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

[goldenpanda]

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

And how is that any problem for us, a bunch of ships with no CV air cover for itself, or for Taiwan?

 

[abramsteve]

Grand Danois has got it exactly.

So what if the subs find the group, they will be sunk, especially if they report positions. The idea that chinese land based aircraft could find and track a carrier group at a distance from the mainland is extreme, let alone manage a strike. In war they would be shot down, probably before they can sucsessfuly find the group, definaltey a long way out from it. Which brings you back to square one, locating and managing a strike against the carriers.

 

[Grand Danois]

And how is that any problem for us, a bunch of ships with no CV air cover for itself, or for Taiwan?

The CSF's do their work. And the ASW groups do their work. Not necessarily part of the same continuous group, but more likely discrete groups. Anyway, I would use SSN's for sanitising and screening - with destroyer squadrons hunting down those SSK's used in a blue water environment.

 

[DarthAmerica]

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.

Goldenpanda,

I appreciate your pride and enthusiasm and indeed the PRC has come a long way militarily. But simply being able bombard Taiwan into oblivion is not enough to win the all too familiar Taiwan scenario. Also, and I can tell you this from direct experience. Coordinating an attack on a moving defended target like a carrier is not as easy as it seems. I'll put it to you this way. NONE of the scenarios I've read here come anywhere close to being a winning strategy for dealing with the USNs CSF.

Unless the CSF is used carelessly and poorly led. The PRC's chances against the CSF are by no means certain.

DA

 

[goldenpanda]

Well unless you suddenly have something to take out sats in GEO orbit, that sub is going to be completely silent as far as you know about it.

So yeah our AWACS can pick up 3m^2 at 400km. Really if you think detection is a problem you'll be going home without the CV's.

 

[Grand Danois]

Well unless you suddenly have something to take out sats in GEO orbit, that sub is going to be completely silent as far as you know about it.

So yeah our AWACS can pick up 3m^2 at 400km. Really if you think detection is a problem you'll be going home without the CV's.

And what kind of sensors is it using and how does it relay it?

 

[goldenpanda]

Hey I never said it'd be easy. But you seem to be all bravado about bringing a 100k ton metal against several billion tons of earth. We can sink you. You can't sink us. That's how the battle works. If Israeli crews can fall asleep, if Darth can believe a diesel engine will power his chemical laser, something's going to take you to the bottom of the sea before we say give up.

 

[abramsteve]

So the Chinese have the capabilty to take out Sats, but the US doesnt?

GoldenPanda, alot of your therorys are sound on paper, but they rely on systems which havent been proven, and are being used to consider fighting the most advanced and capable navy in the world. Relying on fighting spirit is what the Japanese did 60 years ago.

 

[Grand Danois]

Hey I never said it'd be easy. But you seem to be all bravado about bringing a 100k ton metal against several billion tons of earth. We can sink you. You can't sink us. That's how the battle works. If Israeli crews can fall asleep, if Darth can believe a diesel engine will power his chemical laser, something's going to take you to the bottom of the sea before we say give up.

Hey easy on me now . I'm not American.

Just pointed out the obvious scenario. And that include that the Americans won't be stupid.

Subs at periscope depth is meat and potatoes for maritime patrol aircraft.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Hey I never said it'd be easy. But you seem to be all bravado about bringing a 100k ton metal against several billion tons of earth. We can sink you. You can't sink us. That's how the battle works. If Israeli crews can fall asleep, if Darth can believe a diesel engine will power his chemical laser, something's going to take you to the bottom of the sea before we say give up.

Please, pay attention to the responses. Everyone here with even a scintilla of technical competence has suggested to you that no CSF commander is going to set sail for PRC mainland without first rolling back your C4ISR and Logistics. And I'm not exactly sure why you think anyone is suggesting "sinking" mainland China. If you are talking about a war of absolutes, its more akin to burning the PRC to a crisp within 6 to 15 minutes rather than sinking. Such warfare is why the PRC would be very likely to avoid a military conflict or failing that, proceed very carefully up the latter of escalation. Also, diesel engines will and do power SSLs but I'm not exactly sure why thats even being brought up?

Panda, your(PRC) good regionally within LOS of GCI, but you are still don't have the sustained persistent logistics to fight the type of war being described. It's why the "widget" vs "widget" comment was made earlier.


DA

 

[Galrahn]

In any Taiwan scenario China must fully meet all of its objectives in the first 200 hours. After that point, the advantage would swing toward the side of the US.

In the first 200 hours, it doesn't matter how many 7th Fleet ships China sinks, because there aren't more than a dozen or so that would be in theater anyway. The only 7th Fleet platforms that must be neutralized would be enemy submarines, as they represent the greatest offensive threat by the US Navy.

China's priority in the first 200 hours would have to be neutralizing enemy offensive operations from Australia, Guam, Japan, and South Korea, either politically or militarily, and achieving control of Taiwan's air space and sea lanes without major force attrition before the 200 hour point.

After 200 hours, it is reasonable to assume resupply by sea to China would all but cease, there would likely be large political pressure from its neighbors like Singapore, Russia, and India who don't want a radioactive neighborhood, and a growing reinforcement / counterattack capability by the US from at least 3 different axis of attack including Northeast, Northwest, and Southeast.

If any of the 4 major areas; Guam, Australia, Japan, or South Korea are still able to engage in offensive operations after the first 200 hours, it is a good bet China's anti-navy capability will already of been degraded beyond the point to sustain engagement against American Aircraft Carriers, so the questions raised in this discussion wouldn't really apply.

In my opinion, the US 7th Fleet surface vessels aren't China's primary concern in the Taiwan scenario, as the 7th Fleet isn't large enough to effect the battle offensively until it is reinforced. The primary concern is neutralization of land facilities and obtaining air superiority throughout the homeland and Taiwan theater, with the 7th Fleet being a secondary concern that China wouldn't have to be dealt with until day 7+.

 

[goldenpanda]

Obviously I was talking about land based air versus CV. Did I hear wrong or did another American threaten nuclear annihilation? So losing 200 million Americans is okay as long as PRC burns to crisp. Who is the terrorist and threat to world peace now?

 

[goldenpanda]

Yeah the koreans are falling over themselves with love for Americans. Australia already stated its intention to not be involved. Looks like your pleasure is dragging everyone into WWIII, to satisfy your armchair fantasies.

 

[DarthAmerica]

In my opinion, the US 7th Fleet surface vessels aren't China's primary concern in the Taiwan scenario, as the 7th Fleet isn't large enough to effect the battle offensively until it is reinforced. The primary concern is neutralization of land facilities and obtaining air superiority throughout the homeland and Taiwan theater, with the 7th Fleet being a secondary concern that China wouldn't have to be dealt with until day 7+.

Galrahn, If I may add. Dealing with any response from the USA or Allies requires the PRC to walk a careful tightrope in order to avoid escalation. Even assuming the PRC could eliminate the land bases or the 7th fleet. The guaranteed escalation that would bring will be a disaster and most likely the end of the PRC as we know it today.

Panda, there are just too many things that could go wrong for the PRC in a military conflict over Taiwan for that to be a realistic option for China in the near future and probably even much longer. Just think about the kinds of responses sunk carrier would bring to the PRC and I'm not just talking nuclear. If all you want is acknowledgment that the PRC can sink a carrier then I wonder what the point would be? Seriously, do you like where you live? Do you like internet access? A lot of things change for the worse in a Taiwan vs China scenario and not just for Taiwan.

You don't actually think the PRC leadership is just going to blindly say, "If an American Fleet shows up, sink it", do you? The kinds of ROE necessary of the PRC side alone make any direct confrontation doomed to fail. Think about it.

DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Obviously I was talking about land based air versus CV. Did I hear wrong or did another American threaten nuclear annihilation? So losing 200 million Americans is okay as long as PRC burns to crisp. Who is the terrorist and threat to world peace now?

What is this response? No one is threatening anything. We are discussing very logically the very tight constraints that make this war unrealistic as you describe. That you even think the PRC can kill 200 million Americans suggest that you aren't aware of PRC nuclear doctrine or force structure.

DA

 

[goldenpanda]

That's the problem I see with Americans. They do not understand the grace of restraint. They think by obliterating Iraq, there will be less Al Qaeda. They think by threatening China, we will be prostrate before your nukes. They throw their power around in their moment of satisfaction--hey you know what you're the ONLY country on earth that people want to fly planes into. You're not satisfied until China is nuclear to the teeth like Russia. Guess what it's not hard. Dare us and that's what you'll see.




I don't want to close another thread so this will be all I have to say here.

Mod edit: This is an off topic, and responses to this particular post will be deleted.

 

[Galrahn]

Actually goldenpanda I think you missed DA's point completely.

There are a couple things that bug me about this thread. First, the idea that the single US CV forward deployed is a major target in a Taiwan scenario is not really well thought out, and usually subscribed by people who have never actually put the pieces down on the map and looked at the situation as China. The US 7th Fleet is about a dozen warships any given day, only one of which is a carrier. The submarine force is reinforced on day 7+, while the surface fleet doesn't get reinforced until about day 10+. While I understand there is a body of water between China and Taiwan, the suggestion the US Navy is the front line isn't accurate. The 7th Fleets role at the outbreak of hostilities is to prepare the battlefield, which would be mostly defensive, in preparation of reinforcements by air and sea.

The logistical challenges China faces even in the mid term (decades) are daunting. While widget vs widget gets a lot of air play, logistics is life in war and peace. China lacks the capability to defend its trade from source to destination. Until that blue water and global aviation coverage capability exists for China, it doesn't exist. That hurts China in any Taiwan scenario because if you think about it, the most threatening naval force early in that scenario isn't a single carrier and a dozen US warships in the north, rather it would be warships from countries like Australia assigned to interdict Chinese shipping at the Strait of Malacca. Finding and neutralizing those warships is easier said than done, because you have to not only find them, but identify those warships from the 200+ ships that cross that passageway daily, then neutralize them, and do so without an accident with international consequences and without attrition. That would be a daunting task for any nation.

Think about the area we are talking about. If the PLAN deployed ~60 submarines just to the South China Sea, and each submarine expended 100% of its torpedoes, hitting a merchant ship bound for Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, or the United States with just 1 torpedo, that submarine force could only sustain operations for 13 days. That is just the South China Sea, with no attrition, 100% success, and no accidental attacks against another nation that could potentially be neutral in the conflict, and assuming 1 torpedo is enough for every ship. ~60 submarines is the entire PLAN submarine force including Romeos, which means it would never happen, which also means the task of dealing with military AND economic targets just within the area surrounding China puts a heavy burden on the PLAAF and surface fleet, both of which would have other major challenges in a Taiwan scenario.

DA's point is that the Taiwan scenario is emmense. It is a logistical strain beyond the scope of any action in human history to stack the US and other potential allies against China, particularly if Taiwan puts up stiff resistance. That is why nuclear options surround the scenario, because nuclear options relieve a lot of the pressure of the logistical strains caused by conventional war.

I honestly don't think this thread has anything useful to offer anymore, it breaks things down into simplicities that are unrealistic, and the discussion fails to meet the criteria of realistic.

 

[tphuang]

A few, because there are different block varients. But the latest blocks currently in use (the older ones are gone AFAIK) have the longest range.

engage at maximum range, that has nothing to do with how long ranged the missile it is. Does it matter if a missile has 300 km range or 30 km? engaging target at their maximum effective range does not decrease in difficulty for shorter ranged missile

Aster missiles can apparently intercept at as little as 10 feet (just over 3 metres).

I was questioning really long ranged SAMs like SM-2, Rif or HH-9.

So? Since when was the S-300 some sort of "baseline" to compare with in this sort of scenario? Besides it's a land-based system - it doesn't have to deal with the sort of low-flying missiles SM-2, ESSM or Aster have to counter.

S-300, as in Rif. The one on kirov, slava and 051C.

By the way, what do you mean "YJ-83 (not C-803)"? According to Sinodefence.com they're the same thing.

They are not the same thing. C-803 does not exist. It's similar to C-802, although not identical either.

So the Chinese have the capabilty to take out Sats, but the US doesnt?

China doesn't even need to take out any American satellite, it just needs to blow up all of its own satellites + Taiwanese ones in LEO. That should create enough debris to create plenty of problem.

I am under the impression that the PLAN doesn't have the requisite numbers of MPA and ELINT platforms to provide the sustained wide area coverage needed to locate a carrier, particularly if the carrier is operating under EMCON conditions.

at present time, no, but that's because a lot of their new types of MPA, elint, jstar-like platforms just came out in the last 2 years. They are still experimenting with them. But in the next 5 years, they will have enough of Y-8 variants to maintain 24 hour coverage along the coast.

If I am not wrong the SM-2 Blk IIIB has demonstrated a capability to intercept USN targets used to emulate the Sunburns. And the Sunburn travels at 7m above water level in its terminal phase. Besides, the SM-2 is not the weapon of choice when facing the YJ-83. Those would be the ESSM and the RAM.

well, I said the same thing with ESSM and RAM.
sunburn flies a higher flight path (especially the latest version 3M-80MBE) than YJ-83 and has a much larger RCS (regardless of the stealth missile claims made by the Russians). It's up there with Brahmos as the most overrated anti-ship missiles imo. YJ-83 flies a lower flight path, has a higher hit rate than those much hyped Russian supersonic anti-ship missiles.

I've noticed mention of decoys earlier in this thread and I wonder whether a decoy like Nulka would have any real chance of success against missiles like the Sunburn? I would have thought that this would be another important part of any layered anti missile defence system.

sure, the sunburn seeker is far from the latest seeker out there. Going at mach2.x also gives it much less time to lock on to the target.

In other words, I would never assume a YJ-83 would be tracked at launch

It's interesting, if a conflict happens around Taiwan, I would expect the two of the main launch platforms of YJ-83s to be JH-7/A and type 22s. I'm probably totally wrong here, but it seems to me that the launching platforms themselves in many scenarios would be out of sight when they launch the missiles. Especially in the case of type 22s, when datalinked with Y-8s and other aerial assets, they don't need to get really close to the targets before firing.

In which case CEC would allow for a long ranged SAM like SM-2 to go after the YJ-83.

In a way, I think China would trade SM-2 for YJ-83. YJ-83 should be cheaper to produce. Especially if you are facing 8 022s (the typical size of a pack of 022s), you could end up with a situation where you don't have enough SM-2 left to intercept YJ-83s. That's assuming a 1 to 1 exchange (some YJ-83s would miss the target due to ECM and multiple SM-2 or ESSM for that matter needed to destroy some on target ones).

 

[Galrahn]

I was wrong, just when I thought this thread was getting pointless tphuang comes along and adds some good stuff.

 

[goldenpanda]

Galrahn. The thing is, China doesn't NEED to win any other theatre. It can take Taiwan and sit things out. It isn't some poker play where China is trying to make war to advance its position. China is forced to war to preserve the continuity of our civilization. Please try to understand this mentality. It is not a necessary goal to preserve our trade or to interdict yours. If Taiwan gives up, we win.

Any scenario where USA invades after Taiwan has surrendered gets wacky pretty quickly, on both political and military levels.