Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?

[gf0012-aust]

Now you're talking about the effectiveness of decoys in general. Making everything look like CVN means giving everything, including the real screen ships the largest possible electronic signature. That's just silly.

The largest electronic signature emitting from a fleet on war footing is silly? Making everything look like a carrier is appropriate for 1970's-80's discussions about electronic warfare - but it bears little relevance for 2007.

That will need to be a bit more fleshed out to convince some of the AOC members in here... :

 

[gf0012-aust]

I agree, and I really don't have a good reason why I even tried to participate.

well as soon as system, sensor, response and ewarfare discussions are dumbed down that far is a pretty good indicator that the quality of debate has just been abandoned and that one or more participants are bordering on clueless. :shudder

although I do sympathise with your frustration.

 

[goldenpanda]

At ~0:24 there is a neat example of imagine recognition technology

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMuFtok4A8Y

The cursor had some trouble sorting through the explosion for about a 1 sec before reacquiring. Granted IR is a different (and much harder) problem when you're closing in on the target at mach speeds. But this is one answer to signal decoys.

 

[Galrahn]

The cursor had some trouble sorting through the explosion for about a 1 sec before reacquiring. Granted IR is a different (and much harder) problem when you're closing in on the target at mach speeds. But this is one answer to signal decoys.

That a Youtube clip of a J-10 promotional video is considered a viable reply to what I was trying to discuss makes me feel dumber for even trying to participate in this discussion.

 

[goldenpanda]

When it comes to technology, as a general rule the Chinese have a gift for duplication, but also have a traditional lack for the gift of creativity that is required to expand on stolen technologies without source.

If you have participated in tech development you might realize most things that can be stolen are pretty useless. About the only time it helps is when it "prunes the search tree" -- if you have knowledge how it was done once, you don't have to try other things which are more likely to fail. The Russians copied from stolen tech ONCE, the B29. After that all their systems took their own form because it made more sense to develop something that you had the complete concepts for.

In terms of China's tech progress, the problem in the past has been the lack of resources to take risks. China in 1949 had about as much tech as Nigeria has today. We spent more than 50 years growing the science and industrial base, always making do with less, always trying to catch up. We didn't benefit from the technology diffusion and professional exchange benefits enjoyed by smaller western countries such as Sweden, Israel, etc. The only sensible thing was to walk the path that had already been shown to work. But if you look at indigenous systems that *have* been developed over this time, such as nuclear and rocketry, they are completely different from western designs, and they work just as well or better in some cases. For example, we only had 33 nuclear tests to achieve the same fissile material efficiency as USA.

It's my opinion that today Chinese military science is at least as good as the West, in the sense that we are able to explore new ideas and develop technologies to meet national security needs. We have good physics and we are increasingly able to direct these skills into developing new systems. We're the first army to deploy active lasers. We have an airborne army with equipment and doctrine not seen in the west. However it is true that so long as we are playing catch up it makes more sense to replicate what's already been done--for those products that are still relevant in warfare. It's also true we don't make videos as cool as the Russians. :

 

[DarthAmerica]

While I may have reinforced your argument in a very limited way, I also want to make clear my position is that your scenario is the least likely scenario to actually occur.

Understood and agreed.

 

[Tasman]

The J-10 is direct copy of the Israeli's Lavi. The Lavi was based on the original F-16 technologies.

Reply to above posted by goldenpanda:
If this is representative of USA information capability China has nothing to worry about.

This is certainly an area where there has been much speculation. It has been denied by both China and Israel but there is also evidence that the design was at least influenced by the Lavi. From my reading, however, I don't believe it can accurately be described as a 'direct copy'.

Here are a few comments on this issue:

It was widely speculated that the J-10’s initial design was based on the cancelled Israeli Aerospace Industry (IAI) Lavi lightweight fighter. Despite the denial by both Chinese and Israelis, the high resemblance of the two aircraft appears to support this claim.

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/j10.asp

Wikipedia reports that whilst 'it has been argued that the J-10 is based on the now cancelled Israeli Lavi the general designer, Mr. Song Wencong refuted the remark that J-10 is a copy of Lavi.'

Wikipedia also mentions that 'the J-10's canard configuration is based on CAC's previous experience with the J-9, which was cancelled in the early 1980s.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-10

Whether or not the J-10 is or isn't a copy of the Lavi has no bearing of course on its ability to engage USN aircraft.

Cheers

 

[goldenpanda]

It's not a copy because there's nothing TO copy. Do you think a fighter is just the shape? You can give Australian 100 F18's he's not making his own anytime soon.

I'm just saying it costs $billions and millions of man hours to develop a modern aircraft. To speculate we copied the Lavi because we met a few engineers over there, is ridiculous and insulting.

 

[Tasman]

It's not a copy because there's nothing TO copy. Do you think a fighter is just the shape? You can give Australian 100 F18's he's not making his own anytime soon.

I'm just saying it costs $billions and millions of man hours to develop a modern aircraft. To speculate we copied the Lavi because we met a few engineers over there, is ridiculous and insulting.

All I am saying is that there is speculation and I sincerely apologise if you found this insulting. Its a fact that there is speculation as it is written in numerous articles. It is probably true to say that practically every new design is influenced by what has been before and all I said did was repeat what others have said. That is that there is evidence that it was 'at least influenced' by an earlier design. I acknowledged the denial of copying from both China and also from Israel, where the Lavi was designed. There is no way that I am casting any aspersions over Chinese designers and engineers. In fact I greatly admire the progress China is making in practically every area, including the aviation design area. I also acknowledge the progress China is making in its ability to challenge US CSF's.

Cheers

 

[abramsteve]

I hesitate to become involved in this disscussion because my knowledge is extremley basic, but going back to making all vessels have the same electronic signature as a carrier, would it not be that hard to target the signatures coming from the middle of a formation? Thats assuming that an electronic picture of the screen can be formed of course...

 

[goldenpanda]

Tasman I didn't mean to direct the remark at you personally. If anything I appreciate your very balanced views and analysis here. My remark was directed against the constant speculation in western sources. The influence from F16/Lavi is quite clear to me as well. I just wish people can appreciate better how hard it would be to "direct copy" such a thing. When Soviets copied the B29 it took 100,000 people from 200 institutes. They had trade shows specifically on "how we're going to copy the B29". In the end they built more than 800 copies, but it was already made obsolete by the jet age.

The Soviet version was called Tu-4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu-4

 

[Tasman]

Thanks goldenpanda. We now seem to be in agreement over the design issue.

 

[Tasman]

How so? The screen in a war footing is huge - the disposition of a wartime fleet is considerably different from peacetime.

a wartime screen is well beyond the range of outside screen to centre target strike for an enemy missile.

the fact that there is still focus on USN defensive weapons systems rather than how the entire screen works indicates to me that the bulk of people focussed on "widget to widget" comparisons have no idea how prev defensive measures worked - let alone current defensive systems

in a situation that is a legacy of heading to open conflict the nature of the game changes completely. I would suspect that USN submarine posture would revert back to immediate cold war actions (hack the shad) - and that the primary role would be decapitation through LR-PGMs.

If this reverts to total war, then the US is between 6 and 13 minutes away from absolute strike options. China is nowhere near reciprocity.

No Fleet Commander is going to expose assets until apropriate decapitation and dislocation has taken place. Why anyone thinks that the USN is going to play to PLAAF/PLAN strengths and advantages of land based air is beyond me.

This missile to sensor comparison debate is so simplistic it beggars belief that we're having a serious discussion about it.

Having followed the discussion in this thread and taking on board gf's comments I agree that in a fully blown war involving the possibility of a nuclear exchange the USN SSBN fleet would be perhaps the major player. Surely though, none of us really think this is likely to happen, well I hope not anyway. I believe that the existence of the overwhelming superiority of the US nuclear deterrent will ensure that an intelligent country like China will not look to nuclear options.

Therefore we come back to the (still remote in my opinion) situation of an all out conventional attack. In this scenario I would imagine that the US would employ a massed cruise missile attack from surface ships, submarines and aircraft on Chinese military installations prior to positioning the CSFs within striking distance of land based airpower. The result of this would, IMO, greatly reduce, but not necessarily completely destroy China's capacity to strike back with large scale air attacks but may have less effect on the ability to hit back with land based missiles. The main threat I would see to the CSFs would be a retaliatory strike by land based missiles or perhaps a 'first strike' by China against a CSF which gets too close prior to any American attack. However I don't believe that China would initiate a pre-emptive strike and I can't imagine that the USN would position a CSF too close.

The main questions I am asking (presuming that neither country uses the nuclear option) are:
1. Would the US be confident that it could destroy the bulk of China's long range missiles in the early stages of a war without exposing its warships to unacceptable losses?
2. Would China be confident of being able to destroy, with its own missiles, a significant number of US vessels, including submarines, that are within missile firing range of Chinese military targets?

I have to reaffirm that I don't see any real possibility of these scenarios actually occurring but merely contingency exercises for both countries.

Cheers

 

[abramsteve]

Interesting questions Tasman.

I tend to look at this way. IMO the most likely reason for China and the US to come to blows would be over Taiwan. Now assuming that its kept conventional, there are two primary objectives, control of the straights and control of the air over Taiwan.

Now control of straights I beilve can be achieved by US submarines. Closing the straights means limited movement of troops and equiptment needed to supply an invasion. Control of the air is somewhat more difficult. An airbourne invasion can only be sucessfuly acomplished if air superiority is acheived. The Taiwanesse airforce would doubtless take massive losses, hopefully with the same results against the agressor.

Reinforcement would be a must. This is where the US carrier groups, operating on the eastern side of Taiwan, could provide support.

So if it is possible for US carrier groups to operate effectivley (providing support for Taiwans defence) beyond the range of Chinese ground based radar and short to medium range attack aircraft, then it makes the their task of cripilling or mission killing the groups.

 

[goldenpanda]

- It's not possible to close the strait using submarines. The strait is a Chinese lake with undersea sonar and air superiority. SSN's are terrible in coastal water (noisy and big). Why do you think Russia and China emphasize diesel?

- Cruise missiles can be shot down like ASM's. It can be more difficult to detect yes, but it depends on things like if we can guess the route--and the missile will not be maneuvering. Cruise missile can not follow targets, so everything depends on intel against fixed installations and timing of the attack. They can disable an airfield but if aircraft are moved out of the way the damage is negligible for the vast expenditure of missiles.

- USA cannot assume any satellite intel, at all, once hostility begins

- there is little possibility to destroy ASM or ballistic missile stocks. All of them are mobile. You can guess at where they are but how much do you know about how we think, really?

- In last 60 years China has always deployed preemptive strike in its conflicts. Once the intention to war is clear, we strike.

- China does not care about destroying USA assets per se. If we delay the response it can be mission success. The only question is how quickly Taiwan can be forced to surrender. We are building a second airborne army. Taiwan has zero strategic depth. They want to protect 3 generations of economic work on their island. All we want is to plant a flag. Think about that.

 

[Tasman]

I tend to look at this way. IMO the most likely reason for China and the US to come to blows would be over Taiwan. Now assuming that its kept conventional, there are two primary objectives, control of the straights and control of the air over Taiwan.

Now control of straights I beilve can be achieved by US submarines. Closing the straights means limited movement of troops and equiptment needed to supply an invasion. Control of the air is somewhat more difficult. An airbourne invasion can only be sucessfuly acomplished if air superiority is acheived. The Taiwanesse airforce would doubtless take massive losses, hopefully with the same results against the agressor.

Reinforcement would be a must. This is where the US carrier groups, operating on the eastern side of Taiwan, could provide support.

So if it is possible for US carrier groups to operate effectivley (providing support for Taiwans defence) beyond the range of Chinese ground based radar and short to medium range attack aircraft, then it makes the their task of cripilling or mission killing the groups.

That raises the question then of just what China would be able to use against carriers operating in this role? Would long range missiles be a serious threat?

I presume that the USN would be confident of defending its vessels against attacks by submarines or surface warships. I also imagine that, unless it was trying to prevent escalation of the conflict, the US would go on the offensive against military installations in mainland China in an attempt to destroy as many air, missile and naval assets as possible. The political desire, however, to avoid escalation may mean that this option would be ruled out but that would greatly increase China's ability to position forces where strikes against carriers by missiles and long range aircraft may be possible.

I agree BTW that conflict over Taiwan is the most likely scenario that could involve a serious shooting war between China and the USA.

Cheers

 

[abramsteve]

I doubt the Chinese would or could go head to head with the US fleet using surface units. And I really dont rate highly their chances using Subs, so that leaves long range airstrike, which to even have a chance at succeding they would have to find the Carrier groups first.

None of the above seem likely to me, but like Goldenpanda said, they only need restrict carrier movement to accomplish at least some of their objectives.

 

[Grand Danois]

I'll agree that Taiwan is the only remotely likely scenario of a Sino-US conflict.

Succes criteria for the US would be to prevent or repulse an invasion force.

This can be done by establishing air supremacy/air dominance over Taiwan from two or more carriers east of Taiwan. These would be heavily screened by attack subs. Chinese ISR capabilities to track in this region would be shut down. Chinese naval shipping to the north and south of the Straits would be attacked, shortening the conflict as it cuts short the prospect of succesful invasion.

No attack on mainland China is needed and would probably not happen as it hold the potential for escalation beyond the immediate theatre.

Point being, if the PRC can't establish air supremacy over Taiwan there will be no succesful invasion. And the US carriers don't need to place themselves in harms way to prevent this.

(Cruise missiles can be retargeted and some can locate their own targets.)

 

[goldenpanda]

Subs will not attack carriers by themselves. They are used for detection and will coordinate their attack with aircraft. It's hard to imagine a CSF of several dozen ships performing ASW cannot be picked up. Submarines have a purpose to "stir" the signals emission from a CSF. It is not like WWII, where finding the carrier is the big challenge anymore.

Taiwan will have little air force left after the opening salvo of BM's. They have no where else to put their planes. China has all the intel we need on a tiny island with considerable fifth column. Taiwan is so aware of this, they turned to build laptops rather than continue their indigenous fighter program. They don't even buy all the planes USA will sell to them. Think how much resistance Holland put up against Germany.

 

[Grand Danois]

Subs will not attack carriers by themselves. They are used for detection and will coordinate their attack with aircraft. It's hard to imagine a CSF of several dozen ships performing ASW cannot be picked up. Submarines have a purpose to "stir" the signals emission from a CSF. It is not like WWII, where finding the carrier is the big challenge anymore.

Not if what is being stirred up is the hunter killer screen which doesn't have any carrier with it.

Optimistic on the blue water use of SSK's?