Wargame simulations show Russia and China could defeat US

[Novus America]

I've been advocating a return to the "Battleship" concept in the vein of an American Kirov-type ship. In an environment with lots of Dong Fengs and the need to take them out, a ship able to take hits and dish out a shit ton of missiles in response is needed.

Surface ships are so much more vulnerable and visible and Chinese ASW is trash, just get some new SSGNs and SSNs imo- they can dish out the missiles but they don't have to worry as much abt getting hit by them, can sneak up on the Chinese and such, etc

Also longer-range strike aircraft are super important to our carriers not becoming useless relics

Ship based radars are LOS. So really they are not all that visible.
Finding things at sea is hard, because you can only see as far as the horizon.
Meaning without aircraft you cannot see more than about 30NM at most.

The Dong Fengs have never been tested against a target at see.
Finding and hitting a moving target at sea with a ballistic missile is extremely difficult as ballistic missiles have very limited ability to retarget once launched.

Aircraft carriers are critical in naval warfare because without them you are blind.
A missile with a 1000NM range does nothing a missile with a 30NM range cannot if you cannot see more than 30NM.

Submarines have a limited sensor range as well.
Plus aircraft kill subs.

Not that we should ignore submarines. Submarines are absolutely vital as well.
If you have air superiority at sea and submarines your enemy is truly fucked.

[Confederate States of German America]

I've been advocating a return to the "Battleship" concept in the vein of an American Kirov-type ship. In an environment with lots of Dong Fengs and the need to take them out, a ship able to take hits and dish out a shit ton of missiles in response is needed.

Surface ships are so much more vulnerable and visible and Chinese ASW is trash, just get some new SSGNs and SSNs imo- they can dish out the missiles but they don't have to worry as much abt getting hit by them, can sneak up on the Chinese and such, etc

Also longer-range strike aircraft are super important to our carriers not becoming useless relics

1. That assumes ASW will always be shitty on the part of the Chinese or Russians; not a good idea, given how fast they've closed the gap in other areas.
2. It's far cheaper to build a stealthy surface ship than a boomer, and said surface ship can carry more missiles.

[Communism is key 9]

This is good and bad.

i would embrace the communism i really dont care for capatalism im not going to hate on america but i love communism more than anything.

[Tokora]

1. Is this really a surprise? 2v1 normally ends with the 2 on top.

2. The real question is if Russia and US can defeat China.

[Novus America]

This is good and bad.

i would embrace the communism i really dont care for capatalism im not going to hate on america but i love communism more than anything.

Russia is not Communist and does not even claim to be.
Russia is a crony capitalist kleptocracy.

China claims to be on the path to Communism but we all know that is BS.
China is a capitalist state.

So no matter who wins, capitalism wins.
The new Cold War is not capitalism vs Communism.

[Flawless Walruses]

Surface ships are so much more vulnerable and visible and Chinese ASW is trash, just get some new SSGNs and SSNs imo- they can dish out the missiles but they don't have to worry as much abt getting hit by them, can sneak up on the Chinese and such, etc

Also longer-range strike aircraft are super important to our carriers not becoming useless relics

1. That assumes ASW will always be shitty on the part of the Chinese or Russians; not a good idea, given how fast they've closed the gap in other areas.
2. It's far cheaper to build a stealthy surface ship than a boomer, and said surface ship can carry more missiles.

China has SQUIDs, and is most certainly using them in sensor networks for ASW.

China's ASW capabilities are probably better than the USAs in the waters within their "second island chain".

Also, aircraft carriers were obsolete even before the end of the Cold War. Great platforms for projecting force against goat-herders armed with rusty Type 56s. Billion-dollar steel coffins against anyone with satellites and anti-ship missiles built after 1990.

[Major-Tom]

First off, we need wargame simulations on Liechtenstein, we can't trust them.

Second, in all seriousness, so? Unless Russia and China knowingly decide to simultaneously ally, formulate a war plan, and run the risk of eviscerating half of humanity just to "flex on" the US, this is sorta a meaningless metric as it's such a far-fetched hypothetical. It's more likely the US will defeat itself than a foreign entity vis-a-vis war.

[Flawless Walruses]

First off, we need wargame simulations on Liechtenstein, we can't trust them.

Second, in all seriousness, so? Unless Russia and China knowingly decide to simultaneously ally, formulate a war plan, and run the risk of eviscerating half of humanity just to "flex on" the US, this is sorta a meaningless metric as it's such a far-fetched hypothetical. It's more likely the US will defeat itself than a foreign entity vis-a-vis war.

Liechtenstein is undermining and de-legitimising USA democracy by sabotaging United States tax policy on moneys held there.

Clearly, Congress must enact legislation to lavishly resist this terrorism against the Homeland. And investigate Trump and Bernie Sander's undoubted collusion with the Prince of Liechtenstein.

[Major-Tom]

First off, we need wargame simulations on Liechtenstein, we can't trust them.

Second, in all seriousness, so? Unless Russia and China knowingly decide to simultaneously ally, formulate a war plan, and run the risk of eviscerating half of humanity just to "flex on" the US, this is sorta a meaningless metric as it's such a far-fetched hypothetical. It's more likely the US will defeat itself than a foreign entity vis-a-vis war.

Liechtenstein is undermining and de-legitimising USA democracy by sabotaging United States tax policy on moneys held there.

Clearly, Congress must enact legislation to lavishly resist this terrorism against the Homeland. And investigate Trump and Bernie Sander's undoubted collusion with the Prince of Liechtenstein.

20% of Liechtenstein's populace is involved in this conspiracy.

So, yeah, it's just one dude.

[Flawless Walruses]

Liechtenstein is undermining and de-legitimising USA democracy by sabotaging United States tax policy on moneys held there.

Clearly, Congress must enact legislation to lavishly resist this terrorism against the Homeland. And investigate Trump and Bernie Sander's undoubted collusion with the Prince of Liechtenstein.

20% of Liechtenstein's populace is involved in this conspiracy.

So, yeah, it's just one dude.

We can't afford complacency.

The first warning could come in the form of a photograph of snow-capped mountains above an American tourist's head.

[Cedoria]

The US not being the only superpower sounds pretty good to me.

Unless you're a patriotic American.

Nope. Plenty of patriots don't want to be an Empire.

Frankly, if you're a Republic playing at Empire, you only have a certain amount of time before you have to pick one or the other. The Romans showed that quite plainly. Neither of those can co-exist together indefinitely.

The time is rapidly arriving I suspect.

[Novus America]

1. That assumes ASW will always be shitty on the part of the Chinese or Russians; not a good idea, given how fast they've closed the gap in other areas.
2. It's far cheaper to build a stealthy surface ship than a boomer, and said surface ship can carry more missiles.

China has SQUIDs, and is most certainly using them in sensor networks for ASW.

China's ASW capabilities are probably better than the USAs in the waters within their "second island chain".

Also, aircraft carriers were obsolete even before the end of the Cold War. Great platforms for projecting force against goat-herders armed with rusty Type 56s. Billion-dollar steel coffins against anyone with satellites and anti-ship missiles built after 1990.

This is not true. Finding things at sea is damn hard.
Clearly you have never served in a naval service.
And why do you think people still get lost a sea and we cannot find them?

Satellites can only scan a tiny area at high enough resolution to find a ship.
Plus can be destroyed or have their communications jammed.

They are no silver bullet.
In fact in a US China war satellites are probably the first thing to go.

Without aircraft your ships at sea are blind, unable to see beyond 30 NM or so, and unable to shoot farther than that.

Without aircraft to find targets, anti-ship missiles are pretty worthless beyond 30NM.

[Novus America]

Unless you're a patriotic American.

Nope. Plenty of patriots don't want to be an Empire.

Frankly, if you're a Republic playing at Empire, you only have a certain amount of time before you have to pick one or the other. The Romans showed that quite plainly. Neither of those can co-exist together indefinitely.

The time is rapidly arriving I suspect.

Being a superpower =/= being an empire.

[Medwind]

China has SQUIDs, and is most certainly using them in sensor networks for ASW.

China's ASW capabilities are probably better than the USAs in the waters within their "second island chain".

Also, aircraft carriers were obsolete even before the end of the Cold War. Great platforms for projecting force against goat-herders armed with rusty Type 56s. Billion-dollar steel coffins against anyone with satellites and anti-ship missiles built after 1990.

This is not true. Finding things at sea is damn hard.
Clearly you have never served in a naval service.
And why do you think people still get lost a sea and we cannot find them?

Satellites can only scan a tiny area at high enough resolution to find a ship.
Plus can be destroyed or have their communications jammed.

They are no silver bullet.
In fact in a US China war satellites are probably the first thing to go.

Without aircraft your ships at sea are blind, unable to see beyond 30 NM or so, and unable to shoot farther than that.

Without aircraft to find targets, anti-ship missiles are pretty worthless beyond 30NM.

+1 Air superiority is crucial, both on land & sea.

[Flawless Walruses]

China has SQUIDs, and is most certainly using them in sensor networks for ASW.

China's ASW capabilities are probably better than the USAs in the waters within their "second island chain".

Also, aircraft carriers were obsolete even before the end of the Cold War. Great platforms for projecting force against goat-herders armed with rusty Type 56s. Billion-dollar steel coffins against anyone with satellites and anti-ship missiles built after 1990.

This is not true. Finding things at sea is damn hard.
Clearly you have never served in a naval service.
And why do you think people still get lost a sea and we cannot find them?

Satellites can only scan a tiny area at high enough resolution to find a ship.
Plus can be destroyed or have their communications jammed.

They are no silver bullet.
In fact in a US China war satellites are probably the first thing to go.

Without aircraft your ships at sea are blind, unable to see beyond 30 NM or so, and unable to shoot farther than that.

Without aircraft to find targets, anti-ship missiles are pretty worthless beyond 30NM.

Satellites do many things - SIGINT, importantly. If your Carrier is transmitting, China knows where it is.
Even if it is not transmitting, the wake of something that big stands out on wide-angle satellite imagery like the proverbial.

This isn't 1982, and China/Russia aren't Argentina. Even if you somehow took out every one of their SIGINT satellites, they have plenty of air- and ground-based platforms with over-the-horizon capability.

China's missile deterrent is designed to threaten American surface vessels within 900 NM. If you can't get closer than that, you can't fly enough sorties to suppress anything.

The USA is not going to defeat China in China's front yard. Happily, the USA doesn't need to.

[Cedoria]

Nope. Plenty of patriots don't want to be an Empire.

Frankly, if you're a Republic playing at Empire, you only have a certain amount of time before you have to pick one or the other. The Romans showed that quite plainly. Neither of those can co-exist together indefinitely.

The time is rapidly arriving I suspect.

Being a superpower =/= being an empire.

The distinction will mean very little to the people you stomp on when you are a superpower, no matter what intellectual self-justifications are twisted to justify it.

[Medwind]

This fails to consider all of the US allies it seems. War with Russia & China would be economically, and militarily crippling for all. The US would likely dominate the seas & sky, while, it is true that not much could be done for Taiwan & eastern European nations in the short term. When I was stationed in S Korea for example, we were pretty much told we would all die if N Korea attacked, simply due to being vastly outnumbered, and within range of N Korea artillery. We were just the squishy shield to slow them down before reinforcements from the US arrived. That's pretty much how US military bases abroad work, for the most part. They provide a deterrent, and if attacked, slow down the enemy before we pour troops in from across the world. So, overall, early days = Ruso-Sino land victories, but likely serious defeats in both air & sea, hit with crippling world wide sanctions, Russia facing a united Europe in a struggle for survival, with US manufactured weapons, armor, advisers, and a large portion of the military helping them. In the end Russia & China would probably lose the war of attrition, their economies might collapse, after the US gains inevitable sea & air superiority, they would be incessantly strategically bombed, their ports would be blockaded, the US lead allies would inevitably drive the Russians out of their initial gains, Japan would likely go thru a process of US aided rearmament, in order to tip the balance more in the US favor, Taiwan could likely be retaken, again air & naval superiority making a big difference, and the Marine Corp & Army delivering the final blow. As to invading & occupying China, that would be a brutal, bloody struggle not worth it really. An occupation of Russia would be much more viable however, based on the situation. Point is, just because we lost in some simulations, doesn't mean we'd actually lose. It only seems to be based on the initial stages of the conflict, when in reality this would likely be a long war, perhaps even a decades long struggle.

Edit: These are just my opinions of course, I don't know shit, I'm not a General, but I think this is the most likely outcome imho.

[Novus America]

This is not true. Finding things at sea is damn hard.
Clearly you have never served in a naval service.
And why do you think people still get lost a sea and we cannot find them?

Satellites can only scan a tiny area at high enough resolution to find a ship.
Plus can be destroyed or have their communications jammed.

They are no silver bullet.
In fact in a US China war satellites are probably the first thing to go.

Without aircraft your ships at sea are blind, unable to see beyond 30 NM or so, and unable to shoot farther than that.

Without aircraft to find targets, anti-ship missiles are pretty worthless beyond 30NM.

Satellites do many things - SIGINT, importantly. If your Carrier is transmitting, China knows where it is.
Even if it is not transmitting, the wake of something that big stands out on wide-angle satellite imagery like the proverbial.

This isn't 1982, and China/Russia aren't Argentina. Even if you somehow took out every one of their SIGINT satellites, they have plenty of air- and ground-based platforms with over-the-horizon capability.

China's missile deterrent is designed to threaten American surface vessels within 900 NM. If you can't get closer than that, you can't fly enough sorties to suppress anything.

The USA is not going to defeat China in China's front yard. Happily, the USA doesn't need to.

Emissions control is a thing. Ships are careful about transmissions in wartime.
And even with satellites finding ships is very hard. Especially if they do not want to be found.

Plus if the satellite is transmitting, it is exposed. If it is not transmitting, it is useless.

Satellites are no silver bullet.

OTH radars are too inaccurate to actually hit anything. They are only for early warning. And cannot be mounted on mobile platforms.

Planes cannot see beyond the horizon, they just have a horizon that is further away, horizon increases with altitude.

The horizon is a bitch.

China has not actually demonstrated the ability to hit anything at 900NM.

[Flawless Walruses]

This fails to consider all of the US allies it seems. War with Russia & China would be economically, and militarily crippling for all. The US would likely dominate the seas & sky, while, it is true that not much could be done for Taiwan & eastern European nations in the short term. When I was stationed in S Korea for example, we were pretty much told we would all die if N Korea attacked, simply due to being vastly outnumbered, and within range of N Korea artillery. We were just the squishy shield to slow them down before reinforcements from the US arrived. That's pretty much how US military bases abroad work, for the most part. They provide a deterrent, and if attacked, slow down the enemy before we pour troops in from across the world. So, overall, early days = Ruso-Sino land victories, but likely serious defeats in both air & sea, hit with crippling world wide sanctions, Russia facing a united Europe in a struggle for survival, with US manufactured weapons, armor, advisers, and a large portion of the military helping them. In the end Russia & China would probably lose the war of attrition, their economies might collapse, after the US gains inevitable sea & air superiority, they would be incessantly strategically bombed, their ports would be blockaded, the US lead allies would inevitably drive the Russians out of their initial gains, Japan would likely go thru a process of US aided rearmament, in order to tip the balance more in the US favor, Taiwan could likely be retaken, again air & naval superiority making a big difference, and the Marine Corp & Army delivering the final blow. As to invading & occupying China, that would be a brutal, bloody struggle not worth it really. An occupation of Russia would be much more viable however, based on the situation. Point is, just because we lost in some simulations, doesn't mean we'd actually lose. It only seems to be based on the initial stages of the conflict, when in reality this would likely be a long war, perhaps even a decades long struggle.

Taiwan's public strategy is to hold out for two weeks, depending on a US and/or Japanese intervention. So, I'd say you're quite right about how the initial stages of such a conflict would go, but the second stage inevitably would escalate to nuclear. Neither the Chinese nor the Russian leadership could survive their own people politically or physically more than hours if they allowed an American invasion of their homelands without going nuclear. And China's popular understanding of "homeland" is quite expansive.

[Medwind]

This fails to consider all of the US allies it seems. War with Russia & China would be economically, and militarily crippling for all. The US would likely dominate the seas & sky, while, it is true that not much could be done for Taiwan & eastern European nations in the short term. When I was stationed in S Korea for example, we were pretty much told we would all die if N Korea attacked, simply due to being vastly outnumbered, and within range of N Korea artillery. We were just the squishy shield to slow them down before reinforcements from the US arrived. That's pretty much how US military bases abroad work, for the most part. They provide a deterrent, and if attacked, slow down the enemy before we pour troops in from across the world. So, overall, early days = Ruso-Sino land victories, but likely serious defeats in both air & sea, hit with crippling world wide sanctions, Russia facing a united Europe in a struggle for survival, with US manufactured weapons, armor, advisers, and a large portion of the military helping them. In the end Russia & China would probably lose the war of attrition, their economies might collapse, after the US gains inevitable sea & air superiority, they would be incessantly strategically bombed, their ports would be blockaded, the US lead allies would inevitably drive the Russians out of their initial gains, Japan would likely go thru a process of US aided rearmament, in order to tip the balance more in the US favor, Taiwan could likely be retaken, again air & naval superiority making a big difference, and the Marine Corp & Army delivering the final blow. As to invading & occupying China, that would be a brutal, bloody struggle not worth it really. An occupation of Russia would be much more viable however, based on the situation. Point is, just because we lost in some simulations, doesn't mean we'd actually lose. It only seems to be based on the initial stages of the conflict, when in reality this would likely be a long war, perhaps even a decades long struggle.

Taiwan's public strategy is to hold out for two weeks, depending on a US and/or Japanese intervention. So, I'd say you're quite right about how the initial stages of such a conflict would go, but the second stage inevitably would escalate to nuclear. Neither the Chinese nor the Russian leadership could survive their own people politically or physically more than hours if they allowed an American invasion of their homelands without going nuclear. And China's popular understanding of "homeland" is quite expansive.

You are absolutely correct, I was considering the situation as if nuclear weapons were a non-factor however, which is why I didn't mention them, probably should have clarified that. With WMDs in play who knows how little, or how much it would take to set off Armageddon, it's a pretty hard to predict variable in modern war.

[Flawless Walruses]

Emissions control is a thing. Ships are careful about transmissions in wartime.

This is an aircraft carrier we are talking about. No.

And even with satellites finding ships is very hard. Especially if they do not want to be found.

Plus if the satellites is transmitting, it is exposed. If it is not transmitting, it is useless.

Satellites are always exposed, Novus. But there are many of them, at the top of a deep gravity well, and they move.

OTH radars are too inaccurate to actually hit anything. They are only for early warning. And cannot be mounted on mobile platforms.

Planes cannot see beyond the horizon, they just have a horizon that is further away, horizon increases with altitude.

The horizon is a bitch.

The OTH needs to be just accurate enough for the missile to find the right grid square.

Anti-ship missiles carry their own terminal guidance packages. You know that. That was true even in the 1970s. But the effective area they can identify targets in has increased enormously.

China has not actually demonstrated the ability to hit anything at 900NM.

Very true, China hasn't. But it is a credible enough risk that no US administration is going to take the bet, even if the prize is Taiwan.

[Novus America]

Emissions control is a thing. Ships are careful about transmissions in wartime.

This is an aircraft carrier we are talking about. No.

And even with satellites finding ships is very hard. Especially if they do not want to be found.

Plus if the satellites is transmitting, it is exposed. If it is not transmitting, it is useless.

Satellites are always exposed, Novus. But there are many of them, at the top of a deep gravity well, and they move.

OTH radars are too inaccurate to actually hit anything. They are only for early warning. And cannot be mounted on mobile platforms.

Planes cannot see beyond the horizon, they just have a horizon that is further away, horizon increases with altitude.

The horizon is a bitch.

The OTH needs to be just accurate enough for the missile to find the right grid square.

Anti-ship missiles carry their own terminal guidance packages. You know that. That was true even in the 1970s. But the effective area they can identify targets in has increased enormously.

China has not actually demonstrated the ability to hit anything at 900NM.

Very true, China hasn't. But it is a credible enough risk that no US administration is going to take the bet, even if the prize is Taiwan.

Aircraft carriers practice emissions controls too.

Sure satellites move. But if you cannot see them, they cannot see you.

Sure anti ship missiles have terminal guidance. But they have to get pretty close to use it.
OTH radars do not provide that level of accuracy.

Plus OTH radars are excellent targets.
They cannot hide, cannot move.

And the best defense against anti ship cruise missiles is fighter aircraft.
Without fighter aircraft you cannot see a sea skimming missiles until they a short distance away. Of course it cannot see you either.

Aircraft carriers are actually the LEAST vulnerable surface ships to ASMs, because they can use their fighters to see the missiles before the missiles find them.

Surface ships without air cover are blind.

We definitely need to up our ballistic missile game to be sure, to have conventional ballistic missiles to target things like OTH radars.

I am not saying China is not a threat, or easy to fight.
But their weapons systems are not unstoppable.
We can and should deploy effective countermeasures.

[Flawless Walruses]

Aircraft carriers practice emissions controls too.

Sure satellites move. But if you cannot see them, they cannot see you.

Sure anti ship missiles have terminal guidance. But they have to get pretty close to use it.
OTH radars do not provide that level of accuracy.

Plus OTH radars are excellent targets.
They cannot hide, cannot move.

And the best defense against anti ship cruise missiles is fighter aircraft.
Without fighter aircraft you cannot see a sea skimming missiles until they a short distance away. Of course it cannot see you either.

Aircraft carriers are actually the LEAST vulnerable surface ships to ASMs, because they can use their fighters to see the missiles before the missiles find them.

Surface ships without air cover are blind.

We definitely need to up our ballistic missile game to be sure, to have conventional ballistic missiles to target things like OTH radars.

I am not saying China is not a threat, or easy to fight.
But their weapons systems are not unstoppable.
We can and should deploy effective countermeasures.

Aircraft carriers do practice emissions control. But you won't be launching or recovering many sorties whilst on full radio silence! I'm as excited as anyone about the future of point-to-point optical communications, but the technology won't be mature enough for reliable realtime ship-to-aircraft communication for decades yet.

Satellites in LEO move at 7km/s. Even when you can see them, targeting them with anything slower than a laser is problematic. Both the USA and China have done it, but its not something you want to be waiting for in a shooting war.

Everything else, yes, full agreement

[Manokan Republic]

The simulation was bad for a number of reasons, mainly in assuming that the chinese and russians would use "hyper sonic" missiles that they don't have yet to bomb our forces in to oblivion, that the U.S. wouldn't respond in kind, and that losing was a matter of war breaking out at all.

"We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary". Our only way to "win" it seems is to prevent aggression, meaning we lose as soon as the first round is fired according to the parameters, making it a moot point. This assumes our goal is to use as little force as possible in deescalation, and not as much force as possible to quickly silence the threat. All of this is also based on hypothetical technology they will supposedly develop in just a few years from now, which is also unlikely. It establishes really bizarre parameters for the study as losing, like not being able to prevent them from attacking our allies, which isn't really a loss for the U.S. so much as these country, assuming we have a very slow and muted response, hamstring ourselves deliberately, and the Chinese and Russians manage a surprise attack that defeats our broad array of missile defense systems without any sort of retaliation. That we basically just sit there and let ourselves get attacked and not do anything. Maybe that might be the case with really bad leadership, but that's a pretty far cry from reality. The only way that happens is if a total pacifist gets in office, which is actually possible, terrifyingly enough, but thankfully that isn't the case now. So I guess if we make every mistake and do nothing, and the parameters of winning or losing is something like Taiwan falls, then it makes some sense.

[Nimzonia]

Russia could crush us in the Baltic states and China could crush us in Taiwan. In fact, Russia could conquer a Baltic state in less than 72 hours.

But could they do it while maintaining the pretence of not being an evil expansionist empire half a century after it went out of fashion?