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

[Galrahn]

considering the damage it caused in Tel Aviv, I don't think that much of the missile was destroyed. But that's just me. Compared to OIF where they actually did destroyed the few scuds that were fired.

I think if you look at the Patriots deployed for defense against Scuds the effect there was a political victory, not a tactical military victory. Ultimately, it gave the Israeli people enough peace of mind not to force the government to take independent military action.

I look at Naval BMD today in much the same light. A 'limited' capability of detecting and engaging ballistic missiles, supported ultimately with Patriots on shore. While obviously not a major military system in a shooting war, I think the project in general gives an enormous amount of leverage in the political arena to the United States in dealing with countries like Iran and North Korea. A good limited military investment with legitimate and measurable political enhancement capability, particularly as a peacetime counter to non military aggression, specifically rhetoric.

 

[goldenpanda]

while US does have far superior ASAT capability

umm, how?

 

[goldenpanda]

Americans were the ones that were complaining about the debris possibly colliding their LEO satellites, not me.

The concern is the exponential effect of debris begetting more debris. Some scientists claim it's inevitable anyway, but it will be quite a slow process--unless China creates a lot more debris to speed things up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/s...em&ex=1170997200&en=066707183c8c11c1&ei=5087
(registration required)

 

[goldenpanda]

considering the damage it caused in Tel Aviv, I don't think that much of the missile was destroyed. But that's just me. Compared to OIF where they actually did destroyed the few scuds that were fired.

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but considering China will be relying on that low CEP, just knocking it off course will be sufficient defence against it.

but domestic systems are more accurate for obvious reasons.
the number of WS-2 salvos is not as limited as the number of BMs. Again, you have to ask a PLA watcher for the PLA doctrine on MLRS.

My guess is beaches and troops on the move. It's very nice to have MLRS cover most of their strategic movement routes.

well, you have ships with air defense like 052B/C and 054A for a reason. Once those SSM batteries get spotted, they are going to be facing KD-88/63.

Yeah we shouldn't discount either PRC or ROC destroyers. It will take a lot of sorties to take them out, so they have the ability to hold air and sea space. ROC has the especially nasty option to interdict the Indian ocean. PRC destroyers can soak up a lot of carrier sorties (especially given the threat of long ranged YJ-63's) to clear skies for our own aircraft.

no, it's not just an issue of US, the Taiwanese parliament itself is holding up half of the defensive packages.

exactly. They don't want to go for broke enriching USA. They don't even trust USA to share their operational plans.

a summary of J-10's achievements:
1. scoring 10:1 kill ratio vs su-30mkk in plaaf exercises involving different scenarios. Scoring similarly lopsided kill ratio vs su-27.

This is a very impressive claim. Do you have the source for this? I'm wondering how much of it was BVR versus dogfights. I can believe J10 gets a large BVR advantage with better avionics and smaller RCS (just look at the front of the two planes). Dogfight I don't know. Su30 has exactly twice the thrust. Unless J10 is much lighter than we believe it's hard to imagine 10 to 1 in dogfights.

 

[isthvan]

but domestic systems are more accurate for obvious reasons.
the number of WS-2 salvos is not as limited as the number of BMs. Again, you have to ask a PLA watcher for the PLA doctrine on MLRS.

Actually for unguided MLRS rocket 600m CEP at max. range sounds just about right. If rockets don’t have trajectory correction system of some kind you just can’t do better then that… MLRS systems are area saturation weapons used for attacks on soft target concentrations and they aren’t too useful for attack on fortified positions (relatively small warhead and insufficient accuracy).

IIRC there was talks about GPS/INS rocket for WS2 similar to US GMLRS. That would be answer to accuracy problem but it still leaves few questions currantly unsolved (GPS guidance source whit enough accuracy, target acquisition, relatively small warhead etc.)… Also did WS2 reached operational status in PLA and are there any news regarding GPS guided WS2 rocket?

it doesn't matter OHP have better ASW capabilities than PLAN frigates, sub on sub is a better option, that's exactly where ROCN's lack of modern diesel subs really show up.
I don't think ROC can upgrade Kang Ding to the level of 054A currently considering what they have to work with.

Not just ASW capability; OHPs still have more then good air defense and anti ship capability's( and if they get proposed HF-3 anti ship capability will be at even higher level).

Kang Dings aren’t that bad ships as most of people seams to think… Whit proposed upgrade (HF-3, TC-2 or ESSM) they will be close as it gets to type054 (especially if they get ESSM).

well, HQ-9 is supposedly based on S-300 and PAC-2 guidance, yet it doesn't have any kind of proven ABM capability. I just don't think Taiwanese defense industry has that kind of capability.

You are naturally right but this has nothing to do whit Taiwanese defense industry level of capabilities but rather whit US tech assistance. Entire Sky Bow family was developed thanks to much help and tech transfers from US.
I’m not saying that they have ABM capability but rather that I really wouldn’t discard that possibility as easily as you do it…

that was a huge modification that they pulled on JF-17. At the same time, twin engined J-10 project has far higher priority and have been worked on for much longer.

Yes it was; they did great job in very short time… But JF-17 modification was simple modification compared to amount of job needed to develop twin engine J-10 (and I don’t quite understand that designation since that plane will have to be/is designed from ground up). I just don’t see it operational in 2012 time line…

well, you have ships with air defense like 052B/C and 054A for a reason. Once those SSM batteries get spotted, they are going to be facing KD-88/63..

But there are few problems:

- how many modern ships could PLAN lost in duel whit ROC
- response time of those AAW ships if SSM would be fired when amphibious assets are already near coast…
- spotting and destroying truck based SSM isn’t so easy(IIRC ROC uses HF-1 and HF-2 shore based SSMs)

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

exactly. They don't want to go for broke enriching USA. They don't even trust USA to share their operational plans.

Actually they DO want the US weapon packages. The problem over the submarines is that they still haven't been given a price or manufacturer. The money for the Orions and PAC-2 upgrades has already been put in the central budget (there's even money available for the F-16s if the US says it will sell them). The problem is that the central budget wasn't passed by the end of the legislative session, so will have to wait until the start of March.

 

[Transient]

it doesn't matter OHP have better ASW capabilities than PLAN frigates, sub on sub is a better option, that's exactly where ROCN's lack of modern diesel subs really show up.
I don't think ROC can upgrade Kang Ding to the level of 054A currently considering what they have to work with.

The Cheng Kungs deserve respect. They have good AAW capabilities, better in fact than all of PLAN's frigates until the 054A enters service. Their ATAS and their ability to carry two S-70s give them very good ASW capability. SSKs are not the only, nor necessarily the best means of engaging other SSKs.

 

[Grand Danois]

well, they did mention that China was attempting to put seeker on their Anti-ship BM project, I'm sure if they could do the same for the SRBMs. Also, they know the exact location of the Taiwanese airports.

If you read the thread you'll notice that I'm fully aware of the anti-ship BM project, and I have commented on it. I have also explained why I do not think it is a good solution for the DF-11/DF-15 SRBM.

Lastly, I have also explained the difference between knowing a target coordinate with absolute certainty and then be able to hit it with guidance package accuracy.

It's all there in the thread to seize upon.

considering the damage it caused in Tel Aviv, I don't think that much of the missile was destroyed. But that's just me. Compared to OIF where they actually did destroyed the few scuds that were fired.

You replied to what I had previously posted and which also contained the qualifiers:

Nope.They hit the missile (body), but wanted to make sure to kill the warhead, which could potentially be a WMD. This was because it used a homing mode for aircraft where the center is the aimpoint. If you want to destroy the warhead you aim for that. This they do now. And this is why several missiles where fired. They also substituted the PAC missile warhead with one more appropriate for destroying warheads instead of aircraft fuselages.

but domestic systems are more accurate for obvious reasons.

Obvious? What is obvious to me is that export systems are generally modified, not on performance parameters, but on knowledge in the system that could compromise the system to the domestic user. Also, export systems are also modified to end user requirements.

A radar system is different form say a WS-2 rocket launcher. The radar has a sensitive threat library that would be unlikely to be exported. There are perhaps also issues on what radar modes are to be exported.

A WS-2 is an unguided rocket launcher, the quality of the export version is not different form the domestic version.

Lastly, in order to export you need to meet the minimum denominator of capability of that particular type of systems - at the least - and if your domestic systems are not ahead if this, then you have to export your best stuff.


I'm noting that when gauging what capability a particular system represent, there are plenty of tools to employ. You can constrain the assumptions with the laws of physics, you can investigate the concept and specific technology, and you can compare with similar systems. Then you can have a look at the infrastructure and the environment it is to be applied in.

The WS-2 (and the discussed BMs) are examples of such.

My analyses may be valid or dilettantic, however, I'm just not a fan of unconstrained assumptions, in which case, anything goes.

the number of WS-2 salvos is not as limited as the number of BMs. Again, you have to ask a PLA watcher for the PLA doctrine on MLRS.

Personally I don't see much use for the WS-2 in a Taiwan scenario at all. Not even shore bombardment.

 

[goldenpanda]

Personally I don't see much use for the WS-2 in a Taiwan scenario at all. Not even shore bombardment.

You might make a more detailed analysis than me, but just looking at some range numbers the WS-2 seems capable of hitting all the routes in and out of Taipei. 500m CEP is no obstacle at all if my goal is, say, to put 50 rockets within a 500 meters of a division of soldiers on the move.

 

[Grand Danois]

You might make a more detailed analysis than me, but just looking at some range numbers the WS-2 seems capable of hitting all the routes in and out of Taipei. 500m CEP is no obstacle at all if my goal is, say, to put 50 rockets within a 500 meters of a division of soldiers on the move.

I am a bit bombastic sometimes. With a proper fix of a large area target, it would have merit. But it would have to be investigated. A division is a huge but thinly spread target. However, if it is funneled by topography or built up areas it may be vulnerable.

Shore bombardment - no. I would not put any defending forces waiting for an assault. Would rather use forward artillery observers and MLRS the heck out of any beachhead at point blank range (<30 km). Contain beachheads with mech or motorised response units, supported by Cobra attack helos. Just fix the invading force in place.

 

[goldenpanda]

I am a bit bombastic sometimes. With a proper fix of a large area target, it would have merit. But it would have to be investigated. A division is a huge but thinly spread target. However, if it is funneled by topography or built up areas it may be vulnerable.

Shore bombardment - no. I would not put any defending forces waiting for an assault. Would rather use forward artillery observers and MLRS the heck out of any beachhead at point blank range (<30 km). Contain beachheads with mech or motorised response units, supported by Cobra attack helos. Just fix the invading force in place.

which is why this got the very funny caption "taiwan armor troops have ten thousand year determination in their tactics"

 

[Grand Danois]

which is why this got the very funny caption "taiwan armor troops have ten thousand year determination in their tactics"

Yeah, I have seen other pictures of "armour on the beaches". Can't say I agree with it. Could it be for show?

 

[goldenpanda]

On the other hand indirect fire alone may not be terribly effective against a mechanized landing force. Chinese built the T63A tanks to swim 10km at fairly high speeds accompanied by IFV's. There's so much development the landing force can drive inside built up areas fairly quickly. The artillery will also receive heavy suppression themselves from shipped based MLRS and aircraft. But yeah I imagine there are prepared killing zones with arty dug inside mountains, places PRC will want to highly avoid.

Or these tanks could be hiding behind hills then drive the beach as the invasion gets close.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Yeah, I have seen other pictures of "armour on the beaches". Can't say I agree with it. Could it be for show?

It is for show. The PRC is working on it's combined arms doctrine and is nowhere near the level of being ready for an invasion. Thats completely ignoring the logistical, sea, space, EM and air superiority aspect. The can't do this against a "westernized" defense with a water obstacle such as the strait in the way.

DA

 

[goldenpanda]

I hope your keen eye and fierce thought arms all of USA.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I hope your keen eye and fierce thought arms all of USA.

OK. Do you have any experience in combined arms mechanized warfare or the logistics involved in transporting multitudes of men, machines and all the associated classes of supply from assembly areas to rail heads to points of embarkation. Then moving them on hostile waters all while under CONSTANT observation while under continuous bombardment into prepared defenses? If not, you may not appreciate the magnitude of this task. The doctrine that facilitates this is not put together overnight. Nor is it achieved by simply buying up "widgets" in large quantities. You have got to have...

• complete air, space and sea superiority throughout the battlespace
• Rock solid and secure MSRs and SLOC
• Picture perfect SA
• time to develop a suitable strategy

...China isn't there yet.


DA

 

[Transient]

OK. Do you have any experience in combined arms mechanized warfare or the logistics involved in transporting multitudes of men, machines and all the associated classes of supply from assembly areas to rail heads to points of embarkation. Then moving them on hostile waters all while under CONSTANT observation while under continuous bombardment into prepared defenses? If not, you may not appreciate the magnitude of this task. The doctrine that facilitates this is not put together overnight.

Faith will keep them alive. If not theirs, then GoldenPanda's.

 

[goldenpanda]

Darth I could substitute a few words and use your paragraph to describe what Taiwan is facing. It would mean just as little. You threw a brush around, but failed to make any argument.

 

[Waylander]

Do you have an idea of how difficult it is for mainly light forces to withstand an assault by a combines arms mech assault with limited support?

The problem of such light forces is the lack of tactical flexiblity once they begin to dig in.
Unlike mech forces it is extremely hard for them to fall back to another line of defense once their lines are crushed by advancing enemy mech forces.
They much more face the danger of being overrun by enemy force. And I don't see airborn troops being able to protect a cordon very long which is big enough to stop enemy artillery and SAM units from interrupting your efforts to use the captured airport.
Our own airborn troops talking about being happy to be able to withstand a mech assault before being annhilated for two days after being inserted without being bound to structures like an airport.

 

[Grand Danois]

Think we moved from airborne to amphib assault...