有關admirer先生給本版的建議
小滬尾 於 2000/11/15 08:53
發表內容：
非常謝謝admirer先生提出一些看法給本版朋友們研究﹐討論。
為了方便起見﹐以後相關討論就成為一專欄討論之。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 於 2000/11/15 08:54
發表內容：
admirer先生的原文﹕
小沪尾仁兄:
本来我的电脑上没有中文输入,既然各位屡屡来文,只好临时拿一个来,这样谈的可以更好些. 不过首先声明, 我反战.
鄙人生在台中大甲镇,在台湾呆了也有27年,虽然近四年来居于国外,自以为还算台湾人.仁兄的直觉未必都那麽准吧.
我所说的低估,意指战争是牵涉各方并环环相扣的, 各位单纯以战争中某一环节的数字来对比太是简单僵化,由此得出中共2010年也不行这样的结论更是值得商榷. 我们这里也有几个关心两岸的台湾人,言谈之下觉得台湾有五个方面负面因素,诸位不可不防:
一.共方掌握开战时机与方式的选择权,我方基于各种原因只能被动反应. 这样共方可以忽虚忽实集结压迫,而我方可能不得不大部保持高度警戒,以致疲劳; 另外共方可以选择合适的天气作战, 以减小双方技术差距, 达到最佳效果. 比如在海上风浪七级以上时,共方潜艇有很大的机会可以隐蔽的潜伏到我港口附近意图进犯. 这在其它方面还有不利于我之处, 各位自己去考虑一下.
二.作战空域饱和的问题. 制空权是生死大事,先进战机之所以先进, 就在于其超视距或远距离攻击能力. 而台湾空中范围太小, 大概两千二百架以上的战机, 空域即告饱和. 事实上, 在双方战机达到千余架以上时, 我方战机性能优势已经不能完全发挥, 而共方陈旧的机型缺点得到部分隐藏, 比如低空的歼七, 在战场上也会有一定的战力, 绝非只能挨打, 2005年则更难估计. 我的计算数据请讨论.
三.我方地理位置和国际情况 使我方装备补充能力不及PLA的齐全完备, 不利于消耗战. 我曾经听说过22甚至8小时拿下台湾的说法, 估计有共方故意欺骗的可能. 目前看来, PLA应该是订下7-10天的作战计划. 这段时间就是: 即便U.S.A出兵, 从国会批准开战或军售到2-3个航母完成集结编队大概也需要的天数. 如果这样, 共方可以发出3-4轮的攻击波. 前期甚至可以用已经接近报废的近万枚飞弹(PLA名称是红旗-2)来逼迫我军消耗防御战力. 最后的才是全力的猛攻.
四.共方近年来有一些奇怪的装备及动向应该引起关注.
1.复式炮弹. 我在四年前离开台湾前也是个fans, 那时我就看到过有效射程220公里以上的报道, 它弹头内置二级推进火药, 主弹头很小, 命中精度不高(1%-1.5%), 但以空爆为主, 连续饱和攻击时可以有效阻止空军基地的使用. 当时据共方资料可供发射的各类炮镗已经近两千(这个数字我当时由于各种原因没有考证过), 如果相差不大, 已经可以威胁我西部四座基地, 可以迫使我方所有飞机驻扎在东部3+1座基地中, 这样可能引起连串的作战时机延误及供给保障混乱.
2.大陆已数次试验机载的激光武器. 中共对于激光武器研究历史极长并极其保密, 究竟是致盲还是其它不得而知, 但可能配备于未来J12或J11.
3.中共以开始生产S27发动机, 共方编号是Al31-f, 这大概意味着其战机的战时维修能力加强了.
4.无人驾驶飞机已经研究成功, 从零星的资料看现正在进行现役飞机改造的研究. 如果该技术也得以完成, 将使几千破烂起死回生, 若满载炸药而来, 由于高炮较难打到, 用飞机机炮在距离上太近, 有一定危险. 可能消耗我空军飞弹战力.
5.前一段中共曾鼓吹某核潜艇潜伏45天, 突破极限. 如预先潜伏在某些要点, 可对U.S.A的航母产生威慑作用. (为了便于攻击和防御, 航母群的理想位置应该是距海岸900-1000公里, 正对大陆军港及重要城市, 地点大概可以估算)
6.共方三.四年前已透露掌握了固态燃料关键技术, 西方有些估计大陆应该已经具备射程14000公里左右的陆基机动核武. 这对U.S.A的军援及军售是最大的变数.
7.最近大陆导航定位卫星以发射成功, 由于多年前其辨认精度已经达到一米以下, 而以前其飞弹一直依赖民用卫星数据引导, 将来飞弹的CEP将会大为缩小.
8.俄罗斯已卖给中共预警机, 卡-50直升机也接近签订合同, 该机下挂16枚飞弹, 每枚破甲能力900毫米以上, 是我海岸阵地极大隐患.
五.在强敌压迫下,我方有些固疾突发难以避免, 如外汇急剧外流及内部政治分化动荡等.
多年以来, 共仔的军事方针一直是人+武器+战法, 仅以几种武器的数据比较就得出结论, 窃以为危险. 但是,我方未来可以克服以上负面因素, 个人认为最佳方法就是发展核武(可以用超级计算机摹拟核爆), 如果我方具有3-4枚以上射程在2000公里开外的核弹, 则共方绝对有心无力了. 我方导弹技术已经进入关键时期, 而核弹技术并不难掌握, 核原料的不足可以从日本,印度或俄罗斯设法购进. 目前中共内部正在争下一任权力, 届时我们也有机可乘.
另外, 距我们在海外的了解, 中共的战争机器没有完全启动, 似乎目的在于保持无理威胁的情况下迫使我方商界不断的把自己的资产平安转移大陆更为舒服. 目前台湾在大陆定居的已逾20万, 更有不少已经把子女放在内地的内陆上学(如四川), 必须引起重视.
以上观点, 务请和气指正. 各位大概都是现役或退役不久, 但鄙人认为这个BBS应该允许其它观点, 不能一律棒杀. 最终目的是为大家为台湾, 对否?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 於 2000/11/15 09:05
發表內容：
更感謝老頭兄的修補﹐但是這位admirer先生怎麼臨時就拿一個很“酷”的中文軟體
來告訴大家他來自“大甲”﹐mmmmmm
老頭兄的修補文﹕
小滬尾仁兄:
本來我的電腦上沒有中文輸入,既然各位屢屢來文,只好臨時拿一個來,這樣談的可以更好些. 不過首先聲明, 我反戰.
鄙人生在台中大甲鎮,在台灣呆了也有27年,雖然近四年來居于國外,自以為還算台灣人.仁兄的直覺未必都那麼准吧.
我所說的低估,意指戰爭是牽涉各方并環環相扣的, 各位單純以戰爭中某一環節的數字來對比太是簡單僵化,由此得出中共2010年也不行這樣的結論更是值得商榷. 我們這里也有几個關心兩岸的台灣人,言談之下覺得台灣有五個方面負面因素,諸位不可不防:
一.共方掌握開戰時機與方式的選擇權,我方基于各種原因只能被動反應. 這樣共方可以忽虛忽實集結壓迫,而我方可能不得不大部保持高度警戒,以致疲勞; 另外共方可以選擇合適的天氣作戰, 以減小雙方技術差距, 達到最佳效果. 比如在海上風浪七級以上時,共方潛艇有很大的機會可以隱蔽的潛伏到我港口附近意圖進犯. 這在其它方面還有不利于我之處, 各位自己去考慮一下.
二.作戰空域飽和的問題. 制空權是生死大事,先進戰機之所以先進, 就在于其超視距或遠距離攻擊能力. 而台灣空中範圍太小, 大概兩千二百架以上的戰機, 空域即告飽和. 事實上, 在雙方戰機達到千餘架以上時, 我方戰機性能優勢已經不能完全發揮, 而共方陳舊的機型缺點得到部分隱藏, 比如低空的殲七, 在戰場上也會有一定的戰力, 并非只能挨打, 2005年則更難估計. 我的計算數據請檢討.
三.我方地理位置和國際情况 使我方裝備補充能力不及PLA的齊全完備, 不利于消耗戰. 我曾經聽說過22甚至8小時拿下台灣的說法, 估計有共方故意欺騙的可能. 目前看來, PLA應是該訂下7-10天的作戰計劃. 這段時間就是: 即便U.S.A出兵, 從國會批准開戰或軍售到2-3個航母完成集結編隊大概也需要的天數. 如果這樣, 共方可以發出3-4輪的攻擊波. 前期甚至可以用已經接近報廢的近萬枚飛彈(PLA名稱是紅旗-2)來逼迫我軍消耗防御戰力. 最後的才是全力的猛攻.
四.共方近年來有一些奇怪的裝備及動向應該引起關注.
1.複式炮彈. 我在四年前離開台灣前也是個fans, 那時我就看到過有效射程220公里以上的報導, 它彈頭內置二級推進火藥, 主彈頭很小, 命中精度不高(1%-1.5%), 但以空爆為主, 連續飽和攻擊時可以有效阻止空軍基地的使用. 當時據共方資料可供發射的各類炮鏜已經近两千(這個數字我當時由于各種原因沒有考証過), 如果相差不大, 已經可以威脅我西部四座基地, 可以迫使我方所有飛機駐紮在東部3+1座基地中, 這樣可能引起連串的作戰時機延誤及供給保障混亂.
2.大陸已數次試驗機載的激光武器. 中共對于激光武器研究歷史極長并極其保密, 究竟是致盲還是其它不得而知, 但可能配備于未來J12或J11.
3.中共以開始生產S27發動機, 共方編號是Al31-f, 這大概意味著其戰機的戰時維修能力加強了.
4.無人駕駛飛機已經研究成功, 從零星的資料看現正在進行現飛機機改造的研究. 如果該技術也得以完成, 將使幾千破爛起死回生, 若滿載炸藥而來, 由于高炮較難打到, 用飛機機炮在距离上太近, 有一定危險. 可能消耗我空軍飛彈戰力.
5.前一段中共曾鼓吹某核潛艇潛伏45天, 突破極限. 如預先潛伏在某些要點, 可對面U.S.A的航母產生威懾作用. (為了便于攻擊和防御, 航母群的理想位置應該是距海岸900-1000公里, 正對大陸軍港及重要城市, 地點大概可以估算)
6.共方三.四年前已透露掌握了固態燃料關鍵技術, 西方有些估計大陸應該已經具備射程14000公里左右的陸基機動核武. 這對U.S.A的軍援及軍售是最大的變數.
7.最近大陸導航定位衛星以發射成功, 由于多年前其辨識精度已經達到一米以下, 而以前其飛彈一直依賴民用衛星數據引導, 將來飛彈的CEP將會大為縮小.
8.俄羅斯已賣給中共預警機, 卡-50直升機也接近簽訂合同, 該機下掛16枚飛彈, 每枚破甲能力900毫米以上, 是我海岸陣地極大隱患.
五.在強敵壓迫下,我方有些固疾突發難以避免, 如外匯急劇外流及內部政治分化動盪等.
多年以来, 共仔的軍事方針一直是人+武器+戰法, 僅以幾种武器的數據比較就得出給論, 竊以為危險. 但是,我方未來可以克服以上負面因素, 個人認為最佳方法就是發展核武(可以用超級計算機摹擬核爆), 如果我方具有3-4枚以上射程在2000公里開外的核彈, 則共方絕對有心無力了. 我方導彈技術已經進入關鍵期, 而核彈技術并不難掌握, 核原料的不足可以從日本,印度或俄羅斯設法購進. 目前中共內部正在爭下一任權力, 屆時我們也有機可乘.
另外, 距我們在海外的了解, 中共的戰爭機器沒有完全啟動, 似乎目的在于保持無理威的情況下迫使我方商界不斷的把自己的資產平安轉移大陸更為舒服. 目前台灣在大陸定居的已逾20萬, 更有不少已經把子女放在內地的內陸上學(如四川), 必須引起重視.
以上觀點, 務請和氣指正. 各位大概都是現役或退役不久, 但鄙人認為這個BBS應該允許其它觀點, 不能一律棒殺. 最終目的是為大家為台灣, 對否?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 於 2000/11/15 09:06
發表內容：
F兄的回文﹕fuckchina 於 2000/11/15 06:23
發表內容：
只談有關心戰和政戰層次的問題：
一：形式上被動不代表實質上一定被動。
二：假定〈只是假定〉美國真要有反應則並不需要〝事前〞經過國會批准
只要事後向國會報告並追認即可〈當然如果國會不認同可追究行政機
關的責任不過只是法律上責任，美國總統並非國會選的故並無向國會
負政治責任義務只有遵守國會通過的法律之義務〉。理論上美國真要
有反應搞不好還可能會比臺灣更快。
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 於 2000/11/15 10:23
發表內容：
我所說的低估,意指戰爭是牽涉各方并環環相扣的, 各位單純以戰爭中某一環節的數
字來對比太是簡單僵化,由此得出中共2010年也不行這樣的結論更是值得商榷. 我
們這里也有几個關心兩岸的台灣人,言談之下覺得台灣有五個方面負面因素,諸位不
可不防:
謝謝!
一.共方掌握開戰時機與方式的選擇權,我方基于各種原因只能被動反應. 這樣共方
可以忽虛忽實集結壓迫,而我方可能不得不大部保持高度警戒,以致疲勞;
老實說﹐什麼是實的或虛的演習﹐國防部和世界的情報單位會都知道﹗
當然﹐老共也可每次都玩真正能隨時動員打台灣的演習﹐常常如此玩﹐不只台灣方
面常警張﹐相同的﹐對老共也是很耗精力﹗還有﹐如果每次都是玩真的﹐三不兩時
造成台海不安﹐誰願意再繼續投資﹐就算是看好﹐也會觀望不前﹐經濟沒弄好﹐那
有更多的本錢再去玩這種真正能隨時動員打台灣的演習﹖﹗
另外共方可以選擇合適的天氣作戰, 以減小雙方技術差距, 達到最佳效果. 比如在
海上風浪七級以上時,共方潛艇有很大的機會可以隱蔽的潛伏到我港口附近意圖進犯
. 這在其它方面還有不利于我之處, 各位自己去考慮一下.
海上風浪七級以上時﹐潛艇能活動的深度也是不能太淺﹐甚至對某些潛艇深度深些﹐
反而不能發射魚雷﹗
就算是先進潛艇如K級﹐要打港口船隻總要確認目標吧﹖﹗不然打到其他國家的船隻
可不好玩﹐再說風浪過大時﹐很多船隻都會停放碼頭﹐這時可沒適當的聲響特徵以
供潛艇的聲納搜尋﹐所以﹐潛艇得出上浮至潛望鏡深度以找目標﹐可是風浪大﹐能
見度差﹐只能靠很近的距離發射魚雷打船﹐但別忘了﹐目標距離太近﹐能打沉目標﹐
但攻擊潛艇也掛了﹗
二.作戰空域飽和的問題. 制空權是生死大事,先進戰機之所以先進, 就在于其超視
距或遠距離攻擊能力. 而台灣空中範圍太小, 大概兩千二百架以上的戰機, 空域即
告飽和. 事實上, 在雙方戰機達到千餘架以上時, 我方戰機性能優勢已經不能完全
發揮, 而共方陳舊的機型缺點得到部分隱藏, 比如低空的殲七, 在戰場上也會有一
定的戰力, 并非只能挨打, 2005年則更難估計. 我的計算數據請檢討.
光是現在﹐老共沒空中管制機﹐近5年內能同時指揮上千架飛機﹐可以說是不可能﹗
就算未來10年﹐老共能同時指揮上千架飛機﹐這要看看這上千架飛機有那些﹐SU27系
列﹐330架﹐J10(﹖)﹐據說300架﹐這些先進機種的雷達及發動機大部份都是掌握在
外國手裡﹐光是妥善率這一項﹐這630架飛機就不能全飛﹗
好﹐派J7或一些J8充數﹐J7靈敏但機上ECM系統不行﹐J8的ECM系統較佳﹐但行動遲
鈍﹐先不論空軍的視距外飛彈﹐光是陸軍的防空飛彈+各式各樣充斥戰場的雷達信號﹐
J7靈敏但無法有效預知飛彈來襲﹐J8或許可預知飛彈來襲但很難閃掉﹐老實說﹐攻
台要是用J7﹐J8為主力﹐那是來送死﹗
三.我方地理位置和國際情況 使我方裝備補充能力不及PLA的齊全完備, 不利于消耗
戰. 我曾經聽說過22甚至8小時拿下台灣的說法, 估計有共方故意欺騙的可能. 目前
看來, PLA應是該訂下7-10天的作戰計劃. 這段時間就是: 即便U.S.A出兵, 從國會
批准開戰或軍售到2-3個航母完成集結編隊大概也需要的天數. 如果這樣, 共方可以
發出3-4輪的攻擊波. 前期甚至可以用已經接近報廢的近萬枚飛彈(PLA名稱是紅旗-2)來
逼迫我軍消耗防御戰力. 最後的才是全力的猛攻.
個人也是認為台海戰爭最快一週左右結束。
至於美國出兵﹐他不一定需要集結﹐光是玩暗的﹐如關掉GPS﹐進行電干﹐提供台灣
情資﹐P碼﹐潛艇混水摸魚﹐甚至就可影響整個戰局﹗
另外﹐那個近萬枚飛彈(PLA名稱是紅旗-2)﹐射程只有50KM﹐改裝後的SSM叫做M7﹐
射程160KM﹐不知怎麼消耗台灣﹐再者﹐有沒有近萬枚﹐還是個問號﹗
四.共方近年來有一些奇怪的裝備及動向應該引起關注.
1.複式炮彈. 我在四年前離開台灣前也是個fans, 那時我就看到過有效射程220公里
以上的報導, 它彈頭內置二級推進火藥, 主彈頭很小, 命中精度不高(1%-1.5%), 但
以空爆為主, 連續飽和攻擊時可以有效阻止空軍基地的使用. 當時據共方資料可供
發射的各類炮鏜已經近兩千(這個數字我當時由于各種原因沒有考証過), 如果相差
不大, 已經可以威脅我西部四座基地, 可以迫使我方所有飛機駐紮在東部3+1座基地
中, 這樣可能引起連串的作戰時機延誤及供給保障混亂.
有效射程220公里以上的複式炮彈﹖
口徑多少啊﹖
彈身多長啊﹖
有這麼神奇的武器﹐WS1B不就可到磊垃圾桶報到了﹖
2.大陸已數次試驗機載的激光武器. 中共對于激光武器研究歷史極長并極其保密,
究竟是致盲還是其它不得而知, 但可能配備于未來J12或J11.
激光致盲武器有效距離是500米~1000米﹐對方早有視距外AAM﹐甚至在還沒用到激光
致盲武器時﹐對方的短程AAM就來招呼了﹗
還有激光是集中光束﹐也就是對點的武器﹐瞄準準度不夠﹐還是沒用﹗
3.中共以開始生產S27發動機, 共方編號是Al31-f, 這大概意味著其戰機的戰時維修
能力加強了.
AL31F﹐很抱歉﹐是俄國的編號﹗
俄國授權中國生產SU27﹐但不包含發動機﹐雷達﹗
4.無人駕駛飛機已經研究成功, 從零星的資料看現正在進行現飛機機改造的研究.
如果該技術也得以完成, 將使幾千破爛起死回生, 若滿載炸藥而來, 由于高炮較難
打到, 用飛機機炮在距离上太近, 有一定危險. 可能消耗我空軍飛彈戰力.
這種神奇的無人SUKURA的討論﹐請到http://taiwantp.hispeed.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/taiwantp/
roadbbs.pl?board_id=5&type;=show_post&post;=36
看看
5.前一段中共曾鼓吹某核潛艇潛伏45天, 突破極限. 如預先潛伏在某些要點, 可對
面U.S.A的航母產生威懾作用. (為了便于攻擊和防御, 航母群的理想位置應該是距
海岸900-1000公里, 正對大陸軍港及重要城市, 地點大概可以估算)
問題是該核潛艇要如何預知U.S.A的航母的航線﹖
還有﹐老美的航母都有核潛艇護航﹐老共核潛艇聲音比對手大很多﹐怎麼玩﹖
6.共方三.四年前已透露掌握了固態燃料關鍵技術, 西方有些估計大陸應該已經具備
射程14000公里左右的陸基機動核武. 這對U.S.A的軍援及軍售是最大的變數.
在更早時﹐DF5就能威脅美國﹐這種14000公里左右的陸基機動核武﹐對方就有關心
理準備﹐還有﹐老共的ICBM比美國多嗎﹖
老共的ICBM通常是用在對核訛詐的防禦﹐別人丟他﹐他當然要反擊﹐但是要主動去
攻擊美國﹐實在誇張﹗
7.最近大陸導航定位衛星以發射成功, 由于多年前其辨識精度已經達到一米以下,
而以前其飛彈一直依賴民用衛星數據引導, 將來飛彈的CEP將會大為縮小.
辨識精度已經達到一米以下是指間諜衛星﹐請不要與導航定位衛星一起混淆﹗
至於老共導航衛星﹐本壇有討論﹐請參考﹗
8.俄羅斯已賣給中共預警機, 卡-50直升機也接近簽訂合同, 該機下掛16枚飛彈, 每
枚破甲能力900毫米以上, 是我海岸陣地極大隱患.
飛得過來再說﹗
至于KA50﹐等配備了再討論﹗
五.在強敵壓迫下,我方有些固疾突發難以避免, 如外匯急劇外流及內部政治分化動
盪等.
當然﹗
相同的﹐國外對中國的投資也是裹足不前﹗
多年以來, 共仔的軍事方針一直是人+武器+戰法, 僅以幾种武器的數據比較就得出
給論, 竊以為危險. 但是,我方未來可以克服以上負面因素, 個人認為最佳方法就是
發展核武(可以用超級計算機摹擬核爆), 如果我方具有3-4枚以上射程在2000公里開
外的核彈, 則共方絕對有心無力了. 我方導彈技術已經進入關鍵期, 而核彈技術并
不難掌握, 核原料的不足可以從日本,印度或俄羅斯設法購進. 目前中共內部正在爭
下一任權力, 屆時我們也有機可乘.
核彈是台灣無法避免下地獄時﹐拉中國結伴同行用的﹗
但光靠核彈﹐台灣就安如泰山﹖﹗這是很錯誤﹐危險的想法﹗
另外, 距我們在海外的了解, 中共的戰爭機器沒有完全啟動, 似乎目的在于保持無
理威的情況下迫使我方商界不斷的把自己的資產平安轉移大陸更為舒服. 目前台灣
在大陸定居的已逾20萬, 更有不少已經把子女放在內地的內陸上學(如四川), 必須
引起重視.
錯﹗真正有錢的會放在美國﹗
小孩會放在美國或加拿大﹗
以上觀點, 務請和氣指正. 各位大概都是現役或退役不久, 但鄙人認為這個BBS應該
允許其它觀點, 不能一律棒殺. 最終目的是為大家為台灣, 對否?
OK﹗
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 於 2000/11/15 15:09
發表內容：
For discussion.
小滬尾 於 2000/11/15 10:23
發表內容：
我所說的低估,意指戰爭是牽涉各方并環環相扣的, 各位單純以戰爭中某一環節的數
字來對比太是簡單僵化,由此得出中共2010年也不行這樣的結論更是值得商榷. 我
們這里也有几個關心兩岸的台灣人,言談之下覺得台灣有五個方面負面因素,諸位不
可不防:
謝謝!
一.共方掌握開戰時機與方式的選擇權,我方基于各種原因只能被動反應. 這樣共方
可以忽虛忽實集結壓迫,而我方可能不得不大部保持高度警戒,以致疲勞;
老實說﹐什麼是實的或虛的演習﹐國防部和世界的情報單位會都知道﹗
當然﹐老共也可每次都玩真正能隨時動員打台灣的演習﹐常常如此玩﹐不只台灣方
面常警張﹐相同的﹐對老共也是很耗精力﹗還有﹐如果每次都是玩真的﹐三不兩時
造成台海不安﹐誰願意再繼續投資﹐就算是看好﹐也會觀望不前﹐經濟沒弄好﹐那
有更多的本錢再去玩這種真正能隨時動員打台灣的演習﹖﹗
Remark: Generally speaking you are right. But PLA still has some advantage to decide the way and place to attack. As a denfendor, Taiwan has to scatter its military power somehow.
另外共方可以選擇合適的天氣作戰, 以減小雙方技術差距, 達到最佳效果. 比如在
海上風浪七級以上時,共方潛艇有很大的機會可以隱蔽的潛伏到我港口附近意圖進犯
. 這在其它方面還有不利于我之處, 各位自己去考慮一下.
海上風浪七級以上時﹐潛艇能活動的深度也是不能太淺﹐甚至對某些潛艇深度深些﹐
反而不能發射魚雷﹗
就算是先進潛艇如K級﹐要打港口船隻總要確認目標吧﹖﹗不然打到其他國家的船隻
可不好玩﹐再說風浪過大時﹐很多船隻都會停放碼頭﹐這時可沒適當的聲響特徵以
供潛艇的聲納搜尋﹐所以﹐潛艇得出上浮至潛望鏡深度以找目標﹐可是風浪大﹐能
見度差﹐只能靠很近的距離發射魚雷打船﹐但別忘了﹐目標距離太近﹐能打沉目標﹐
但攻擊潛艇也掛了﹗
Taiwan has a good system to search submarines. The point is whether the system really works in the war environment. Air attack is deathly for the fleets of both sides. But PLAs fleet need not to come to the battlefields while Taiwans has to do so for stopping submarines. Plus, PLAs new submarines are capable to launch anti-ship missiles, which dramatically enlarges their attack area.
二.作戰空域飽和的問題. 制空權是生死大事,先進戰機之所以先進, 就在于其超視
距或遠距離攻擊能力. 而台灣空中範圍太小, 大概兩千二百架以上的戰機, 空域即
告飽和. 事實上, 在雙方戰機達到千餘架以上時, 我方戰機性能優勢已經不能完全
發揮, 而共方陳舊的機型缺點得到部分隱藏, 比如低空的殲七, 在戰場上也會有一
定的戰力, 并非只能挨打, 2005年則更難估計. 我的計算數據請檢討.
光是現在﹐老共沒空中管制機﹐近5年內能同時指揮上千架飛機﹐可以說是不可能﹗
就算未來10年﹐老共能同時指揮上千架飛機﹐這要看看這上千架飛機有那些﹐SU27系
列﹐330架﹐J10(﹖)﹐據說300架﹐這些先進機種的雷達及發動機大部份都是掌握在
外國手裡﹐光是妥善率這一項﹐這630架飛機就不能全飛﹗
好﹐派J7或一些J8充數﹐J7靈敏但機上ECM系統不行﹐J8的ECM系統較佳﹐但行動遲
鈍﹐先不論空軍的視距外飛彈﹐光是陸軍的防空飛彈+各式各樣充斥戰場的雷達信號﹐
J7靈敏但無法有效預知飛彈來襲﹐J8或許可預知飛彈來襲但很難閃掉﹐老實說﹐攻
台要是用J7﹐J8為主力﹐那是來送死﹗
Such conclution is not rational. I have seen some artical posted at a mainland BBS. Our research shows that F16 and IDF is better J8II and J7, of course. Their utlity is something like 1:0.9:0.5:0.2, which I cannot remeber clearly. Such conclution makes sense. You cannot simply neglect PLAs advantage in quantity which sometimes could be transfered to quality. In addition, the new versions of J7/8 such as J8IIM or J7MF have their own advantges. You always looks at J8IIs dogfight but J7s BVR capability. It is not fair, just as some mainladers to say we will use J8II to fight at a distance then J7MG to dogfight, is it? Finally, there will never be a thousand fighters in the main battle field at the same time. Taiwan has hundreds of advancde fighers. Taiwan has the ability to response and repair their airports in one or two hours. But it doesnt mean Taiwan can have most of its fighers at the decision time. The advantage stands on the attackers side again.
三.我方地理位置和國際情況 使我方裝備補充能力不及PLA的齊全完備, 不利于消耗
戰. 我曾經聽說過22甚至8小時拿下台灣的說法, 估計有共方故意欺騙的可能. 目前
看來, PLA應是該訂下7-10天的作戰計劃. 這段時間就是: 即便U.S.A出兵, 從國會
批准開戰或軍售到2-3個航母完成集結編隊大概也需要的天數. 如果這樣, 共方可以
發出3-4輪的攻擊波. 前期甚至可以用已經接近報廢的近萬枚飛彈(PLA名稱是紅旗-2)來
逼迫我軍消耗防御戰力. 最後的才是全力的猛攻.
個人也是認為台海戰爭最快一週左右結束。
至於美國出兵﹐他不一定需要集結﹐光是玩暗的﹐如關掉GPS﹐進行電干﹐提供台灣
情資﹐P碼﹐潛艇混水摸魚﹐甚至就可影響整個戰局﹗
另外﹐那個近萬枚飛彈(PLA名稱是紅旗-2)﹐射程只有50KM﹐改裝後的SSM叫做M7﹐
射程160KM﹐不知怎麼消耗台灣﹐再者﹐有沒有近萬枚﹐還是個問號﹗
四.共方近年來有一些奇怪的裝備及動向應該引起關注.
1.複式炮彈. 我在四年前離開台灣前也是個fans, 那時我就看到過有效射程220公里
以上的報導, 它彈頭內置二級推進火藥, 主彈頭很小, 命中精度不高(1%-1.5%), 但
以空爆為主, 連續飽和攻擊時可以有效阻止空軍基地的使用. 當時據共方資料可供
發射的各類炮鏜已經近兩千(這個數字我當時由于各種原因沒有考証過), 如果相差
不大, 已經可以威脅我西部四座基地, 可以迫使我方所有飛機駐紮在東部3+1座基地
中, 這樣可能引起連串的作戰時機延誤及供給保障混亂.
有效射程220公里以上的複式炮彈﹖
口徑多少啊﹖
彈身多長啊﹖
有這麼神奇的武器﹐WS1B不就可到磊垃圾桶報到了﹖
WS1 has a range of 160 KM. I dont know whether it is possible as well as meaningful to add another 60 KM. But it may be good for you to consider that possibility.
2.大陸已數次試驗機載的激光武器. 中共對于激光武器研究歷史極長并極其保密,
究竟是致盲還是其它不得而知, 但可能配備于未來J12或J11.
激光致盲武器有效距離是500米~1000米﹐對方早有視距外AAM﹐甚至在還沒用到激光
致盲武器時﹐對方的短程AAM就來招呼了﹗
還有激光是集中光束﹐也就是對點的武器﹐瞄準準度不夠﹐還是沒用﹗
Laser system can offer unbalanced advantage. We dont know the real progress.
3.中共以開始生產S27發動機, 共方編號是Al31-f, 這大概意味著其戰機的戰時維修
能力加強了.
AL31F﹐很抱歉﹐是俄國的編號﹗
俄國授權中國生產SU27﹐但不包含發動機﹐雷達﹗
Plenty of resoures showed that China has imported technology of russian engine and radar. By the way, that mainlands technology is not as good as US and Russia doesnot mean they are garbage. Even J7MFs radar can detect 80 km.
4.無人駕駛飛機已經研究成功, 從零星的資料看現正在進行現飛機機改造的研究.
如果該技術也得以完成, 將使幾千破爛起死回生, 若滿載炸藥而來, 由于高炮較難
打到, 用飛機機炮在距离上太近, 有一定危險. 可能消耗我空軍飛彈戰力.
這種神奇的無人SUKURA的討論﹐請到http://taiwantp.hispeed.com/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/taiwantp/
roadbbs.pl?board_id=5&type;=show_post&post;=36
看看
There are many other ways to use those small plains(is it called UAV?). By the way, I remeber you have discussed delightly about the possible usage of UAVs of Taiwan. Why negelct PLAs real existing ones?
5.前一段中共曾鼓吹某核潛艇潛伏45天, 突破極限. 如預先潛伏在某些要點, 可對
面U.S.A的航母產生威懾作用. (為了便于攻擊和防御, 航母群的理想位置應該是距
海岸900-1000公里, 正對大陸軍港及重要城市, 地點大概可以估算)
問題是該核潛艇要如何預知U.S.A的航母的航線﹖
還有﹐老美的航母都有核潛艇護航﹐老共核潛艇聲音比對手大很多﹐怎麼玩﹖
The point is whether US will really fight for taiwan. Youd better depend on yourself.
6.共方三.四年前已透露掌握了固態燃料關鍵技術, 西方有些估計大陸應該已經具備
射程14000公里左右的陸基機動核武. 這對U.S.A的軍援及軍售是最大的變數.
在更早時﹐DF5就能威脅美國﹐這種14000公里左右的陸基機動核武﹐對方就有關心
理準備﹐還有﹐老共的ICBM比美國多嗎﹖
老共的ICBM通常是用在對核訛詐的防禦﹐別人丟他﹐他當然要反擊﹐但是要主動去
攻擊美國﹐實在誇張﹗
Again, it is not necessary to have a similar neuclar power to stop USs direct involvement. At this point, ten reliable ICBM is more than enough.
7.最近大陸導航定位衛星以發射成功, 由于多年前其辨識精度已經達到一米以下,
而以前其飛彈一直依賴民用衛星數據引導, 將來飛彈的CEP將會大為縮小.
辨識精度已經達到一米以下是指間諜衛星﹐請不要與導航定位衛星一起混淆﹗
至於老共導航衛星﹐本壇有討論﹐請參考﹗
But you should pay attention to the trend. It is a great improvement, isnt it.
8.俄羅斯已賣給中共預警機, 卡-50直升機也接近簽訂合同, 該機下掛16枚飛彈, 每
枚破甲能力900毫米以上, 是我海岸陣地極大隱患.
飛得過來再說﹗
KA50﹐等配備了再討論﹗
五.在強敵壓迫下,我方有些固疾突發難以避免, 如外匯急劇外流及內部政治分化動
盪等.
當然﹗
相同的﹐國外對中國的投資也是裹足不前﹗
Everybody knows the negative impact on economy. The problem is without foreign investment, mainland can stil live, while taiwan may not.
多年以來, 共仔的軍事方針一直是人+武器+戰法, 僅以幾种武器的數據比較就得出
給論, 竊以為危險. 但是,我方未來可以克服以上負面因素, 個人認為最佳方法就是
發展核武(可以用超級計算機摹擬核爆), 如果我方具有3-4枚以上射程在2000公里開
外的核彈, 則共方絕對有心無力了. 我方導彈技術已經進入關鍵期, 而核彈技術并
不難掌握, 核原料的不足可以從日本,印度或俄羅斯設法購進. 目前中共內部正在爭
下一任權力, 屆時我們也有機可乘.
核彈是台灣無法避免下地獄時﹐拉中國結伴同行用的﹗
但光靠核彈﹐台灣就安如泰山﹖﹗這是很錯誤﹐危險的想法﹗
Agree this time. I think taiwans best choice is some long-range missiles. Neuclar weapon is not that easy to develop, as well as is not flexible to use. Moreover, it may give mainland a good reason to attack.
另外, 距我們在海外的了解, 中共的戰爭機器沒有完全啟動, 似乎目的在于保持無
理威的情況下迫使我方商界不斷的把自己的資產平安轉移大陸更為舒服. 目前台灣
在大陸定居的已逾20萬, 更有不少已經把子女放在內地的內陸上學(如四川), 必須
引起重視.
錯﹗真正有錢的會放在美國﹗
小孩會放在美國或加拿大﹗
以上觀點, 務請和氣指正. 各位大概都是現役或退役不久, 但鄙人認為這個BBS應該
允許其它觀點, 不能一律棒殺. 最終目的是為大家為台灣, 對否?
It is too time-consuming to write messages. Admire you guys. My purpose is not to prove mainland has enough military power to invade taiwan. I just want to point out there is really a trend to under-evaluate mainlands power in this board. I feels the major problem is the inconsistency in time and the interruption in logic. For example, there are many comparsions based on mainlands systems that declared years ago. Another example is that you have claimed Taiwan can shoot down 90% of cruiser missiles since you have five or six defensive lines. Its fine. When some friend argues that taiwan may not have enough anti-air missiles. You then said missiles can be saved because guns are enough and some objectives are not wothy... However, at first, how can you tell which missiles objects are not important. Secondly, you cannot enjoy a high shot-down rate and a low missile usage at the same time.
Finally, I think we are all interested in politics rather than in military. I just doubt the purpose of the arguement. In my view, wrong information of mainlands military power is not dangerous itself. The danger is in the wrong decision based on that information. I cannot see the possibility of taiwaness to surrender because of overevaluation of PLA. But I can feel the danger of you to declare independence because of underestimating PLA. So I think it may not be that bad to make taiwan peopld fear PLA at a proper level. Just for discussion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/15 16:22
發表內容：
大陸已數次試驗機載的激光武器. 中共對于激光武器研究歷史極長并極其保密,
究竟是致盲還是其它不得而知, 但可能配備于未來J12或J11.
Short answer to this:
Goggle Please!!
PLA應是該訂下7-10天的作戰計劃. 這段時間就是: 即便U.S.A出兵, 從國會
批准開戰或軍售到2-3個航母完成集結編隊大概也需要的天數
If the U.S. really wants to get into the brawl quickly,
the B-2s from the AFB in Missouri can carry their 16
2000lbs bombs (each) and fly to the Far East in less than
18 hrs. If the U.S. decides to deploy B-2 at Guam, that
will cut down the reaction time even further.
One B-2 with 16 2000lbs bombs can pretty much sink most
of the major PLAN surface warships. Say 4 bombs each for
the two heavier Sovrenmenny class destroyers and 3 bombs
each for the two Luhu class destroyers .. etc .. etc..
A pair of B-2s can pretty much wipe out the entire PLANs
major surface combatants.....
如預先潛伏在某些要點, 可對 面U.S.A的航母產生威懾作用. (為了便于攻擊和防御, 航母群的理想位置應該是距
海岸900-1000公里, 正對大陸軍港及重要城市, 地點大概可以估算)
You didnt seem to realize that it is much easier to detect a
submarine in the open ocean than in coastal water.
A few years ago, a chinese SSN had a stand off with the
U.S. kitty hawk battle group in the Yellow sea, ie.
the submarine was still within the continental shelf.
There were alot of stories about this then, mainly from
the chinese side. However, when I distilled all the
avaiable infomation at the time, it was clear that
the chinese SSN apparently didnt realize that it has
been followed for a few hrs. Usually coastal water is
much safer for the Submarine to hide and this
incident did reflect some serious shortcomings in the
present PLANs tactics and equipments.
錯﹗真正有錢的會放在美國﹗ 小孩會放在美國或加拿大﹗
I totally agree with this 100%. How can you put your
money and financial assets in a place where the
banking systems and regulations are not exactly modern?
Thats what Switzerland is for.
The only person I know that put his personal fortune
in china is the former Yugoslavia president Milosevic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/15 16:27
發表內容：
The problem is without foreign investment, mainland can stil live, while taiwan
may not.
This is just ridiculous. Among all the major East
Asian countries (including China), Taiwan is probably
the place with least amount of foreign investment over
the years.
what Taiwan cant survive without is foreign commercial
relations, such as international trades, NOT FOREIGNE
INVESTMENT !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/15 16:37
發表內容：
To Admirer,
I think your point of view can be summarized by these two
sentences of yours above:
Laser system can offer unbalanced advantage.
We dont know the real progress.
Thats right. We dont know and you dont know it either!!
You seem to have over-estimated the PLA more than I
originally thought.
If the American progress and development can be of
any guide, well, the lasser weaponry is not mature
enough (at least in the next five years) to decisively
influence the outcome of any military conflicts.
It is just plainly stupid to fantanzie the PLA having some
fancy and futuristic weapons and using this as the
basis to over-estimate the PLA.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 於 2000/11/15 17:36
發表內容：
Armstrong,
You have blamed a wrong perosn. I am a mainlander rather than admirer.
This is just ridiculous. Among all the major East
Asian countries (including China), Taiwan is probably
the place with least amount of foreign investment over
the years. What Taiwan cant survive without is foreign commercial relations, such as international trades, NOT FOREIGNE INVESTMENT !!
You are right. So what? I made a mistake on taiwan economy. But the point of the argument is that Taiwan will suffer much more (in a relative measure) than mainland. And I think you agree on that point.
And you complained about the laser system. Neglect it. You said US can send their B2 in 18 hours. I dont think so. A war between China and US is not just about several planes. The decesion process itself can be long. Still remeber how long US needs before attacking Iraq?
If you think Taiwan can bear the war, you can ignore my argument. If you come to the board just for make yourself and your neighbourhood happy, go ahead. If you want to protect Taiwan from external threaten, then you may need to well think out the military power of PLA. You may disagree, Taiwans advanced weapon is not as important as Taiwans strong standpoint in morality in mainlands consideration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/15 17:55
發表內容：
Mr. Admirers message reminds me of Ronald Reagans star
war program almost 20 years ago with all its promises of
the space-based laser and neutral-particle-beam weapons...
etc and etc. For years, the Russians apparently was
frightened by the possiblity of such futuristic concepts
and made many significant concessions on many important
issues.
I have discerned some similarities and parallels in
the present day Taiwan, abeit with a unique local twist.
It is just amazing to see that some political parties or interest groups
in Taiwan are trying hard to over-estimate or exaggerate the
prowess of the PLA in order to extract unnecessary
political concessions (both to them and to china) from
Taiwans government.
After almost 20 years, we know that the star war program
was almost a hoax based on unscrupulous science. Probably
less than 10% of what Reagan had outlined 20 years ago is
achievable under todays technology. It almost gave me
a deja vu when I came across Mr. Admirers message above..
things like chinese laser on J10 or J11 (for what?) and
the unknown fantastic chinese laser weapon ..
Give me a break !! Do you know what laser is?? Do you
know in a cloudy day, due to the atmospherical scattering,
laser weapon is probably not going to be effective (Thats
why you need a spaced-based laser). Do you know a good
eye goggle can significantly reduce the harmful effect
of the laser to the eyes? (the goggles are cheap too !!).
Most of the fundamental scientific facts about laser are
known. To turn laser into any pratical weapon, it is more of an enginering
problem than a scientific one. Yes, this means money,
money and money for the research. I dont know how
much the chinese had poured into their defense research
and I dont know how smart their engineers are, but
if the U.S. development can be of any guide, laser
weapons are not going to be important in any battle
field (except in missile defense) for another 10 or 20 years.
Puttint laser on J11 or J10 ? For what??
When you are claiming people here have the tendency of
under-estimating the PLA, I found it almost laughable
that your are equipping the PLA with weapons coming directly
from the comic books.
PS. Usually a cruise missile costs about 1 or 2 million USD
apiece. ( I dont know. the chinese goods are probably
cheaper but this reduces their reliability). I am
more than happy to trade one cruise missile with a
land-based SAMs such as the modified TC-2 which costs
about 1/3-1/2 million apiece. If the chinese can have
that many cruise missiles, we would be glad to have the
same number of SAMs !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/15 18:04
發表內容：
A war between China and US is not just about several planes.
Haha.... This just shows you the gap in military capability
between china and American.
Dont worry. There are other options that the American
can take that you cant even dream about !! Trust me !!
Haha....My Apology. I thought you were Mr. Admirer..since
he likes to use english too.
Since you are a chinese, it is hard for us to share
any common ground on these questions. This is quite
obvious from your sentences such as
If you think Taiwan can bear the war, you can ignore my argument.
that your political motives are more than your desire to
have a serious discussion. So I will stop here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/15 18:23
發表內容：
One last thing before I shut up. If a Boeing 747
can fly from Detroit to Taipei in less than 18 hrs,
i think it is safe to say that a B-2 can fly from
Missouri to the Far East in the same amount of time.
I know for sure that it took a B2 less than 12 hrs
to go from the Missouri base to Yugoslavia. So
18 hrs, alghouth probaly not exactly accurate, should
be quite close.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 於 2000/11/15 21:57
發表內容：
To Mr.Question
I did appreciate your helpful argument.
Remark: Generally speaking you are right. But PLA still has some advantage to decide the way and place to attack. As a denfendor, Taiwan has to scatter its military power somehow.
In fact, in consideration of geographic factors, unnecessary deployment can be ommitted.
For instance, in the land-toping case, there are only several qualified areas for such operation. Some areas are definitely adverse for land-toping. In those area, we dont need to deploy any force.
Or,you may notice a trend in ROC Army, mobilized troop.
Indeed, defending side may scatter their force. Howver, in consideration of geographic factor and mobilized troop, such scattering deployment may not be necessary and will not dilute the defending force.
Taiwan has a good system to search submarines. The point is whether the system really works in the war environment. Air attack is deathly for the fleets of both sides. But PLAs fleet need not to come to the battlefields while Taiwans has to do so for stopping submarines. Plus, PLAs new submarines are capable to launch anti-ship missiles, which dramatically enlarges their attack area.
You are responding my reply to Mr.admirer, which is discussing in the bad weather environment.
In bad weather, even those ASMs do not function well.
Such conclution is not rational. I have seen some artical posted at a mainland BBS. Our research shows that F16 and IDF is better J8II and J7, of course. Their utlity is something like 1:0.9:0.5:0.2, which I cannot remeber clearly. Such conclution makes sense. You cannot simply neglect PLAs advantage in quantity which sometimes could be transfered to quality. In addition, the new versions of J7/8 such as J8IIM or J7MF have their own advantges. You always looks at J8IIs dogfight but J7s BVR capability. It is not fair, just as some mainladers to say we will use J8II to fight at a distance then J7MG to dogfight, is it? Finally, there will never be a thousand fighters in the main battle field at the same time. Taiwan has hundreds of advancde fighers. Taiwan has the ability to response and repair their airports in one or two hours. But it doesnt mean Taiwan can have most of its fighers at the decision time. The advantage stands on the attackers side again.
1.Due to J7s inherent small nose, it is very pessmestic in considering J7s BVR ability.
2.Taiwan can not reponse her most of fighters. However, Taiwan got lot SAMs to respond.
WS1 has a range of 160 KM. I dont know whether it is possible as well as meaningful to add another 60 KM. But it may be good for you to consider that possibility.
Precisely speaking, WS1B has a range of 160KM,not WS1.
Of course, adding more effective range will be a piece of cake for PLA. Nevertheles, how about precision,which make such rocket quite useless?!
Plenty of resoures showed that China has imported technology of russian engine and radar. By the way, that mainlands technology is not as good as US and Russia doesnot mean they are garbage. Even J7MFs radar can detect 80 km.
80 km is the maximum detecting range. However, in that kind of range, the radar can not tell the signal is true or false. The only useful index to view the BVR capbility is the TWS range.
There are many other ways to use those small plains(is it called UAV?). By the way, I remeber you have discussed delightly about the possible usage of UAVs of Taiwan. Why negelct PLAs real existing ones?
In UAV strategey, PLA did far better job than Taiwan.
However, Mr. admirers point is about application of UAV tech upon those retired fighetrs, which may be J6.
Then, they are completely different stories.
The point is whether US will really fight for taiwan. Youd better depend on yourself.
Yes!
But you should pay attention to the trend. It is a great improvement, isnt it.
I did pay attention on such trend and study quite carefully.
Nevertheless, I am not very optimistic about PLAs GPS capbility.
It is too time-consuming to write messages. Admire you guys. My purpose is not to prove mainland has enough military power to invade taiwan. I just want to point out there is really a trend to under-evaluate mainlands power in this board. I feels the major problem is the inconsistency in time and the interruption in logic. For example, there are many comparsions based on mainlands systems that declared years ago. Another example is that you have claimed Taiwan can shoot down 90% of cruiser missiles since you have five or six defensive lines. Its fine. When some friend argues that taiwan may not have enough anti-air missiles. You then said missiles can be saved because guns are enough and some objectives are not wothy... However, at first, how can you tell which missiles objects are not important.
Becasue those objects belong Taiwan. We are the ones who konw the corrosponding impact to entire defence system if those objects are gone.
Secondly, you cannot enjoy a high shot-down rate and a low missile usage at the same time.
Not exactly!
In the discussion in GiantDot, low missile usage only applied those mid-ranged SAM.
Still, there are plenty of short-ranged SAM in the inner tier. Even, we can deploy some around the target.
What really matters is how to detect the incoming missile.
Others are just trivial in comparision with detecting the cruise missile.
Finally, I think we are all interested in politics rather than in military.
No, I am not interested in politics.
I just doubt the purpose of the arguement. In my view, wrong information of mainlands military power is not dangerous itself. The danger is in the wrong decision based on that information.
Right statement!
However, I still do not under-estimate PLA.
I cannot see the possibility of taiwaness to surrender because of overevaluation of PLA.But I can feel the danger of you to declare independence because of underestimating PLA.
Wrong observation.
Overevaluation of PLA is overwheleming in Taiwans media.
And it just erodes lot peoples mind.
So I think it may not be that bad to make taiwan peopld fear PLA at a proper level. Just for discussion.
It sounds that scare Taiwanese people is proper?!
No wander most people in Taiwan do not want to be united.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsky 於 2000/11/15 23:45
發表內容：
If you think Taiwan can bear the war, you can ignore my argument.
這句話一點意義也沒有, I would say nobody wanna bear the war, or you should ask yourself If China can bear the war? 台商在大陸投資不是一天兩天的事 誰不知道大陸的官員 國營企業跟銀行是怎麼搞的 危險的體係就像一個吹脹的氣球 中國現在的榮景跟政局的穩定還得維繫在外資的持續掖注 說開戰就開戰?
關於 Ka-50 前幾天媒體的消息說是因為有直十 所以暫時不會購買
admirer 我們也許有時候會比較樂觀 但不至於用自我吹出來的東西來壯大自己 我想也沒意義去說共軍多爛 但有些牛皮吹的也忒大 不戳則難昭真象
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 於 2000/11/16 07:52
發表內容：
To Armstrong
>>If the U.S. really wants to get into the brawl quickly,
the B-2s from the AFB in Missouri can carry their 16
2000lbs bombs (each) and fly to the Far East in less than
18 hrs. If the U.S. decides to deploy B-2 at Guam, that
will cut down the reaction time even further.<<
一廂情愿。 How long did America prepare for the Gulf war? How long
did America prepare for the Balkan war?
Now in those two wars, the US more or less borrowed the UN logo for legitimacy.
What would happen if China were involved? OK, lets say the big uncle would
do it by himself for Taiwan. Does the next president of the US have the nerve? China
is a nuclear power. When you directly drop bomb to its ports/airports/utilities,
will you be afraid? Its easy to say the nobody in China would be crazy enough to
think about nuke and I personally dont believe that even if the US bombs China.
But, put yourself into americans shoes? What if the small possibility did
materialize?
>>One B-2 with 16 2000lbs bombs can pretty much sink most
of the major PLAN surface warships. Say 4 bombs each for
the two heavier Sovrenmenny class destroyers and 3 bombs
each for the two Luhu class destroyers .. etc .. etc.. <<
Where are the targets? Are they lining up waiting for the bombs?
>>如預先潛伏在某些要點, 可對 面U.S.A的航母產生威懾作用. (為了便于攻擊和防御, 航母群
的理想位置應該是距
海岸900-1000公里, 正對大陸軍港及重要城市, 地點大概可以估算)
You didnt seem to realize that it is much easier to detect a
submarine in the open ocean than in coastal water. <<
Not if the sub sits still.
>>However, when I distilled all the
avaiable infomation at the time, it was clear that
the chinese SSN apparently didnt realize that it has
been followed for a few hrs.<<
I feel its exaggerated. Unless that Chinese 091 turned off all its sensors,
that wouldnt happen.
>>I totally agree with this 100%. How can you put your
money and financial assets in a place where the
banking systems and regulations are not exactly modern?
Thats what Switzerland is for.
The only person I know that put his personal fortune
in china is the former Yugoslavia president Milosevic.<<
Swiss bank is good because it wont leak secret. Thats it.
I take that story about Milosovics money as one malicious rumor. After
all, how many times did washington post say that Milo would head to
China, and hes still in Yugo these days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 於 2000/11/16 08:04
發表內容：
To Armstrong
>>Since you are a chinese, it is hard for us to share
any common ground on these questions. This is quite
obvious from your sentences such as
If you think Taiwan can bear the war, you can ignore my argument.<<
I think what is important is ones statement, not where he comes from.
For that sentence, I guess its safe to say that ML China can
afford/bear more in war time dont you agree? At least itd cost
much more firepower to cause damage to ML, simply due to MLs size.
To Tsky
>>台商在大陸投資不是一天兩天的事 誰不知道大陸的官員 國營企業跟銀行
是怎麼搞的 危險的體係就像一個吹脹的氣球 中國現在的榮景跟政局的穩定還得維繫在外
資的持續掖注 說開戰就開戰?<<
In war time, the question is survival, not development. About foreign investment,
the money has been turned into factories the moment it enters China.
The scale of state-owned-industry has been shrinking and things are getting
much better these days.
>>admirer 我們也許有時候會比較樂觀 但不至於用自我吹出來的東西來壯大自己 我想也沒意
義去說共軍多爛 但有些牛皮吹的也忒大 不戳則難昭真象<<
Most, if not all, of the 牛皮 are from amateur fans wild daydreaming.
If PLA really wants some propaganda war, it surely can do better.
Besides that 360km MLRS, what else is 忒大的牛皮?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsky 於 2000/11/16 11:44
發表內容：
In war time, the question is survival, not development. About foreign investment, the money has been turned into factories the moment it enters China. The scale of state-owned-industry has been shrinking and things are getting much better these days.
白生, 汝言不差, 戰時只求生存, 可是產業運作需要資金才能運轉, 戰時就算不求發展, 社會上還得有足夠的資金讓經濟活動運轉, 就算田裡有糧也得有錢買汽油開車運出去吧? 市場經濟化之後什麼事業運行都得有錢, 你有信心私有化後人民還會一切遵從黨的領導慷慨互通私有物資? 現在大陸資金流程很不健全, 檯面上接單賺錢, 實際上銀子進不了國庫, 小弟有朋友在內地經商, 大家都清楚有門路有辦法的不肖商人是怎麼倒國家的帳, 錢進了私人口袋又搬到國外. 上海的國營飯店更是沒有成本概念, 外商飯店根本競爭不過, 反正國家的錢會一直來...長久以往國家能不虧空嗎? 健全的體系內資金資可正常地流通, 像血液在體內循環一樣, 不健全的體系就連賺錢都無法讓錢進口袋, 錢流到哪去都不知道. 血液要靠政府舉債跟外資抑注, 戰時如果資金緊峭, 錢從哪裡來? 產業要如何繼續運作不停頓? 雖然不致餓死全部的人, 經融風暴跟蕭條就免不了了. 就像冷天大家都受不了, 一般人會發抖甚至感冒, 可有心臟病高血壓的可能一出門口就病發葛了... 情況有多嚴重沒人能鐵口直斷, 但程度絕對已經達到嚴重的程度. 企業民營化是救中國經濟的必要手段, 朱鎔基算是比較有良心比較憂國憂民的, 不像一些狗官有錢大家先撈再說, 國家會垮不是我一個人撈垮的..蒼生的生命自己會走出一條路......當然未來你們的體制可能會好轉, 但是現在要打仗的話能不能承受衝擊咧?
Most, if not all, of the 牛皮 are from amateur fans wild daydreaming. If PLA really wants some propaganda war, it surely can do better. Besides that 360km MLRS, what else is 忒大的牛皮?
我的意思是在這論壇內幹戳牛皮的事, 倒不是針對本欄說是誰在吹牛皮. 我的用辭也應該不會讓人誤會才對. 雖然Admirer說的有些地方無法讓人信服. 不過不代表他的態度就是以吹來全其文. 他舉的例子可能來自其它來源. 人非無所不知, 聞道有先後... 大家熱心交流可弭孤陋.
射程220公里的空炸砲彈千種彈種就有點八卦, 誰家的後勤去養這種千種彈種的大砲彈? 壓制機場要維持多高射數? 要製多少樽套砲? 這麼大的砲還要轉身打各個不同方位的目標? 要證明一下它的威力很簡單, 拿出照片來. 還有J7 J8的雷射武器語焉不詳, 是指雷射標定器, 致盲雷射, 還是高能雷射? 如是高能雷射就省省吧. 看看人家ABL裝在什麼傢伙上, 我可沒說說中國人沒有智慧洋人聰明, 我只知道人家砸大把銀子跟大堆裝備去不斷地測試不斷地實驗. 可大陸勵精圖志, 暗中經營, 突然實力強過數倍於美國, 還可將這高檔貨裝在J7 J8上... 另外七級浪潛艦要佈雷或事先埋位是可以, 但要在潛望鏡深度攻擊船隻就別想了, 還有這種襲擾對整體戰沒有意義, 因為主攻部隊在這種天氣下也無法開拔. 堅持要發射魚雷開打? 或是上浮發射C801 C802? 請便吧..
另外各大小牛皮在常見大陸文宣研究系列有記載. 小弟到船艦知識的論壇發現一堆人看到UFO, 在北京看到F15..等等, 雖然偶爾吹牛皮有益健康, 加上我是堅決反對將吹牛用道德標準來批判的, 不過要拿這種垃圾做統戰就要有被吐回去的心理準備.
我相信來這的大陸朋友應該是抱著交流的心情來的. 大家多少都會有自己的立場, 不過讓大家儘量用合理的邏輯跟充份的證據來說服對方吧. 如果有什麼地方有謬誤, 歡迎指點, 小弟的心願不是辯才無礙, 而是讓真象昭顯, 辯輸了無所謂, 向真理低頭並不丟臉.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 於 2000/11/16 11:59
發表內容：
To Tsky
Well said! Its a pleasure to meet you on internet. I dont have much
time and only occasionally come here. Although I might have different
opinions on certain issues, people like you make me feel its worth
the time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/16 12:35
發表內容：
To 白雲
You guys are just so irrational to the point of amusing.
You were expecting the U.S. to send a amanda of ships to
assist Taiwan to defend herself and I simply point out the fact that a pair
of B2 can pretty much do the samething faster, more efficiently and with
less risk (hey, the PLANs commanders probably wont even know
who do the backstabbing).
The responses i got are just craps (execuse me for
being impolite and impatient) such as 一廂情愿
A war between China and US is not just about several planes.
If you guys can conquer Taiwan in half day (such as the
Iraqis did to the Kuwaitis), then, you can throw to me sentences like
How long did America prepare for the Gulf war?
You were thinking the U.S needs more a week to get herself
ready to send an amada with thousands of sailors to help Taiwan.
You have no problem with U.S. sening the fleets. However,
when I pointed out the possibility of just sending a pair of
B2s instead of the whole fleets, the amusing responses
i got simply reflect one important thing: the PLAN has no
means of defending itself agianst such kind of attacks....
No wonder I cant find any common ground with your guys.....
I will just stop here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 於 2000/11/16 13:04
發表內容：
To Armstrong regarding your last post,
I was merely pointing out the infeasibility of quick US
involvement (that you suggested). Prove me wrong or cut the
crap (quote your words, execuse me for being impolite and impatient).
I used word 一廂情愿, then, I made one point about the USs
fear of nuke counter-attack. I just feel that if I were the
president of the US, I would be worried. Is this crap?
>>If you guys can conquer Taiwan in half day (such as the
Iraqis did to the Kuwaitis), then, you can throw to me sentences like
How long did America prepare for the Gulf war?<<
Thats irrelevant. The US decides on how long it should take
to prepare for a war, primarily based on the power of the enemy and
the complexity of the war, not based on whether the enemy has
occupied certain region or not.
>>the amusing responses i got simply reflect one important
thing: the PLAN has no means of defending itself agianst such
kind of attack<<
What is more amusing is that you still dont get the point:
quick US involvement cannot be expected. Thats before we
start talking about PLANs losses caused by US involvement.
>>No wonder I cant find any common ground with your guys.....
I will just stop here.<<
Whatever, I dont care and I have no interest in trash talking.
Quote Tsky, 心願不是辯才無礙, 而是讓真象昭顯, 辯輸了無所謂,
向真理低頭並不丟臉.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/16 15:44
發表內容：
As I said before, you and I are on different frequencies
and share no similar grounds.
The 2 paragraphs belows are just self-contradictory
I was merely pointing out the infeasibility of quick US
involvement (that you suggested). Prove me wrong or cut the
rap (quote your words, execuse me for being impolite and impatient).
I used word 一廂情愿, then, I made one point about the USs
fear of nuke counter-attack. I just feel that if I were the
president of the US, I would be worried. Is this crap?
What you are trying to say is not infeasibility of quick US
involvement. No!! You are trying to say that it is
impossible for the U.S to get involved here.
Just look at the 2 paragraphs above and according to your logic
how can a U.S. president ever order an attack ? (except
maybe after Taiwan had been conquered and the U.S would
then send the fleets to Taiwan.... (and become the
laughing stock of the world)). I just find this kind of
argument shared by you and Mr. Admirer alike to be
ridiculous.
Let me make one point straight. I am NOT claiming
using B2s is something the U.S. would have done. I am
simply claiming that it is one of the quickest tactical
response the U.S. can choose to make if necessary. I am
not claiming the U.S. would DEFINITELY get herself into
the conflict. However, my understanding of your view
point is that the U.S. is DEFINITELY (infeasibility)
not going to get herself involve quickly. One historical
example that you cited to support your argument is
the gulf war.
And I found your example of Kuwait simply laughable and
bordering IGNORANCE. The Kuwait was conquered in less
than half a day. Obviously, in order to drive the Iraqi
out of Kuwait, the U.S. had to spend several months to
prepare for the eventual ground war (sending tanks
from Europe takes at least 2 months and finding diplomatic
allies takes even longer). You seem to suggest that the
U.S. probably have to do the samething in the Taiwan strait.
HaHaHa.... This just shows how IGNORANT you are (like
so many other chinese I have seen before discussing
this issue). Why does the U.S have to spend months
preparing when she can just order a few B2s to wipe
out the PLAs major naval assets in a single day?
Strategically, the U.S. DOES NOT have to beat the
shit out of the chinese. The U.S. only needs to make
sure that the chinese can never get their feet on
Taiwan. Wiping out the PLAs naval assets is the easiest
and most effiecient mean to achieve that strategical
goal. If i can accomplished the samething in a few
hrs, why bother with months of preparations? (for what, I
dont know) You are quoting an example that is COMPLETELY
IRRELEVANT here.
Most of the chinese I know of assume that it will take
the U.S. fleet 7 to 10 days to ever reach the water around
Taiwan (pretty much what Mr. Admirer was arguing). If I
were the president, I know that a pair of B2 can accomplish
the job in less than 18 hrs, I would be an idiot if I dont
consider this as a viable option.
The Kuwaiti and Kosovar cases are almost irrelevant.
With the Taiwan Relation Act, which by the way is a U.S.
law, Taiwan is one of the handful nations that the
U.S. promises (definition pending) to come to the aid if her security is
under threat. And you are telling me a U.S. president
would just allow the chinese to conquer Taiwan in say
7 to 12 days without doing a thing and in the eyes of
the world, MAKE A FOOL out of the U.S.?
Probably yes but PROBABLY NOT either !!
If the president really decides to involve the U.S.,
within 18 hrs the U.S. can make her presence felt not the
7-12 days claimed above. A quick U.S. response is NOT INFEASIBLE.
Only a strategical and tactical idiot would think otherwise.
To locate the PLANs warship in East China sea, just
open the map and see how large (or small) East China sea
is!! PLAs naval assets are not like the Americans naval
assets which are spread around the globe. To invade Taiwan,
most of PLAs naval assets would probably be concentrated
in East China Sea. With Satellites, Submarines, underwater listening
devices, the air-born surveilances from Okinawa and even
the ubiquitous fishing boats in the region, tracking
major PLAN movements, certainly not a piece of cake,
is not something that is difficult.
Most importantly, if I were the president and I know
that the chinese are on the brink of invading Taiwan,
I would have PUBLICLY order the deployment of B2s at Guam
or even Okinawa and publicly anounce the deployments
of SSNs around Taiwans water. Only you would have thought
that everyone else (including Taiwan, Japan, U.S) would
allow a chinese surprised attack and the U.S. president
would be stupid enough to do nothing beforehand (probably
he/she would or wouldnt. But definitely NOT infeasible). With the
Taiwan strait issue that had occupied most the U.S top
stratigical planners attention for more than 30 years,
it is plainly STUPID to assume that the U.S. wont do
a thing when the chinese start the mobilization.
(The idea of Iraqi invasion of Kuwait didnt even occur to
these planners before Aug. 1, 1990).
At the time when Iraq attacked Kuwait, the U.S military
presence in the region, although not small, was minimal and
most are sea-based deployments. Look around Taiwan.
With the U.S. Japan, and Taiwan even Russia and South
Korea all keeping wary eyes on china and with U.S. major
military facilities (including listening and surveilance
stations) on Okinawa and South Korea, yeh, it will take
the U.S. weeks and months to respond to a chinese military
aggression (..... only you and the thousands of online chinese
patriots believe this ).
And finally, the nuclear threat. This just shows, again,
how ignorant you are. Certainly, if i were the president,
i would worry about that. However, is this going to deter me,
the leader of the free world, from any decisive action?
HELL NO !! If I (the president) allow the chinese to use
nuclear blackmail, I would start getting the same
problem with the Iranians, North Koreans and other rogue
nations.
I would just telephone the chinese leaders and make sure
they understand that the U.S. response to any chinese
nuclear attack is the COMPLETE AND TOTAL ANNIHILATION of the chinese nation.
Maybe you can destroy LA, chicago and a few other cities.
The consequence of that is the
COMPLETE AND TOTAL ANNIHILATION of the chinese nation.
After this kind of retalliation, the only noun that can have
the adjective chinese in front of will be cockroach.
Thats right!! You wont have chinese pigs, chinese docks
chinese fortune cookies anymore. Just chinese cockroaches.
This ought to make those militant chinese leaders think
harder that is conquering Taiwan really that important ??
Man, it is just tiring to talk to someone who cant think
straight.
Whatever, I dont care and I have no interest in trash talking.
Same to you too !!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/16 16:15
發表內容：
One more thing:
Within days of Iraqi attack on Kuwait in 1990,
there was already one (or two, i forgot) U.S. airborn division
on the ground in Saudi Araibia and at least 2 aircraft carriers
in the Persian gulf.
Talking about slow U.S. Responses.
A major problem with many online chinese patriots is that
they always think in chinese terms. Yes, maybe they
know the capability of the PLA very well (again may be
not), they tend to associate the capabilities of the PLA
(tactically, strategically, logistically, etc etc) with
other arm forces.... especially, the U.S.
Their imaginations are limited by their self-imposed
PLA-centric world view. That is, if something that
cant be done by the PLA, they tend to think that it
is probably not possible. In the discussion here, the
range of options that the U.S. can choose to implement
is much wider (and more legthal too) than what PLA has.
I found it quite amazing that many chinese think the
U.S. commanders would think the sameway as they do.
When you have tremendous amount of resources at your disposal
(the u.s. commanders), you simply have more opportunity
to use your resources in a totally unexpected and surprising
ways. Thats the new U.S. doctine of Full Spectrum Dominance
is about
Obviously, a millionaire and a pauper think and act
differently..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 於 2000/11/16 22:47
發表內容：
To Armstrong
Please do not put words into others mouth, and please stop
personal attack if you want to maintain a normal discussion.
Otherwise, this will be my last reply to you.
Now back to business.
>>What you are trying to say is not infeasibility of quick US
involvement. No!! You are trying to say that it is
impossible for the U.S to get involved here.
Just look at the 2 paragraphs above and according to your logic
how can a U.S. president ever order an attack ? (except
maybe after Taiwan had been conquered and the U.S would
then send the fleets to Taiwan.... (and become the
laughing stock of the world)). <<
Where did I say the US definitely would not get involved??
The way I see the potential involvement, it may include various
means, such as sending volunteers like flying tiger in WWII,
such as sending advanced weapons to Taiwan, etc. But they all need time.
What I feel infeasible or 一廂情愿 is your statement that the US
will quickly send in its B2. You still have not answered my question
about worrying (Chinas) nuclear counter-attack if the US start actively
wiping out Chinas fleet and start bombing Chinas ports.
About your statement about Iran and N Korea, FYI they both have not
proved that they are nuke nation and still have not proved they have
the long range carriers. More importantly, even rogue nations are
not as irrational as you may think. Theyre all human beings and want to
live a good life like we do, otherwise well be living in a world
full with terrorist attacks.
Chinas nuke capability is not blackmail, rather, its deterrent.
>>I would just telephone the chinese leaders and make sure
they understand that the U.S. response to any chinese
nuclear attack is the COMPLETE AND TOTAL ANNIHILATION of the chinese nation.
Maybe you can destroy LA, chicago and a few other cities.
The consequence of that is the
COMPLETE AND TOTAL ANNIHILATION of the chinese nation.<<
So youre saying that to save the freedom of Taiwan the US is
willing to risk millions lives of its own people? Dont you think
the stake is too high?
As I understand, ML will not pursue unification with military
means if we can keep status quo. Instead, ML will resort to
military only if Taiwan declares independence. If TI is the
initiative of the war, I can assure you that the US involvement
will be very, very limited.
About the total annihilation, you seem to know little about nuke.
Ever heard of nuclear winter story?
Finally, you keep making notes like the following
>>And I found your example of Kuwait simply laughable and
bordering IGNORANCE. The Kuwait was conquered in less
than half a day. Obviously, in order to drive the Iraqi
out of Kuwait, the U.S. had to spend several months to
prepare for the eventual ground war (sending tanks
from Europe takes at least 2 months and finding diplomatic
allies takes even longer). You seem to suggest that the
U.S. probably have to do the samething in the Taiwan strait. <<
Just one question, if youre so sure that the PLA cannot cross
the strait at first, why youre so eager to prove the the US will quickly get
involved? The involvement would be totally unnecessary if Taiwan
could hang on by itself.
To be honest with you, its very annoying to read your post, not because
you make so many personal attacks and do so much trash talking, its because
you seem to have hard time to make yourself clear.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
虎尾人 於 2000/11/17 02:47
發表內容：
To 白雲:
What I feel infeasible or 一廂情愿 is your statement that the US
will quickly send in its B2. You still have not answered my question
about worrying (Chinas) nuclear counter-attack if the US start actively
wiping out Chinas fleet and start bombing Chinas ports.
Again, do not make this assumption which is infeasible. Under this impossible assumption, there is nothing can be discussed. Something similar to the situation that you study ME but assume that newtons law is wrong.
Think yourself the meaning of using nuke before your make assumption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
虎尾人 於 2000/11/17 02:48
發表內容：
Sorry!
....make the assumption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 於 2000/11/17 03:42
發表內容：
To 虎尾人
>>What I feel infeasible or 一廂情愿 is your statement that the US
will quickly send in its B2. You still have not answered my question
about worrying (Chinas) nuclear counter-attack if the US start actively
wiping out Chinas fleet and start bombing Chinas ports.
Again, do not make this assumption which is infeasible. Under this impossible assumption,
there is nothing can be discussed. Something similar to the situation that you study ME but
assume that newtons law is wrong.<<
Please be reminded, that infeasible is my conclusion not
assumption.
Why quick involvement such as sending in B2 to bomb Chinas
ports is infeasible? I brought about the nuke issue.
Please be reminded, nobodys threatening to use nuke. Its
just I was trying to put myself into Americans shoes.
Directly bombing the territory of a country with strategic
counter-attack capability is more grave than some people
in this board think, IMHO. This has not happened in history.
Not in Vietnam war (by US to China), not in the boarder
conflict between China and Vietnam (by fUSSR to China).
The only time, last year the Chinese embassy - a mistake.
The most important thing to an American president is the
safety of his country and his people. If I knew beforehand
that I had 1% chance of being killed in traffic accident
today, I wouldnt drive, at least my wife would not allow
me drive.
>>Think yourself the meaning of using nuke before your make
assumption.
Its the meaning of using nuke that leads to my conclusion.
The moment the B2 drops a bomb onto China terriority, the
american president literally handed the power to determine
the fate of lots lots of people to the leader of China. Thats
something I wouldnt do if I were at that position.
About feasible involvement, Id say sending in fighter
wings as volunteers would be a good one. Again, Id
declare (as the president) that the American pilots would
only protect Taiwans sky (for the sake of peace in Taiwan
and the lives of Taiwanese) and would definitely not
attack any targets in ML. If USAF could kick out all
incoming ML striking/bombing forces (to Taiwan airforce bases),
ROCAF should be able to keep taking off and attacking
ML ships.
But again, sending in fighter wing takes time, you need
logistics and maintenance crew.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/17 03:42
發表內容：
Hahaha... You simply just cant think straight!!
Where did I say the US definitely would not get involved??
You were arguing that it is (i quote) infeasible for
the U.S. to involve quickly. According to the my original
discussion with Mr. Admirer, WE WERE ARGUING if china
can conquer Taiwan in 7to12 days, can the U.S. in anyway
decisively influence the outcome. (Go back and LOOK AT
what we were arguing on !!).
Now you were claiming it is infeasible for the U.S. to
involve quickly (I presume (with all the reasons in the world)
that you mean the U.S. cant do it in 7-12 days). Under
the context of the ORIGINAL discussion, basically, you
were saying the U.S. wont be able to do anything (
equivalent to saying the U.S. wont get involved) before
Taiwan is conquered.
I find it ridiculous that you are using the Kuwaiti
example to support your argument. I dont know if this is
your intention that if Taiwan is conquered by China in
a few days, the U.S. would then spend months to prepare
to recover Taiwan. And is this what you called the
U.S. involvement? This is just so laughable !!
We were discussing about how the U.S. can get herself
involved quickly (my original message started with this
sentence: If the U.S. decides to get into the brawl quickly ...).
You were aruging for the infeasibility of a quick U.S. involvement.
UNDER THE CONTEXT OF THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION, how is the U.S.
going to get herself involved according to your argument? Only
AFTER Taiwan has been conquered. If i extrapolate this to say that
you were saying the U.S. would definitely not involve (infeasible
implies definitely not in THIS CONTEXT), no one in the world would
agree with you that i put words in your mouth.
And the thing about nuclear winter ......
HaHaHa....
You are going to nuke me and I have to worry about nuclear winter??
Are you out of your mind ?? (I find it strange.. the American leadership
has to worry about everything and the chinese leadership has a freehand do
whatever thay want ???...)
The effect of the nulcear winter is NOT going to last long say within
a decade. Just look at the explosion of Mount Pinotubo in Philipines
in the early 90s. Even with 50 or 100 times more ash than
Pinotubo, the effect is still not going to last long. After that I
still have 10 to 20 milllions and you have all gone to the LaLa land
and become one of the ancient lost civilizations (such as the
Carthagians, the Hittites, the Mochas, etc... etc). HaHaHa...
And you are worying about nuclear winter??
The chinese are planning (at least implicitly pointed out by you)
to nuke the U.S. cities (i.e. they are using nuclear weapon strategically
not tactically) if the U.S. decided to directly involve herself into
the brawl which is A LEGAL act according to the Taiwan Relation Act.
The chinese are using the nuclear weapon to BLACKMAIL (actually,
bluff is more accurate) the U.S. not as a deterrence (LOOK UP THE
MEANINGS OF THESE WORDS !!!) Since most of the U.S presidents are
lawyers, basically, you want to BLUFF a lawyer...... an amusing
concept indeed.
One thing that I cant tolerate is your thick sino-centric world
view. What on earth makes you think that a U.S. president would be
so indecisive because of the threat of nuclear weapon ?? Can the
President of the U.S., the leader of the free world, be
bluffed that easily?
Maybe you were but he/she is PROBABLY NOT.... definitely NOT INFEASIBLE.
It is obvious that the U.S. strategical planners realize the only course
the chinese can take to prevent the U.S from involving is to bluff
its way out of it using nuclear threats.
Who can blame them that they want a complete and effective
missile defense for the entire nation? If that really happens, the
chinese wont even get a chance to bluff.
Man!! It is REALLY tiring to talk to someone who cant think straight!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/17 07:00
發表內容：
I just couldnt concentrate the whole afternoon, even during
my weekly research group meeting because I find the whole
argument here with ?amusing. It seems that she/he has
no idea of what constitutes a bluff.
You bluffed me with your nuclear attack and I counter-bluffed
with threat of a toal annihilation. Then she/he retorted
with think about the nuclear winter.....
Hahaha.. I just cant stop thinking about this line. Hey, sit back and
relax and think about what you said. Isnt it funny and
silly and almost to the point of being cute ??
If the U.S. would allow the chinese to bluff its way out
of conquering Taiwan, how is the U.S. going to react
afterwards if the chinese ever decide to invade Vietnam, North
Korea, Phillipines, or even Siberia? There isnt any domestic
U.S. law requires the U.S. aid to these country and according
to her/his argument, the U.S. would have sit idly by and
allow the chinese to bluff its way out of everything it
desires. I dont know what and how make you think the Americans
are like that.
Maybe this would happen after 50 or 100 years when
the strength of China can overwhelm the U.S. But, for
the next 10 to 20 years, the U.S. is still the sole
super-power in the world and China is only the second
or third fiddler on the world stage. You expect the U.S.
to swallow the chinese nuclear bluff with pride and
willingness?
ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND??
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 於 2000/11/17 08:32
o表內容：
Since somebody is putting words into my mouth again, Ill just waste
another couple of minutes here.
Officially, PRC has no-first-use policy for nuclear weapon. So, Im
by no means implying The chinese are planning to nuke the U.S.
cities (i.e. they are using nuclear weapon strategically not
tactically) if the U.S. decided to directly involve herself.
What I was saying, REPEAT, is that an American president would
have grave worry about possible nuclear counter-attack if the US
drops bomb on Chinese territory. Im
merely putting myself into the presidents shoes. Thats why
I said infeasible about sending B2 to China hours after the
war.
It seems that somebody hasnt learned how to debate fair and square,
>>UNDER THE CONTEXT OF THE ORIGINAL DISCUSSION, how is the U.S.
going to get herself involved according to your argument? Only
AFTER Taiwan has been conquered. If i extrapolate this to say that
you were saying the U.S. would definitely not involve (infeasible
implies definitely not in THIS CONTEXT), no one in the world would
agree with you that i put words in your mouth.<<
Your extrapolation is just a good example of putting words into
my mouth. Where did I ever say the US would definitely not involve??
I already gave an example of possible US involvement, see
the volunteer fighter wing scenario. I just checked, thank god my
previous post is still there! (2000/11/17 03:42)
Learn something new everyday - putting words into others mouth then
yell are you out of your mind.
And this guy will now tell everybody he meets: people from PRC
are all crazy cockroaches who bluffed me with your nuclear
attack.
Sigh.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 於 2000/11/17 09:16
發表內容：
Just an observation,
Armstrong said
If the U.S. really wants to get into the brawl quickly,
the B-2s from the AFB in Missouri can carry their 16
2000lbs bombs (each) and fly to the Far East in less than
18 hrs. If the U.S. decides to deploy B-2 at Guam, that
will cut down the reaction time even further.
One B-2 with 16 2000lbs bombs can pretty much sink most
of the major PLAN surface warships. Say 4 bombs each for
the two heavier Sovrenmenny class destroyers and 3 bombs
each for the two Luhu class destroyers .. etc .. etc..
A pair of B-2s can pretty much wipe out the entire PLANs
major surface combatants.....
(Armstrong 於 2000/11/15 16:22 )
白雲 replied Armstrongs above statements as the following
一廂情愿。 How long did America prepare for the Gulf war? How longdid America prepare for the Balkan war?
Now in those two wars, the US more or less borrowed the UN logo for legitimacy. What would happen if China were involved? OK, lets say the big uncle would do it by himself for Taiwan. Does the next president of the US have the nerve?
Chinais a nuclear power. When you directly drop bomb to its ports/airports/utilities,will you be afraid? Its easy to say the nobody in China would be crazy enough to
think about nuke and I personally dont believe that even if the US bombs China. But, put yourself into americans shoes? What if the small possibility did materialize?
As I found, one guy said bombing PLANs surface combatants, another took as drop bomb to Chinas ports/airports/utilities.
Therefore, nuclear war erupted!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 於 2000/11/17 09:51
發表內容：
To 小滬尾
You missed some of my sentences.
Following along
>>One B-2 with 16 2000lbs bombs can pretty much sink most
of the major PLAN surface warships. Say 4 bombs each for
the two heavier Sovrenmenny class destroyers and 3 bombs
each for the two Luhu class destroyers .. etc .. etc.. <<
I questioned
Where are the targets? Are they lining up waiting for the bombs?
It was said that
>>A pair of B-2s can pretty much wipe out the entire PLANs
major surface combatants..... <<
Now if 小滬尾 wants me to be precise, arent we safe to say
that at least some of the PLANs major surface combatabts
will be in the ports, near the ports, or inside the 12 sea
mile territory?
Not to mention the technical difficulty of using B2 to attack
ships in open sea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 於 2000/11/17 10:12
發表內容：
You missed some of my sentences.
Following along
>>One B-2 with 16 2000lbs bombs can pretty much sink most
of the major PLAN surface warships. Say 4 bombs each for
the two heavier Sovrenmenny class destroyers and 3 bombs
each for the two Luhu class destroyers .. etc .. etc.. <<
I questioned
Where are the targets? Are they lining up waiting for the bombs?
Yes. it is my mistake not to include that.
However, Armstrong did not mention bombing Chinas ports.
Now if 小滬尾 wants me to be precise, arent we safe to say that at least some of the PLANs major surface combatabts will be in the ports, near the ports, or inside the 12 sea mile territory?
Yeap, it will be more precise and interesting.
You should ask Armstrong if it was his attack scope, not interpretate his statement as the one to attack ships in Chinas territory.
Not to mention the technical difficulty of using B2 to attack ships in open sea.
Nuh..
I am really interested in the discussion about the tech, issuse regarding using B2 to attack ships in open sea.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9999 於 2000/11/17 12:26
發表內容：
各位仁兄好！
Interesting discussion here.
In my opinion, bombing PLAN is declaring war against ML, no matter PLAN is inside or not the 12 sea mile territory.
Regarding to declaring war against ML, besides nuclear weapon, there is another option for ML: PUSH north Korea attack south. In other words, reopen Korea war so that US and China fight in 3-Dimension in stead of 2-D since US has the responsibility to protect SK.
As Taiwan to US, north Korea is kind of 棋子 to China.
You may say, whether China has such ability is debatable. Yes, you are right.But the same as nuclear weapon, danger is good enough, sometimes.
How about this? :-)
越看，越覺得自己象個戰爭狂人。是吧?
小滬尾兄見諒， 我又在討論Korea war了呵呵
My point is it is better to stand on yourselves. Hard to tell how much you can count on US.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/17 13:19
發表內容：
Now if 小滬尾 wants me to be precise, arent we safe to say that at least some of the PLANs major surface combatabts will be in
the ports, near the ports, or inside the 12 sea mile territory?
Yeh, You want to conquer Taiwan in 7 to 12 days and the first
6 or 10 days your ships are going to be in ports or near ports??
With today PLAs (missile force and air force) configurations,
you are not that good to do that purely by missiles and airplanes.
Originally, I thought the only sensible way for the PLA to
accomplish this tour de force is to pressure Taiwan militarily
in as many directions as possible and as early on as possible
in order to produce confusions among the political and military leaders
and the populance. One of the main ingredients is to entice Taiwans warships
to get out of their ports and to engage and destroy them by
starting the blockade.
For the U.S. to decisively influence that outcome, this is their chance
by simply destroying the PLAs major naval warships in the
open sea without them even knowing who did the backstabbing.
This was my ORIGINAL INTENTION and I assume Mr. Admirer
was thinking along the same line (by the way, where is
this Taiwanese Mr. Admirer??).
However, apparently I have OVERESTIMATED the PLA.
Their battle plan is to use missiles and fighters
to bombard Taiwan for 6 to 10 days while most of the
PLANs warships are in their home ports.
After the successful first phase the PLANs warships
can then safely escort the transports to land the PLA
on Taiwan. What a plan...... !!!
Look at the PLAs naval tactics. They are accustomed to
large naval formations (like the Russians). Just watch the TV footages
of their naval exercises and the reason for this penchant
for large formations is obvious. Because most of their
ships are either bad at anti-submarine warfare or lack
appropriate air defense or not good with surface
warfare... etc. It is understandable that a commander
would feel safer in a larger formation which offers
better protections. Of course, the bad thing about
a large formation is that your enemy can locate you
with relative ease.
One thing to notice here is that pretty much every
PLANs major warhips are very vulnerable against
CONVENTIONAL air attacks. A steathy B2 flying at 30 to
40 thousand feet which your naval SAMs cant lock onto and
the AAAs simply cant reach it (and not to mention you wont
even know about it in the darkest of night). A large
formation of PLANs warships simply offer easy targets for the
16 2000lbs Laser-guided bombs onboard a B2. To avoid
this kind of disaster, the PLAN commanders better pray for
heavily overcast nights.
What do i mean by major PLA surface combatants?
the first tier warships:
----------------------------------------
2 Sovremennyy class destroyers.
1 Luhai class
2 Luhu class
1 Luda-II
--------------------------------------------
A single B2 (with 16 2000lbs) THEORETICALLY can sink all
of them in a single tour of duty. Just allocate the
16 bombs yourself.
the 2nd tier warships:
--------------------------------------
15 Luda-I class
---------------------------------------
Again, a single B2 with correctly placed 2000lbs can
damage if not sink all of them, theoretically.
-------------------------------------------
Other PLANs warships:
the Jianwei class
the Jianhu class
-------------------------------------------
For these, the Taiwans navy would be more than happy to sink
themselves.
**********************************************************
Even with this said, however, it is plainly stupid for
any PLA commanders to ignore the possibility of a
direct U.S. attack on their ports, no matter how
slight the chance is. As for the Americans, they
would do anything they deem necessary to achieve their
strategical goals. These goals, in this context, include
the prevention of the chinese occupation of Taiwan, localize
the conflict, seek resolutions ASAP, protect U.S. interests
in the Far East, etc. Whatever they would do is up to them.
However, it is plainly stupid for the PLA to reject the
notion of a direct conventional U.S. attack on China proper,
which the U.S. can do with relative ease (not vice versa).
Lets just suppose the U.S really
decides to use B2 to bomb the chinese ports and keeps
quiet about (I am not claiming this will be done). What
are you going to do?? Immediately launch your ICBMs
at LA or chicago ??
I remember I had the exact same argument with some
chinese dude at Giantdot last years right after President
Lee anounced the Two nations doctrine. Are you the same
guy???
I found it unbelievable that you are hiding behind
your nuclear deterrence and completely reject the
possibility of a U.S. attack on your harbors, again,
however slight the chance is. This turtle-like
attitude is almost laughable.
This is very much like some misinformed Taiwanese (such
as Mr. Admirer whose Taiwanese status is in question)
thinking that getting ourselves 30 or 40 warheads would
guarantee Taiwans security forever.
Even with this number of warheads, comparing with Chinas
intermediate and short-range nuclear capability, the
disparity is just too large to even comtemplate the possibility
of first strike. That is, as long as the PLA never
uses their nuclear weapons on us, neither President Lee or President
Chen would be stupid enough to order a nuclear strike when
the chinese start bombing our harbors or airports.
Similar disparity in capabilities exists between
China and the U.S. When the U.S. secretly bombs your
ports (with their technology, this is FEASIBLE) and you,
without 100% certain who did it, want to launch your
ICBMs at them? Talking about nuclear bluffs and brinkmanship?
With chinas current capability, when the cards are dealt,
I will bet on the chinese to fold before the U.S. does.
Man.. It is really tiring to talk to someone who cant
think straight.
As I said above, I dont share any similar ground with you
on this and other issues and I will stop here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/17 13:25
發表內容：
PUSH north Korea attack south.
Do you think the North Korea is going to be
that stupid to listen to the Chinese when they are not
certain the outcome of the U.S.-Chinese conflict.
If China decides to invade North Korea because it rejects
the chinese demand, that is even better for Taiwan.
With the chinese invasion of the North Korea, this is
definitely going to drag Japan, South Korea and Russia
into the whole mess.
who is the loser is pretty obvious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9999 於 2000/11/17 13:59
發表內容：
Do you think the North Korea is going to be
that stupid to listen to the Chinese when they are not
certain the outcome of the U.S.-Chinese conflict.
I have said this is debatable. Also as I said,
But the same as nuclear weapon, danger is good enough, sometimes.
I just want to say, as US president, he has to consider very carefully before he declares war against China (or bomb PLAN).
By the way, why you are so sure US will fight China under any circumstances to protect TW?
If China decides to invade North Korea because it rejects
the chinese demand
Woooo, where is your logic?!
Did I say this is a part of the option for China? Please reply reasonably. Do not make your conclusion stronger, in this way. I mean , by make-up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 於 2000/11/17 15:53
發表內容：
Come on, Armstrong, why are you so angry? No people here is saying that PLA can surely conqure Taiwan in a week. No people here is supporting to start a war immediately. I cannot find a reason why you cannot focus on your research work, which is much more important.
Yes, we do have different opinions:
First we are talking about the possible military confilict between Mainland and Taiwan. USs character in such a situation is still unknown. It depends on so many criteria, such as why the war starts, Japan and Europes reactions, etc.
Secondly, we agree that PLA is far behinds USs army. I am sure both the PLA and US army have some simulations of a possible war. And thats the reason why US send additonal missiles and submarines in the area as well as PLA makes so many anti-air war games. However, it is not as easy as a PC game for the US to destroy PLA. Maybe you can give us more information on the role of B2 in previous wars. US will well consider before using B2, which is a strategic weapon.
Thirdly, once the war starts, I cannot see the possibility of a complete failure of PLA. Even what you assumed happens--PLAs main fleet were sunken by the B2s, and they lost totally the ability to send their army to taiwan, what do you think PLA would do next? Surrender, or launch ICBM toward the states. Both are not likely. They will probably continue to use submarines and missiles to attack taiwan, not the US, till Beijing won back some faces. Under such a condition, Taiwan people suffers most.
Fourthly, many people, including the politicions on both sides know clearly the result of a war. But it is still a possibility of the war because ration is not always dominating. The best choice for both of us is to respect the people as well as the military power of the opposite side. Your argument is not in that way.
Finally, aparently you suspect admirers identity as a Taiwan citizen. The only reason I can see is that he points out a possible trend of this board to under evaluate of PLA. Do you think that every taiwanese must agree your opinion? And in your last post, you even talk about a union a russian, japan, korea, US to fight against China. Oh, my god, please show us something that you have learned from democaracy and research.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 於 2000/11/18 00:34
發表內容：
Armstrong,
I agree with your B2 idea. B2s stealth feature posts similar threat just like subs.
At mean time, those 2000lb LGB are in sevice in Taiwan as well. There is no strong evidence for PLA to nail U.S.
However, I will not consider using B2 to bomb those ships which Chinas 12 miles as a clever measure. I prefer to do that near the middle of Taiwan Strait.
To Question,
>Thirdly, once the war starts, I cannot see the possibility of a complete failure of PLA. Even what you assumed happens--PLAs main fleet were sunken by the B2s, and they lost totally the ability to send their army to taiwan, what do you think PLA would do next? Surrender, or launch ICBM toward the states. Both are not likely. They will probably continue to use submarines and missiles to attack taiwan, not the US, till Beijing won back some faces. Under such a condition, Taiwan people suffers most.
There is no doubt that Beijing will try to win some face back. Nevertheless, those sub and misslie action wont save the face much.
If China conduct some attack toward Taiwans civilian, I can guarantee you, not only Taiwanese people suffer most, but also our ccompany, people in China.
Finally, aparently you suspect admirers identity as a Taiwan citizen. The only reason I can see is that he points out a possible trend of this board to under evaluate of PLA.
Not only Armstrong suspect Mr.Admirers Taiwanese indentity, me, also.
When I saw his first reply in Chinese, I just could not stop laughing so hard. Just very,very awkward.
No Taiwanese here will believe him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 於 2000/11/18 02:18
發表內容：
To 小滬尾
>>Yeap, it will be more precise and interesting.
You should ask Armstrong if it was his attack scope, not interpretate his statement as the one to attack
ships in Chinas territory.<<
Come on, youd be a lousy lawyer:-) (Just teasing you)
Somebody was saying, quote, A pair of B-2s can pretty much wipe out the entire PLANs
major surface combatants..... (Note: entire)
While I questioned where are the targets, he didnt answer. Later,
even you yourself agreed that it will be more precise and
interesting to say that at least some of PLANs major surface
combatabts will be in the ports, near the ports, or inside the
12 sea mile territory.
The point is, throughout the entire nuclear war, the other party
believes bombing Chinas territory is not a grave problem. Quote
Even with this said, however, it is plainly stupid for any PLA
commanders to ignore the possibility of a direct U.S. attack on
their ports, no matter how slight the chance is. As for the
Americans, they would do anything they deem necessary to achieve
their strategical goals.
There are lots of other similar statements. I dont want to
comment on these anymore.
>>I agree with your B2 idea. B2s stealth feature posts similar threat just like subs.
At mean time, those 2000lb LGB are in sevice in Taiwan as well. There is no strong evidence for PLA to
nail U.S.<<
I have reservation regarding to using B2 to bomb moving warships.
LGBs are maneuvrable, but they cannot fly long distance.
At open sea, the laser illumination can only be expected from B2
itself, which could cause longer exposure. For the defense side,
detecting laser illumination and start counter-maneuvring is not
difficult. The Shtola system on Russian new tanks such as T90
can do that and even claimed to be able to defeat laser guidance.
In recent wars, LGBs scored mostly on fixed strategic targets.
The laser system performance will be significantly degraded by
bad weather, such as fog, rain and cloud, even haze and humidity,
which are all quite common on sea.
>>Not only Armstrong suspect Mr.Admirers Taiwanese indentity, me, also.
When I saw his first reply in Chinese, I just could not stop laughing so hard. Just very,very awkward.
No Taiwanese here will believe him. <<
I appologized once, for suspecting somebodys identity without
firm evidence. To be honest, I dont believe hes from ML even
today.
But those things are more or less irrelevant even though those
prentenders (we think/guess) may have their own motivations.
Whats really important is the point or statement. After
all, internet is a world of virtual reality.
Have a good weekend.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 於 2000/11/18 02:43
發表內容：
>Come on, youd be a lousy lawyer:-) (Just teasing you)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>At open sea, the laser illumination can only be expected from B2
itself, which could cause longer exposure. For the defense side,
detecting laser illumination and start counter-maneuvring is not
difficult. The Shtola system on Russian new tanks such as T90
can do that and even claimed to be able to defeat laser guidance.
In recent wars, LGBs scored mostly on fixed strategic targets.
The laser system performance will be significantly degraded by
bad weather, such as fog, rain and cloud, even haze and humidity,
which are all quite common on sea.
Very reasonable.
Have a good weekend.
You,too!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/18 13:24
發表內容：
At open sea, the laser illumination can only be expected from B2
itself, which could cause longer exposure. For the defense side,
detecting laser illumination and start counter-maneuvring is not
difficult. The Shtola system on Russian new tanks such as T90
can do that and even claimed to be able to defeat laser guidance.
In recent wars, LGBs scored mostly on fixed strategic targets.
The laser system performance will be significantly degraded by
bad weather, such as fog, rain and cloud, even haze and humidity,
which are all quite common on sea.
All these sounded reasonable. However, they didnt prove
anything close to the infeasibility of a B2 attack.
The most obvious weakpoint is that it only takes a bomb
less than 90 secs to fall from 30 thousand feet. Even
with the most advanced laser detection system (it would be
safer for you to use the example after the PLAN has deployed
similar systems on their warships), considering
the human reaction time, for a ship that is more than 100
meters long to maneuver agaist a guided bomb in less than
a minute is NOT as easy as you claimed. In addition,
knowing where the laser coming from without knowing where
the bombs are, how on earth makes you think that your
evasive maneuver is going to be effective. If the B2
releases the bomb almost right above you (the blind spot
for most naval radar), how are you going to know where are the
bombs? Even if you can defeat the laser guidance, with only
less than a minute of free fall for the bombs and
without knowing where the bombs are coming from, doing
eavasive maneuver for a ship that is more than 100 meters
long is NOT EASY at all. If your ship was cruising at 12 knots,
to get it all the way up to 25 knots or above to perform the
maneuver effectively, it is going to take MORE than one
minutes, ie. before the bombs has reached the ship
(considering the steam boilers used by the PLANs
warships, it is prabably going to take longer).
Instead of allocating 4 bombs for the Soveremmny destroyer,
I will use 8 and the probability will be on my side even
if these bombs turn out to be dumb.
The atmospheric conditions can certainly determine the
effectiveness of these 2000lbs. They are in no way allows
you to claim that it is infeasible to use such weapons
against maritime targets. Either one can attack right
after dusk when most of the surface moisture has not been
condensed into fog or mist. Or just use infrared-Tv guided
bombs. With the warships huge smokestacks becoming
the source of infrared amid the background of the ocean,
these bombs can proably do better jobs. If needed,
the B-2 can just carry cruise missiles or Harpoons instead. If
the Harpoons are fired at the point blank range of 5 to 10
miles, with their rocket fuel and the steep dive trajectory,
they are probably even more lethal than the 2000lbs.
With so many different munitions that the U.S. can choose
from her arsenal, 2000lbs laser-guided bombs was only one
example that I cited (almost capriciously) to argue that
it is NOT infeasible for the U.S. to involve herself
quickly. This is main point of the discussion.
Seeing so many online chinese patriots (most
of them have no problem with U.S. sending the fleets)
arguing forcefully for the infeasibility of the B2
attack really makes me giddy.
To get youself familiar with the capability of B2,
just go to the following site and ready to be awed by
its capability.
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/b2/index.html
And pay special attention to a sentence in there which says:
The B-2 has the capacity to carry up to 40,000 lb of weapons, including
conventional and nuclear weapons, precision-guided munitions, gravity
bombs and a range of maritime weapons.
See the word maritime ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/18 13:43
發表內容：
Addendum:
Also pay attention to the following sentence:
An assessment published by the USAF
showed that two B-2s armed with precision
weaponry can do the job of 75 conventional aircraft
Thats right !! 75 convetional aircraft. Thats two
aircraft carriers there. (Each aircraft carrier carries
about 40 conventional aircraft).
Saying that a pair of B2 can pretty much wipe out
the major PLAN surface combatants is not tactically
unsounded at all.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOBODY 於 2000/11/18 20:36
發表內容：
好消息！CASP发射成功！
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
白雲 於 2000/11/18 22:45
發表內容：
Somebody is putting words into my mouth again.
Where did I say that B2 bombing ships was
infeasible? I was merely listing technical difficulties that
a B2 would face in bombing ships.
Since somebody brought about LGB, I said LGBs were
mostly used to take out fixed targets. They dont have
motors so cannot actively fly long (basically, cannot change their
own trajectory significantly, they can fly like a free fall
object with relatively long distance no problem if the carrier
has enough altitude and speed). Ships, on the other
hand, can start maneuvring, ON TOP OF moving at 20 knots
(or, 12 knots as assumed) after it detects laser illumination.
After one minute, a ship can be hundreds of meters away
from the presumed route.
About Infra-red/TV guided bombs, still they dont work well in
bad weather. (Note, next time please dont say I said they were
infeasible)
About B2 firing cruise missiles, most of the cruise
missiles so far have been used on fixed targets. If B2 wants
to fire a harpoon at the point blank range of 5 to 10
miles, the purpose of stealth would be defeated, after it opens
the fire control radar.
>>With so many different munitions that the U.S. can choose
from her arsenal, 2000lbs laser-guided bombs was only one
example that I cited (almost capriciously) to argue that
it is NOT infeasible for the U.S. to involve herself
quickly. This is main point of the discussion.<<
Dont switch topic. The main point was nuke, I bet you still
remember.
And never did I said that using B2 to bomb a ship was technically
infeasible. I was just pointing out the technical difficulties.
>>Thats right !! 75 convetional aircraft. Thats two
aircraft carriers there. (Each aircraft carrier carries
about 40 conventional aircraft).<<
Tell this to the congress, Americans tax money has been wasted
in a horrible way because they should replace their 12 CVs with
just 24 B2s. BTW, a CV can carry much more that just 40
conventional aircrafts. (or did you mean attackers? be precise next
time)
>>Seeing so many online chinese patriots (most
of them have no problem with U.S. sending the fleets)
arguing forcefully for the infeasibility of the B2
attack really makes me giddy. <<
Either you have very bad memory, or youre not an honest person.
The infeasibility comes from bombing Chinas territory, which
has nothing to do with B2s tactical capability (although I did
list difficulties itll encounter when bombing ships).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
小滬尾 於 2000/11/19 07:19
發表內容：
mmmm, very interesting discussions.
1.As a matter of fact, AGM-84 can be pre-instructed with several way points, and active radar of AGM-84 will be activate at certain point which is believed to be approaching the target.
Thus, theoretically, there is no need for B2 to use its fire control radar, and its stealthy status is still maintained.
However, it will be quite risky while AGM-84 is launched at high altitude. That means the possibilities of losing stealth.
I will suggest that such attack will better be conducted under lower attitude and longer distance away from target.
2.I was thinking of using GBU-15 IR/TV guided bomb since its passive guidance feature. GBU-15 IR/TV will be less weather-affected in comparision with GBU-27.
However, I had worried about certain condtion according to the following figuire.
The minimum distance from the target is at least 13,000 fts. Based on its feasible flying envelop, such attack is easy to be detected. The bomb can be intercepted by SAM without significant difficulty due its low velocity.
Therefore, I will consider applying some ECM associated with such operation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armstrong 於 2000/11/19 12:11
發表內容：
There is a very simply tactical solution or
explaination to all these.
In a large naval formation, not every ship will turn on the
radar, obviously to avoid exposing the position of the
core to the enemy. Ususally the ship(s) on the radar
picket duty that has the radar on is positioned at the
outskirt of the formation. The distance between the core
and the radar picket unit cant be too short otherwise
it will defeat the purpose of concealing your position.
After the B2 has penetrated this outer line of defense,
the inner core of the formation, without
any active detection system, is very vulnerable to
the attacks from the air, even with unguided bombs.
