there's a lot more than that if you factor in WS-2 (which can reach anywhere in Taiwan), should have more than 100 cruise missiles. You are facing multiple waves of air launched LACMs like KD-63 and KD-88 and DH-10.
The WS-2 only have a range of 240 km - they can cover something like 1/4 of Taiwan at best. But I would think it to be wrong to think, that this has not been counted into the Taiwanese posture - that goes to every system that PRC deploys.
Agree that cruise missiles are a problem. Actually a bigger problem than the BM's. That's why it is necessary to have fighters and AWACS available for that task.
how well did PAC-2 perform against ballistic missiles in ODS? You really think 500 PAC-2 can take down 490? I really don't think I-hawk have anti-ballistic capability.
Actually very well. There were no PAC-2 around in ODS. There were PAC-1's and they could only be used in air-air mode. They did hit their targets reasonably well in spite of this, though they failed to disable the warheads. Hit vs succes.
In OIF the PAC-2 shot down 11 out of 12 with confirmation and the last was probably also shot down, though it can't be said for sure. That indicates interception above 0.9 and that number is what I used in the example. Also, the later I-Hawk does have a limited ABM capability, especially against the types og BM's used here. I set their number to 0.2, for reference.
But that is moot, as it seems there are more ABM capability around than I thought. They are better used against CMs and fighters. However, with the large number of ready rounds, they could fire at anything anyway. Or they could focus on survivability.
you either have the rounds available to defend against initial wave or they are moving and not targettable. It's either one or the other. You can't have both ways.
Agreed. Discrimination is necessary, though, as the mobiles cannot be classified as fixed targets. It is also a question of availability and readiness - which actually explain why the TK's are in fixed installations!
yes, but they only have so many PAC-2 batteries, whose performance in ODS was pitiful to say the least. After using them up, these amazing ABM sensors will have the ability to detect missiles, but no ability to take them down.
No PAC-2 around in ODS. High intercept rates in test and in real world operation. As BM's aren't that efficient, well then let them through. Just need to blunt the attack and buy time - that is more than adequate. And reload time are not that ridiculous.
your stingers and avengers simply don't have the capability of shooting down mach4.5 HARM like YJ-91. The range of KD-88, YJ-91 + radar of JH-7A allows these missiles to always be able to be launched outside the range of opposing SAMs.
I was jesting about the Stingers.
The best defence in fighters/AWACS, as I pointed out later in the discussion. If you consider the necessary flight profile of a HARM type in order to maintain lock - it is vulnerable to I-HAWK and patriot.
Even the mighty NATO used hundreds of HARMs against a few systems in Allied Force.
DF-5 in 1980s had CEP of 250 m at a range of 9000 km.
You think the short range ballistic missiles used against Taiwan in 2007 would have a larger CEP? DF-15's CEP of 30-50m is a good reference point. DF-11 figures are for export systems, not the same as the stuff pla is getting. The real CEP of these systems are classified.
It is not the guidance system, but the delivery method that is the limiter of accuracy.
These are BM's even with a precision guidance system, not glide bombs. The missile itself wont be as accurate.
Antishipping is volley fire - just like against runways and other installation. Many missiles to one aimpoint (not target!). A target like a runway has many aimpoints in order to shut it down.
-880 BM aren't able to disbable that many aimpoints, not to say targets - like a buried bunker would take many. And the ABM would have to be saturated first and then you don't know which ones got through. No assuredness.
1991 to 2007, 20 years? Let's just say PAC-3's performance in Operation Iraqi freedom was not exactly stellar either. So no, I don't think PAC-2 in Taiwan will fare as badly as PAC-2 in ODS, but it won't get the 1 to 1 interception rate that Grand Danois was proposing.
As above. 11/12 is stellar. And likely 12/12.
And I did not say any of that, lol. did I?
all the BMs need to do is destroy the runways of the major airbase, thereby reducing the number of available ROCAF fighters, and destroy some of the ports and some command centers. No where in my analysis, did I say all of the airbases will be destroyed.
Why destroy ports? Did you shut down enough air bases? What about redundancy and deception? How many BM's will successfully get to their CEP? - misfire or malfunction. How many will get shot down? Half will hit outside of that CEP of 35-50m. Which ones hit real target and which were actually disabled because of that?
BM's is artillery in nature - even with satellite guidance. Depending on type of target, only 20-25% will hit what they're aiming at. Probably less.
Though I am not familiar with the details, I do realise that PRC has very competent platforms and munitions. In my example I even used succes rates similar to that of Western systems...
It hard to discuss what "Taiwan won't last a week" if we don't know what the benchmark is. Does it mean the IADS has been wiped out, or that Taiwan has been succesfully invaded.
Allied Force (1999) is probably the best analogy. 23,000 pieces of munition was used by NATO's 500-600 fighters - including PGM's - against a much lesser defence than what Taiwan has.
Gives an idea of capability.
