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

[Grand Danois]

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?

It seems you're right wrt the number of reloads. Thought the 600 number was correct as it would fit the number of a full PAC-2/3 bn.

Anyway, thanks for the info on the TK.

It seems to me that 6 batteries of PAC-3 would really move the treshold...

 

[DarthAmerica]

I hope by now people are seeing the futility of the OOTB hypothesis with regard to a PRC vs Taiwan scenario. Even alone the Taiwanese could seriously maul an invasion force. And this is Before the CSF or land based aircraft from allied nations got involved.

By day ~7 a CSF could be on station. The PRC would have suffered moderate to enormous losses and depleted significant amounts of its best munitions. Then the CSF would in effect add an even stronger IAD blanket over the Island and Fighter cover. Not only that, but ELINT harvesters would get a good look at PRC electronic warfare capabilities and sensors under actual combat conditions. The resulting updates to EW libraries would only make things worse for the PLAAF/PLAN.

Even if the CSF didn't get involved in the actual combat. Just it's presence would require PRC adjustments and it could still provide ISR data to the ROC. The PRC would have to heavily weight the pro's and con's of initiating combat with the USN.


DA

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

You guys need to remember to take into account the 12 new ATBM (TK-3) batteries that Taiwan will be introducing from this year onwards - they will hugely supplement its current (and future) anti-missile capabilities.

 

[merocaine]

Well, the you better have your supporting Stingers, Avengers AA guns ready to deal with it.

If they were looking at what happened to the Iraqi AD on the first night of GW1 they'll be aware the dangers of turning on there SAM's. I remember reading about iraqi radio intercepts on that first night, there SAM operators were wetting themselfs with exitement as they blew pilotless aircraft out of the sky, unaware that 200 radar seeking missles were already on the way.....

I dont think the Tiawanese would be that dumb though. But it is a problem, do you try to take the BM with your SAM's, or do you keep your powder dry for the fighter bombers?
If given a week do you think it would be possible for the PLA suppress the AD on the Island?

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...

What made there defences so weak? for the allies there loses to sortie rate was unbelievable, was it just outdated kit?
I hear what your saying, I did'ent say it would be easy though!

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I dont think the Tiawanese would be that dumb though. But it is a problem, do you try to take the BM with your SAM's, or do you keep your powder dry for the fighter bombers?

Given the unlikely chance that China could launch a surprise attack (realising that attacking before troops and shipping concentrations had even started would be silly), the ROCAF should have fighter patrols on station so that they could intercept PLAAF fighter-bombers. So they should be able to take down incoming ballistic missiles that were targetting sensitive areas.

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, the best CM and ARM defence would be to keep the fighters + AWACS up in order to deal with it properly.

You guys need to remember to take into account the 12 new ATBM (TK-3) batteries that Taiwan will be introducing from this year onwards - they will hugely supplement its current (and future) anti-missile capabilities.

That should give the airbases a lot more safety and breathing space. And those batteries will draw some fire on their own...

 

[goldenpanda]

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.

So from my non-professional vantage point, when I look at photos of Chinese airfields the infrastructure appears very light. We don't build hardened hangars. Each plane parks inside a tent with few equipment seen outside. This suggests to me Chinese do not intend to be tied to fixed facilities, both to survive attacks and to rapidly increase capacity using simple civilian infrastructure. If you think Saudi Arabia was overcapacity for their air force, China completely overbuilds even for its *civilian* aviation, which serves a vast population along the seaboard.

I would also add the PLAAF has abundant manpower. 250,000 personnel serve just 2300 aircraft. This massive support could enable operational scenarios not generally considered in the west.

 

[DarthAmerica]

So from my non-professional vantage point, when I look at photos of Chinese airfields the infrastructure appears very light. We don't build hardened hangars. Each plane parks inside a tent with few equipment seen outside. This suggests to me Chinese do not intend to be tied to fixed facilities, both to survive attacks and to rapidly increase capacity using simple civilian infrastructure. If you think Saudi Arabia was overcapacity for their air force, China completely overbuilds even for its *civilian* aviation, which serves a vast population along the seaboard.

I would also add the PLAAF has abundant manpower. 250,000 personnel serve just 2300 aircraft. This massive support could enable operational scenarios not generally considered in the west.

You are missing the point. airfields, ALL OF THEM, have a limited capacity to operate fixed with aircraft efficiently. If you exceed that capacity, you will reduce sortie rates AND increase the chance of a disaster. Then, you need to have a C2 system capable of coordinating large numbers of various platforms and weapons sharing the airspace. Finally, if your airfields are unprotected critical infrastructure is vulnerable to attack. These are areas where the PRC has serious shortcomings with regard to the scenario.

DA

 

[goldenpanda]

Jane's reports in early 2006 PLA is in the "advanced stages" of developing ballistic attack capability against *moving ships*.

http://www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jdw/jdw060118_1_n.shtml

Even a DF-11 is quite expensive. We wouldn't be building a thousand of them to shoot them off like artillery rounds. Given the ship targeting capability described above, I would expect precision strike against fixed targets from all 1000 missiles.

 

[goldenpanda]

You are missing the point. airfields, ALL OF THEM, have a limited capacity to operate fixed with aircraft efficiently. If you exceed that capacity, you will reduce sortie rates AND increase the chance of a disaster. Then, you need to have a C2 system capable of coordinating large numbers of various platforms and weapons sharing the airspace. Finally, if your airfields are unprotected critical infrastructure is vulnerable to attack. These are areas where the PRC has serious shortcomings with regard to the scenario.

DA

Clearly critical infrastructure exists but they're not visible near the planes. This suggest we keep things mobile. You can harden all you like but if the location is known it'll be taken out by earth penetrators. Hey Chinese used to love digging into mountains and such. today we emphasize concealment and mobility.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Clearly critical infrastructure exists but they're not visible near the planes. This suggest we keep things mobile. You can harden all you like but if the location is known it'll be taken out by earth penetrators. Hey Chinese used to love digging into mountains and such. today we emphasize concealment and mobility.

Are you going to discuss this realistically or are you going to rationalize everything away? Study any major airfield civil or military and you are going to have critical infrastructure. Start with tank farms, ammo bunkers, maintenance shops, air traffic control or even barracks. These things do not move and if hit they will reduce or outright stop flight operations.


DA

 

[goldenpanda]

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.

Something that hasn't been taken into account by people, including myself, is how much Taiwanese are hardening their SAM's. Not sure what is the earth penetration of DF-11's (although BM's have very high energy). If you're talking about Jinmen in this case the entire island is one concrete bunker. Chinese shelled them continuously in the 50's to little effect. So they should have devised some protection for the Tiankong's as well.

 

[isthvan]

Something that hasn't been taken into account by people, including myself, is how much Taiwanese are hardening their SAM's. Not sure what is the earth penetration of DF-11's (although BM's have very high energy). If you're talking about Jinmen in this case the entire island is one concrete bunker. Chinese shelled them continuously in the 50's to little effect. So they should have devised some protection for the Tiankong's as well.

Ok here we go again... How will you hit somthing of the SAM size whit missile that has 500-600m CEP (for DF11A CEP is aprox.200m)? What good will do targeting BM smaller then airfield?

 

[Thumper]

Why intervene directly?

Just a thought. It seems to me that throughout history it is a rare occurrence for a power to successfully attack and invade an island nation. Sure it happened to Japan in WWII but that was only after a long protracted global war against an isolated, self-sufficient economic and military giant. The outcome of Hitler's attempt to invade England is I think the more likely outcome of these affairs. In fact Hitler probably held better cards against England than the PRC against Taiwan. So if China attempts to invade Taiwan does the US have to intervene in a very massive and direct way?

I would propose to let Taiwan undertake most of her own active defense. We could re-supply them as necessary and provide them with targeting and strategic recon. Bombers based in Guam and a few submarines place in the vicinity of Taiwan would help to interdict the flow of men and material from the mainland.

Meanwhile the rest of the pacific fleet would simply enforce a blue water blockade. Take a look at a map. There really is no large open passage between the mainland and the rest of the world. How long could China withstand being denied oil and other raw materials?

Why risk your carriers trying to cut off their head when you can easily starve them (economically) to death

 

[DarthAmerica]

I would propose to let Taiwan undertake most of her own active defense. We could re-supply them as necessary and provide them with targeting and strategic recon. Bombers based in Guam and a few submarines place in the vicinity of Taiwan would help to interdict the flow of men and material from the mainland.

Meanwhile the rest of the pacific fleet would simply enforce a blue water blockade. Take a look at a map. There really is no large open passage between the mainland and the rest of the world. How long could China withstand being denied oil and other raw materials?

Why risk your carriers trying to cut off their head when you can easily starve them (economically) to death

This has been suggested several times. Not many people appreciate the significance I'm afraid. Be prepared to read about how PRC soldiers don't need fuel for their war machines and how their economy has a wartime "pause" button that makes them immune these sorts of things.

DA

 

[tphuang]

In spite of that, the Iraqi Air Force survived desert storm. So did its IADs.

It just needs to destroy all of the runways and fixed+visible building (military base, airbase buildings, power stations, communication center). It has the necessary stand off weapons in terms of LACM, satellite guided glide bombs, WS-2 and ballistic missiles to be able to do this.

Regarding the current and evolving threat of Chinese precision weaponry?? I agree they are getting very capable in this area.

you can do a search on weapons like KD-88, YJ-91, LS-6, LT-2 (LS-500J), FT-1, FT-3, kab-500, kab-1500, which are basically the precision weaponary you are looking at. Main launch platforms are JH-7A and su-30mkk.

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.

I already mentionned the fighters/bombers that are available in these scenarios. If we just look consider all of the J-10s in the country + JH-7A + MKKs, that's already plenty of available fighters. That's discounting all of the su-27s and J-8IIs in the nearby area.

Number of modern surface combatants on bouth sides is similar

hmm, I guess 052Bs/Sovs are getting too old for you?

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.

they have 120 AMRAAMs and not all of their F-16s are even capable of firing it. J-10 equipped with PL-12 vs F-16As with AIM-7 will be like target practice.

880 BM's and 100 CM's

there's a lot more than that if you factor in WS-2 (which can reach anywhere in Taiwan), should have more than 100 cruise missiles.
You are facing multiple waves of air launched LACMs like KD-63 and KD-88 and DH-10.

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.

how well did PAC-2 perform against ballistic missiles in ODS? You really think 500 PAC-2 can take down 490? I really don't think I-hawk have anti-ballistic capability.

3 PAC-2 batteries with 600 rounds, mobile.
18 I-Hawk batteries with 1000 rounds, mobile.
47 Avenger, mobile.
? MANPADS Stinger, mobile.

you either have the rounds available to defend against initial wave or they are moving and not targettable. It's either one or the other. You can't have both ways.

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.

yes, but they only have so many PAC-2 batteries, whose performance in ODS was pitiful to say the least. After using them up, these amazing ABM sensors will have the ability to detect missiles, but no ability to take them down.

Well, then you better have your supporting Stingers, Avengers AA guns ready to deal with it.

your stingers and avengers simply don't have the capability of shooting down mach4.5 HARM like YJ-91. The range of KD-88, YJ-91 + radar of JH-7A allows these missiles to always be able to be launched outside the range of opposing SAMs.

I hope by now people are seeing the futility of the OOTB hypothesis with regard to a PRC vs Taiwan scenario. Even alone the Taiwanese could seriously maul an invasion force. And this is Before the CSF or land based aircraft from allied nations got involved.

didn't seem to me that people answering to this thread have a good idea of the available arsenals of pla, so no, I haven't seen enough evidence by a long shot.

By day ~7 a CSF could be on station. The PRC would have suffered moderate to enormous losses and depleted significant amounts of its best munitions.

you mean, deplete ballistic missiles and WS-2 missiles and LACMs? yes, but why would PLA need that against CSF? It will still have a healthy supply of YJ-83, YJ-83K and YJ-91s. Unlike Taiwan, it will still have a healthy stash of AAMs left. Just in terms of imported BVR AAMs, PLAAF currently has over 1000 R-77s and probably 3000-4000 R-27s. Not going to be used up anytime soon.

You guys need to remember to take into account the 12 new ATBM (TK-3) batteries that Taiwan will be introducing from this year onwards - they will hugely supplement its current (and future) anti-missile capabilities.

claiming that you have ATBM capability doesn't mean you have it.

Ok here we go again... How will you hit somthing of the SAM size whit missile that has 500-600m CEP (for DF11A CEP is aprox.200m)? What good will do targeting BM smaller then airfield?

DF-5 in 1980s had CEP of 250 m at a range of 9000 km. You think the short range ballistic missiles used against Taiwan in 2007 would have a larger CEP? DF-15's CEP of 30-50m is a good reference point. DF-11 figures are for export systems, not the same as the stuff pla is getting.

The real CEP of these systems are classified.

 

[Tasman]

Just a thought. It seems to me that throughout history it is a rare occurrence for a power to successfully attack and invade an island nation. Sure it happened to Japan in WWII but that was only after a long protracted global war against an isolated, self-sufficient economic and military giant. The outcome of Hitler's attempt to invade England is I think the more likely outcome of these affairs. In fact Hitler probably held better cards against England than the PRC against Taiwan. So if China attempts to invade Taiwan does the US have to intervene in a very massive and direct way?

I would propose to let Taiwan undertake most of her own active defense. We could re-supply them as necessary and provide them with targeting and strategic recon. Bombers based in Guam and a few submarines place in the vicinity of Taiwan would help to interdict the flow of men and material from the mainland.

This strategy has some attractions but the US would have to pour many billions into upgrading Taiwan’s defence forces. The use of submarines and air interdiction to cut of supplies to any invading force makes a lot of sense to me.

Meanwhile the rest of the pacific fleet would simply enforce a blue water blockade. Take a look at a map. There really is no large open passage between the mainland and the rest of the world. How long could China withstand being denied oil and other raw materials?

Why risk your carriers trying to cut off their head when you can easily starve them (economically) to death

I think the point has been made in this thread that China is self sufficient enough that it would be unlikely to 'starve them (economically) to death'. China would suffer but so would the economy of many western nations, many of whom have rapidly growing trade with China.

BTW welcome to the forum.

Cheers

 

[DarthAmerica]

Wow I don't know where to start. This analysis is not at all accurate...

It just needs to destroy all of the runways and fixed+visible building (military base, airbase buildings, power stations, communication center). It has the necessary stand off weapons in terms of LACM, satellite guided glide bombs, WS-2 and ballistic missiles to be able to do this.

All it has to do? Study what effect this had on the Iraqi Air Force.

I already mentionned the fighters/bombers that are available in these scenarios. If we just look consider all of the J-10s in the country + JH-7A + MKKs, that's already plenty of available fighters. That's discounting all of the su-27s and J-8IIs in the nearby area.

Yes, I read those inaccurate and meaningless "statistics". Check your OR rates and ramp space.

they have 120 AMRAAMs and not all of their F-16s are even capable of firing it. J-10 equipped with PL-12 vs F-16As with AIM-7 will be like target practice.

OK, now can we get an operational analysis of the actual conditions where F-16A's would be likely to encounter J-10's. At least that would actually explain something. If you do, you won't think it's target practice at all.

how well did PAC-2 perform against ballistic missiles in ODS? You really think 500 PAC-2 can take down 490? I really don't think I-hawk have anti-ballistic capability.

you either have the rounds available to defend against initial wave or they are moving and not targettable. It's either one or the other. You can't have both ways.

yes, but they only have so many PAC-2 batteries, whose performance in ODS was pitiful to say the least. After using them up, these amazing ABM sensors will have the ability to detect missiles, but no ability to take them down.

This is a laughable assessment. You are comparing a missile from 20 years ago with todays PAC-2 and modern software. Tiawan should rejoice if this view is common across the strait.

didn't seem to me that people answering to this thread have a good idea of the available arsenals of pla, so no, I haven't seen enough evidence by a long shot.

The people "dreaming" about the PRC actually invading Taiwan don't seem to have a knowledge of logistics or operations.

claiming that you have ATBM capability doesn't mean you have it.

DF-5 in 1980s had CEP of 250 m at a range of 9000 km. You think the short range ballistic missiles used against Taiwan in 2007 would have a larger CEP? DF-15's CEP of 30-50m is a good reference point. DF-11 figures are for export systems, not the same as the stuff pla is getting.

The real CEP of these systems are classified.

Chinese BM's are not precision weapons nor do they exist in enough numbers to be a deciding factor by themselves. Google up what the word acronym CEP stands for and you will see why a couple hundred of them aren't enough to fight Taiwan.




DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

I think the point has been made in this thread that China is self sufficient enough that it would be unlikely to 'starve them (economically) to death'. China would suffer but so would the economy of many western nations, many of whom have rapidly growing trade with China.

BTW welcome to the forum.

Cheers

No that's a point PRC leaders themselves PUBLICLY disagree with. It's a point that an economic analysis would disagree with. Its a point that an energy consumption analysis would disagree with. What more do you need?


DA

 

[Thumper]

Blockade and Interdiction

Sorry if some of this has been gone over before. It's a long interesting thread and I may have missed it.

Obviously there would be some economic pain for everyone but lets put things in perspective.

Just about everything that China manufactures and supplies to the rest of the world either has alternative (perhaps more expensive) sources, is low tech and can be done without, or production can again be brought on shore.

On the other side of the coin China needs to import raw materials and high tech replacement parts. Remember those 600 737s? How long do they stay flying without spares? How long does their foreign supplied military equipment stay in the field without spares? They import over half their oil and just about all of their uranium. They are barely self sufficient in feeding their people. Just one good drought changes that. They are also generally poor in minerals. About the only thing they have in abundance is coal.

Does China survive? Sure but they go back to living as they did in 1950. This puts additional strains on the government. Does the government survive? For the US sure we have a recession, inflation and some pain, but our way of life is unchanged.

As for investing additional billions in Taiwan’s defenses I am not so sure this is necessary. Sure the PLA is powerful and in some cases well equipped and trained, but they have to cross the straits with how many thousand men to take and hold Taiwan. Then they have to keep them supplied. Hitler could not do it to the UK and in my opinion the Chinese can not do it to Taiwan. Especially if we help with the interdiction of men and supplies across the strait and impose a blockade. They may even succeed in landing and projecting forces ashore but they would not last long.