I don't know that the argument of F-22s is that relevant. On the assumption that F-22s are at Kadena (the closest US Fighter base in the area) at the time of the invasion, which is a big assumption as they aren't based there normally, do you think that the US can generate enough sorties (given the limited number to be secured, scattered around the world, with training orgs and in maintaince etc) to stop the swarms of Chinese fighters over taiwain. These limited numbers would need air refueling, thus creating a weak link the Chinese could attack, the long flight time to taiwan would just tie up the limited numbers and fatigue pilots when the arrived in the area WITHOUT AWACS support. The 700 missiles china has would garentee that there wont be any runways to base them in taiwan. realistically the only aircraft that the US can call on to secure air supremacy in a surprise attack on taiwain, is at best 1 carrier battle group, as most would not be able to sortie from the states in the 7 days that the Taiwanese think they can last. That 1 CVBG could at best call on just 20 super hornets and a similar number of older hornets. The super hornet is a good plane but its NOT an outstanding one, it certainly isnt the silver bullet the US would need. The simple fact is F22 of not, the US wont have air supremacy over taiwan in a surprise Chinese attack.
Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?
- Thread starter Superbug
- Start date
- Status
I don't see what's so hard to believe. Within the first x number hours, most of the military airbases in Taiwan would be taken out. The stationary air defense units would suffer quite a bit too. Most of the ports and shipyards would also be taken out. how many ROCAF fighters will even be able to fly at that point? As for ROCN, only the Kidd class provide any kind of air defense. But, it's going to have to contend with JH-7A being able to launch YJ-83s from outside of its engagement envelop and type 22s being able to launch YJ-83s before it can even spot them. I'm not sure how many SM-2 missiles ROCN got as part of that deal. I'm not even sure if those SM-2 without rest of the Aegis system can intercept sea-skimming missiles. I don't see it surviving that long either way.
So until a carrier group gets over there, the only other fighters facing plaaf would be from the base in Okinawa and Japan. Since the Okinawa base have 12 F-22s, that will make things really unpleasant for plaaf. So, plaaf would have to decide whether it's willing to risk further US retaliation by attacking Okinawa. But if we can ever take the F-22s out of the picture (that was my hypothesis, I'm not saying it will happen), plaaf would have quantitative and qualitative advantage over Taiwan airspace. JH-7As and H-6s would be hunting for the PAC2 batteries and other air defense assets. And if they are found, they will be facing a lot of KD-88s and YJ-91s.
goldenpanda
New Member
I don't see why China should be inhibited from attacking Kadena if it is used to launch combat missions. If I'm not wrong DF-15's are designed for this mission. F22 are quite a worry. But if the numbers are small we can try to engage it visually with J7 swarms.
I hadn’t factored in a surprise first strike. I should have because it was mentioned earlier by goldenpanda and possibly others. This would of course mean that Taiwan would have to meet a Chinese onslaught largely by itself, except for the US assets you have mentioned. That does seem to change the equation somewhat and might perhaps push the US towards escalating the conflict and using assets such as the submarine fleet and long range bombers in retaliatory actions.
Cheers
Thats not quite how it works in reality. Don't get me wrong, I am not blowing off your hypothesis. But its got several major flaws IMV. First is its based on the massive attack theory which is not likely for a number of reasons. Second, it assumes an exceptionally well executed plan with no unforeseen complications. Third, it severely underestimates Taiwan's ability to put up massive resistance. I'll expand these points later if you need more detail.
Before I call it a night. Let me leave you with a thought. In 1991, the US/Coalition far greater quantitative and qualitative advantages over the Iraqi's than the PRC does with Taiwan and it had a superior logistics and C4ISR system. Not only that, the coalition COMPLETELY isolated Iraq from any outside support. In spite of that, the Iraqi Air Force survived desert storm. So did its IADs. And this is after weeks of near constant bombardment and a lot of that was PGMs. Do you really think the PRC is going to simply walk over Taiwan air forces and IADs "within x hours"? I don't.
DA
goldenpanda
New Member
Iraq's airforce WAS neutralized and you had free reign over the air. Their assets survived by not operating against you, which is as good being destroyed. Only a small part of the campaign was actually directed against their air defense -- most sorties were flown against their dug in army.
Iraq is also a much bigger country geographically. In 1991 I believe you didn't have many cruise missiles, and only 5% were precision bombs. If I'm not wrong you didn't have even JDAM's. You could only locate AD when they've turned on their radar. All this paints a different picture for me than Taiwan, which will receive a nearly simultaneous strike from hundreds of precision warheads against well known targets.
Iraq is also a much bigger country geographically. In 1991 I believe you didn't have many cruise missiles, and only 5% were precision bombs. If I'm not wrong you didn't have even JDAM's. You could only locate AD when they've turned on their radar. All this paints a different picture for me than Taiwan, which will receive a nearly simultaneous strike from hundreds of precision warheads against well known targets.
Well, since this topic has went all over the board with taiwan invasion and all, i don't think my question can be seen as off topic. And the question is this:
Lets take a hypothetical situation of a singe burke destroyer who is not to attack and is to just defend itself. Also, it will not use jammers or decoys. Every missile it fires will hit its target for sure. Overhead it has an E-2 which will not be attacked by anyone.
On the other side, we have maritime surveillance planes tracking the burke, not to be attacked, and we have magically spawned number of harpoon class missiles, hurling towards the burke. Every one of those missiles, if not intercepted, will hit the ship. They are all coming from one direction and ship has its side turned toward them.
So, question is: what is the minimum required number of said missiles that need to be launched in order to achieve at least 2 direct hits on the burke?
Lets take a hypothetical situation of a singe burke destroyer who is not to attack and is to just defend itself. Also, it will not use jammers or decoys. Every missile it fires will hit its target for sure. Overhead it has an E-2 which will not be attacked by anyone.
On the other side, we have maritime surveillance planes tracking the burke, not to be attacked, and we have magically spawned number of harpoon class missiles, hurling towards the burke. Every one of those missiles, if not intercepted, will hit the ship. They are all coming from one direction and ship has its side turned toward them.
So, question is: what is the minimum required number of said missiles that need to be launched in order to achieve at least 2 direct hits on the burke?
Not greater quantitative. Total deployed air forces had between 2 & 2.5 times as many combat aircraft as Iraq (including combat-capable trainers, in theatre only, including Saudis & GCC. Not counting anything not in theatre, or the Syrian air force, which played no part). Iraqs SAM & AAA force was far larger than Taiwans. China has a much bigger numerical advantage than that.
Much greater qualitative, certainly.
There was a problem when Panda started comparing WW-ll era Intelligence assets with those today, as in a 200,000 troop movement in Korea. Do I really need to point out the differences in capabilities? Add to that China is a relatively open society compared to 1951 and you get my drift. At most they could buy about 3 days under cover of an exercise.
Regarding the current and evolving threat of Chinese precision weaponry?? I agree they are getting very capable in this area. The real question isn't "can they cause major damage to Taiwan". The question is, "can they get an army across that strait and occupy them"?
Most of all with an offensive Yank presence. And how would they deal with the blockade that would follow? This is not a one dimensional conflict scenario.
I agree the topic has legs. Thanks for all for a great discussion.
Regarding the current and evolving threat of Chinese precision weaponry?? I agree they are getting very capable in this area. The real question isn't "can they cause major damage to Taiwan". The question is, "can they get an army across that strait and occupy them"?
Most of all with an offensive Yank presence. And how would they deal with the blockade that would follow? This is not a one dimensional conflict scenario.
I agree the topic has legs. Thanks for all for a great discussion.
Swerve,
If you do an operational analysis for Taiwan vs PRC in the first 24-48 hours and include current airfield capacity, OR rates and ability to coordinate(Battle Management) fighters today the numbers of aircraft available to the PRC that could actually influence the air battle on the PRC side don't have the same quantitative advantage the coalition did in ODS.
People are looking at Scramble and Sinodefense and seeing x number of a certain platform and assuming all x are available and that is not the case. While I agree that overall the PRC has an edge if their was a war between PRC and Taiwan. It's not overwhelming. If we factor in the possibility of US/Allied support, both numerical and qualitative advantages shift dramatically to the Taiwanese. Especially after the attrition of the first few days. Within reason, it stopped mattering how many of x country A has vs y of country B about 10 years ago.
DA
Fine, if i can't get any replies to my question, i guess i must join the ongoing discussion. 
So, one of the questions everyone here is really asking themselves is just how many planes (from both sides) could be in the air after the initial missiles strikes on taiwan. All of the bases and all the planes on taiwanese side could theoretically come to play, though only a number would get airborne, as damaged airfields would not let all of them fly. We don't know how many missiles would china fire at first, wout it be one huge strike or a steady trickle, attempting to continuously supress the airfields. We can't know the efficiency of those missiles, nor the efficiency of taiwanese SAMs against them. (personally, in most cases, i would save those for later, against chinese aircraft)
I doubt there'd be more than a few hundred planes in the air, at any given time. And that's a combind number, chinese and taiwanese. And even that would be temporary, just in opening hours, after which i suspect chinese would attack at a steady trickle, trying to keep dozens of planes over taiwan at any given time.
It really all depends on how many planes taiwanese could get up after/under missile strikes on their airbases, and how many planes can chinese muster and coordinate for continuous attacks. Sadly, those figures could range from 20-90% of total available number, so discussion is a bit pointless.
So, one of the questions everyone here is really asking themselves is just how many planes (from both sides) could be in the air after the initial missiles strikes on taiwan. All of the bases and all the planes on taiwanese side could theoretically come to play, though only a number would get airborne, as damaged airfields would not let all of them fly. We don't know how many missiles would china fire at first, wout it be one huge strike or a steady trickle, attempting to continuously supress the airfields. We can't know the efficiency of those missiles, nor the efficiency of taiwanese SAMs against them. (personally, in most cases, i would save those for later, against chinese aircraft)
I doubt there'd be more than a few hundred planes in the air, at any given time. And that's a combind number, chinese and taiwanese. And even that would be temporary, just in opening hours, after which i suspect chinese would attack at a steady trickle, trying to keep dozens of planes over taiwan at any given time.
It really all depends on how many planes taiwanese could get up after/under missile strikes on their airbases, and how many planes can chinese muster and coordinate for continuous attacks. Sadly, those figures could range from 20-90% of total available number, so discussion is a bit pointless.
Yeesss. Thinking about it, even without trying to check the figures, that sounds likely. I know nothing of airfield capacity in & around Fujian, but I know China has very few tankers (the number of aircraft lacking in-flight refuelling capacity isn't a constraint because they hit the tanker shortage first) & many of their aircraft are short-ranged. The coalition forces in 1991 benefited from the immense overcapacity (compared to their air force) of Saudi airfields as a result of the Saudi building spree of the 1980s, the ability to bring carriers close in, & lots of tankers & aircraft which could use them.
The balance is changing in Chinas favour, of course. It would be interesting to know if they're increasing airfield capacity near Taiwan, or equipping civilian airports (which are expanding rapidly) to handle military aircraft.
Joust few points for people who think Taiwan defenses could be destroyed in few hours:
- BM aren’t accurate enough for destruction of anything that is smaller then airfield. Besides they have limited destruction capability thanks to relatively small warhead. One artillery battery can sustain much higher level of firepower then PRC BM whit higher accuracy…
- MLRS aren’t suited for same task either because of similar reasons...
- How many modern fighters Taiwan has? Even if we know that they have limited supply of Aim-120 missiles there is still large stock of Aim-7s. Also you should consider Mirage 2000 armed whit Mica.
- Taiwanese air defenses aren’t exactly nonexistent…
- PRC amphibious assets can’t deliver even fraction of troops needed for invasion of Taiwan not to mention equipment and supplies…
- Same goes for airborne capabilities
- Number of modern surface combatants on bouth sides is similar
- You are neglecting land based SSM and FACs
Also you could look at difficulties much more advanced NATO forces had trying to destroy Serbian assets during Kosovo conflict. And that was without any significant fighter or air defense missile opposition...
- BM aren’t accurate enough for destruction of anything that is smaller then airfield. Besides they have limited destruction capability thanks to relatively small warhead. One artillery battery can sustain much higher level of firepower then PRC BM whit higher accuracy…
- MLRS aren’t suited for same task either because of similar reasons...
- How many modern fighters Taiwan has? Even if we know that they have limited supply of Aim-120 missiles there is still large stock of Aim-7s. Also you should consider Mirage 2000 armed whit Mica.
- Taiwanese air defenses aren’t exactly nonexistent…
- PRC amphibious assets can’t deliver even fraction of troops needed for invasion of Taiwan not to mention equipment and supplies…
- Same goes for airborne capabilities
- Number of modern surface combatants on bouth sides is similar
- You are neglecting land based SSM and FACs
Also you could look at difficulties much more advanced NATO forces had trying to destroy Serbian assets during Kosovo conflict. And that was without any significant fighter or air defense missile opposition...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Those PRC 880 BM's and 100 CM's have a sh!teload of targets to neutralise in order to neuter the Taiwanese IADS.
Some of those BM's will fail, some get shot down, some wont hit their aimpoint (CEP, even with GPS), some wont affect their target (inapprop or dud warhead). Some wont hit a relevant target, but just the aimpoint.
A little example.
If not getting shot at, roughly 90% or 792 of the BM warheads will reach their destination and have a GPS assisted CEP a little better than 50 m. If I decide to shoot, say, 500 Tien Kung/PAC-2 and 200 I-Hawk at those, that number is reduced with a further 490. That leaves PRC with 302 BM warheads with that CEP of 50m.
85 CMs will get through and hit their target succesfully. I think we can conservatively expect 10% of the CM's to be shot down, so that's 76 aimpoints.
All in all you have this available to hit Taiwanese aimpoints with:
Remember to match munition with target. Did you hit a target or a decoy, was there a fighter in the HAS you hit? Maskirovka! Because everybody knows the coordinates of the ATBM missiles.
A selection of targets:
Taiwanese AF
9 major air bases + a number of other bases = Lots of HAS, bunkers, revetments and runways.
F-16 - 146
Mirage 2000 - 57
IDF Ching-kuo - 128
F-5 - 90+
AEW
E-2T/K - 6
Ground to air missiles
6 Tien Kung I/II 6 batteries, static. No of rounds.
3 PAC-2 batteries with 600 rounds, mobile.
18 I-Hawk batteries with 1000 rounds, mobile.
47 Avenger, mobile.
? MANPADS Stinger, mobile.
At least 18 static and 2 mobile surveillance radars. Numerous smaller search radars. C3 facilities, other ISR. Heavy redundancy.
My conclusion Air space over Taiwan will be contested. Way too many aimpoints for the initial barrage and little effectiveness - doesn't achive critical mass for breakdown.
The initial PRC strike packages will be fed into an functioning IADS. And Taiwan has sortie generation on its side. This means that though it has fewer fighters overall, it can match what the PRC can project over Taiwan. BoB'ish. And the PRC will have to deal with the GBAD at the same time.
Some of those BM's will fail, some get shot down, some wont hit their aimpoint (CEP, even with GPS), some wont affect their target (inapprop or dud warhead). Some wont hit a relevant target, but just the aimpoint.
A little example.
If not getting shot at, roughly 90% or 792 of the BM warheads will reach their destination and have a GPS assisted CEP a little better than 50 m. If I decide to shoot, say, 500 Tien Kung/PAC-2 and 200 I-Hawk at those, that number is reduced with a further 490. That leaves PRC with 302 BM warheads with that CEP of 50m.
85 CMs will get through and hit their target succesfully. I think we can conservatively expect 10% of the CM's to be shot down, so that's 76 aimpoints.
All in all you have this available to hit Taiwanese aimpoints with:
- 302 BM with better than 50 m CEP
- 76 CM with 5 m CEP.
Remember to match munition with target.
Did you hit a target or a decoy, was there a fighter in the HAS you hit? Maskirovka! Because everybody knows the coordinates of the ATBM missiles. A selection of targets:
Taiwanese AF
9 major air bases + a number of other bases = Lots of HAS, bunkers, revetments and runways.
F-16 - 146
Mirage 2000 - 57
IDF Ching-kuo - 128
F-5 - 90+
AEW
E-2T/K - 6
Ground to air missiles
6 Tien Kung I/II 6 batteries, static. No of rounds.
3 PAC-2 batteries with 600 rounds, mobile.
18 I-Hawk batteries with 1000 rounds, mobile.
47 Avenger, mobile.
? MANPADS Stinger, mobile.
At least 18 static and 2 mobile surveillance radars. Numerous smaller search radars. C3 facilities, other ISR. Heavy redundancy.
My conclusion Air space over Taiwan will be contested. Way too many aimpoints for the initial barrage and little effectiveness - doesn't achive critical mass for breakdown.
The initial PRC strike packages will be fed into an functioning IADS. And Taiwan has sortie generation on its side. This means that though it has fewer fighters overall, it can match what the PRC can project over Taiwan. BoB'ish. And the PRC will have to deal with the GBAD at the same time.
Last edited:
Of course airpace over taiwan would be contested.
About numbers you gave, are you sure it is not 20 Hawk batteries and 200 rounds for PAC 2?
Anyhow, using your numbers of chinese missiles that would hit their targets - that is still enough to destroy all the static radar stations plus make a decent number of holes on the runways on all 9 main airbases.
So, by then, SAMs are a significantly less of a threat, as most capable ones have almost depleted their missiles. Plus those airbases which could generate high sortie rates are at least partially neutralized and as a chinese, i'm probably looking at just 20-30% of total number of taiwanese planes actually being airborne and intercepting me. I overwhelm them, losing lots of my own planes, of course, and further neutralize forward airbases with my strike planes.
Truth to be told, i think you made chinese missiles way too precise.
About numbers you gave, are you sure it is not 20 Hawk batteries and 200 rounds for PAC 2?
Anyhow, using your numbers of chinese missiles that would hit their targets - that is still enough to destroy all the static radar stations plus make a decent number of holes on the runways on all 9 main airbases.
So, by then, SAMs are a significantly less of a threat, as most capable ones have almost depleted their missiles. Plus those airbases which could generate high sortie rates are at least partially neutralized and as a chinese, i'm probably looking at just 20-30% of total number of taiwanese planes actually being airborne and intercepting me. I overwhelm them, losing lots of my own planes, of course, and further neutralize forward airbases with my strike planes.
Truth to be told, i think you made chinese missiles way too precise.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Having taken a ride on Google I come up with 600 PAC-2 rounds. That is on top of the Tien Kungs. Btw, since all is known on the Tien Kungs: Does anyone know how many launchers there are?
I find operational I-Hawk numbers from 13 and 18 to 20 - with 18 seemingly the most reliable number... But with a 1000 rounds and very upgraded (Phase III).
I find operational I-Hawk numbers from 13 and 18 to 20 - with 18 seemingly the most reliable number... But with a 1000 rounds and very upgraded (Phase III).
One would imagine that China would consentrate on destroying certain key targets, rather than trying to hit evey SAM battery, would'ent they try to take out command and control nodes in a first strike? If the Tiawainese lost command and control over the SAM and air defences the Chinese would have an easier task gaining the upper hand in the air. Also saying Tiawan has X SAM batterys and would take out Y BM's is a bit unrealistic. What are the chances that the SAM's will be in the right place to hit the incoming BM's?
Another point is if the SAM's start lighting up targets wont that leave them open to anti radiation missles? We have seen how vunrable static air defence networks can be to suppression.
Another point is if the SAM's start lighting up targets wont that leave them open to anti radiation missles? We have seen how vunrable static air defence networks can be to suppression.
My own Google ride repeatedly gives me 200 pac-2 rounds today and future figure of 600 patriot (pac 2 and pac 3 combined) missiles, ONCE the whole deal with pac-3 goes through taiwanese parlament and they finally do decide to actually purchase those.
Tien kung is often reported as very similar to patriot, with tien kung 2 being bigger and heavier (9 meters and over a ton). I've seen the pic of TK 1 launcher, with 4 missiles. Assuming that TK2 keeps patriot battery layout, we're looking at 32 ready to launch missiles.
One has to keep in mind that one TK battery is just some 10 km from mainland china - a complete waste of SAM in my opinion. That tiny island would get obliterated by artillery without notice.
Another thing to take under consideration is number of missiles ready for launch, not just number of missiles in stock. That is 96 patriots and 160 TKs (without the dead battery off mainland china) plus some 360 hawks. I don't know how long it takes for pac2 to reload, but pac3 launcher, allegedly, requires 15 minutes. Question is how many missiles can chinese fire simultenously and how many planes can they coordinate to strike at once?
Tien kung is often reported as very similar to patriot, with tien kung 2 being bigger and heavier (9 meters and over a ton). I've seen the pic of TK 1 launcher, with 4 missiles. Assuming that TK2 keeps patriot battery layout, we're looking at 32 ready to launch missiles.
One has to keep in mind that one TK battery is just some 10 km from mainland china - a complete waste of SAM in my opinion. That tiny island would get obliterated by artillery without notice.
Another thing to take under consideration is number of missiles ready for launch, not just number of missiles in stock. That is 96 patriots and 160 TKs (without the dead battery off mainland china) plus some 360 hawks. I don't know how long it takes for pac2 to reload, but pac3 launcher, allegedly, requires 15 minutes. Question is how many missiles can chinese fire simultenously and how many planes can they coordinate to strike at once?
And now we are talking about real issue... It seams that many people here don't understand that this is not video game. X vs. Y simple cant be applied in real environment... SAMs cant destroy all BM or fighters while SEAD missions joust wont destroy all SAMs... People tend to focus on single weapons systems forgetting that any war is fought in combined threat environment. There will be fighters in the air, different types of SAMs, ECM will be used heavily etc.
As for C&C nodes they are probably dispersed and even if you know where they are cruise missiles or guided bombs are much better solution then using BM that joust don't have needed level of accuracy. And even if you hit some modern C&C systems are highly decentralized so I joust don't think that you will gain to much by destroying some of them. For example even while they were heavily bombed and damaged Iraqi air defense C&C system was still functional and mostly intact...
There are no perfect solutions and I don't see any way this conflict could be over in the matter of days especially since during last few decades there was no similar conflict in which bouth sides were so close matched technologically and quantitatively(taking in account numbers of modern equipment only)...
And no one here is considering scale of logistic needed for such kind of operation (similar to Normandy invasion). PRC military has not reached level needed for military operation of that scale and IMHO they wont reach it for some time...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
The air defence are the sensors and much of the C2. They also have a huge footprint, so much of the BM effort to take down the IADS would be aimed at them => lucrative targets.
Well, if they are attacked, they are in the best geometry to intercept.
OK. Rather simplistic, yes. It is just to give some sense of numbers and to have a common reference to discuss from.
Well, then you better have your supporting Stingers, Avengers AA guns ready to deal with it.
Last edited:
- Status