Posted on 12/23/2010 9:53:26 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
During the 1995–1996 Taiwan Strait crisis, the United States intervened by deploying two carrier groups in response to Chinese missile tests near major Taiwanese ports. These tests were a means of coercively influencing pro-independence elements during the Taiwan presidential election and were considered by China to be an "internal" matter. The U.S. action therefore triggered enormous nationalistic resentment, rooted largely in historical humiliations and infringements on Chinese sovereignty by foreign powers. They also fueled a determined drive to mitigate or prevent such infringements on Chinese sovereignty in the future.
The national security strategy of China is built upon the concepts of sovereignty and territorial integrity. In defending these core national interests, People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) capabilities, doctrine, and training have been developed to support a comprehensive antiaccess/area-denial strategy. While these antiaccess capabilities cannot yet effectively counter U.S. capabilities, they have contributed to mounting U.S. concerns over China's current military modernization efforts. These concerns also facilitate misperceptions about "preemptive" Chinese military doctrine. If not clarified, dangerous miscalculations on both sides of the Pacific are possible, particularly if tensions over Taiwan are renewed.
While the Chinese air force has modified doctrine and improved capabilities to deter U.S. intervention in a Taiwan scenario, it remains a force with limited striking power. Due to a lack of experience and training in offensive air operations and its adherence to the strategic concept of active defense (jiji fangyu), China's air force is also not prepared to launch preemptive attacks in the absence of preexisting hostilities.1 But, as these capabilities and doctrine mature, U.S. forces and bases in the region will become increasingly vulnerable to Chinese antiaccess capabilities, requiring further efforts to enhance survivability, redundancy, and standoff capabilities to maintain the ability to project and sustain power in the region. For
(Excerpt) Read more at ndu.edu ...
So how’s that “free trade” thing working out, America?
It seems like this article is focusing on Chinese efforts to deny access to naval carriers and the like. What it fails to mention is that, in short order, the Chinese can knock out every airport runway on Taiwan.
It’s better to have carrier groups which have to be wary of Chinese defenses rather than having zero capability to launch an attack from land. More and more, I wonder if the Air Force will ever play much of a role in any conflagration outside of the roles of the bomber fleets. In order to succeed, we need to have land access close to the battlefield.
I just don’t see how in many of the Russian or Chinese scenarios we won’t face the prospect of having no suitable airfields close enough to matter. It’s a long way from either Japan or South Korea to be able to apply any force in the Chinese theater, in my opinion.
I agree that the Air Force will play a major role against China. I think that we have enough land bases that can hold enough fighters and bombers. We have the three bases in South Korea,Yokota,Misawa and Kadena Air Base in Japan,Elmendorf AFB and Hickam AFB. There is enough coverage in the Pacific even though Elmendorf and Hickam might be a little late to the fight.
I did forget Anderson AFB in Guam.
It’s going to take a lot of aerial refueling to get them safely there and back, assuming that the conflagration is in the Taiwan area. I have heard that the costs of aerial refueling are obscene — on the order of $20 or more per gallon!
Your right, its not cheap to refuel in the air.For the planes from South Korea and Japan it would be rather easy to refuel since they are close to their bases. The ones from Anderson,Elmendorf,Eielson and Hickam is an entirely different matter.They would have to refuel to get their objectives. Maybe there would be enough room either in Japan or South Korea to house these planes.
Thank you very much.May you have a blessed Christmas too.
This is the excuse NATO (Klinton), a defensive alliance, used to attack Yugoslavia.
ChiComs are fast learners; foreward bases and coalitions (a la Gulf War) are now considered first strike.
yitbos
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.