Also, this, for the same reason, shows the difficulty of air to air combat with more competent nations such as Japan, Korea, and EU nations, which all field very modern air forces.

I found this about a war with china and usa... http://www.abytheliberal.com/world-politics/us-winning-war-against-china

 

 

mrstickball said: Also, this, for the same reason, shows the difficulty of air to air combat with more competent nations such as Japan, Korea, and EU nations, which all field very modern air forces.

Modern air forces yes, but they still pale in comparison to the sheer size of the US Air Force, not to mention there are still a huge number of aircraft in the Navy and Marines as well.

mrstickball said: The problem is that even if you take out the US satellite systems, the US still has a very dominant force of AWACS arrays that few nations can effectively counter. Any other nation that your going to compare against the USA has either inferior weaponry in most senses (sans EU), lower troop levels, or lacks the infrastructure to support a war. In the case of Finland, the reason the Finnish held the Russians off was logistical (Russians weren't prepared for Finnish partisan attacks) and due to training. The problem is asking how the war would be fought: Are we asking if America could effectively attack and occupy country Y? If country Y was China, that would be nearly impossible due to the population, and how large the country is. If we're talking both countries fielding their ORBATs in neutral territory and duking it out, it would be an absolute slaughter by the Americans. Oh, and for your Soviet Union-Finnish example: You may want to compare the results of the Winter War of 1939-1940 and the Continuation War of 1941-1944, and the disasterous outcome for the Finns during the Soviet offensive of 1944....The Fins lost. Hard. There are 2 great contrasts between a countries' capability for offense and defense. Finnland was incredible during the winter war, but lacked the tactics, training, and armament for an offensive conflict with the Soviets (all their gains early in the war were due to Germans neutering Soviet positions). In modern warfare, it still comes down to logisitics, economy, tactics used by both armies, and what the battle is over. I'd really like to hear you give a pitch for why country X could beat America in a fight. Satellites are hardly a deciding factor in America winning against another country...We still have AWACS, Wild Weasles, B2's, and a lot of other nasty weaponry that would inhibit any countries capability for war. Just because we're going the unmanned route doesn't mean we don't have a strong army that towers over any other countries' ORBATs.

I'm wasn't giving here the the answer on who would win, only pointing out that it's hard to judge who would win, if the comparision is made only on paper, the military strength doesn't have huge differences and the strengths and focus of different armies are on different weapons and strategy.

As for comparing the same tactical weapons systems of different countries, is like comparing who has the biggest dick, even more so when we don't know what the latest strategic weapons are (this is what they want to keep as secret as possible).
The idea of a satellite system is to make better AEW with removing the vulnerability of an AEW plane, and this is where the US seems to be focusing. The panicshitting after China shot its own old satellite was due to them hitting the biggest (future) strength of US military. Boeing for example is doing lots of R&D considering the satellite tech.

Without a doubt, USA has enough weaponry to take 1:1 any other country, but what it is lacking is the manpower. Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples of this. It was going well while they still could make strategic strikes from carriers and attack with ground troops when the enemy is still messed up, but when they'd need manpower to fight, it's suddenly stale for not being able to address the required amount of men.
This is why things like nuclear bombs and warheads excist. If you don't have enough men, you have to have weapons with enough destructive power to get the enemy to same level with you.

I was talking about the winter war, 1939-40. Before Germany joined in 1941.
Soviet Union attacked with multiple times the manpower and superior weaponry. 10% of finnish ground was lost to soviets, but considering 90% of what they had in mind to invade was kept, only proves my point.
What Finland lacked the most, was supplies (and manpower).
A mistake Stalin did (among others) was to think that the soviets would face an army that lacks the training, which infact was the opposite.
1941-44 was completely different type of warfare, where the purpose was to hold positions, unlike 1939-1940, where the idea was to break up the attackers lines and supply route.
For the 1944 battles in Karelia, there was another allied battle going on with similar power relations, that happened in Normandy.
Indeed, there's huge difference in ability to defend and ability to attack, but if your strategy to attack is "ignore losses", as it was in both cases above, you'll lose a big chunck of your ability to attack. The strategy worked in Normandy, because germans weren't allowed to retrieve, and it didn't work in Karelia, since finns retrieved, while slowing down the red army as much as they could, to positions they could defend.

The whole idea of "conventional warfare" between the superpowers is somehow twisted, since not any of them rely on non-nuclear weapons (and conventional warfare would be nuking the enemy). Let's take France for example, in 1930:s they had large and powerful army, but as of today, all they have is nukes. What the thread is asking, is leaving out a big part of different nations strategic weapons, making the question in OP sound as stupid as "who would win: Norway or USA if Norway had modern weapons in use and USA was only with sticks and stones".

@PDF: If Canada and Mexico can't reach american soil, why they are american countries.

As for the discussion of carriers, the idea of them is to be a strategic mobile base. They're not some weapon like nukes. What they are for, is to be able to get an aircraft base anywhere in the world relatively fast (and move it when necessary).

Vetteman94 said: Avinash_Tyagi said: starcraft said: Avinash_Tyagi said: starcraft said: Avinash_Tyagi said: starcraft said: Avinash_Tyagi said: Over China they wouldn't need the same level of AWAC network. the F/A-18 isn't a fifth gen fighter either, that's the plane that the Navy uses on their aircraft carriers, China has SU-30MKK's and SU-27's the SU-30MKK is on par with the F/A-18 and the SU-27's aren't that far behind, I think you have an overinflated idea of what the US air power can do. Why would the Chinese need less AWAC's support?  It's not about knowing where the terrain is, it's about knowing where enemy planes and SAM sites are. MOST (I grant you, not all) of China's air force consists of ageing Soviet-era planes.  In much the same way as a MIG is a theoretically capable plane, the reality is that constant upgrades to technology and better maintenance in US planes has resulted in once-equivelant planes facing vast real-world performance differences.  That is the reality of the majority of the US air force versus China's.  Also, unless I am very much mistaken, the USA's fifth generation fighters are carrier-capable.  I am sure in the event of a war they would be placed onto carriers. Because they'd have ground based radar systems as well, and US wouldn't have any SAM sites in China The F-35 is the only fifth gen US fighter capable of carrier use, and it hasn't entered mass production yet.  The SU-30MKK is a modern fighter, and is considered a 4.5 generation fighter, most SU-27's that China flies are modern and quite capable fighters.  US would be fielding F/A-18's which according to DERA is less capable than an SU-27M (AKA SU-35), according to DERA the F/A-18 only has .4 to 1 odds of beating a SU-27M/SU-35, so its very unlikely that the US's F/A-18's would be able to achieve air supremecy, in fact its very likely we'd have a lot of dead US pilots And the F-15E/K/SG, F/A-18E/F Super Hornet and the F-16 Block 50/52 are also considered to be 4.5 generation aircraft as well.  Not to mention that the Chinese military only has about 100 of the planes you speak of with the majority of their other planes being lesser 4th gen fighters. As for your SU-35 their are only 12 in exsistence, and all are controlled by the Russian Air Force.  And you keep mentioning DERA like its concrete information, it was a war simulation.   The pilots of every plane were all considered equals, but anyone who knows anything about military powers knows that the US Air Force pilots are second to none.

No offense, but US pilots got their butts kicked by Indian pilots a few years back, with the Indians fielding mostly modified Mig-21's, granted it was the Air Force and not the Navy, but doesn't speak very highly to US skill.

 

Also the SU-30MKK is a close cousin of the SU-35 and the Chinese have a good deal of them

mrstickball said: Lets compare some ORBATs when talking about US-Chinese air superiority (since I see Avinash spouting things that are technically true, but very misleading): The Chinese do have modern fighters, but very few. The vast majority of their airforce is very archaic. From Wikipedia, it shows that they have: Fighter/Interceptors: 125 J-11's (SU-27 clones. Most are early SU-27s without the advanced avionics suite the 11B has) 120-160 J-10's (F-16 clones) 400 J-8's (SU-15 clone. See J-7) 500 J-7's (Mig 21 clones....Useless other than human wave tactics. Unless they were fighting in Korea, Taiwan or Japan, they would be fodder. Our PHALANX systems would have a field day with these things) 100 SU30MMK's (Top-O-The-Line Russian fighter/bombers. Very good aircraft) 76 SU27 Flankers (Very good as well) Bombers: 100 JH-7's (F-111/SU24 clones. Decent, but nowhere near top of the line) 120 H-6's (TU16 clones. Very good heavy bombers) 480 Q5's (Mig 19 clones...Useless ground attack aircraft) Now, when you argue about America's capability to attack China, you have to remember: We wouldn't just use naval aircraft. We have multiple bases in the theater in Japan, Korea and Guam. This would allow an influx of aircraft that aren't usable on a carrier such as the F-22, B52, B1, and others. The airbase at Kadena, Japan, would be especially difficult to deal with by the Chinese, since it lies only a few hundred miles from the Chinese coast...Certainly close enough to launch any aircraft to attack the shores of China. And the US has: 67 B-1 Lancers 21 B-2 Spirit Stealth Bombers 85 B-52 Stratofortresses 196 A-10 Thunderbolts 500 F-15 Eagles 700 F-16 Falcons 97 F-22 Raptor Stealth Fighters 25 C-130 Spooky/Spectres Then add in the roughly 500 F-18's in service with the Navy, and you'll see why the US air force would decimate the Chinese airforce. China has roughly 400-500 decent fighters with the J10/11 and the SU 27's and 30's. The US has roughly 3 times that number in modern aircraft. The US would achieve air superiority quickly. The only real question is how skilled are Chinese pilots (which I think favors the US heavily), and how good their air defense is, which is a major cause of concern. IMO, the major issue if the US ever had to fight on Chinese soil would be their air defense capabilities...Which would be viscous. Ultimately, the US would win, but we'd have a lot of great aircraft shot down due to ADA, not Chinese airforce.

China has extensive missle, forces, I don't think Japan would enjoy being under constant missile attack for the duration of hostilities

Yes, but by the time missiles were raining in Tokyo, every critical railway in China would be destroyed. It works both ways, 'ya know.

About Red Flag (the event your citing about the Indians beating the Americans): I'd love for you to post the results of that competition.

There's been a recent Red Flag event to involve our F-22's against any and all takers. The F-22 had the most lopsided victory: 244 kills, 2 losses over the 2 week competition. That was against the best pilots in NATO. And that includes simulated enemy ADA and comm jamming.

You should read up on the Mig-21 Bison training with Red Flag. The reason that the Indians were able to do anything to American Red Flag pilots was due to the fact that the Bison has a very small radar cross section, and it's difficult to track. You must remember that India has one of the better air forces in the world, as their older aircraft are extensively upgraded with American, Israeli and Russian electronics. If you read up on the Red Flag event, the SU-30MMK's piloted by the Indians were ironically LESS of a threat than the 21's.

mrstickball said: Yes, but by the time missiles were raining in Tokyo, every critical railway in China would be destroyed. It works both ways, 'ya know. About Red Flag (the event your citing about the Indians beating the Americans): I'd love for you to post the results of that competition. There's been a recent Red Flag event to involve our F-22's against any and all takers. The F-22 had the most lopsided victory: 244 kills, 2 losses over the 2 week competition. That was against the best pilots in NATO. And that includes simulated enemy ADA and comm jamming. You should read up on the Mig-21 Bison training with Red Flag. The reason that the Indians were able to do anything to American Red Flag pilots was due to the fact that the Bison has a very small radar cross section, and it's difficult to track. You must remember that India has one of the better air forces in the world, as their older aircraft are extensively upgraded with American, Israeli and Russian electronics. If you read up on the Red Flag event, the SU-30MMK's piloted by the Indians were ironically LESS of a threat than the 21's.

Oh i'm certain that we would deal the chinese a devastating blow if we ever attacked them, I just doubt that we'd actually win, also lets not forget that if we ever went to war with China, Nort Korea would probably pour troops over the border to try and take advantage of our distraction with China (and heck if I were the Russians, i'd be eyeing Ukraine hungrily at that point)

Actually at the event the IAF were using only SU-30MK's, they've since upgraded them to MKI, but you're right about the Mig-21 Bisons being heavily upgraded over the stock mig-21, the cope mock combats had India winning nearly all of the mock combats as I recall, i'll have to see if I can find the actual results.  Also India has done well againt the RAF as well in multiple mock combats, even beating out the Eurofighter.

Well yes the F-22 is probably the best fighter in the world, it better be for how much the damn things cost, ironically, they may never be used in actual combat, such a waste of money.

All this talk about aircraft carriers, but are they really proven to be hard to sink?

Avinash_Tyagi said: mrstickball said: Yes, but by the time missiles were raining in Tokyo, every critical railway in China would be destroyed. It works both ways, 'ya know. About Red Flag (the event your citing about the Indians beating the Americans): I'd love for you to post the results of that competition. There's been a recent Red Flag event to involve our F-22's against any and all takers. The F-22 had the most lopsided victory: 244 kills, 2 losses over the 2 week competition. That was against the best pilots in NATO. And that includes simulated enemy ADA and comm jamming. You should read up on the Mig-21 Bison training with Red Flag. The reason that the Indians were able to do anything to American Red Flag pilots was due to the fact that the Bison has a very small radar cross section, and it's difficult to track. You must remember that India has one of the better air forces in the world, as their older aircraft are extensively upgraded with American, Israeli and Russian electronics. If you read up on the Red Flag event, the SU-30MMK's piloted by the Indians were ironically LESS of a threat than the 21's. Oh i'm certain that we would deal the chinese a devastating blow if we ever attacked them, I just doubt that we'd actually win, also lets not forget that if we ever went to war with China, Nort Korea would probably pour troops over the border to try and take advantage of our distraction with China (and heck if I were the Russians, i'd be eyeing Ukraine hungrily at that point) Actually at the event the IAF were using only SU-30MK's, they've since upgraded them to MKI, but you're right about the Mig-21 Bisons being heavily upgraded over the stock mig-21, the cope mock combats had India winning nearly all of the mock combats as I recall, i'll have to see if I can find the actual results.  Also India has done well againt the RAF as well in multiple mock combats, even beating out the Eurofighter. Well yes the F-22 is probably the best fighter in the world, it better be for how much the damn things cost, ironically, they may never be used in actual combat, such a waste of money.

You know, I thought that we'd never use the B-2 spirit. They cost $1 billion USD a pop, and we didn't flinch when we used 'em during the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts.

The idea of the US 'losing' a conflict against China would be a strange inccedent. I don't think the US would lose, other than popular opinion forcing us to withdrawl (ala Afghanistan)....But I don't think we'd do enough to occupy Chinese territory unless we were able to deal with casualties on the scale that we haven't seen since Vietnam.

The IAF is VERY impressive, given their military funding: They've gone a very impressive route of melding American, Israeli and Russian technology into their aircraft, and are (IMO) one of the best....They don't have the numbers we have, but they do have some of the best aircraft out there, thanks to Israeli electronics suites which are better than ours.

NJ5 -

Carriers are VERY difficult to sink, at least American ones. The reason isn't so much the carrier itself (which is pretty fearsome, given the armament due to the number of planes), but what surrounds the carrier: (from Wikipedia)

So essentially, the carier has not only the carrier itself loaded with dozens of plans, but also includes a destroyer squadron, 1-2 Aegis crusiers, 2-3 missle destroyers, 2 attack subs, and an oil tanker. Add that all together, and you have a group of walking death, ready to repulse just about any kind of threat: Aegis crusiers deflect ASMs, destroyers attack shore-based defenses, the carrier can repel other ships and airforces, and the 2 subs can deflect other threats, while the carrier can arm their planes with anti-sub depth charges.