Moderated taiwan invasion war game

[Transient]

Nope, I did not miss that. I agree that China has not demonstrated the ability to C&C 1000 aircraft in the air at one time. The assumption being that as a consequence it can't. Not having a major exercise on that scale is more an issue of not wanting to scare anybody with such a large scale exercise.

Whatever the reasons for not wanting to do a large scale exercise, the fact that they have not demonstrated and practiced with such large scale efforts mean that it is not likely they can handle what you suppose they can do when the time comes.

Air traffic controllers are already managing significant numbers of aircraft in the air. Whilst I agree that this is not demonstrative, I think it is a fallacy to assume that China would consequently never have more than a few planes in the air at any one time.

Civilian air traffic controllers do not have to contend with airspace deconfliction for missiles/rockets flying everywhere, dynamic diversion of strike package routes to account for ROC CAPs/interceptions etc.

And what you don't understand is that the ROC still relies heavily on fixed infrastructure which are surveyed by China many times over. I-hawk sites, airfields, radars are not exactly in secret locations. The US has been advising the ROC to go mobile for almost 2 decades already. The latest mobile FPS radar was rejected on the basis that any radar emissions is going to be pretty obvious to the chinese.

I suggest you take a look at the GE-592 system? It is mobile. Taiwan also took delivery of the TPS-117 mobile radars. So I don't know where you got your inaccurate information from.
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/findPage.do?dsp=fec&ci=13096&sc=400

Airfields are notoriously hard to shut down for any period of time for the amount of effort required. Multiply that with multiple bases and reserve landing strips, and the resources required is more than that of some inaccurate SRBMs and limited numbers of LACMs.

Of course, the assumption that the USAF sinks every single ship in the Taiwan straits. Have you seen the size of the Chinese merchant fleet? We're not talking about just LSTs here.

Merchant fleet? Go ask gfaust what he or any other military officer versed in amphibous warfare thinks about using a merchant fleet for forced assault beach landings. I think ROCA would be praying for you to plan out the PLA's amphib invasion. The ROCN and the ROCAF can do the sinking well enough on their own. They don't even have to sink all the ships. Think about all the havoc that mines, artillery, dug in defenders and assault helicopters will do to the landing force. They will likely be there on the landing site because China simply is not spoilt for choice in terms of landing zones.

Again an assumption. What makes anyone think PLAAF strikes can't get through in the majority. To interdict aircraft missions, you need aircraft in the air. The ultimate assumption is that Taiwan can get sufficient aircraft in the air to stop PLAAF raids with sukhois defending.

I have already told you why SRBMs are hardly sufficient in the numbers needed to shut down all of Taiwan's air bases. The numbers simply are not sufficient. You are also forgetting the SAM network.

Obviously you have no idea what GPS guidance can do for SRBMs and how many launchers china does have vis a vis the number of airfields taiwan has. We're not talking scuds here going 200 miles offcourse.

Look at the accuracy figures for the SRBMs. Those figures mean that more than one missile is needed per aimpoint for a likelihood of destroying the target. What you also don't know is how many of those SRBMs are GPS guidance (not all is GPS guided), and whether GPS guidance is available for those missiles when war comes.

Absolutely, every landing site will be heavily defended by 200 group armies with artillery that will obliterate every single landing zone. Of course china never practices amphibious landings as well. China doesn't have helicopters either that can land air mobile troops in areas which doesn't have to be beaches. IL 76s will only air drop onto heavily defended beaches. lol.

Don't be sore now that I have revealed a reality that doesn't quite meet your expectations of PLA performance. Here, have a sweet and stop pouting. :

I guess it didn't occur to you that the bulk of the fighting force must arrive by sea? It also didn't occur to you that air-mobile units are vulnerable and immobile?

What does one define as sufficient troop number. 200 Mi17s can ferry 4000 troops every 4 hours in a number of waves. How many helicopters does China have? The assumption being that ships are the only way to transport troops?

Those helis are going to have to survive getting to Taiwan first. After that they'll have to think about how to keep those troops resupplied with what wasn't shot down.

Nope, USAF ARM effectiveness and reputation did the Iraqis in. The Iraqis IADS forced the US aircraft to conduct ground attacks from medium altitudes. Read the unclassified reports (I think on GAO website).

USAF ISR did them in. ISR assets that is not available to the PLAAF in the same quantity and quality. Even then, the USAF had to take a long time to degrade the KARI air defense system, and were forced to attack from medium to high altitudes to accomodate the mobile SAM systems they could not locate.

Nope, I have no such illusions. What I do think is that the PLAAF can degrade ROC coverage and has sufficient capability to reduce air coverage over a sector that will enable landing operations to take place.

I have no doubt that like US planners, Chinese air planners will go down a roster on what are the targets to hit. Dynamically, it will take time.

So from 'PLAAF air superiority' you are now reducing your position to 'sufficient capability to reduce air coverage over a sector'. Ok. That's a more reasonable stand. The problem with that is that Taiwan has sufficient SAM resources to protect those areas, and it can vector in available aircraft to mount a contest for those areas. So those will not be areas where PLAAF has established air superiority. Those will be contested airspace.

There you go with your assumptions again. I never spoke of degrading the entire ROC armed forces within a few hours.

There is a difference between conducting airfield suppression activities and a sector of air defences compared to the entire island of Taiwan.

You clearly tried to assert that China will easily suppress ROC airbases and hence PLAAF will attain air superiority over the Straits without question.

Editted: no more laughing smilies. If you are going to carry out a civilized discussion, I suggest you pay more respect by not putting annoying smilie in your posts.

 

[tphuang]

Again, how is that evidence that KD-88's are sufficient in the quantities that you assert they will be used for? They could very well have planned for a much smaller use for the weapon and set aside funding to only provide for a hundred or so of those missiles, which would negate their use the way you described.

Well, I guess there is no way to prove how many KD-88 or PL-12 or PL-8 China has, but the best way is still to look at how many R-77/R-27/KH-29/59 they get to get an idea of how many A2A and A2G missiles they get per aircraft. In the case of KD-88, it's already in service, or else they would not be showing it on CFTE video. And we know that there are currently probably at least 6 regiments of JH-7 series and that number is going to go up to probably 8 regiments (over 200 JH-7/A). And the main A2S missile used for this may JH-7 is KD-88. The only way I guess you can argue China not having enough KD-88 is that stand off A2G precision strike is not part of China's planning. Which, really doesn't make a lot of sense. If you have the technology, why would you not use it? If you purchased many of the more expensive and less capable ASMs like KH-29/59, why would you not buy KD-88?

I'm not saying those bombs cannot be used at all. I'm saying they may very well not be used to the same level of effectiveness as the USAF. Knowing the target and seeing it is different from generating the coordinates for that target, or even generating the correct coordinates for that target, as the incident with the bombing of the Chinese embassy so clearly illustrates.

well, they still hit the target that they wanted to hit, it was just that the target wasn't what they expected. China/Taiwan have been monitoring each other for years, it'd be extremely difficult for me to imagine that they don't know the locations of each other's airbases and command centers and such.

They pose a challenge. That doesn't mean they wipe out the ROC air defense system, as some here seem to think. Again, missions spent on degrading the ROC AD system takes away from missions spent supporting the extremely vulnerable landing force.

They have plenty of JH-7As and again, each JH-7A can carry 4 of YJ-83K, KD-88 or YJ-91 + 2 PL-8 + PGMs. Although if they carry PGMs, the combat radius would probably be really hindered.

Destroyed, with what? Limited numbers of inaccurate SRBMs? Without timely BDA capability, the effectiveness of those SRBMs are decreased even further than you think.

As I mentionned, SRBM is only part of the plan. And as recent reports have shown, the accuracy of some of these new SRBMs fielded by China is around 30-50m CEP. And I don't think many airbases are less than 50m in radius. Even outside of this, the reason why I came into this argument was to argue that they will use the DH-10 LACM, KD-88 ASM, LS-6 SGB and once Taiwanese air defense is weakened, you can factor in the TV and laser guided bombs.

But again, if you really want to argue that China does not want to use A2G missiles and PGMs against surface targets and that they only method of attack are through the ballistic missiles, I guess you can continue to believe in that.

All these mean little in relation to what Tphuang tried to assert, that they could be fired simply with on board targeting from the JH-7A. There is more than simply firing the missile , it travels there, it acquires the target with its EO seeker and the target is eliminated. There are many factors, like ensuring the missile will arrive at the target vicinity with the target in the EO seeker's limited FOV, ensuring the missile navigates multiple waypoints at differing altitude etc. Has there been evidence that the missile is capable of being targeted (includes mission planning for the missile) from on board the fighter? I have seen no evidence pointing out so.

why do you assume that China would develop missiles that can't hit things or that they are not accurate? What do you think they develop these stand off weapons for then? Just launch it in a general vicinity and let it's own seeker hopefully find the target? I think Crobato already stated the assets they do have for targetting and such, so I won't repeat it again.

Also, you didn't answer how many ISR aircrafts of each type China needs to be considered to be enough.

 

[Rich]

Actually when you look at the broad picture of PLAN construction, both in numbers and types of platforms/systems, a picture emerges of a Naval force with a far more ambitious future strategy then just an amphibious assault on an Island just off its shores.

Rather the Chinese appear to have, as an end game, the intention of building and deploying a naval force capable of blue water denial ,to the USN, of vast swaths of the Asia-Pacific theatre of operations.

New carriers? 15 types of new surface warships? 5 types of submarines? numerous types of cruise missiles, AshMs, IRBMs with an anti-ship capability, space assets...ect And they are shrouding this buildup with secrecy, denial, and deception in their defense expenditure's.

Logic it out?
What nation really threatens them? Answer: Nobody! So why the buildup? And why the buildup of the specific systems they are buying and deploying?

There's only one answer, and it aint "to invade Taiwan". They want to be able to take on the USN and defeat it.

"Types of systems/platforms" http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2007.htm

Logic it out. What type of war is the PLAN being built in order to win?

 

[crobato]

Airfields are notoriously hard to shut down for any period of time for the amount of effort required. Multiply that with multiple bases and reserve landing strips, and the resources required is more than that of some inaccurate SRBMs and limited numbers of LACMs.

Multiple bases? There are only 12-13 airbases worth mentioning and around four capable of supporting fighters and large operations that can be considered priority targets. Operability rates themselves are not high among the ROCAF, with only 60% among the Mirage 2000s for example. Then there is the logistical nightmare of having three to four different types filling the same light fighter role, each with their own engine type and weapons set. A Mirage 2000 cannot expect to be serviced on a base that supports Ching Kuo fighters.

And do you think that an SRBM has to make contact on the ground and blow up a crater. No. Like most bombs, they are meant to detonate around 20 to 30 feet in the air via proximity or altimeter fuse. A 500kg to 1000kg bomb exploding around 20 feet in the air makes quite a display and the collateral damage from the shockwaves and shrapnel can extend a few hundred meters outward. The SRBM adds its sonic boom to that.

200 launchers is a stretch, since battalions are seen with more than one launcher often. It will probably take less than an hour to reload the launcher.

Shutdown an airfield for a reasonable amount of time? Try cluster bombs. Try cluster bombs with randomly time delayed fuses. Good luck trying to pick those up while never knowing when the next wave of SRBMs or LACMs or PGMs come flying in.

Considering the relative "inaccuracy" of an SRBM by the way, an airfield is an enormous target. Then factor collateral explosive effects.

On the topic of experience, true the PLAAF has to work completely from the ground up. But having the toys means the next step is to test, train, wargame, evaluate and make new tactics. Then go on and on into the same cycle. Somehow to think that the PLAAF will have zero experience in the use of PGMs just because they don't have direct foreign advisement is I think quite ludicrous. And if foreign advisement is needed, what makes you think that would be hard to obtain, considering how China has been able to obtain technological data, and considering how some quarters, like the Israelis, have proven themselves to take a more than willing mercenary approach when it comes to advising.

 

[Schumacher]

Actually when you look at the broad picture of PLAN construction, both in numbers and types of platforms/systems, a picture emerges of a Naval force with a far more ambitious future strategy then just an amphibious assault on an Island just off its shores.

Rather the Chinese appear to have, as an end game, the intention of building and deploying a naval force capable of blue water denial ,to the USN, of vast swaths of the Asia-Pacific theatre of operations.

New carriers? 15 types of new surface warships? 5 types of submarines? numerous types of cruise missiles, AshMs, IRBMs with an anti-ship capability, space assets...ect And they are shrouding this buildup with secrecy, denial, and deception in their defense expenditure's.

Logic it out?
What nation really threatens them? Answer: Nobody! So why the buildup? And why the buildup of the specific systems they are buying and deploying?

There's only one answer, and it aint "to invade Taiwan". They want to be able to take on the USN and defeat it.

"Types of systems/platforms" http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2007.htm

Logic it out. What type of war is the PLAN being built in order to win?

This may be one of the smartest posts around here. PLA planers have indeed gone past a mere Taiwan attack long ago, with aim on bigger fishes in the pacific.
I however don't agree that they face threats from nobody to justify these plans.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Hi Transient

Thanks, we are finally getting to a more civil and reasonable level. Whilst I would be happy to eliminate the smilies from my posts, I hope you can restrict your "I hope PLA would have you as your planner" kind of remarks which are more insulting than smilies.

Based on what has been said, let's identify and summarise what are the elements that the PLA will need to achieve in order to conduct a successful amphibious landing. I think at least we can at least agree upon this? Whether the PLA can achieve the objectives is something both of us can afford to disagree on.

(i) Suppress the ROC airfields;
(ii) Eliminate SAM coverage (at least over a sector).
(iii) Degrade ROC C4I coverage (AEW, radars, communication nodes)
(iv) Achieve air dominance at least over a sector of the Taiwan straits.
(v) Capture a port (to bring merchant fleet into play otherwise I think we both agree current numbers of LSTs are not going to be sufficient).
(vi) Prevent ROC naval assets from interference.
(vii) Prevent US assets from interference.
(viii) Capture key cities in Taiwan.
Not necessarily in that order.

P.s. regarding the radar sale, I was actually referring to the more capable but fixed pave paws FPS 115 system which the Taiwanese rejected in favour of the mobile TPS 117 system. Its a lot of info to process. Apologies for the confusion.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

This may be one of the smartest posts around here. PLA planers have indeed gone past a mere Taiwan attack long ago, with aim on bigger fishes in the pacific.
I however don't agree that they face threats from nobody to justify these plans.

Actually, its intertwined. The Chinese merely recognise that any Taiwan operation will involve the US.

Having a defence policy that just focusses on Taiwan's capabilities alone is unrealistic. From a chinese perspective, to take Taiwan will necessarily mean taking on the US.

Also, like the US, China needs a focus for justifying its budget. Having no threats is not going to hold up well when justifying a budget isn't it?

The US on the other hand will like to further a China Threat theory because it facilitates the defence of Taiwan. Basing rights are more easily negotiated. Surrounding countries increase their defence budgets to buy more US equipment (and earning more $$$ in the meantime).

It is merely another domino theory. That the fall of Taiwan will not mean the end of Chinese expansion. Hence a joint defence is necessary and also reduces the burden. Can you imagine that instead of just LA/Sea wolf class subs, we're going to see Jap, Korean and Australian assets joining the US. Not a bad idea really.

 

[tphuang]

Actually when you look at the broad picture of PLAN construction, both in numbers and types of platforms/systems, a picture emerges of a Naval force with a far more ambitious future strategy then just an amphibious assault on an Island just off its shores.

Rather the Chinese appear to have, as an end game, the intention of building and deploying a naval force capable of blue water denial ,to the USN, of vast swaths of the Asia-Pacific theatre of operations.

New carriers? 15 types of new surface warships? 5 types of submarines? numerous types of cruise missiles, AshMs, IRBMs with an anti-ship capability, space assets...ect And they are shrouding this buildup with secrecy, denial, and deception in their defense expenditure's.

Logic it out?
What nation really threatens them? Answer: Nobody! So why the buildup? And why the buildup of the specific systems they are buying and deploying?

There's only one answer, and it aint "to invade Taiwan". They want to be able to take on the USN and defeat it.

"Types of systems/platforms" http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/2007.htm

Logic it out. What type of war is the PLAN being built in order to win?

Yeah, I've talked to Jeff on many occassions about growth of PLAN. I think it's very clear why China needs to expand and such.

1. It's going to be the number 2 economy in the world very soon and in the next few years, will become the number 1 economy in terms of PPP. Therefore, it's entitled to have a strong military.
2. We all know about the amount of its energy resource that goes through malacca strait that's at the mercy of any number of nations there + USN. PLAN currently doesn't have any power to stop even Singapore from blocking its energy flow. A country the size of China should not be this powerless
3. We've had numerous incidences in the recent years where Chinese nationals were killed or held captive in other countries (like Fiji and Ethiopia) and PLA again was powerless to help them out.
4. The world's lone super power views it as the enemy. I think that's problematic enough. US has enough nukes pointed at China to wipe it off the face of the earth several times over. Should China not have the right to at least have some SSBNs as deterrent against that?
5. Right now, Japan and India also view China as the enemy. Again, one could argue that both of those countries have greater conventional military capability than China.
6. Finally, China can accept USA as the lone super power, but why can't it be the second military power in the world? Even after all of the transformation we heard about, it's best systems are still a little behind what many European countries are equipping.

So, to the question who threatens China? USA, Japan, India, the terrorists in Xinjiang and even Russia to a lesser degree.

 

[Transient]

Well, I guess there is no way to prove how many KD-88 or PL-12 or PL-8 China has, but the best way is still to look at how many R-77/R-27/KH-29/59 they get to get an idea of how many A2A and A2G missiles they get per aircraft. In the case of KD-88, it's already in service, or else they would not be showing it on CFTE video. And we know that there are currently probably at least 6 regiments of JH-7 series and that number is going to go up to probably 8 regiments (over 200 JH-7/A). And the main A2S missile used for this may JH-7 is KD-88. The only way I guess you can argue China not having enough KD-88 is that stand off A2G precision strike is not part of China's planning. Which, really doesn't make a lot of sense. If you have the technology, why would you not use it? If you purchased many of the more expensive and less capable ASMs like KH-29/59, why would you not buy KD-88?

Not every JH-7A is assigned to the PLAAF, quite a few regiments of JH-7A will be under the PLAN. Sure China will purchase KD-88s, otherwise they would not have developed it. Question is how many? It will likely be of the same order as the number of KH-59s purchased. Being long ranged, these will likely be more expensive than the GPS/LGB guided bombs, so it is unlikely that these missiles will form the main A2G weapon of the JH-7A.

well, they still hit the target that they wanted to hit, it was just that the target wasn't what they expected. China/Taiwan have been monitoring each other for years, it'd be extremely difficult for me to imagine that they don't know the locations of each other's airbases and command centers and such.

Knowing the target is there is different from generating the precise geographical coordinates of the target. For example, knowing the target to within 20m as opposed to knowing the target to within 3m makes a good deal of difference with respect to effectiveness of a strike.

They have plenty of JH-7As and again, each JH-7A can carry 4 of YJ-83K, KD-88 or YJ-91 + 2 PL-8 + PGMs. Although if they carry PGMs, the combat radius would probably be really hindered.

And all the ROC AD system has to do is put up enough of an opposition for the JH-7A to be forced to drop those heavy loads in order to defend itself. Mission kill works fine.

why do you assume that China would develop missiles that can't hit things or that they are not accurate? What do you think they develop these stand off weapons for then? Just launch it in a general vicinity and let it's own seeker hopefully find the target? I think Crobato already stated the assets they do have for targetting and such, so I won't repeat it again.

I did not say that Chinese bombs cannot hit their targets. I said the PLAAF cannot be assumed to reach the same level of effectiveness as the USAF just because Chinese bombs happen to now be GPS/laser guided. Many seem to look at a piece of equipment and extrapolate what that piece of equipment brings to the system as a whole to the maximum possible potential. As an example, look at what Crobato said on China having Y-8s with side cheek arrays. From there he extrapolated it to having SAR and GMTI modes, to having the capability to data-link the info to other platforms for time critical targeting. Yet what do we really know about that platform? Are you sure it is capable of transmitting the info real time? Are you sure the PLAAF has developed the required processes and procedures for TCT?

As I mentionned, SRBM is only part of the plan. And as recent reports have shown, the accuracy of some of these new SRBMs fielded by China is around 30-50m CEP. And I don't think many airbases are less than 50m in radius.

If you haven't noticed, the airbase is not one target with one aimpoint. It is made up of multiple targets each requiring possibly more than one aimpoint, with each aimpoint requiring more than one missile, considering only a 30-50m accuracy (for 50% of the time) for the guided missiles, and far far less accuracy for the unguided ones. With the limitation of 200 launchers, multiple aimpoints per airbase and multiple missiles per aimpoint, there are not too many airbases China can handle at any one time at all. Which shows how ridiculous some people are by thinking that SRBMs can shut down ROCAF.

Even outside of this, the reason why I came into this argument was to argue that they will use the DH-10 LACM, KD-88 ASM, LS-6 SGB and once Taiwanese air defense is weakened, you can factor in the TV and laser guided bombs.

But again, if you really want to argue that China does not want to use A2G missiles and PGMs against surface targets and that they only method of attack are through the ballistic missiles, I guess you can continue to believe in that.

I have not said anywhere that only SRBMs will be used. But the argument many seem to be pitching is that SRBMs will disable all air bases and SAM defenses.

Also, you didn't answer how many ISR aircrafts of each type China needs to be considered to be enough.

China will need at least USAF GW1 level of ISR capability, and very probably more, if it is to achieve the same effects within the same timeframe.

Multiple bases? There are only 12-13 airbases worth mentioning and around four capable of supporting fighters and large operations that can be considered priority targets. Operability rates themselves are not high among the ROCAF, with only 60% among the Mirage 2000s for example. Then there is the logistical nightmare of having three to four different types filling the same light fighter role, each with their own engine type and weapons set. A Mirage 2000 cannot expect to be serviced on a base that supports Ching Kuo fighters.

Take a look at how many aimpoints each airbase requires. Look also at the Cha Shan Hualien airbase complex that's protected by the geography.

200 launchers is a stretch, since battalions are seen with more than one launcher often. It will probably take less than an hour to reload the launcher.

200 launchers is towards the higher end of the estimates for the number of launchers.

Shutdown an airfield for a reasonable amount of time? Try cluster bombs. Try cluster bombs with randomly time delayed fuses. Good luck trying to pick those up while never knowing when the next wave of SRBMs or LACMs or PGMs come flying in.

They won't be dumb ebough to pick it up. They'll use an armoured dozer to sweep it off the lanes.

Somehow to think that the PLAAF will have zero experience in the use of PGMs just because they don't have direct foreign advisement is I think quite ludicrous.

They simply have no experience in using PGMs in real world encounters. Zero. Name me one conflict where China has utilised air delivered PGMs?

And if foreign advisement is needed, what makes you think that would be hard to obtain, considering how China has been able to obtain technological data, and considering how some quarters, like the Israelis, have proven themselves to take a more than willing mercenary approach when it comes to advising.

Do you have any proof Israelis trained PLAAF?

(i) Suppress the ROC airfields;
(ii) Eliminate SAM coverage (at least over a sector).
(iii) Degrade ROC C4I coverage (AEW, radars, communication nodes)
(iv) Achieve air dominance at least over a sector of the Taiwan straits.
(v) Capture a port (to bring merchant fleet into play otherwise I think we both agree current numbers of LSTs are not going to be sufficient).
(vi) Prevent ROC naval assets from interference.
(vii) Prevent US assets from interference.
(viii) Capture key cities in Taiwan.

Good summary of requirements on the Chinese side. Capturing a port is not going to help much. How many of China's merchant fleet are RO/RO capable? Using cranes to unload the cargo is going to take forever. That's also assuming the ROC is so incompetant as to allow a fully functioning and non-booby trapped port to fall into Chinese hands.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Good summary of requirements on the Chinese side. Capturing a port is not going to help much. How many of China's merchant fleet are RO/RO capable? Using cranes to unload the cargo is going to take forever. That's also assuming the ROC is so incompetant as to allow a fully functioning and non-booby trapped port to fall into Chinese hands.

Good points. Let's take a closer look at the China RO-RO fleet. Hong Kong's fleet includes 21 car carriers, 24 RO-RO vessels and 31 ferrys totalling >600,000 DWTs. For large RO-RO ships, China shipping has 10, Cosco has 7, Minsheng has 8. Janes estimated that China can add ~150 more ferries to this number. That's not counting the number of RO-RO barges and feeder ships that ply Chinese ports that can make the 100 nm trip across the straits.

That's not counting the foreign RO-RO ships that will be at China's ports either. That's not counting the self loading vessels. And remember, the above is in addition to the amphibious vessels that China is building and the existing fleet.

Reality is that China's RO-RO fleet will also be expanding significantly fueled by the car manufacturing boom. Shanghai just launched a RO-RO terminal. And its not like China's dockyards aren't churning out RO-RO ships (Jinling comes to mind).

Whilst concentrating RO-RO ships is going to be a dead giveaway for an invasion, the building of a RO-RO terminal at Shanghai does have some significance.

 

[Transient]

Let's take a closer look at the China RO-RO fleet. Hong Kong's fleet includes 21 car carriers, 24 RO-RO vessels and 31 ferrys totalling >600,000 DWTs. For large RO-RO ships, China shipping has 10, Cosco has 7, Minsheng has 8. Janes estimated that China can add ~150 more ferries to this number. That's not counting the number of RO-RO barges and feeder ships that ply Chinese ports that can make the 100 nm trip across the straits.

That's not counting the foreign RO-RO ships that will be at China's ports either. That's not counting the self loading vessels. And remember, the above is in addition to the amphibious vessels that China is building and the existing fleet.

Reality is that China's RO-RO fleet will also be expanding significantly fueled by the car manufacturing boom. Shanghai just launched a RO-RO terminal. And its not like China's dockyards aren't churning out RO-RO ships (Jinling comes to mind).

Whilst concentrating RO-RO ships is going to be a dead giveaway for an invasion, the building of a RO-RO terminal at Shanghai does have some significance.

Good job at finding those info on RO/RO vessels. It'd have taken me forever to find it. I think we can discount those smaller vessels that are not able to travel in at least sea state 3. The sea condition for the straits is not nice for much of the year.

 

[tphuang]

Not every JH-7A is assigned to the PLAAF, quite a few regiments of JH-7A will be under the PLAN. Sure China will purchase KD-88s, otherwise they would not have developed it. Question is how many? It will likely be of the same order as the number of KH-59s purchased. Being long ranged, these will likely be more expensive than the GPS/LGB guided bombs, so it is unlikely that these missiles will form the main A2G weapon of the JH-7A.

Why would PLANAF JH-7As not be able to equip KD-88s? Even aside from JH-7A, another carrier is J-8II's multirole variant. And once J-11BS come out, that's another thing that will carry it. I'm assuming at the moment that they would want to concentrate J-10 for A2A roles. What I'm saying is this, if PLAAF view KD-88 as an important part of their attack plan, they will purchase enough of it. It's not short on money. Remember, this is something that can be replenished around wartime if needed. As for KD-88 similar to KH-59, that's not right. First, you are going to have more fighters capable of carrying KD-88 than KH-59, Secondly, you normallly want to purchase missiles with better cost to performance ratio. Third, normally you would purchase more domestic missiles to support domestic industry.

Knowing the target is there is different from generating the precise geographical coordinates of the target. For example, knowing the target to within 20m as opposed to knowing the target to within 3m makes a good deal of difference with respect to effectiveness of a strike.

well, haven't we already explained that JH-7A has high enough resolution in its SAR that it can find the necessary target to hit? I'm sure you are not going to mistaken an airbase. How many airbases can be next to each other?

And all the ROC AD system has to do is put up enough of an opposition for the JH-7A to be forced to drop those heavy loads in order to defend itself. Mission kill works fine.

That's the thing right? It can put up a good fight against the PLA SEAD platform, but it has more to deal than just that. It has to deal with trying to shoot down LACMs and SRBMS aimed at airbases or ship bases or major power stations.

I did not say that Chinese bombs cannot hit their targets. I said the PLAAF cannot be assumed to reach the same level of effectiveness as the USAF just because Chinese bombs happen to now be GPS/laser guided. Many seem to look at a piece of equipment and extrapolate what that piece of equipment brings to the system as a whole to the maximum possible potential. As an example, look at what Crobato said on China having Y-8s with side cheek arrays. From there he extrapolated it to having SAR and GMTI modes, to having the capability to data-link the info to other platforms for time critical targeting. Yet what do we really know about that platform? Are you sure it is capable of transmitting the info real time? Are you sure the PLAAF has developed the required processes and procedures for TCT?

Well, that thing has been tauted as Chinas E-8 JStars (not comparing, just saying that is its role). I think having a plane like that will be useless if it can't provide information to surrounding assets. We know that Chinese fighters have datalink and we've even seen what appears to be datalink antennas on KD-88. How complex is this, we don't know. I guess this is an evolving process. Obviously, the more that times goes on, the more familiar they will be in it.

If you haven't noticed, the airbase is not one target with one aimpoint. It is made up of multiple targets each requiring possibly more than one aimpoint, with each aimpoint requiring more than one missile, considering only a 30-50m accuracy (for 50% of the time) for the guided missiles, and far far less accuracy for the unguided ones. With the limitation of 200 launchers, multiple aimpoints per airbase and multiple missiles per aimpoint, there are not too many airbases China can handle at any one time at all. Which shows how ridiculous some people are by thinking that SRBMs can shut down ROCAF.

Even the less accurate ones can be upgraded to relatively accurate. In another thread, I mentionned that a Chinese newspaper article from 2002 mentionned a DF-5A test in the 80s that achieved 250m CEP after travelling 9000 km. I think I'm being overestimating things when I even put 50m CEP. And with the multiple aim points, they don't have to hit all of them, just enough to cause an inconvenience, free up a little time for JH-7 and other strike aircrafts to come in and send in the more accurate missiles and bombs.

I have not said anywhere that only SRBMs will be used. But the argument many seem to be pitching is that SRBMs will disable all air bases and SAM defenses.

I'm obviously not making them. I'm making the point that SRBMs, ASMs, HARMs, PGMs, WS-2, LACMs will all be used against in these operations.

China will need at least USAF GW1 level of ISR capability, and very probably more, if it is to achieve the same effects within the same timeframe.

well, how many surveillence aircraft did they have in the theater and use in GW1? I don't know the number. And remember, these Chinese surveillence aircrafts are using AESA radar. That's not something USAF had in GW1 or even now.

They simply have no experience in using PGMs in real world encounters. Zero. Name me one conflict where China has utilised air delivered PGMs?

There is a first time for everyone. What kind of real world PGM experience did US have before GW1?

 

[crobato]

Not every JH-7A is assigned to the PLAAF, quite a few regiments of JH-7A will be under the PLAN. Sure China will purchase KD-88s, otherwise they would not have developed it. Question is how many? It will likely be of the same order as the number of KH-59s purchased. Being long ranged, these will likely be more expensive than the GPS/LGB guided bombs, so it is unlikely that these missiles will form the main A2G weapon of the JH-7A.

And you don't need these missiles to be the bulk of the ordinance that the JH-7A has to carry. In GW1, the majority of munitions dropped are dumb bombs. The PGMs are used for select targets only. As if you forget that airbases can be destroyed by dumb munitions (Hungary 1956, Six Day War 1967).

Knowing the target is there is different from generating the precise geographical coordinates of the target. For example, knowing the target to within 20m as opposed to knowing the target to within 3m makes a good deal of difference with respect to effectiveness of a strike.

And you have any idea how an EO weapon is supposed to work? The weapons officer sees through the TV camera through the missile's nose via datalink, identifies the target, then sets the target recticle to it. The missile memorizes shape, shade and pattern of the target.

And all the ROC AD system has to do is put up enough of an opposition for the JH-7A to be forced to drop those heavy loads in order to defend itself. Mission kill works fine.

The AD system can be drawn early using drones, UAVs like Harpies, remote controlled fighters (old J-7s and J-6s turned into drones), or simply by feigned attacks. For example, J-8IIs can come in at high altitude, the AD system responds by lighting up their radars. Aircraft with rangefinding radar receivers can quickly get the location of these AD radars, and then you can send long range ARMs on a prebrief, lock after reaching waypoint mode.

The AD system can also be exposed through HUMINT, as if there is no lack of that.

I did not say that Chinese bombs cannot hit their targets. I said the PLAAF cannot be assumed to reach the same level of effectiveness as the USAF just because Chinese bombs happen to now be GPS/laser guided.

And you cannot assume that they will have zero effectiveness just because they don't have USAF badges on their tails. Effectiveness is a matter of training, tactics and evaluation, a cycle that goes through again and again. The PLAAF does not have the luxury of small countries for use as target practice.

Many seem to look at a piece of equipment and extrapolate what that piece of equipment brings to the system as a whole to the maximum possible potential. As an example, look at what Crobato said on China having Y-8s with side cheek arrays. From there he extrapolated it to having SAR and GMTI modes, to having the capability to data-link the info to other platforms for time critical targeting. Yet what do we really know about that platform? Are you sure it is capable of transmitting the info real time? Are you sure the PLAAF has developed the required processes and procedures for TCT?

We really don't know what this particular plane is up to. But those are huge phase arrays set on a position on the plane that they will have LOS to the ground. Coupled with external datalinks on the back of the aircraft...

If you haven't noticed, the airbase is not one target with one aimpoint. It is made up of multiple targets each requiring possibly more than one aimpoint, with each aimpoint requiring more than one missile, considering only a 30-50m accuracy (for 50% of the time) for the guided missiles, and far far less accuracy for the unguided ones. With the limitation of 200 launchers, multiple aimpoints per airbase and multiple missiles per aimpoint, there are not too many airbases China can handle at any one time at all. Which shows how ridiculous some people are by thinking that SRBMs can shut down ROCAF.

Where did you get this BS about 200 launchers? There are at least like 15 to 20 Brigades with the 2nd Artillery. Each Brigade has like 20 to 30 launchers. The 900 M-11s facing Taiwan can be quickly augmented by other units from the rest of the country within a day or so, moving from the highway, while longer ranged units, like thoes using M-11 Mod 2, can be fired as far as 700km.

An M-11, depending on the Mod, can carry a 500kg (1100lb), 850kg, or 1000kg warhead. Assuming a 50m to 200m CEP accuracy using Beidou assistance, the blast radius can easily be in the hundreds of meters, multiply that by a few factor if cluster or thermobaric munitions are used.

As I said, there ain't a lot of airbases, rather very few, in Taiwan that can support the F-16s, M2000s and Ching Kuos.

I have not said anywhere that only SRBMs will be used. But the argument many seem to be pitching is that SRBMs will disable all air bases and SAM defenses.

SRBMs with cluster and thermobaric will certainly greatly hinder, if not shutdown the base. How long do you expect an airfield to be cleared of bomblets with random delayed fuses, never knowing when each bomblet will explode. Thermobaric weapons, in addition to roasting the base. will certainly do wonders on the pavement after asphalt is subjected to extreme temperatures.

China will need at least USAF GW1 level of ISR capability, and very probably more, if it is to achieve the same effects within the same timeframe.

I won't disagree that China needs ISR, and they appear to be working on that.

Take a look at how many aimpoints each airbase requires. Look also at the Cha Shan Hualien airbase complex that's protected by the geography.

And you think that will stop a SLAM style weapon like the Kh-59ME, KD-88 or KD-63? Geography doesn't really hide when you reach a certain altitude.

200 launchers is towards the higher end of the estimates for the number of launchers.

Ignorance on how a PLA missile brigade works.

They won't be dumb ebough to pick it up. They'll use an armoured dozer to sweep it off the lanes.

Great and how long will that take eh? Don't forget the clusters that exploded have already done their wide area havoc. Repairing an airfield that is pockmarked by hundreds of cluster munitions is much harder than one that is damaged by a few bombs.

Now when your entire engineering brigade is out there trying to repair the airfield, you will never know when the next air, missile or MLRS strike will come in, bring in not just high yield explosive, but fragmentation bombs, cluster bombs and thermobaric weapons. If the engineering brigade gets wiped out, trained personel, valuable equipment, stocked repair kits in the process...

They simply have no experience in using PGMs in real world encounters. Zero. Name me one conflict where China has utilised air delivered PGMs?

Name me one instance where the Japanese had experience sinking a battleship or carrier before they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Do you have any proof Israelis trained PLAAF?

Given the extensive involvement of Israelis, you cannot rule that out. When you are obtaining technologies, part of that interaction would be teaching you how to use those technologies, and that easily reaches to the tactical level.

 

[Transient]

Why would PLANAF JH-7As not be able to equip KD-88s?

Because that's not their job. Or do you think the JH-7As do not have the job of handling anti-ship missions?

Even aside from JH-7A, another carrier is J-8II's multirole variant. And once J-11BS come out, that's another thing that will carry it. I'm assuming at the moment that they would want to concentrate J-10 for A2A roles. What I'm saying is this, if PLAAF view KD-88 as an important part of their attack plan, they will purchase enough of it. It's not short on money.

Everybody's short of money. What makes you think China is so flush with money? If China was indeed so flush with money why would decisions have to be made on how money was allocated to programs?

Remember, this is something that can be replenished around wartime if needed. As for KD-88 similar to KH-59, that's not right. First, you are going to have more fighters capable of carrying KD-88 than KH-59, Secondly, you normallly want to purchase missiles with better cost to performance ratio. Third, normally you would purchase more domestic missiles to support domestic industry.

Reasonable motivations for purchasing more KD-88s, but there are also other reasons why KD-88s may not be fielded in the numbers you expect. First, are you really sure KD-88 is cheaper than the Kh-59? Second, are you sure the KH-59s bought have not already fulfilled a fair chunk of PLAAF long range missile requirements?

well, haven't we already explained that JH-7A has high enough resolution in its SAR that it can find the necessary target to hit? I'm sure you are not going to mistaken an airbase. How many airbases can be next to each other?

Do you have any proof that mission planning for the missile can be done aboard the JH-7A? Is the KD-88 a ground skimming cruise missile or is it a simple minded fly straight to the target at high altitude missile? If the latter, then perhaps it can be done on the JH-7A, but you do not have a very stealthy missile there.

That's the thing right? It can put up a good fight against the PLA SEAD platform, but it has more to deal than just that. It has to deal with trying to shoot down LACMs and SRBMS aimed at airbases or ship bases or major power stations.

By doing its job it is protecting against all of them simultaneously. The ROC's AD system is still not as effective against SRBMs yet, and is probably of quite limited effectiveness against LACMs.

Well, that thing has been tauted as Chinas E-8 JStars (not comparing, just saying that is its role). I think having a plane like that will be useless if it can't provide information to surrounding assets. We know that Chinese fighters have datalink and we've even seen what appears to be datalink antennas on KD-88. How complex is this, we don't know. I guess this is an evolving process. Obviously, the more that times goes on, the more familiar they will be in it.

Well, I never implied that it couldn't transmit the info offboard. If it couldn't, it would be useless as you said. The difference is, to what level does the info go to? What is the C&C level on-board the plane, if there is even any? Is the info offloaded in real-time?

well, how many surveillence aircraft did they have in the theater and use in GW1? I don't know the number.

The info is on the net.

And remember, these Chinese surveillence aircrafts are using AESA radar. That's not something USAF had in GW1 or even now.

AESA doesn't necessarily imply great capability. The F-2's AESA wasn't more capable than its mechanically scanned counterparts. And we know little about its battle management capability, which is perhaps even more crucial than the simple range of the radar.

There is a first time for everyone. What kind of real world PGM experience did US have before GW1?

PGMs were used as far back as Vietnam. Based on these real war experiences gained, and Red Flags, USAF could develop tactics to utilise PGMs effectively. Of course there is a first time for everyone. What I have been saying is that for the first time, effectiveness will not be quite as high as expected because prior training without true operational experience will mean some practicalities are often not taken into account during training.

And you don't need these missiles to be the bulk of the ordinance that the JH-7A has to carry. In GW1, the majority of munitions dropped are dumb bombs. The PGMs are used for select targets only. As if you forget that airbases can be destroyed by dumb munitions (Hungary 1956, Six Day War 1967).

You are not going to be very successful doing that against an IADS that's very probably far more capable than that of KARI. Sure PLAAF might achieve some successes, but it will be at extreme cost.

And you have any idea how an EO weapon is supposed to work? The weapons officer sees through the TV camera through the missile's nose via datalink, identifies the target, then sets the target recticle to it. The missile memorizes shape, shade and pattern of the target.

Again, another instance of extrapolating information. How do you know that the KD-88 features the capability to maintain lock autonomously? And what I was talking about is the planning required to get the missile to the target. It seems it is you have no idea of the intricacies involved?

The AD system can be drawn early using drones, UAVs like Harpies, remote controlled fighters (old J-7s and J-6s turned into drones), or simply by feigned attacks. For example, J-8IIs can come in at high altitude, the AD system responds by lighting up their radars. Aircraft with rangefinding radar receivers can quickly get the location of these AD radars, and then you can send long range ARMs on a prebrief, lock after reaching waypoint mode.

Shows how little you know about what you are talking about with your naive portrayal of the simplicity with which you assume this can be done on the PLAAF side. What fighter aircraft in the PLAAF has a RWR with geo-locationion capability? Which ARM missiles in PLAAF has a LOAL mode? What makes you think the ROC will so cooperatively light up all their radars? Why should they do so when they have an IADS? Ever heard of blinking?

The AD system can also be exposed through HUMINT, as if there is no lack of that.

Yes, the all powerful Chinese spy who knows everything, but somehow others won't know anything about Chinese movements when they make a massive mobilisation for war.

And you cannot assume that they will have zero effectiveness just because they don't have USAF badges on their tails. Effectiveness is a matter of training, tactics and evaluation, a cycle that goes through again and again.

Did I ever say they will have zero effectiveness? All I said was the PLAAF cannot be assumed to have the same effectiveness as the USAF just because it now has some high-profile equivalents to the USAF.

The PLAAF does not have the luxury of small countries for use as target practice.

China was just so backward that in wars it got itself into with small countries like Vietnam, it didn't have them to use. nfloorl:

We really don't know what this particular plane is up to. But those are huge phase arrays set on a position on the plane that they will have LOS to the ground. Coupled with external datalinks on the back of the aircraft...

See what I mean. All you really know are those, and you are already extrapolating it to the level of USAF capabilities when you are not even sure if it is in service.

Where did you get this BS about 200 launchers? There are at least like 15 to 20 Brigades with the 2nd Artillery. Each Brigade has like 20 to 30 launchers. The 900 M-11s facing Taiwan can be quickly augmented by other units from the rest of the country within a day or so, moving from the highway, while longer ranged units, like thoes using M-11 Mod 2, can be fired as far as 700km.

ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: Military Power of the People’s Republic of China 2007

An M-11, depending on the Mod, can carry a 500kg (1100lb), 850kg, or 1000kg warhead. Assuming a 50m to 200m CEP accuracy using Beidou assistance, the blast radius can easily be in the hundreds of meters, multiply that by a few factor if cluster or thermobaric munitions are used.

Wow, chinese 2000lb warheads have blast radius of hundreds of meters when a 2000lb JDAM has a blast radius of only 25m. http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-SDB.html

SRBMs with cluster and thermobaric will certainly greatly hinder, if not shutdown the base. How long do you expect an airfield to be cleared of bomblets with random delayed fuses, never knowing when each bomblet will explode. Thermobaric weapons, in addition to roasting the base. will certainly do wonders on the pavement after asphalt is subjected to extreme temperatures.

Scattered bomblets can be cleared easily with armoured bulldozers. Or do you not know how to read? SRBMs which find their limited number of targets will hinder, but will not be enough to shut down a base.

And you think that will stop a SLAM style weapon like the Kh-59ME, KD-88 or KD-63? Geography doesn't really hide when you reach a certain altitude.

And above a certain altitude such missiles are far easier to intercept.

Ignorance on how a PLA missile brigade works.

Impress us with your expertise then.

Name me one instance where the Japanese had experience sinking a battleship or carrier before they attacked Pearl Harbor.

Regarding experience, I have addressed that. And the japanese gained anti-ship warfare experience during the RussoJapanese War.

Given the extensive involvement of Israelis, you cannot rule that out. When you are obtaining technologies, part of that interaction would be teaching you how to use those technologies, and that easily reaches to the tactical level.

Crobato: "No training? From a doctrinal point of view, the PLAAF already has one teacher, the same teacher accused of allegedly teaching techs to China---Israel."

From someone claiming ever so surely that Israel trained China, you now backtrack to 'cannot rule that out'. See what I mean by your assumptions of Chinese capability?

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/weapons/Bombs/bombegin.htm

Blast radius is ~110 ft for a 2,000 lb bomb. That's still going to create a 60-70m hole in the ground.

Disagree with the Jap bit though. Carrier ops were the factor in the pearl harbor attack but not in the sino-russo wars. Same thing with the Brits in the Taranto attack. First time there.

Since my memory is obviously warped by the length of time, I tot I post the actual report which would provide more accurate figures. It makes very good reading.

http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/ns97134.pdf

The distribution of ISR aircraft is classified though the total number is stated at ~200 (for those stated in Appendix 10) I think we can guess the approx numbers in each category.

 

[corsair7772]

forgive me for my stubborness, but i still think an evaluation of the personnel (which is absolutely critical to the war , and i mean from the high command to the conscripts), will reveal which side is on the winning side. Perhaps you people are forgetting about the German Blitzkrieg and the British colonian wars in sudan, which were a demosntration of how equipment disparities are almost always made up by superior personnel. The comes your infrastructure and C5ISTAR and a whole host of other factors and THEN your equipment. (but do challenge me if u want to make the equipment disparity so great that u have the chinese armed with pea shooters against Taiwanese F-22s).

Even if one of u proved that one side is better equipped than the other while you gush about missile's CEP and aircraft range, u should remember that the french were better armed in WW2 and so were the British in Sudan (colonial period) but both sides had their butts kicked until the winning sides high command (which comes under the human factor) screwed them up.

Perhaps these non-equipment factors, especially the human one, should recieve more of your attention.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Agreed in part but its not exactly a quantifiable measure. Hence less ability to compare.

For example, the Taiwanese are a conscript army but with reasonably adequate training but suspect morale. How is anyone going to measure this against a Chinese force that is semi-professional probably indoctrinated but whose training techniques are suspect. Its not like Iraq vs the US where the difference is obvious.

On the other hand, no amount of training will avail a fighter pilot if the aircraft can't take off into the air. Hence CEP does have some impact, don't you think?

 

[corsair7772]

Agreed.

But i did say in my post that i had assumed the difference in equipment quality wasnt to such an extreme that pilots had no aircraft to fly.

Secondly, regarding the parable of the aircraft that wouldnt fly, the human factor was best displayed when Sanctions were slapped on the PAF but thanks to an imaginative high command excellent personnel The airforce had proved in wargames its ability to mass its aircraft (im talking 400 sorties in one wave targetting IAF radar and C3I facilities rather than airbases. This is an excellent demonstration of the imagination and EFFECIENCY on the part of the air crews. And thats a key word, effeciency. A su-30 is a great plane but did you know it has metal chips in its engine thanks to bad maintenace from either the IAF or Russia? These chips are to the engine what nails are to A**. Or the aircraft crash and demotivation levels among IAF pilots whose senior pilots were being forced away from retirement.

If your interested, ill give the detailed plan and performance of the PAF in its most dire situation the 1971 war, which is another example of the Human factor.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Yup, but the point that you have correctly raised is that superior numbers/equipment can defeat or be defeated by an entity dependent on training. According, without an adequate measurement of training, such a comparison is not possible.

It might be more relevant to raise what exactly are the measurements of training that you have in mind. Otherwise, such a discussion would be inconclusive.

 

[Transient]

Blast radius is ~110 ft for a 2,000 lb bomb. That's still going to create a 60-70m hole in the ground.

Would a 25 ~ 35 m blast radius creat a 60~70m hole in the ground? I don't think so.

Disagree with the Jap bit though. Carrier ops were the factor in the pearl harbor attack but not in the sino-russo wars. Same thing with the Brits in the Taranto attack. First time there.

He asked about battleship warfare. Hence I said that Japan got its experience in the Russo-Japanese war. For carrier warfare, would you say that Japan's carrier warfare effectiveness was at its peak then, and not after they gained more experience further into the war?