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

[goldenpanda]

Mine the strait and have your subs pick of the minesweepers seems like a pretty effective way to keep it from happening.

What subs? you mean Taiwan's wwii junks, or your noisy SSN's?

Meanwhile US bomber from Guam and CONUS wreck the Chinese ports where they are staging.

Oh suddenly AD is nothing to worry, 1000 J7/J8's is no obstacle when we talk about attacking China instead of Taiwan.

It's not a matter of China being inept or backward. I think it's just very difficult to stage an invasion when you have to cross a large body of water to do so. Too many things can go wrong.

Probably during WWI an amphibious invasion of this kind was literally impossible. During WWII the power of static defense took a big hit due to aircraft. In the modern era, we saw from the gulf war what precision weapons (then in its infancy) can do to the static defender. A body of water only becomes less obstacle as technology increases.

Chinese do have experience with amphibious operations. During the civil war there were two large scale crossings against Nanjing and Hainan. Both were much greater stretches water than your standard "river crossing". Taiwan is out of artillery range, but PLA today has far greater firepower relative to the enemy. We can concentrate this firepower against a local area of our choosing, but Taiwan must defend its entire coastline PLUS its airspace against our airborne army.

Britain could not do so either. They needed the help of the US and Canada to do so. That is what the battle for the Atlantic was all about.

Britain also maintained control of the English channel. I don't think anyone here has suggested even USA can control the Taiwan strait, let alone Taiwan by herself.

1. What can your neighbors do about it? How do you replace 50% of your oil supply with trucks or non-existant pipelines? How do you import the high tech western parts to keep the high tech part of the PLA and economy going?

Why do we NEED to replace 50% of the oil? Do you have some sense of how much oil is 3 million bpd, which we produce domesticly? Romania might have produced 300k bpd during WWII to supply all of occupied Europe. Germany lost Romania as early as 1944 but continued the war nearly another year.

Which high tech western parts? Certainly none of them come from USA. You won't find a single western component (or even Russian component) we use without license production, or a domestic equivalent. Why do we need to keep all 600 boeings flying? Take a train! life goes on.

2. Don't be so sure about your neighbors. I suspect if you attacked Taiwan some of them would not be too happy.

When USA blockades several hundred billion dollars of Chinese trade, even more people will be unhappy about THAT, and for much more immediate reasons.

For the most part I agree. What I said though was who hurts more and how long can they stand the pain. China's economy goes back to 1950. US has a recession and some inflation. China will survive but given all the internal problems and growing pains does the government survive?

Chinese have supported our government through much worse times. Between 1937-1945 we rallied around a MUCH WEAKER government in a very difficult war.

How can you make a statement like that? This is not North Korea. You cannot just walk across the border with hundreds of thousands of infantry. What are they going to do without oil to fuel the planes and ships to transport the troops?

See my argument about just how much oil we produce domesticly.

Frankly Panda I think the whole Taiwan situation puts to lie the allegation that the US has any interest in dominating your part of the world. If we did we would be encouraging Taiwan to declare independence. The cards a pretty much stacked in our favor.

If by favor you mean you hurt less than we hurt. Hey we could invade, say Philippines, and hurt less than them. But what would be the point of that? On the other hand USA dominance is a fact. Because of your attitudes both Korea and Taiwan have difficult relations with you. ASEAN is feeling you only want to talk about terrorism, and even then only the kind that effects yourself.

 

[goldenpanda]

Rich I posted a link about our "advanced stages" of ballistic strike capability against moving ships, which you completed ignored in your response. So the problem isn't so much I don't give evidence, but that you don't incorporate them into your thinking.

The reference to the Athenians goes to point out the ability of a civilization to withstand isolation. Korean war points to unexpected capabilities from an asymmetrical opponent. If you cannot appreciate these are timeless lessons that's fine, but you don't need to casually dismiss them either.

Not that you didn't make a decent case we won't be destroying their air force on the ground using BM's alone. BM's, whatever their accuracy (just don't tell me antiship isn't precision strike) can be concentrated against the target we want to take. tphuang made a convincing argument their airforce is no match even if they do get in the air. we also have much better chance to catch them during landing/take off than vice versa, since we bring the war to them.

 

[Grand Danois]

Not that you didn't make a decent case we won't be destroying their air force on the ground using BM's alone. BM's, whatever their accuracy (just don't tell me antiship isn't precision strike)...

I think it is my turn to ake a historical analogy. WW2 Battleship guns have a CEP of 160 m at long range. That doesn't make them a precision weapon even though they can hit a moving ship. The reason the guns can hit the ship is because

1. Their flight time is relatively short.
   
2. It uses volley fire to compensate for lack of accuracy.
   
3. It has LOS (visual or radar) coordinates of the target and can predict its course and position in space when the shells reach it. = Good ISR

Todays Chinese BM targeting capabilities.

1. Long flight time.
   
2. Volley fire to compensate for lack of accuracy.
   
3. Poor positional accuracy and no bearing. Can't say where the moving target is accurately enough and because this can't be done they will for sure have no bearing either. Bad to non-existant ISR = No firing solution.
   
4. There are no TBM's with homing. Only INS and SatNav. This means The types that available to the 2nd arty will have no way to compensate for bad ISR.

can be concentrated against the target we want to take. tphuang made a convincing argument their airforce is no match even if they do get in the air. we also have much better chance to catch them during landing/take off than vice versa, since we bring the war to them.

Panda,

Could you help me out here? If you have 700 attack aircraft spread out over airbases on the coast of PRC, Then how many sorties and how many types of each mission like strike, SEAD, escort, air-air, etc. over a 24 hour period? How do you distribute them over those 24 hrs - you need tro keep up the pressure...

For ease of calculation you can assume an average of 350km from PRC airbase to Taiwanese coastline...

How many hours do each aircraft get in the air per 24 hrs? The next 24 hrs? What are the availability rates of Flankers?

Power, projection, persistence. Compare with similar number of fighters from Allied Force, which also had to do a similar task.

 

[goldenpanda]

Darth I get a strong sense the US side is using pure boast. The F15 program can NEVER reach geosynchronous orbit, and that's been dead 20 years (in fact it only reached 200 miles, compared to Chinese reaching more than 500 miles). Sure you can boast about black program or what not, but it's never been tested, how do you know it can work? THAAD failed many times. Hey I got black program here to vaporize F22's, haha take a bow -- that's the feeling I get from your link.

 

[goldenpanda]

I think it is my turn to ake a historical analogy. WW2 Battleship guns have a CEP of 160 m at long range. That doesn't make them a precision weapon even though they can hit a moving ship. The reason the guns can hit the ship is because

I don't understand this analogy at all. If BB can reliably take out a ship sized target, then it can take out a SAM site? What does it matter volley fire, CEP, which ever?

[*]Volley fire to compensate for lack of accuracy.

We don't know the details, but a volley of DF-21's is ONE EXPENSIVE volley.

[*]Poor positional accuracy and no bearing. Can't say where the moving target is accurately enough and because this can't be done they will for sure have no bearing either. Bad to non-existant ISR = No firing solution.

[*]There are no TBM's with homing. Only INS and SatNav. This means The types that available to the 2nd arty will have no way to compensate for bad ISR.

How can you know any of this? Didn't the Pershing's use ground radar even back in the 80's?

Panda,

Could you help me out here?

Well if you're the operations expert I'd like to see what calculations you come up with. I don't think anyone can give quantitative answer how much Taiwanese sortie rates will be degraded due to strike. There are too many variables such as the locations of the air battles, and the intentions of the combatants. I don't see how anyone can produce a useful analystical result based on public information. tphuang's point was that one on one Taiwanese fighters have little chance. That is a precise, limited argument and is more valid than some sweeping analysis that pretensd to predict an entire, complex battle.

 

[Grand Danois]

I don't understand this analogy at all. If BB can reliably take out a ship sized target, then it can take out a SAM site? What does it matter volley fire, CEP, which ever?

The trick is that you have adequate quality targeting data and a weapon that can utilise that data. I showed you where the anti-ship BM concept falls short.

We don't know the details, but a volley of DF-21's is ONE EXPENSIVE volley.

They probably are.

How can you know any of this? Didn't the Pershing's use ground radar even back in the 80's?

You may be right. Following applies: They were fired at a static , non moving target, Thus target data matches missile capability. Btw, have you noted the accuracy of the Pershing. Does not invalidate the substance of my argument.

Well if you're the operations expert I'd like to see what calculations you come up with. I don't think anyone can give quantitative answer how much Taiwanese sortie rates will be degraded due to strike. There are too many variables such as the locations of the air battles, and the intentions of the combatants. I don't see how anyone can produce a useful analystical result based on public information. tphuang's point was that one on one Taiwanese fighters have little chance. That is a precise, limited argument and is more valid than some sweeping analysis that pretensd to predict an entire, complex battle.

They don't go one on one in that manner. They work with the integrated IADS, protected by their missile launchers and their radars etc. They only need to take off get to altitude, loiter, pop off their missiles, land. Using the depth of their IADS to disqualify the advantage of the better fighters of the adversary. With fewer numbers they can keep the same number of air-air fighters in the air over the mission area as the PRC can throw at them.

I suggested that you did it so that you could work on the numbers on your terms and make your own realisations.

 

[goldenpanda]

About CEP, if pure inertial systems can reach 200meters or less in the 80's, why do people insist modern terminally guided BM's have some lower limit of 50meters? What is the evidence for this? Why is radar mapping not possible? (a beefed up version to what CM's use) Why is homing not possible using radar? (metal reflects different than water, yes?)

 

[Grand Danois]

About CEP, if pure inertial systems can reach 200meters or less in the 80's, why do people insist modern terminally guided BM's have some lower limit of 50meters? What is the evidence for this? Why is radar mapping not possible? (a beefed up version to what CM's use) Why is homing not possible using radar? (metal reflects different than water, yes?)

It's not the navigation system - it's the delivery vehicle. Because accuracy is associated with a certain nav system doesn't mean that accuracy is translated to the weapon - see Pershing . Even if you have good course correction data doesn't mean your weapon can use them.

 

[crobato]

Improved WS-10, J-10 Supercruise and AESA-

Not likely. Supercruise is also a function of certain material sciences and not just thrust.

No it is a function of aerodynamics. But it is mainly about having a very high dry thrust.

What facts support the assertion that this engine will be be ready by this time?

This engine is ready now. It was certified publicly last February 2006.

Also it's going to take much longer than 5 years before the PRC can field an indigeonous AESA. Even Europe isn't that close.

Isn't Europe already fielding an AESA on an air defense ship? Was this the radar for the Aster?

There is persistant rumors that the phase arrays on board the 052C destroyers and the KJ-2000s are active. Certainly the ones on the 052C are most suspicious; unlike passive phase arrays, large scale AESA generates a lot of heat, and requires special cooling, and those arrays have been observed during their construction to have ventilation plumbing around their frames. The prototype radar used in the test ship showed a lot of large scale air conditioning plumbing around the array. Not saying that whole array consists of T/R modules, as that is not necessary. It may be an early type of AESA where the emitters should be on each of the four corners of the array, and each module is a solid state emitter with a phase shifter but not a receiver.

A few years ago, CETIC advertized an artillery spotting radar called the SLC-2. The brochure mentions active scanning.

An AESA isn't hard to do. The basic core is a T/R module like you see in every celphone. Early AESAs may have seperate phase shifters around the T/R modules, but now, you can have phase shifters built into the same chip. The main obstacle to AESA has been cost. GaAs and GaN needed for these have been traditionally expensive, but in the last few years, there has been an oversupply of these materials. The factor for this overproduction, is as you guess it, China.

AESA/PESA/MSA are just scanning techniques. They concern about the way radiation is emitted and scanned, but not how they are received. Computing technologies handle the recieving back end, independently of scanning techniques. China has no problems with access to that.

Twin engined J-10-

No new fighter would be operational this quickly. Again what evidence supports this. And by what measure are you comparing it to a Super Hornet or F-35? Chinese indigeonous fighter technology isn't pass the F-16A/Mig-29 stage yet.

In my estimation, currently Chinese avionics and fighter radar technologies is approximately, relative to the F-16 Block 30/40, albeit with more newer electronics and processors. Its quite clear they are already fielding fire control radars capable of supporting missiles with active radar homing. However, please note that their generational changes are coming quite fast because they can already feed on a large previously information base on their own and elsewhere.

I agree that the twin engined J-10 won't be operational that quickly.

 

[Grand Danois]

Hey Crobato,

The radar faces on the 52C are AESA's? I was pretty sure they were passive and delivered from Ukraine. Passive would make sense with the hull mounting. AESA's would have been on top of a mast...

I wouldn't think it beyond the Chinese to field a fighter AESA within some years. Let's see.

Agree with your assesment of fighter tech, but as far as I have come in my research it hasn't proliferated so much yet.

 

[crobato]

About CEP, if pure inertial systems can reach 200meters or less in the 80's, why do people insist modern terminally guided BM's have some lower limit of 50meters? What is the evidence for this? Why is radar mapping not possible? (a beefed up version to what CM's use) Why is homing not possible using radar? (metal reflects different than water, yes?)

There is no way of knowing the exact accuracy of the latest SRBMs the 2nd Artillery is fielding. There is no direct evidence they would be accurate, but neither is there any direct evidence to say they won't be inaccurate. We do know from the ASAT test that INS systems have improved to a point much better than anyone's expectations.

Taiwan claims over 900 missiles are facing them. That's certainly more than enough to spare against 12 air bases, only 3 or 4 of which are the ones really worth taking out. Even if they don't take out these bases per se, operations can still be seriously degraded before the main PLAAF air strikes come in. Considering how the PLAAF has been investing on PGMs, LACMs and even sat positioned munitions, they understand full well what SRBMs can and cannot do, and what needs to be compensated.

However, don't expect SRBMs to be able to handle mobile SAMs. You need an extensive ISR capability to hunt them down. SAM unit commmanders are smart enough not to broadcast their radars for ARMs, whch the PLAAF is now equipped with. They will only light up right in the last moment and you are well within NEZ range of their SAMs. Again, the PLAAF is now investing on side scanning SAR surveillance platforms, clearly evidenced by that Y-8 variant with "cheek bumps". Nonetheless mobile SAMs will remain a thorny issue because they're that asset that can play a guerilla war.

 

[crobato]

Hey Crobato,

The radar faces on the 52C are AESA's? I was pretty sure they were passive and delivered from Ukraine. Passive would make sense with the hull mounting. AESA's would have been on top of a mast...

AESA, PESA or My @ASSA would make no difference whether its on top of the mast or in the superstructure. This is a matter of size, not scanning technique. If the array is big and heavy (matter of sheer size, not scanning tech), then it needs to be mounted securely on a superstructure rather than a mast. Why do you need a big array? Reception and angular resolution is a direct function of the array size; bigger is always better, and again, independent of scanning method.

Ukraine happend to be working on an active array, and this was the one allegedly (Kvant?) may have been instructional (a teacher-student relationship) to the 052C array.

I wouldn't think it beyond the Chinese to field a fighter AESA within some years. Let's see.

I think anyone can field an AESA for fighters if the budget is there. Cost has been the main obstacle. Give or take a few years for the actual development and certification. But people still think the costs of AESA is still like those in the nineties. Nowadays we have four inch and now even 6 inch GaAs and GaN fabs in Europe and China. Surprisingly the US is not the biggest producer of these materials. France is the biggest recycling refiner, China comes second in terms of world output, and Russia is rising as a source. Now there is even an oversupply and glut. Time will come when these arrays will be dirt cheap.

There was a time even slotted arrays were expensive (first fighter to use them was the F-14 Tomcat AWG-9). The robotic servos were complex and precise that the Soviet Union elected not to use them. Now, these arrays are commonplace.

Agree with your assesment of fighter tech, but as far as I have come in my research it hasn't proliferated so much yet.

It has proliferated enough. Besides the J-10, J-8IIs are being upgraded with new radars that can use the PL-12 missile, that is in addition to new builds of the plane. Similar sets are being installed on the JF-17s meant for Pakistan, and to produce a new J-11 (Su-27) variant. Nothing like the systems used in the F-16E/F or the Block 2 Super Hornet, not close by any chance, but enough to match a 90's tech much like the planes used by the ROCAF. Actually much of the world's existing fighters is still in this level. Suffice to say, its all much better than the antiquated systems the Russians sold to the Chinese onboard those Su-27s.

 

[DarthAmerica]

No it is a function of aerodynamics. But it is mainly about having a very high dry thrust.

This engine is ready now. It was certified publicly last February 2006.

No it's not. If you doubt that just go out and run your car at redline and see how well that works out.

An AESA isn't hard to do. The basic core is a T/R module like you see in every celphone. Early AESAs may have seperate phase shifters around the T/R modules, but now, you can have phase shifters built into the same chip. The main obstacle to AESA has been cost. GaAs and GaN needed for these have been traditionally expensive, but in the last few years, there has been an oversupply of these materials. The factor for this overproduction, is as you guess it, China.

AESA/PESA/MSA are just scanning techniques.

Sorry, but there is a little more to it than that. The technology isn't mature enough outside the USA for fighter use. The first AESA in the PLAAF will say "Made in Russia". And they arent likely to be in service before 2015 at the earliest.


EDIT: I noticed you mentioned weight also. Thats the other issue I was alluding to.

DA

 

[goldenpanda]

Crobato thanks for your very informative posts.

About the SAM's I was describing using BM's against Patriots and other high altitude systems. Those are not mobile if you want to use them. I don't know if Taiwanese have put them inside silos or not, but it would be neat to see for SAM's.

So what's different about the systems on F16 E/F and Super hornets? Do they use a next generation process for more sensitivity or what?

 

[Grand Danois]

AESA, PESA or My @ASSA would make no difference whether its on top of the mast or in the superstructure. This is a matter of size, not scanning technique. If the array is big and heavy (matter of sheer size, not scanning tech), then it needs to be mounted securely on a superstructure rather than a mast. Why do you need a big array? Reception and angular resolution is a direct function of the array size; bigger is always better, and again, independent of scanning method.

No problem - you just used it in another context. R&T. I didn't question the operational capabilities of the radar.

But you know height of sensor matters. They're obviously as heavy as the SPY-1s. Relative to ship size, of course.

Ukraine happend to be working on an active array, and this was the one allegedly (Kvant?) may have been instructional (a teacher-student relationship) to the 052C array.

Fair enough. I have no problem with it being AESA - except I haven't heard it before now. :unknown

Good perspective on fighter radars.

It has proliferated enough. Besides the J-10, J-8IIs are being upgraded with new radars that can use the PL-12 missile, that is in addition to new builds of the plane. Similar sets are being installed on the JF-17s meant for Pakistan, and to produce a new J-11 (Su-27) variant. Nothing like the systems used in the F-16E/F or the Block 2 Super Hornet, not close by any chance, but enough to match a 90's tech much like the planes used by the ROCAF. Actually much of the world's existing fighters is still in this level. Suffice to say, its all much better than the antiquated systems the Russians sold to the Chinese onboard those Su-27s.

That sounds to me currently comparable to the NATO air forces in Allied Force 1999. Sans the stealth fighters, strategic bombers, less refueling (but not so much in demand either), ISTAR etc.

 

[Grand Danois]

There is no way of knowing the exact accuracy of the latest SRBMs the 2nd Artillery is fielding. There is no direct evidence they would be accurate, but neither is there any direct evidence to say they won't be inaccurate. We do know from the ASAT test that INS systems have improved to a point much better than anyone's expectations.

Taiwan claims over 900 missiles are facing them. That's certainly more than enough to spare against 12 air bases, only 3 or 4 of which are the ones really worth taking out. Even if they don't take out these bases per se, operations can still be seriously degraded before the main PLAAF air strikes come in. Considering how the PLAAF has been investing on PGMs, LACMs and even sat positioned munitions, they understand full well what SRBMs can and cannot do, and what needs to be compensated.

However, don't expect SRBMs to be able to handle mobile SAMs. You need an extensive ISR capability to hunt them down. SAM unit commmanders are smart enough not to broadcast their radars for ARMs, whch the PLAAF is now equipped with. They will only light up right in the last moment and you are well within NEZ range of their SAMs. Again, the PLAAF is now investing on side scanning SAR surveillance platforms, clearly evidenced by that Y-8 variant with "cheek bumps". Nonetheless mobile SAMs will remain a thorny issue because they're that asset that can play a guerilla war.

The Chinese missiles that use "Cold War tech" will at best get a CEP of 30m with a quality nav upgrade. If they want it better - build a new missile.

Note: I have used 35-50 meters in my posting.

 

[Grand Danois]

About the SAM's I was describing using BM's against Patriots and other high altitude systems. Those are not mobile if you want to use them. I don't know if Taiwanese have put them inside silos or not, but it would be neat to see for SAM's.

The Patriots are mobile the same way the I-Hawks are. The TKs are static.

 

[DarthAmerica]

It has proliferated enough. Besides the J-10, J-8IIs are being upgraded with new radars that can use the PL-12 missile, that is in addition to new builds of the plane. Similar sets are being installed on the JF-17s meant for Pakistan, and to produce a new J-11 (Su-27) variant. Nothing like the systems used in the F-16E/F or the Block 2 Super Hornet, not close by any chance, but enough to match a 90's tech much like the planes used by the ROCAF. Actually much of the world's existing fighters is still in this level. Suffice to say, its all much better than the antiquated systems the Russians sold to the Chinese onboard those Su-27s.

I would agree that the PRC and ROC have rough parity in fighter quality with the ROC having a qualitative advantage in AAM and tactics especially within Taiwanese airspace.



DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Taiwan claims over 900 missiles are facing them. That's certainly more than enough to spare against 12 air bases, only 3 or 4 of which are the ones really worth taking out. Even if they don't take out these bases per se, operations can still be seriously degraded before the main PLAAF air strikes come in. Considering how the PLAAF has been investing on PGMs, LACMs and even sat positioned munitions, they understand full well what SRBMs can and cannot do, and what needs to be compensated.

I also agree that the Taiwanese have enough BM's to potentially reduce Taiwanese sortie rates under specific circumstances. But I think they would only do so in support of a follow up fixed wing air raid. I don't agree with people who think they would use them all at once and against targets like mobile SAMs.


DA

 

[goldenpanda]

The Patriots are mobile the same way the I-Hawks are. The TKs are static.

c'mon man don't lose your credibility with me