply not have the intelligence in our pipeline?
Shouldn't someone be put on the griddle at the Defense Intelligence Agency about this?
Hmmm. Why do you think that they are on our side?
India has not been an ally of the U.S. in the past, and it's not officially one now although there has been a rapprochement over the last few years. Pakistan is our official major non-NATO ally in that area.
If it comes to picking sides when China invades Taiwan, I am not so sure that India won't choose to quietly support China, not us. Pakistan would likely choose China, no matter what our latest alliance agreement is.
(An interesting hypothetical situation: if we take out Iran, then the balance does change a lot. If we suddenly have a very increased influence over the oil industry in that area, China might well tone down its bellowing.)
Ping...
Hmmm,India may never have been a past ally of the US,nor has it been an enemy.If you want to know about a pretty interesting phase in Indo-US ties,do a bit of research from the years 1962-late 64.India had just been defeated by China in a border war,where the Soviets stayed neutral & where the US helped,but in a limited sense,given it was tied down with the Cuban missile crisis.After the war,the US increased military aid to India,held joint air exercises(the recent ones were held after 40 yrs!!),trained special operations forces consisting of Tibetans & undertook joint surveillance of Chinese nuke assets(which had just been tested in 1963).At about the same time,someone in Washington had a brainwave & decided that Pakistan was the best bet for the US as most "experts" in the US predicted tthat a democratic & diverse India wouldn't hold together,while a dictatorial & Slammic Pakistan would serve US interests far better.Moreover Pakistan was close to Iran,the then centrepiece of US middle east policy.So the US supplied a submarine & F-104 starfighters to the Pakis & along with the Brits,denied the same stuff to India.At the same time,the Soviets invited the Indian armed forces to look at their weaponry & were very liberal in showing the Indians around.The 1965 India-Pak war(where Pakistan ,flush with US supplied weaponry launched a pre-emptive strike on India) & the coming to power of Indira Gandhi in 1967,firmly put India on the Soviet course.
But the Pakis being your allies,I have no qualms with that-but don't forget they are the world's largest nuke proliferators & along with their Saudi buddies,helped lay the seeds for Al-Qaeda & the Taliban-a pretty trustworthy ally,right??
Bout India's stance on Taiwan,I think Ive told you earlier,that it would depend on the state of Indo-US & US-Pak ties.Besides,I hope you know where US allies like Australia,Great Britain,Singapore & even South Korea stand on Taiwan-all of them are behind Beijing & are averse to participating in clash on the straits.
These exercises ,for the USAF,was the best way to take a look at the SU-30,which the People's Republic of China also operates.The Chinese SU-30s ,unlike their Indian counterparts,don't have Israeli or French electronics,so they are a bit behind the Indian Flankers on that.The Numerical mismatch(3:1) was all about what a USAF unit would face in the Taiwan straits & the weapons used (AA-11,AA-12) are all in the PLAAF's kitty.The only other users of the SU-30 are Indonesia,Malaysia(which uses slightly downgraded variant of the Indian SU-30MKI,with French avionics replacing the Israeli ones) & a variant of the MKI is reportedly being hawked to Thailand.
I personally have no affection for our government's position vis-a-vis Pakistan as an ally -- clearly, the relationship has always been one of convenience and not one of conviction -- and I would personally be happier if we did instead have India has our major ally in the region. Despite the earlier calculation that India was unstable, it has proven that Pakistan is the far more rockier of the two. Even the ascent of the BJP, which had caused some concerns over this way, has worked out well from our viewpoint.
But the Pakis being your allies,I have no qualms with that-but don't forget they are the world's largest nuke proliferators & along with their Saudi buddies,helped lay the seeds for Al-Qaeda & the Taliban-a pretty trustworthy ally,right??
I have plenty of qualms about Islamabad as an ally, starting with the fact that it is one assassination away from being an openly radical Islamist state which has an aggressive history; as it is, the ISI is indeed still the Taliban's best buddy as far as I can see. I don't think that Pakistan is trustworthy, and I certainly don't believe they would be anything other than China's friends in the event China seizes Taiwan.
Bout India's stance on Taiwan,I think Ive told you earlier,that it would depend on the state of Indo-US & US-Pak ties.Besides,I hope you know where US allies like Australia,Great Britain,Singapore & even South Korea stand on Taiwan-all of them are behind Beijing & are averse to participating in clash on the straits.
Indeed, we have discussed this issue, and I agree to the extent that our relations are in a period of flux, and thankfully very much an improving one. But at the current point (and I think Taiwan/China is very currently in play), my best guess is that India must lean toward China on this issue, as you point out, as so many other countries also already do. India, and indeed all countries, recognize geopolitical realities even what they are not always obvious to their populace.
And who knows? I could very well be wrong -- maybe India will feel that choosing the U.S. in the event would be a better move. While I don't think it would be enough to push the U.S. into an active defense of Taiwan -- at this point, our leaders have likely recognized that it is not in our interest or even ability to do so -- if the signals went out, maybe it would have effect on China's current bellicosity. As I said in the earlier posting, if we did take out Iran, I personally think that it might cool China's jets a bit also.
Do you realize what you are saying? Is this something you want to be true, or do you just believe it because you read it?
Please pay attention to this:
The U.S. military has not lost a dogfight in combat between fighter aircraft in more than 30 years. Not one dogfight. Not one. Do you read me?
It is a habit among laypersons to assume the truth from what they read in the media without question. Do you believe that the U.S. would ever in a million years discuss, print or share the actual capabilities of our weaponry with anyone? Anywhere? I would bet my life, that there are not three FReepers who know and the ACTUAL abilities of the F-15 Eagle or it's weapons systems.
When exercises are performed with other nations, we don't show up to show what we can do. We show up to see what THEY can do. We don't show them jack, my friend. Why give them the bar to shoot for? All they need to know, is that the F-15 in combat has SMOKED every opposing aircraft that came within the range of it's radar. Period.
Any nation taking comfort in the results of exercises like the one described here, would be foolish. The Indians need to justify their expenditures just like we do. If that exercise gets them a few more MiGs, good for them. We want the F-22. If that means telling a few tall ones, so be it.
I'll tell you this much, not one of those Indian pilots believes today that they can take on an Eagle in combat, and expect to live long enough to see their families again.
BVR intercepts are fine and good -- in exercises. In the real world most of the time aircrew hands are tied by a requirement to VID the target before firing. This doesn't guarantee immunity from blue-on-blue engagements, but it helps.
So in that sense, the restriction of this operation to a "knife fight" was excellent training.
I dunno why people didn't expect the Indians to be pros. They inherited a good tradition from the UK and unlike many former colonial posessions didn't get in a snit about it and throw the baby out with the bathwater.
If you're familiar with the history of the IAF there are not too many surprises here.
As far as funding, this may actually hurt the IAF. My understanding is that they would dearly like to consign the -21s and -23s to gate guards and the smelter. The -21s are old, high-time, and getting harder to maintain, and still have the safety record of a 1950s aircraft, which is to say, not good. You can IRAN them to the teeth but you can't arrest metal fatigue....
d.o.l.
Criminal NUmber 18F
If the US takes on Iran,the only effect it will have on China would be to embolden it,not make them think twice as the Iranians are likely to escalate any conflict(providing that you are talking bout the US taking out their reactor at Bushehir),which will obviously lead to the end of the Mullahs,but (crucially) leave the US taking care of another country in the ME ie US forces getting tied down.The Mullahs in Iran aren't averse to escalating a conflict & with the pretty large Shia populations in Bahrein,Lebanon,Pakistan,Saudi Arabia & Yemen,you can expect a lot of trouble.Any US action on Iran,esp if it's a longterm commitment,will give the PRC breathing space to act on Taiwan.Will the US public want to see US forces go to war with a nation with the world's largest armed forces(& 350 odd nukes) when they are taking casualities in Iraq & Iran(which contrary to what folks on FR expect will not be a cake walk)??
What decade are you talking about?
Yep ,the IAF is throwing out the (lousy) Mig-23s & Mig-25s.The Mig-25s which used to have a habit of flying over Paki cities ala the SR-71,will be replaced by the new generation UAVS ,India is acquiring from Israel like the long endurance,Heron .The 21s,though,due to their large number cannot be booted out as easily-so these are being upgraded with Russian help(& with a sufficient dose of French & Israeli tech) to have a new Kopyo M radar,AA-12 missiles & ability to operate PGMs.The IAF is also upgrading it's Mig-27 & Jaguar attack jets with Israeli help ,including installing Synthetic aperature radar,air to air missiles & the Litening targetting pod.The IAF recently invited bids for over 120 multirole jets-the prime contender is the French Mirage-2005 MK2,followed by the Russian Mig-29M,while the Eurofighter & Swedish JAS-39 Gripen are the darkhorses.The IAF already operates the Mirage-2000 & Mig-29s(fighter variant),so logistics is'nt a problem for those 2.
Have you read Douglas MacGregor's latest book?
He laid out the number of air-to-air engagements in Korea, 'Nam, Desert Storm, Bosnia, and Afghanistan.
Basically, the number of air-to-air engagements has dropped precipitously the entire time.
Korea was the last time you had two forces that could remotely be considered evenly-matched.
And what of the Arab-Israeli and Indo-Pakistani conflicts?
The NVA used SAMs because they couldn't compete directly in the air--and they couldn't compete because they couldn't afford the price tag of first-line aircraft and first-line aircrews.
Once we defeated the SAM (easy in principle, harder in practice), we defeated the one cheap option for contesting air dominance. The air-to-air option is expensive, and we're the only country rich enough to afford it.
It was the last time that the OPFOR could afford to be anywhere near evenly matched, and that was only in raw numbers. They couldn't afford to train any pilots.
And what of the Arab-Israeli and Indo-Pakistani conflicts?
Air-to-air combat was scarcer in all of the Indo-Pak wars than it was in 'Nam, even when considered on a per-capita or per-combat-day basis. In the Arab-Israeli Wars, they've gotten increasingly rarer as well.
The trend is away from dogfighting, and it's for a very good reason: we're the only people who can afford the flight time to train the aircrews.
Every war begins with either the knowledge or fantasy of superiority. No country starts a war without a strong belief in their own inevitable victory. Most countries get this belief wrong; example: The 6 day war. The only country I know to get this idea right is the U.S., which every day is working to insure combat advantage from every perspective.
The great thing about the current war, is that it forces the U.S. to become proficient at anti-insurgency, by forcing the Army's tactical weaknesses into the open.
In the future, we wont fight like this. We will simply give civilians a choice of two actions. Drive out the insurgents on their own, or leave their cities, upon which we will just level the place from the air.
the India-Pak war of 65 was the one which was most evenly matched of all,infact tilting towards the Pakis(with their new American toys),while India was still getting over the shock of it's 62 defeat with China.By the 1999 Kargil conflict,the tables were totally turned with the IAF receiving lots of weapons on a contingency basis from Israel & Russia.The Pakis on the other hand were reliant on their Chinese F-7 as the F-16s faced a spare-parts crunch(due to sanctions).There are widespread stories of how an Indian Mig-29 pilot locked on to 2 Pakistan F-16s with his AA-10 Alamos during the conflict,making the F-16s flee.The Pilot was the only AF officer to be decorated ,despite having no role in the Air to Ground campaign(which was handled by Mig-27s & Mirage-2000s)-so there must be an element of truth in that incident.
The Eagle's RWR's turned off or what?
What is funny, is that many of these countries think that they can use fighters the way that the U.S. uses our Carriers. They believe that the presence of fighters is enough to influence policy. None of these countries can afford(or build) a modern carrier, so this is their decided option. It is foolish, because we can blow them up in the air or on the ground. Does the IAF think they can get anywhere near a CG in this lifetime? That is the only question as to who wins.
When you control the air, they cant move. When you control the sea, they cant eat. When you cant move or eat, you cant fight on the ground too good either.
I certainly agree that the conflict won't be limited to simple strikes attempting the destruction of Iran's nuclear capacity; even if the U.S. were to try to wage such a limited campaign (and isn't my most likely scenario), I agree that it would escalate since that escalation plays to what one of the few strengths the Iranians have, the ability to put a relatively largish number of people in the field.
The Mullahs in Iran aren't averse to escalating a conflict & with the pretty large Shia populations in Bahrein,Lebanon,Pakistan,Saudi Arabia & Yemen,you can expect a lot of trouble.
My best guess is that a second demonstration of political will from the U.S. will have a salutary effect (as with Libya) on Syria and Saudi Arabia.
Any US action on Iran,esp if it's a longterm commitment,will give the PRC breathing space to act on Taiwan.
As I said earlier, I don't believe that the U.S. leadership has any plan to actively defend Taiwan at this point nor will China reckon on us having such a plan (not only do we owe them lots of money, they have lots and lots of our assets in the way of manufacturing capacity sitting conveniently at hand for quick nationalization), so that "breathing space" already exists as much as it ever will.
Will the US public want to see US forces go to war with a nation with the world's largest armed forces(& 350 odd nukes) when they are taking casualities in Iraq & Iran(which contrary to what folks on FR expect will not be a cake walk)??
I certainly don't believe that it would in any way be a cakewalk, and I don't believe that our government will attempt an active defense of Taiwan.
However, I believe that if we were to make such a defense, it would be extraordinarily popular with Americans. Most big wars start that way, and most of us want to defend a fellow democracy against China.
But just because we citizens want to do something, that doesn't mean that the U.S. government would do something -- believe me, if we had attacked Iran in 1979, it would have had universal popularity here, but a Carter government wouldn't defend itself against a bunny rabbit, much less mad mullahs.
I think that we're supposed to come away from this with a "gee, the Air Force sure needs the new 20 gazillion dollar fighter". They take away radar coverage, limit the Ammram (sp?) to 20 miles and give three to one odds. What does this tell you?
I've always joked about the ultimate air-to-air killing machine:
A C-5 or an AN-225 equipped with a big honkin' AWACS radar (one that, when it goes to max ERP/PRF, can make you sire FLKs from 50 miles out), and loaded with rack after rack of 200-nm range AAMs (say, a modified Block IV Standard).
The only thing the pilot needs to do is flip a switch marked "COMBAT MODE" to "AUTO" and pour himself another cup of coffee (c8
RIOs/WSOs say, "Whoa, that would be very cool, dude."
Pilots accuse me of heresy (c8
True enough, which is why it's only a joke.
Especially when I describe the combat system: to activate it, you have to stick in a quarter (c8
You would be right if John Kerry were the President. He aint gonna be.
The U.S. not only currently would kick China's ass over Taiwan, but would do it with such force as to cause revolution in China. We would punch the bully in the nose.
How do you think China felt about those 7 Carrier Battle Groups hanging out and taking in the scenery earlier this year. What do you think we were doing there, besides working on our tan lines? China would never escalate against us over Taiwan. We would make their rice glow.
You would be right if John Kerry were the President. He aint gonna be.
Senator Kerry, were he elected, would be drinking champagne toasts with Kim Jong-il in Beijing to celebrate the glorious reunion of Taiwan and the Koreas. Fortunately, he has run one of the worst campaigns in many years, and will probably lose in a landslide.
The U.S. not only currently would kick China's ass over Taiwan, but would do it with such force as to cause revolution in China. We would punch the bully in the nose.
Nobody is going to match us in a battle of our choice. However, this won't be a battle of our choice -- and if it goes from battle to hot conventional war between the U.S. and China, we are going to be in a world of hurt. China will nationalize our factories. They will cut off shipping through the straits, which will put Japan in a very bad spot for oil. They will probably try to make indirect war, from causing trouble everywhere from the Panama Canal and among the chosensoren in Japan, to having Kim stirring up trouble in the Koreas. Our multinationals which are dependent on China will be in a world of hurt. Wal-mart will go under.
How do you think China felt about those 7 Carrier Battle Groups hanging out and taking in the scenery earlier this year. What do you think we were doing there, besides working on our tan lines? China would never escalate against us over Taiwan. We would make their rice glow.
I hope they gulped and decided to back off permanently from ideas of taking Taiwan.
I personally think we should stop doing business with China's Communists, and bring our factories home. However, our government has been going a completely different course of "engagement" with the Communist government of China. And China has been responding by only being more boldly bellicose about Taiwan. I don't think that we have convinced China that we can or will actively defend Taiwan.
Could I be wrong? Of course. I am not an expert, and, for instance, I didn't foresee the collapse of the Soviet Union, President Reagan's greatest achievement, which other people called well ahead of time.
It wont be a battle of our choice? Oh brother.
Listen, it is China's desperate hope that it wont be a battle at all, because if there is a battle, they will get their ass kicked. This is why the world wants Bush to lose so badly.
First, if China so much as massed troops for an invasion, there would be a firing solution on every opposing ship in the vicinity. China knows this. Any Chinese troop getting off a ship may as well kiss it goodbye. How would China cut off shipping? Harsh language?
Here is the deal. Our submarines are like invisible guns pointed at the world's heads. "Make our day" type stuff. Get it? China cant track our subs, nobody can. You don't want to piss off our Sub fleet. We will hurt you. China's shipping fleet is the lifeline of their economy. We could have it underwater in a single afternoon. It takes a long time to build ships, and it costs a lot of money. Money China wont have if they cant sell anything in America or anywhere else. In the end, China will exchange Japan's oil for the ability to sell chopsticks in New York. They are not stupid.
The invasion of Taiwan depends on having an idiot pacifist U.S. President who hates our power. Without John Kerry, the world will just have to take what we give it. Those are just the facts. China is not so crazy as to launch a missile at a CBG, or anything else that might hit back. Oh, and Walmart has insurance.
Listen, it is China's desperate hope that it wont be a battle at all, because if there is a battle, they will get their ass kicked. This is why the world wants Bush to lose so badly.
I agree that we can kick them anywhere we decide to do so. We can put a world of hurt on them in any battle that we choose. If we get to choose our battle, we get to win.
First, if China so much as massed troops for an invasion, there would be a firing solution on every opposing ship in the vicinity. China knows this. Any Chinese troop getting off a ship may as well kiss it goodbye. How would China cut off shipping? Harsh language?
I believe that China is going to try this and has been directly signaling this intention for a long while. I certainly hope that you are right that we can stop them just this cold, and that we have the will to do it.
My own wild guess however (and it is not as informed as yours) is that they will not depend so much on conventional sea power since we are strongest there. Maybe they go with a some sort of massive Mariel armada. Who knows? Maybe they use a lot of big commercial aircraft like a big Red Ball Express in the air. Since they have a lot of people, it will likely be a big wave of some sort. Maybe we can take on any tactic -- I would sure like to think so, but I don't count on it. Knowing how to solve the problems of the last war hasn't always been fruitful for solving all of the problems of the next one.
Here is the deal. Our submarines are like invisible guns pointed at the world's heads. "Make our day" type stuff. Get it? China cant track our subs, nobody can. You don't want to piss off our Sub fleet. We will hurt you. China's shipping fleet is the lifeline of their economy. We could have it underwater in a single afternoon. It takes a long time to build ships, and it costs a lot of money. Money China wont have if they cant sell anything in America or anywhere else. In the end, China will exchange Japan's oil for the ability to sell chopsticks in New York. They are not stupid.
Yes, our Navy's technology is magnificent; we have a large fleet, both surface and submarine, and we can feed it for at least a battle of our choice. Put us in another conventional Pacific War, and we are unbeatable in the battle of our choice, and likely any other conceivable conventional situation.
However, I don't discount the unconventional pain that China can cost us. If they start with a strong unconventional bang (much as Japan did in Port Arthur and Pearl Harbor), it will knock us off balance just like Pearl did to us and Port Arthur to the Russians (my own guess is that they use their conventional shipping as a delivery mechanism to our refineries.) They can take all of that industrial wealth that we have so obligingly placed there -- and while currently they do a lot of shipping to us, they can run their economy without that shipping, certainly as a wartime economy. They can use their little puppet Kim to take our minds off the Taiwan front. They run the Panama Canal, and can close it. They can stretch us with fifth columns here and other places, and even have Korean surrogates in South Korea and Japan in additional to their own folks.
And look where we started: I personally think that India will silently assent to this invasion. It is certainly possible that Russia will come down on China's side. I think it is possible that Japan will ask us to leave if it appears that there is a possibility of hot war with China, though recent events have me hopeful that this might not occur.
And finally, if it turns into a protracted hot war and not just a battle of the straits, we cannot run our war machine that hot. We don't have the steel capacity; heck, apparently we don't even the capacity to manufacture enough ammunition for our small arms. Even to handle just Afghanistan and Iraq, apparently we are even starting to stretch our forces, due to the massively corrupt President Clinton's cuts to our forces. Taking on a country with four times our population and which houses our industry is a far greater challenge.
The invasion of Taiwan depends on having an idiot pacifist U.S. President who hates our power. Without John Kerry, the world will just have to take what we give it. Those are just the facts. China is not so crazy as to launch a missile at a CBG, or anything else that might hit back. Oh, and Walmart has insurance.
Senator Kerry's election would be a foreign policy disaster as great as Presidents Carter and Clinton, and maybe far greater.
As to China's nuttiness, I think China is just that crazy. China has been using their surrogate Kim to push us, and our government seems to have fallen for the ruse that China is somehow a disinterested party. My guess is that they think that they can get away with a lot, even with President Bush in office.
My line about Walmart was a throwaway, but seriously I don't think that they have any business risk insurance that encompasses war risk. I have had the misfortune to read such insurance coverage, and I haven't seen any that covers it. If you are referring to OPIC (i.e., we the people), I don't believe that we have any insured in Red China, though we do have liabilities in Taiwan.
But this all aside of the main political point that I just don't think that even the Bush administration is going to be willing to pay the cost of trying to defend Taiwan. The price is high, because it will further fire China's ambitions as it then labels a huge swathe as its territorial waters.
Would I personally prefer to see us defend Taiwan? Yes, of course I would, as would most Americans -- and I hope that if does come to blows that you are right, and that I am way off base. I'd like to see Communist China choke on its ambitions; I'd like to see us stop indebting ourselves to this monstrous regime; I'd like to see the U.S. bring back its vast industrial wealth and no longer see it run by the serfs of a vile totalitarian government.
You have completely allayed my fears that we might be getting a scosh too satisfied with ourselves.
This former Marine is laughing his a$$ off at you.
Amphibious assaults are not a pickup game of basketball.
Maybe they use a lot of big commercial aircraft like a big Red Ball Express in the air
Boeing would love it! They sell lots of expensive airplanes to the PRC...and then get to sell the replacement for the PRC a bunch of expensive airplanes to replace the ones shot down during the failed invasion attempt!
Since they have a lot of people, it will likely be a big wave of some sort.
Human wave attacks have had one distinguishing feature since 1914:
They are bloodily unsuccessful.
They can take all of that industrial wealth that we have so obligingly placed there -- and while currently they do a lot of shipping to us, they can run their economy without that shipping, certainly as a wartime economy.
And when the oil runs out--and it will run out in a matter of a couple weeks--how are they going to get more oil? There's going to be ZERO shipping into Shanghai or Hong Kong.
They can use their little puppet Kim to take our minds off the Taiwan front.
Congratulations, the ROK Army is now on the Yalu, and Kim Jong-Il was eaten by his guards. (That is the likely scenario of a Korean war at K+14.)
They run the Panama Canal, and can close it.
The Panamanian government, loathe to lose the revenue from the Canal, tells them "Open the f***ing Canal before we start hacking your dependents to pieces with machetes, maricons." The US government, meanwhile, chops XVIII Airborne Corps to SOUTHCOM, and we reprise Operation Just Cause.
It is certainly possible that Russia will come down on China's side.
China claims that Russia stole Siberia.
If China tries to take Taiwan, Russia will understand that they are next in line, and they will act very decisively. Putin's likely to launch a "limited" nuclear strike that kills 20,000,000 Chinese outright, and kills another 780,000,000 in six weeks because the transportation infrastructure will be destroyed. (The food in China is grown away from where it is consumed; without a rail net, China's people will starve very quickly.)
The key is to control your pessimism.
China is not a nation run by crazies. In fact, the Chinese are much more pragmatic than we are. They know that the deciding factor over Taiwan is will. Bush has it, Kerry does not.
I have no doubt that Bush would light up China like a torch if he had to, to defend Taiwan.
You must understand that our military is no longer about protracted warfare. If you take us on, we are going to obliterate you. We no longer depend on the U.N. for anything at all. When you are alone in the forest with only your knife to protect you, you use that knife and ask questions later.
Nowadays, of course, you'd have to put in a 65-cent coin. Which you just paid LockMart $25 to make for you.
(Sorry, had a conference with LockMart contract folks today and I'm still p.o.'ed.)
You know way too much for your own good...way too much...
Which translation? I have both Samuel Griffin and Ralph D. Sawyer.
Amphibious assaults are not a pickup game of basketball.
You are right. Amphibious assault is certainly a Marine speciality, one that our Marines do better than anyone else in history. I am not sure that that implies that there aren't other means to the same end, but me not being sure doesn't mean a lot in the greater scheme of things. Surprises happen: even the very experienced Japanese Imperial Marines were surprised at Tarawa by our LTVs.
I do agree with you that China has no chance of pulling off the highly complex maneuvers that we call amphibious assault, and if they did try, it would most likely be a turkey shoot for the defenders of Taiwan.
Maybe they use a lot of big commercial aircraft like a big Red Ball Express in the air
Boeing would love it! They sell lots of expensive airplanes to the PRC...and then get to sell the replacement for the PRC a bunch of expensive airplanes to replace the ones shot down during the failed invasion attempt!
Maybe. China is developing its indigenous aircraft industry, and of course, France's Airbus would certainly be happy enough to oblige. That's the nature of war: it does make your economy run feverishly (well, unless it is being destroyed more quickly than it is growing.) Look at our pickup from the malaise of the 1930s to the strong wartime economy of the 1940s.
And we ourselves have used, for instance, gliders in WWII. Sometimes accepted items start out as unconventional gimmicks that work in practice. Sometimes gimmicks don't work out; gliders certainly didn't supplant parachutes.
Since they have a lot of people, it will likely be a big wave of some sort.
Human wave attacks have had one distinguishing feature since 1914:
They are bloodily unsuccessful.
The way I read history, the Russians used superior numbers in WWII to defeat the Germans, not superior equipment or better trained forces. Maybe you see it differently, and certainly there are people who also point out that the Russians had an advantage in the bitter weather.
For that matter, the Chinese themselves have a history since 1914 of using human waves successfully (well, as "successful" as Chinese troops go; it's not exactly a distinguished history unless you are really impressed with long walks.) In Korea, I cannot think of anything else that the Chinese used against us that worked. Their doctrine is oriented toward using overwhelming force.
The population overmatch is their biggest advantage with respect to the U.S., and I don't discount China's ability to make use of their greatest asset.
They can take all of that industrial wealth that we have so obligingly placed there -- and while currently they do a lot of shipping to us, they can run their economy without that shipping, certainly as a wartime economy.
And when the oil runs out--and it will run out in a matter of a couple weeks--how are they going to get more oil? There's going to be ZERO shipping into Shanghai or Hong Kong.
You are right on the mark that this is a crucial point. As the world's 6th largest oil producing nation, China produces about 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, about the same as Iran. And like everyone else, they have to have oil to run their war machine. And if we are serious about making hot war, we will go after their production and storage facilities, which they have been madly filling, though it is apparently less than our strategic reserve, or Japan's 90 day reserve. But going after storage on the mainland is a serious escalation from just stopping the Chinese in the water and air.
As a command economy, it is easier for them to redirect their resources to war-time needs, so their native production of 3.5 million barrels per day isn't insignificant -- but it is quite vulnerable, with a lot of it located offshore presently. Destroying it early in a hot war would be one of our keys in a full-scale war with China, but again, it is a big escalation from just stopping China on the water and in the air in a bid for Taiwan.
They can use their little puppet Kim to take our minds off the Taiwan front.
Congratulations, the ROK Army is now on the Yalu, and Kim Jong-Il was eaten by his guards. (That is the likely scenario of a Korean war at K+14.)
If North Korea went that far in making trouble instead of just playing footsie at the DMZ and with missile launches, and as well as activating their fifth column resources, then my guess (for all it is worth) is that they shelled Seoul instead, and there are a few hundred thousand dead South Koreans, and a shattered South Korean economy. And instead of North Koreans retreating across the Yalu River, we might well be looking at Chinese troops across the DMZ. But just to take Taiwan, I think North Korea will be ornery but not making full-scale war. The point for China would be to divert our attention and our troops, not to engage on a two-front war. At least that's my guess -- it is arguable that maybe they would go after all of the marbles if they did decide to try for Taiwan and try to take on South Korea simultaneously. But as you point out, that would be a bigger undertaking, and one where the ROK forces became a significant plus on our side.
They run the Panama Canal, and can close it.
The Panamanian government, loathe to lose the revenue from the Canal, tells them "Open the f***ing Canal before we start hacking your dependents to pieces with machetes, maricons." The US government, meanwhile, chops XVIII Airborne Corps to SOUTHCOM, and we reprise Operation Just Cause.
I hope so. You are right that that is exactly what we would like to do, and we have plans to that effect which were bruited when the final turnover was made. But do you think we have enough spare folks -- it was, what, about 28,000 men that went in with Just Cause (a lot of people jumped in for Just Cause, and this time we don't have any folks already on the ground) -- to pull that off right now? Especially if we are engaged with the Chinese?
The whole point of China causing a ruckus in Panama is to stretch our forces thin, and such a diversion of troops sounds to me like they would be succeeding.
As for the government of Panama making noises, I wouldn't guess that their plaints alone would be enough; even threatening to terminate the contract probably wouldn't mean much in that case.
It is certainly possible that Russia will come down on China's side.
China claims that Russia stole Siberia.
Yes. Japan has claims in the Kurils. China claims Taiwan. Lot of claims going on around Asia. It wouldn't shock me if Russian didn't do a quid pro quo over Taiwan.
If China tries to take Taiwan, Russia will understand that they are next in line, and they will act very decisively. Putin's likely to launch a "limited" nuclear strike that kills 20,000,000 Chinese outright, and kills another 780,000,000 in six weeks because the transportation infrastructure will be destroyed. (The food in China is grown away from where it is consumed; without a rail net, China's people will starve very quickly.)
Okay, that's an interesting scenario. My wild guess would instead be that Putin would rather deal on this issue than just summarily nuke China. But it would certainly make things simpler for us if he did so. And who knows what the Bear will do? We plan for the worst and hope for the best.
But the upshot of all of this is who takes which side in a conflict over Taiwan. Russia? Given a quid pro quo, I wouldn't be surprised if they support China. India? My guess is quiet support for China. Japan? Might ask us to leave Japan if things got too far out of hand, but then again, if China were stupid enough to go directly after them (and China has been notably klutzy with respect to Japan), Japan might join us, but it would extraordinarily painful with respect to oil. That 90 day reserve will disappear quickly indeed. Singapore? I think that they will support China. Australia? Who knows after the recent noises from Canberra. Britain? Yes, my guess is that we can count on them, but I think that their self-interest is limited and so would be their support. As for the rest of our allies, Pakistan will be on China's side in this one. NATO? Well, let's just say that I don't see Germany giving us big support on this.
Senator Kerry's foreign policy would unquestionably be a disaster, and maybe even worse than President Carter's or President Clinton's -- that was certainly the indication from the debate, with Kerry's nonsense about "global tests" and further appeasement of the North Koreans.
President Bush has done a fine job in responding to one of the hardest scenarios, a war with a shadowy enemy spread around the globe. I think we will re-elect him, and that it might well be in a landslide.
But I think China is indeed run by crazies, at least by our definition of crazy. These are the same folks that slaughtered tens of millions of their population in the Cultural Revolution, and they are the heirs of 4,000 years of bad to worse governments. What some see as pragmatic behavior by China currently is just the stairstep to us losing our industrial capacity to a rapacious monster, not just simple trade between peaceful countries.
I have no doubt that Bush would light up China like a torch if he had to, to defend Taiwan.
You don't think anguished calls from our industrial leaders might not have some effect on such a decision? I think most Americans would support such a decision from the President to defend Taiwan -- I believe that none of us want to see a fellow democracy lost to the totalitarian Chinese -- but those companies with all of that heavy investment in China would see it differently. And from a national perspective, I think our President would have to weigh our interests which have been so heavily tied to China's goodwill. I would hope that he would find the weight on Taiwan's side, but I don't think that our "One China" policy and our "engagement" with China point that way.
You must understand that our military is no longer about protracted warfare.
We don't always get to choose our wars, much less our battles. I personally think that we need to be able fight a protracted war, and the old plan of being able to do it on two fronts (or at least one and half) was the right plan.
I don't think that we can just safely assume that we can ignore the possibility of protracted war. You are right that our history with invasions of small countries in the last twenty years has indeed shown that our forces are overwhelmingly superior to those we have faced. The Iraqi Army, for all of its obvious weaknesses, was indeed reasonably supplied with okay to good equipment from Russia, and our equipment and doctrine has more than proven itself twice against Iraq's forces.
If you take us on, we are going to obliterate you. We no longer depend on the U.N. for anything at all. When you are alone in the forest with only your knife to protect you, you use that knife and ask questions later.
That's clearly the right way; none of this nonsense that we saw in Fallujah with limited campaigns with limited objectives. And I hope that you are right that we will do so with Taiwan; you are definitely right that I am pessimistic about it occuring.
Let me be optimistic for a moment: I hope that we will all realize before things have gone too far that China is not just another country wanting to escape an ugly past to find a new future as a wealthy and democratic country. It is still a vile totalitarian state with ambitions to at least take Taiwan, if not too more adventurous activities, such as directly confronting Japan over oil and gas rights.
Maybe we will realize that "engagement" is exactly the wrong thing to do with such states, and that we have not gone past the tipping point -- that we will remove our industry and stop indebting ourselves to China's communist government.
Huh?????
The key to understanding the Eastern Front of WW2 is that Russia could trade space for time. However, it was a damn near thing for Russia--had Hitler been a wee bit more competent in 1941, the German Army would've taken Moscow, and that would have given them the central position in European Russia (every major rail line passed through Moscow, making for a spectacular single-point-of-failure scenario).
A human wave assault across a large body of water is a defender's dream: many of the troops needed for a "successful" human wave assault would be shark chow before they ever engaged.
Also, the PLA is downsizing sharply--they're cutting half of their troops. China cannot afford to equip 2.5 million troops with modern weapons and equipment--so they're cutting their forces down to 1.2 million. The problem is that they cannot afford human wave attacks with only 1.2 million troops, especially since they're also going to have to modernize their force structure and increase the ratio of support troops to combat arms personnel within that 1.2 million.
You are right on the mark that this is a crucial point. As the world's 6th largest oil producing nation, China produces about 3.5 million barrels of oil per day, about the same as Iran.
And they import a s**tload more. 3.5M bbls/day is a drop in the bucket relative to their wartime needs.
And if we are serious about making hot war, we will go after their production and storage facilities, which they have been madly filling, though it is apparently less than our strategic reserve, or Japan's 90 day reserve. But going after storage on the mainland is a serious escalation from just stopping the Chinese in the water and air.
So what? We have absolute escalation dominance (i.e., we can escalate to attacks on their homeland, and there ain't jack-s**t the ChiComs can do about it except commit national suicide by shooting nukes at us.)
If North Korea went that far in making trouble instead of just playing footsie at the DMZ and with missile launches, and as well as activating their fifth column resources, then my guess (for all it is worth) is that they shelled Seoul instead, and there are a few hundred thousand dead South Koreans, and a shattered South Korean economy.
Followed by the ROK Army exacting a very bloody revenge on the DPRK. Also, you're assuming that those guns will be completely unmolested during the days it would take to do that.
We're pulling our forces out of Korea because they are entirely unnecessary to South Korean security. For the past 15 years or so, they've been there to restrain the South Korean government from trying to invade North Korea, not the other way around.
And instead of North Koreans retreating across the Yalu River, we might well be looking at Chinese troops across the DMZ.
ChiCom troops invading South Korea and Taiwan?
One or the other, but not both, grasshopper, unless they really do want to lose both wars.
I hope so. You are right that that is exactly what we would like to do, and we have plans to that effect which were bruited when the final turnover was made. But do you think we have enough spare folks -- it was, what, about 28,000 men that went in with Just Cause (a lot of people jumped in for Just Cause, and this time we don't have any folks already on the ground) -- to pull that off right now? Especially if we are engaged with the Chinese?
We wouldn't need 28,000 men; one Marine Expeditionary Unit and the alert battalion of the 82nd Airborne would suffice.
The whole point of China causing a ruckus in Panama is to stretch our forces thin, and such a diversion of troops sounds to me like they would be succeeding.
Kindly leave the military analysis to those of us who actually know what we're talking about, OK, sweetie? We needed 28K for Just Cause because we were fighting against the Panamanian government; this time, we'd be there at the request of the Panamanian government.
As for the government of Panama making noises, I wouldn't guess that their plaints alone would be enough; even threatening to terminate the contract probably wouldn't mean much in that case.
Did you read the threat? "Re-open the f***ing Canal, or we'll start hacking your wives and kids apart with machetes" makes a wonderful attention-gainer.
Yes. Japan has claims in the Kurils. China claims Taiwan. Lot of claims going on around Asia. It wouldn't shock me if Russian didn't do a quid pro quo over Taiwan.
It would shock the Russian General Staff, provoke them into storming the Kremlin to execute the traitor responsible for giving away Russian territory, and then nuking China.
Okay, that's an interesting scenario. My wild guess would instead be that Putin would rather deal on this issue than just summarily nuke China.
Putin merely hopes that the issue doesn't come up; if it does, he's likely to act ruthlessly and preemptively. He doesn't fancy getting put up against a wall and shot by his own generals.
But the upshot of all of this is who takes which side in a conflict over Taiwan.
All we'd have to do is freeze all foreign assets in the US, and announce that if anybody doesn't enthusiastically support us against China, we will make our currency nonconvertible with theirs.
Russia? Given a quid pro quo, I wouldn't be surprised if they support China.
The quid pro quo would be unacceptable to the Russian military, which would quickly become the new government of Russia.
India? My guess is quiet support for China.
You would guess wrong--they have a 42-year-old grudge, and China getting their a$$es kicked would provide an opportunity for settling it.
Japan? Might ask us to leave Japan if things got too far out of hand, but then again, if China were stupid enough to go directly after them (and China has been notably klutzy with respect to Japan), Japan might join us, but it would extraordinarily painful with respect to oil.
And going against us would ensure that we'd never
That 90 day reserve will disappear quickly indeed.
And we'd keep the sea lanes to Japan open.
Singapore? I think that they will support China.
And go bankrupt in thirty seconds.
Australia? Who knows after the recent noises from Canberra.
Chinese maps laying claim to Australia as part of "Greater China" are a continual annoyance to the Australians.
Britain? Yes, my guess is that we can count on them, but I think that their self-interest is limited and so would be their support.
And it wouldn't be needed.
As for the rest of our allies, Pakistan will be on China's side in this one.
No, Musharraf understands that we're perfectly willing to let India overrun Pakistan if he pi$$es us off enough.
NATO? Well, let's just say that I don't see Germany giving us big support on this.
And they won't need to, anyway.
China's position vs. Taiwan is extraordinarily weak, and will remain so for a very long time; and China's heading towards a very bloody and messy civil war before they'll be ready to take Taiwan.
Don't get me started on LockMart. I used to have to deal with them. Yuck.
Good man. Have you seen the Roger Ames translation? It is awesome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.