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

[Grand Danois]

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

Happy to know I had any credibility with you.

 

[tphuang]

Maybe, maybe not. To tell you the truth, I'm not interested in spec sheets or stats. I would be much more interested in operational analysis.

that would take a while, I'm taking like an hour to reply to a day of posts as it is.

I bet, in controlled PRC airspace with GCI and no Taiwanese SAMs or EW. It would be interesting to read your source. Because, well lets just say this comment doesn't pass the sniff test.

my source in people's liberation army newspaper, is that good enough for you?

Yes rounding to the nearest ten. I also don't think that PAC-2 would get 1 to 1. But it doesn't need to. Check the failure rates of Chinese BM's. Lets just "assume" maintenance and training are really good and you get 80% to 90% reliability. If you had 700 BM's available, that shrinks your missile force down to 630-560 BMs. Not counting for Patriots or other IADs and other methods attritting them, only 50% of them could be reasonably expected to fall within the CEP. With air dropped laser guided or satellite guided PGMs, this may not mean much when the CEP is measured in single digit meters. But BM's have CEPs from tens to hundreds of meters. So we are down to 315 to 280 BMs that actually land within the CEP. Of those rounds, How many actually have desirable weapons effects? That's an intangible but history shows that not all could be counted on to have the desired effect. Next we have to get into the concept of the operation. Is the PRC firing all its BM's at once? Maybe but I doubt it. Or would they fire them in intervals throughout the campaign to preserve the capability against specific targets where they could achieve enough mass to guarantee results? What do you think. We we know one thing for sure, these arent enough to take down Taiwans IADs. These BM's are neither accurate or reliable enough to have one shot one kill against a point target. Every target would need at several BMs. Looking at the numbers, this would limit the PRC to large area targets in most cases. Large portions of the Taiwanese military infrastructure would survive a BM attack of several missiles even without Patriots defending them. So while the Patriot is by no means a magic weapon against BMs. BMs dont exactly have the the best record or probability for success either.

it would be pretty stupid to fire all BMs at once. As for CEP, as I've already shown, it's less than 50 m. There are also plenty of LACMs, and WS-2 and standoff PGMs like LS-6.

One final thing. What's the PRC targeting process like? I'm sure the PRC BM's would be effective against known fixed targets. But the PRC certainly lacks the necessary rapid targeting capability and communications capability necessary to go after mobile Taiwanese targets with ballistic missiles PERIOD.

I have said that fixed target only. They have a lot more assets to use as mentionned above.

The WS-2 only have a range of 240 km - they can cover something like 1/4 of Taiwan at best. But I would think it to be wrong to think, that this has not been counted into the Taiwanese posture - that goes to every system that PRC deploys.

don't believe in the export specs, WS-1B has a range of 180 km. WS-2 has twice as much fuel and better motor, the originally speculated 400 km is probably quite reasonable.

In OIF the PAC-2 shot down 11 out of 12 with confirmation and the last was probably also shot down, though it can't be said for sure. That indicates interception above 0.9 and that number is what I used in the example. Also, the later I-Hawk does have a limited ABM capability, especially against the types og BM's used here. I set their number to 0.2, for reference.

yes, but you often need multiple missiles to shoot down a ballistic missile. If even really advanced SAMs like Barak can only achieve single shot destroy rate of 12 out of 14 anti-ship missiles (ballistic missiles is far harder to shoot down). Do you think they shot those missiles down with just a single one? Also for OIF, they were using PAC-3. You can google up "operation iraqi freedom pac-3", you will get plenty of results.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200401/ai_n9369284
This one said pac-2 for ODS and PAC-3 for OIF.

As above. 11/12 is stellar. And likely 12/12

It wasn't bad enough that they shot down a RAF plane and locked onto one of their own planes and got destroyed?

If you consider the necessary flight profile of a HARM type in order to maintain lock - it is vulnerable to I-HAWK and patriot.

YJ-91 high profile, KD-88 low profile.

Half will hit outside of that CEP of 35-50m. Which ones hit real target and which were actually disabled because of that?
BM's is artillery in nature - even with satellite guidance. Depending on type of target, only 20-25% will hit what they're aiming at. Probably less.

again, you are just listing reasons that BM are not accurate. You are continuously trying to raise the inaccuracy of Chinese ballistic missiles based on speculation. but in actual fact, it's a lot more likely that these ballistic missiles are even more accurate than those export figures, especially with improved guidance in the recent years. Also as I mentionned, you have more than just ballistic missiles, you have WS-2, LACMs and standoff weapons to deal with too.

2 type052C
2 type052B
4 Sovs(2 mod)
2 type054

the 2 051Cs that are in service don't count? Considering ROCN has nothing under construction or purchase, I think it's quite reasonable to include the 5+ 054As under construction.

6 Lafayette
8 OHP
8 Knox
4 Kidd

I will give you lafayette and kidd, that's it.

Joust like claiming you have ATBM capability doesn't mean you have it claiming that DF11 has CEP of 30-50 m doesn't mean that DF11 has that CEP... Even whit 50mm CEP you still dont have level of precision needed for tasks most people expect BM will perform... And IMHO PRC PGMs are much bigger threat since they can deliver similar warhead whit much greater precision... BMs aren't magic answer to PRC needs.

achieving ATBM for a small industrial base like Taiwan is far more difficult than for someone like China (who achieved 250 m CEP with an ICBM in the 80s) to achieve 30-50 m CEP. Even China, with its far more advanced missile industry can't claim ATBM capability.

Beidou 2-
of course such a system would be jammed or destroyed during a conflict.
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050921-102706-1524r.htm
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/milspace-04zc.html

There's still glonnass and galileo
this is not a one-way street, China has already shown some capability to make things difficult for the Americans in the space, even if it's just by destroying its own satellites to create debris.

Not likely. Supercruise is also a function of certain material sciences and not just thrust. What facts support the assertion that this engine will be be ready by this time? 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.

they already have AESA platforms on ships, awacs, surveillence, pretty much everything. What assertion that this engine will be ready? It has already completed high altitude engine testing (from an article on AVIC1 website). As for supercruise, they are constantly modifying J-10 to give better flight performance. If typhoon can do supercruise, I'm sure it's not impossible to modify J-10 for that.

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.

yes, this project is ongoing. This is verified by an insider on Chinese forums. The same guy that first mentionned the existance of H-6K and KD-88.
As for the not passing F-16A/Mig-29, you are understating J-10 again.

I keep reading post about the Varyag. But I see nothing that suggest the PRC will be able to operate it or any other carrier by 2012. Even if it did, It would take much longer to get proficient with it. I think 2012 is optimistic assuming it's true. I'd like a source.

There are running threads on SDF with pictures coming out. That's better than any source I can give you. Plus, they bought su-33, what does that say?

5 071s and Sea Lift-
Enough Sea Lift for what? Quemoy ?

I've mentionned their amphibious assets already. 071 is just the latest.

I've gone through this equipment list and nothing here is operationally significant or realistically able to influence a battle against a CSF or Taiwan except perhaps the Submarines. Why was this list important?

A lot of things are significant, having enough advanced AWACS, surveillence, EW planes to maintain round the clock patrol is pretty important. Having advanced fighter and bombers is pretty important. Having larger and more capable landing ships are important. What more do you need?

The radar faces on the 52C are AESA's? I was pretty sure they were passive and delivered from Ukraine.

They are developed by lab 14 in Nanjing, they are AESA.

The first AESA in the PLAAF will say "Made in Russia".

It's interesting that people say that. Chinese systems like KJ-2000, KJ-200, Y-8 surveillence planes are also using AESA radar. Russia has none of that.

 

[Thumper]

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

Even WWII "junks" will be hard to detect laying silently on the bottom of the Taiwan straight. The noisy SSN part is a joke right? The Virginias and Seawolfs are quieter at 15 knots than just about any other sub tied up in port going nowhere.

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

Never said that. I will give you a hint. Think cruise missiles and B2s.

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".

Neither the Yangze or the Hainan straits is nearly as wide as the Taiwan straight.

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.

Britain did not have air superiority over the English channel, further they do not need to control it, merely deny PRC superiority.

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?

Let’s see just a short list. German engines for your ships, Russian Jet enginesfor your warplanes. Russian, French and Israeli electronics for your guidance and radar. Shall I go on? Oh and it was you that told us about the 600 737s in a previous post. You told us how they would be used to ferry troops to Taiwan.

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

There is nothing that you make and sell that cannot be had elsewhere. Never loose sight of the fact that people buy Chinese because it's inexpensive. Nothing more. There are many alternatives. I would stop buying your products in a second where you to invade another sovereign nation like Taiwan without any provocation or justification. I suspect many others would feel the same way.

If by favor you mean you hurt less than we hurt. Hey we could invade, say Philippines, and hurt less than them

Don't be so sure your Navy would make it anywhere near the Philippines.

Because of your attitudes both Korea and Taiwan have difficult relations with you.

Yup and because of my fathers attitude I had a difficult relation with him. What is your point?

Darth I get a strong sense the US side is using pure boast.

Well comrade thetas what happens when you live in a society where you are only allowed to know what the party wants you to know. Come on over for a visit. Come see the paper tiger

 

[crobato]

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

Sorry but the Chinese have made extensive tests on their engines including 4 month endurance test in 2005. They have also been flying the engine on test Flankers since 2002.

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.

Mature meaning? What's an AESA on a ship, on a plane, or on the ground? Same principle, same technology, only different size and scale.

First AESA in PLAAF isn't going to be Russian because the Russian stuff isn't going to be compatible with PLAAF munitions like their AAMs and PGMs. Unless some kind of agreement is reached between China and Russia on the integration of these weapons, a Russian radar buy isn't going to happen. Then development of AESA in Russia isn't more advanced than in China, whose first use of AESA was probably in surveillance satellites. And finally, with all those fabs out there, many of whom probably has the financial interests of government and PLA high members, the Chinese will certainly try to use this overcapacity to build more T/R modules.

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

DA

Weight of the radar itself is not the problem. Its the power supply to it. And the cooling. Suffice to say current AESA implementations have not been among the lightest aircraft compared to their previous counterparts (F-16E/F, Block 2 Super Hornets, etc,.).

 

[goldenpanda]

If you twin up the J10 that's 180 kn dry thrust, compared for 140 kn for the typhoon. Yeah it'll supercruise.

 

[crobato]

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.

No these are mobile, and it woudl be very hard to find them and target them. And like I said, if the SAM commander is wise, he won't be using his radars which will only draw ARMs. Even the US has problems hunting down Serb SAMs if the Serbs kept a low profile.

The catch to that, sooner or later the SAM commander either has to consider two things: Survive or use the missile. Both are not mutually compatible. If he wants to use his missile, he will have to use his radar.

The other thing is, how much SAMs does the ROC has before they ran out. The PLAAF has the potential to throw radio controlled drones meaning obsolete J-6s and J-7s, as well as UCAVs and targeting drones made for that purpose, into recon or suicide runs, and that can force SAMs to fire upon them and expend themselves. In addition the PLAN can also throw obsolete Silkworms and Seersucker antiship missiles into land targets. Inaccurate yes, but the idea is to draw the SAMs out. All of that has the effect of saturating radar screens with dozens and dozens of targets, and that can create a screen of confusion with the real attackers and LACMs can enter.

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?

I don't know, and if anyone knows, you don't expect them to answer since that would be OPSEC.

 

[Grand Danois]

it would be pretty stupid to fire all BMs at once. As for CEP, as I've already shown, it's less than 50 m. There are also plenty of LACMs, and WS-2 and standoff PGMs like LS-6.

I have said that fixed target only. They have a lot more assets to use as mentionned above.

I'm aware of that, but discussing one thing at the time. Have been concentrating on the BM side.

Agree on BM tactics and fixed targets. Not on CEP - which I haven't got from a brochure.

Here is the reasoning:

The missiles deployed against Taiwan. From Sinodefence:

CSS-7: in development 1970, IOC 1995
CSS-6: in development 1985, IOC 1995

We are talking "Cold War tech." The SatNav was not available when they were developed and GPS CA code in adequate accuracy only became available years after. INS was the game in town and the missiles would have been built to utilise this. Logic and tech of the day. Even the Pershing, which Panda made me aware of, didn't have better CEP than 30-50 m, though they also had radar topography matching on top of the rest. The same goes for other legacy systems upgraded with sat guidance. Why should PRC legacy systems be different?

You could argue that implementing a GPS would convey the positional accuracy to the warhead, that and it could be fixed with a warhead replacement - but no. Because they are short and medium range missiles, they don't separate the missile body from the warhead. You only do that for longer ranged missiles as it is a difficult procedure and a single failure point. I haven't found anything to suggest above missiles are different. The PRC is stuck with what they designed.

Build a new missile. That is what the US intend to do with their BM Global/Quick Strike for a 10 m CEP - the old warheads only give a 30 m CEP and they are stuck with that as well, despite INS/GPS/Stellar nav.

don't believe in the export specs, WS-1B has a range of 180 km. WS-2 has twice as much fuel and better motor, the originally speculated 400 km is probably quite reasonable.

I'm fine with getting better data. I will have a look at their nature later.

yes, but you often need multiple missiles to shoot down a ballistic missile.

As described earlier - depend on tactics. If you want to bleed an attack you go 1:1, if you want assuredness you go 2:1.

If even really advanced SAMs like Barak can only achieve single shot destroy rate of 12 out of 14 anti-ship missiles (ballistic missiles is far harder to shoot down). Do you think they shot those missiles down with just a single one?

No I don't. Have I said that?

Also for OIF, they were using PAC-3. You can google up "operation iraqi freedom pac-3", you will get plenty of results.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3723/is_200401/ai_n9369284
This one said pac-2 for ODS and PAC-3 for OIF.

Hey you're right! My bad. But I also mentioned that deployed missiles were in AA config - and that is the substance. My argument stands.

[Later addendum]I was actually thinking of the missile-warhead confusion of the Patriots during ODS. They were indeed in ABM mode. I cede this one.

Current systems are efficient, nevertheless.

It wasn't bad enough that they shot down a RAF plane and locked onto one of their own planes and got destroyed?

And PLAAF fighters will shoot PLAAN fighters down against Taiwan...

again, you are just listing reasons that BM are not accurate. You are continuously trying to raise the inaccuracy of Chinese ballistic missiles based on speculation. but in actual fact, it's a lot more likely that these ballistic missiles are even more accurate than those export figures, especially with improved guidance in the recent years. Also as I mentionned, you have more than just ballistic missiles, you have WS-2, LACMs and standoff weapons to deal with too.

See above on BM CEP. CM and PGM for later.

They are developed by lab 14 in Nanjing, they are AESA.

It's interesting that people say that. Chinese systems like KJ-2000, KJ-200, Y-8 surveillence planes are also using AESA radar. Russia has none of that.

OK on the 52C. I know of the AWACS and think they look very fine.

 

[goldenpanda]

Even WWII "junks" will be hard to detect laying silently on the bottom of the Taiwan straight. The noisy SSN part is a joke right? The Virginias and Seawolfs are quieter at 15 knots than just about any other sub tied up in port going nowhere.

ok send your 20k ton ships to our littoral waters let's see what happens.

Never said that. I will give you a hint. Think cruise missiles and B2s.

both your missiles + bombs face this: http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/ld2000.asp

Britain did not have air superior...to control it, merely deny PRC superiority.

no germans needed to neutralize royal navy. taiwan's navy will be too busy running.

Let’s see just a short list. German engines for your ships

yeah but MADE IN CHINA

Russian Jet enginesfor your warplanes.

for which we have a swap in replacement in the ws10a

Russian, French and Israeli electronics for your guidance and radar.

most new systems use our own. See tphuang's and crobato's posts. Yeah really we can't keep a few spares you think? Maybe you can scare israel (who only supplies some tech, not actual products), but really you think you can get france and russia to embargo us?

Oh and it was you that told us about the 600 737s in a previous post. You told us how they would be used to ferry troops to Taiwan.

we cannibalize half of them see more than enough for Taiwan.

There is nothing that you make and sell that cannot be had elsewhere. Never loose sight of the fact that people buy Chinese because it's inexpensive. Nothing more. There are many alternatives. I would stop buying your products in a second where you to invade another sovereign nation like Taiwan without any provocation or justification. I suspect many others would feel the same way.

Hey man stop buying our products TODAY. Have a good time.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Sorry but the Chinese have made extensive tests on their engines including 4 month endurance test in 2005. They have also been flying the engine on test Flankers since 2002.

Mature meaning? What's an AESA on a ship, on a plane, or on the ground? Same principle, same technology, only different size and scale.

First AESA in PLAAF isn't going to be Russian because the Russian stuff isn't going to be compatible with PLAAF munitions like their AAMs and PGMs. Unless some kind of agreement is reached between China and Russia on the integration of these weapons, a Russian radar buy isn't going to happen. Then development of AESA in Russia isn't more advanced than in China, whose first use of AESA was probably in surveillance satellites. And finally, with all those fabs out there, many of whom probably has the financial interests of government and PLA high members, the Chinese will certainly try to use this overcapacity to build more T/R modules.



Weight of the radar itself is not the problem. Its the power supply to it. And the cooling. Suffice to say current AESA implementations have not been among the lightest aircraft compared to their previous counterparts (F-16E/F, Block 2 Super Hornets, etc,.).

That engine does not supercruise. And by mature, I mean beyond proof of concept or demonstration phase and ready for service.

 

[DarthAmerica]

it would be pretty stupid to fire all BMs at once. As for CEP, as I've already shown, it's less than 50 m.

You haven't shown that except to assert it yourself.



DA

 

[goldenpanda]

The catch to that, sooner or later the SAM commander either has to consider two things: Survive or use the missile. Both are not mutually compatible. If he wants to use his missile, he will have to use his radar.

My impression is there is considerable setup time when you move to a location. He could turn off his radar but his location might have already been revealed. Also Taiwan is a small place with Chinese spies running among the population.

The other thing is, how much SAMs does the ROC has before they ran out. The PLAAF has the potential to throw radio controlled drones meaning obsolete J-6s and J-7s, as well as UCAVs and targeting drones made for that purpose, into recon or suicide runs, and that can force SAMs to fire upon them and expend themselves. In addition the PLAN can also throw obsolete Silkworms and Seersucker antiship missiles into land targets. Inaccurate yes, but the idea is to draw the SAMs out. All of that has the effect of saturating radar screens with dozens and dozens of targets, and that can create a screen of confusion with the real attackers and LACMs can enter.

Right. Chinese have a lot to throw out in a saturation attack. Operations people might claim it hurts your own operations, though. Darth?

 

[Grand Danois]

Oh, man!

The thread is already messed up as is - do we need a "does X fighter supercruise or not" on top of it...

 

[goldenpanda]

That engine does not supercruise.

Darth let's say you're in a non supercruising F18. You've pushed yourself up to mach 1.5 using wet thrust. Now suddenly you cut your burners. Is that engine going to be unable to produce its maximum dry thrust, because you're supersonic? If so why? All you were doing differently under wet thrust is dumping fuel into the tail.

there's no magic about taking in supersonic air that reduces dry thrust. So, if you keep adding thrust you WILL supercruise.

 

[goldenpanda]

Oh, man!

The thread is already messed up as is - do we need a "does X fighter supercruise or not" on top of it...

haha.

but don't take away freedom to our thoughts!

 

[Thumper]

ok send your 20k ton ships to our littoral waters let's see what happens.

Try well under 10K submerged. I would not consider the middle of the Taiwan Straight littoral. ROC subs stay close insore on the bottom and attack with torpedoes and (oh we almost forgot) mines. US SSNs Lurk on the periphery and attack with cruise missiles and Harpoon. Also don't forget there may be other very advanced SSKs lurking about. I would imagine that a certain island neighbor of yours would not be too happy about your invasion of Taiwan.

both your missiles + bombs face this: http://www.sinodefence.com/army/antiaircraft/ld2000.asp

Wow! A Chinese version of goalkeeper. Don't you think that as soon as they turn on their radar they will be targeted and destroyed. Could whatever is left cope with a mass cruise missile attack?

Not much else worth replying too. Lets just say I am sure your leadership knows they can ill afford to be isolated by blockade. You may be able to survive for a short period of time but your armed forces are very much dependant on critcal spare parts for all the weapon systems you have imported.

Tell me this. If China is so self sufficient in weapons and high tech why are they trying so hard to buy European weapon systems?

 

[goldenpanda]

Try well under 10K submerged. I would not consider the middle of the Taiwan Straight littoral. ROC subs stay close insore on the bottom and attack with torpedoes and (oh we almost forgot) mines. US SSNs Lurk on the periphery and attack with cruise missiles and Harpoon. Also don't forget there may be other very advanced SSKs lurking about. I would imagine that a certain island neighbor of yours would not be too happy about your invasion of Taiwan.

I don't know why you even want to operate big SSN's where we will control the air. Ask your own people how close they intend to bring their carriers.

Wow! A Chinese version of goalkeeper. Don't you think that as soon as they turn on their radar they will be targeted and destroyed. Could whatever is left cope with a mass cruise missile attack?

All we need is more Americans to remain on the ignoramous path then we can achieve anything. Look them up in wiki, see if it looks anything like goalkeeper or shares any common components.

How are you going to bring HARM's over to our ports without bringing fighters up against 1000 of ours? How is your HARM going to survive anyway by flying direct into a cannon designed to shoot it down?

Not much else worth replying too. Lets just say I am sure your leadership knows they can ill afford to be isolated by blockade. You may be able to survive for a short period of time but your armed forces are very much dependant on critcal spare parts for all the weapon systems you have imported.

Tell me this. If China is so self sufficient in weapons and high tech why are they trying so hard to buy European weapon systems?

We don't buy any european systems. You know you think every country just digs their face in and builds indigenous systems. Your M1 tanks are 60% German patents. Anytime where there's embargo it puts restriction on technology exchange. That's why we want it lifted.

 

[crobato]

That engine does not supercruise.

How do you know? Supercruise is a function of having dry thrust exceeding your current flying weight. Personally I don't think the J-10 can supercruise as it has to be that light in order to do so (fly without fuel perhaps) and at best it appears its combat weight is about the same as the afterburner thrust (1:1 ratio).

And by mature, I mean beyond proof of concept or demonstration phase and ready for service.

I definitely mean ready for service. I am talking about an engine that has been installed on multiple prototypes already and has been subjected to a lengthy testing period. The question remains if the PLAAF is ready for an additional logistical infrastructure to support this engine, when it has already built up a massive one for the AL-31F/FN.

 

[crobato]

My impression is there is considerable setup time when you move to a location. He could turn off his radar but his location might have already been revealed. Also Taiwan is a small place with Chinese spies running among the population.

It also has a lot of mountains and underground tunnels for a SAM battery to hide. Chiang Kai Sek is kind of like Mao Ze Dong; paranoid and honeycombed mountain ranges with all sorts of hidden tunnels.

A SAM battery can reasonably take down its radar, and be running in about 30 minutes. That's faster than turning around even a fighter plane for its next mission.

 

[Thumper]

Goldenpanda over time your "arguments" have stopped making sense. You where the one that brought up tonnage in the subs not me. You automatically think that the PRC will attain air superiority and it will somehow inhibit anyone’s subs from operating in the Taiwan straight. Based on what? No one with any bit of expertise in this forum thinks that the PRC would just roll over the ROC airforce. Remember, they are defending. The bar is much lower for them than you.

The goalkeeper comment was not to infer that it was an exact duplicate but that these types of defenses are nothing new. Newsflash for you. They are meant to be last ditch weapons to take down stragglers. Not deal with a massed attack. You assertion that they can shoot down a HARM is ludicrous. It travels much faster than most missiles (the H is for high speed) and they are much smaller than a cruise missile. Good luck. Oh did I tell you that maybe there would be F-22s using either them or maybe more likely SDBs hunting out air defense assets. Did I tell you that it would not be just a dozen or so cruise missiles.It would be more like a 100 at a time coming from all directions? There would be B2s flying overhead to deploy GPS guided bombs to take care of your command and control nodes. Just think, all we have to do is wreck your ports and game is over.

Lets just say I have refrained from replying to some of your subtle insults but we Americans may be ignoramuses as you stated but we do not live in the fantasyland you do. China has done a good job of lifting 300 million people out of poverty but is it not truly idiotic to have another billion people living in poverty and still spend what your country does in order to bully Taiwan. Talk about idiots. Lets just hope Taiwan declares independence all 1.3 billion of you will be knocked back 50 years and your government will be toppled.

Good night.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I definitely mean ready for service. I am talking about an engine that has been installed on multiple prototypes already and has been subjected to a lengthy testing period. The question remains if the PLAAF is ready for an additional logistical infrastructure to support this engine, when it has already built up a massive one for the AL-31F/FN.

I was talking about the AESA.




DA