plawolfA lot of words saying nothing pla.
You’re continually stating that my requirement for evidence is unrealistic. That the chinese wont arrange a display to satisfy my whim. Fair enough, but, without that kind of evidence you have no foundation for your assertions. You are guessing. You may try logical extrapolation but its still a guess at the end of the day!.
And your unreasonable demands look more than a little self-serving than any real attempt to gauge the likely reality.
You cant answer the simplest question after 5 years of such confident predictions of the obvious capability of chinese industry. Where are the UAV’s?
So you would rather have us believe what? They sat on their hands and did nothing for 5 years?
A scattering few is not a capability. To service the requirement for ASBN would require dozens actually airborne at any one time. That is noticeable so why hasn’t anyone reported it?
What possible reason do they have for actually lofting that many? As I have already pointed out, they can do exercises perfectly well without having to send any UAVs up at all.
Once the hardware has been tested and certified as operational, its only about pilot training, which is done at a terminal. There is no need for actual physical assets to fly in order to train as with manned aircraft.
Given China’s manufacturing capabilities and the resources they have available, do you really think they would have issues making UAVs in numbers once they have a suitable model?
Prototypes sat on obscure airbases are reported but not a dozen operationally deployed monitoring the South China sea?. Lets not be silly PLA.
So what would count under you book then? Them lining up dozens of UAVs for you? Oh wait, you already admitted that was unrealistic.
The comment that there ‘must be’ a targeting system because they’ve built the missile is just self-reinforcing nonsense.
A far less silly notion than suggesting that the PLA knows they have a critical shortcoming, have the technology, time and resources to do something fundamental to improve upon that situation, yet deciding to sit on their hands for 5 years while apparently pouring vast amounts of resources into a component of the weapons system that would be all but useless without said search and targeting capabilities.
What is more likely and what is more reasonable?
The Soviets did just that. The missiles were built independent of the targeting system. The chinese are apparently following the same model.
The Soviets made do with the best they can and had to wait while the technology for what they wanted had to be developed. Today, China has that technology readily available. All they needed to do was put a modest amount of resources into obtaining it.
By all accounts, they have put a lot more than just a modest amount of resources into UAVs, and you are insisting that ALL of China’s aerospace firms, between them, in 5 years, could not come up with something suitable for a not all that challenging role?
Is that more likely or that they have developed and fielded something and its only that they have either not chosen to allow them to be photographed, and/or planespotters are not interested in such projects as the ‘sexy’ big ticket items like new J10s or the J20?
How many times now have the PLA shown something at parades or other such events something new that they have fielded in large numbers that no-one on the outside had the slightest clue about?
It is hardly unprecedented or even unexpected that the PLA has the means and motivation to keep things from the public eye.
It cannot be denied that the PLA has devoted quite considerable resources into UAV resource in the last 5 years and more, it is a mightily tall claim to suggest that they have nothing to show for it.
As i’ve said targeting platforms for ASBN exist. They are just not surviveable. Is the ASBM operational? Possibly – is it likely to be effective in its current configuration?. I wouldn’t expect so. [/QUOTE]
plawolfPla,
You are making two fundamental mistakes here. First is misunderstanding the scale of the ISTAR tasking. Again a few images of a couple of prototype UAV’s doesn’t cut it. I’ve yet to see any image of HALE UAV’s in squadron service or a single report of chinese uav sea surveillance operations. These ops, by definition, would not be concealable even by those with the mastery of secrecy you give the chinese.
And you are also making some fundamental mistakes here. The first is dismissing images of multiple HALE UAVs in combat camo at a front line operational, not testing, operational, air base as prototypes. That is as good as it gets as the PLA sure as hell isn’t going to line all their UAVs up for you to inspect.
Second, what makes you think they need to actually put birds in the air to practice with?
UAV pilots are desk jockies to start with, to them, it doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference if the images on their computer screens are fed to them via datalink or 100% computer generated. They get the same experience and training provided the simulations are accurate, which I think it will be safe to assume that they will be.
As for co-ordinating other assets, again, this can easily be done virtually, and it has the added benefits of being cheap and does not risk showing your capabilities to potentially hostile powers.
Thirdly, there has been plenty of reports of PLAN assets exercising with off-board targeting. What the offboard asset was has never been named but always assumed to be AWACS. Does the USN send AWACS aircraft to
monitor all PLAN exercises closely enough to positively identify UAVs that may well incorporate some degree of RCS reduction?
If the USN does monitor all PLAN drills that closely, do they give you detailed reports on all their findings? You of all people should know that no-one ever tells the public everything they know.
Here your comments about the apparent new fighter design are helpful in explaining your second error. Do you think that China now possess an air defence capability based on that new fighter design?. Until there are several hundred built and deployed, with a fully worked up training and logistic infrastructure supporting it the answer is no. For years to come that fighter, if it even gets to operational service, does nothing for china’s air defence potential. Likewise these prototype uav’s do nothing for ASBM targeting until they represent a fully worked up and deployed capability.
Very clever, but you are not ducking the question that easily. Based on your sky high requirements for proof, how far would you honestly have said a working J20 prototype was off by just a few weeks ago?
The J20 pictures were allowed to be taken because the PLA decided to allow it. Had they wanted to keep it a secret, no one would have been able to say for sure whether it was ready until maybe years later.
UAVs generate a lot less interest and are a lot easier to hide away.
Right now the commentry is that ASBM has reached initial operational capability, as an anti access weapon, yet it has no targeting system that the opponent it was designed to counter cannot defeat or exploit. Dumb.
Right, all those people working in China at all those companies and all those generals, strategist, analysts and advisors are all dumb and only Jonesy here is smart enough to foresee this potential targeting issue when they were drawing up the plans for the ASBM, not to mention the foundation of the PLA’s entire anti-carrier strategy that they could not have the IQ to figure out that they would need the means to find and target carriers in order to sink them.
I mean that makes so much more sense than some silly suggestion that the PLA is not showing us all their toys. I mean that would be completely unprecedented and completely not smart at all.
Riddle me this, is kit-bashing something like a Reaper or Global Hawk more or less difficult than coming up with a working 5th gen prototype? Hell, is it more or less difficult than designing a decent 4th gen fighter?
Now we know that every single one of China’s main aerospace companies are heavily involved in UAV work, so what are the odds that between all of them that they could not come up with a HALE design suitable for China’s needs in all the years since when we first had pictures of videos of advanced jet powered designs doing high speed taxi trails?
I mean, its not like the Chinese are any good at volume manufacturing are they, so once they do come up with suitable design, they cannot possibly be able to mass produce them in any quantity they want, right?
Its all about motivation, capabilities and probabilities.
The Chinese have the motivation to develop HALE UAVs, they have the capabilities and resources and they have devoted huge amounts of resources to the pursuit of suitable UAVs and UCAVs.
So which is more likely? That the entire Chinese defense industry and PLA strategic command and procurement departs are so ‘dumb’ they cannot figure out, between them, that they need to sort of location and targeting issues.
Or that the quite considerable resources and time they have devoted to that field has yielded fruit that the PLA is not ready to parade in front of the world on the interwebs?
plawolfSo no evidence and lots of assumption, supposition and leaps of faith?.
I already pointed you to an operationally deployed HALE UAV, and solid evidence of across the board comprehensive efforts by every single major Chinese aerospace player for the past several years.
If you want to dismiss that as assumptions, suppositions and leaps of faith, that’s your prerogative, but you may wish to find an interest in something else if you demand such levels of openness.
Just out of curiosity, how much solid evidence that would meet with your exacting standards did we have that CAC would have a J20 working prototype nearly ready to fly before the year-end before all the pictures started showing up?
Honestly, based on all the solid, verifiable evidence we had before hand, what were the odds you would have said the very same thing about the J20 as you are about Chinese UAVs had anyone suggested that there might be a working prototype built and ready to fly before the end of 2010 just a few short weeks ago?
And the J20 was a high profile project that had intensive interest for years and we only got to see so much because it was deliberately allowed. UAVs don’t attract anywhere near the same level of interest – ergo, we get a hell of a lot less info reported on them. But that does not mean the Chinese are not working on them or that no progress has been made.
The ASBM is an anti access weapon. The whole point of it is to keep opposing strike groups at sufficient distance that they cannot achieve strategic goals. If it cant do that its a failure before it starts.
And who set those goals? Its a weapon, ideally it will scare the USN into not getting involved, but at the end of the day, its primary purpose is to put a hundred meter crater in a carrier and send it to be the bottom of the ocean. That is its primary purpose. If it achieves that, it hardly matters if the carrier was sunk a hundred or a thousand miles from the Chinese coast.
Before you go accusing me of china bashing I actually like the implication of what the ASBM says of chinese intentions.
Stop trying to put words in my mouth. Where did I accuse you of China bashing exactly?
Its what makes me laugh so hard about american attempts to demonise it. Its a solely defensive weapon. You dont build such a weapon if you intend to fight someone on their doorstep!
Exactly, good point.
My problem is with the weapon as a system. Its inherent weakness is huge and China just doesn’t give the appearance of making the effort to sort it.
Again, you should know better than to judge something by appearances alone, especially when it comes to China, since they are so fond of leaving important details out.
China’s position is one of deliberate ambiguity. If the have an operational ASBM weapon, they are not going to pi$$ away that advantage for the sake of bragging rights. They are going to keep that face a secret so there will always be opposing voices in the USN and congress when the USN wants to ask for money to develop a counter.
OTOH, China may also drop hints for non-existent weapons or systems they have no intention of actually fully deploying as a means to distract the US so they cannot tell the real threats from the fictional ones and ends up spreading their resources trying to cover all their basis.
Don’t you see, the Chinese have been looking at the cold war very closely, and are not happily using the same tricks the US used to win the cold war on them.
I have said it before and I will say it again here, the ASBM programme could be real, or it could easily be a giant smokescreen with hollow fiberglass missiles and live fire drills with old missiles designed to look like an extensive test firing programme.
In return, you have the USN diverting billions into research on anti-BM defense, and very likely that in the near future, all USN carrier escorts will be required to give up a sizeable number of their valuable VLS cells for ABM optimised missiles that will be all but useless against conventional AShMs and aircraft.
However, if there is one element about the entire ASBM programme that is going to be real, then that is the search and targeting system.
I have given you real world examples where the PLAN has been reported to have used elements of the search and tracking system.
You have reinforced what i’ve said about the chinese HALE UAV projects. Operationally they dont exist
So you are just going to ignore the HALE UAVs photographed in combat camo at operational bases?
and, as Pinko points out, we’ve been flogging this issue 5 years!. 5 years how much further on are they?. Where is the Chinese globalhawk that was predicted?
Again, this silly insistence that the PLA obligingly show you all their toys. Its not going to happen. You can insist that the PLA don’t have it, but we both know that that is a silly position to take considering how many times the Chinese have managed to pull operational platforms ‘out of the blue’.
The Chinese are not desperate to sell you their wares, so they don’t tell the outside world what they are tinkering with. Its no accident that the UAV projects you heard the most about are those by small, new firms independently developing new models and who are shopping for customers. The big players who have PLA funding, they often don’t let out a peep.
Where is Chinese SURTASS?. China is imaging ships in chokepoints and calling that an achievement?. I tell you PLA finding ships at sea is lots easier when only have to scan a ten mile wide strait!. For theatre entry denial you need to be scanning tens of thousands of square-mile’s continuously. Thats the gap that needs to be crossed. I see no evidence that gap has been crossed so i’m wondering where your faith comes from to support your comments?
And what are the odds that the PLA will obligingly demonstrate such a capability to the world?
They are not going to tell the Americans how they intend to track and target their carriers so the Americans can develop counters or put the necessary assets top of their attack list.
If the PLA can make the USN think they are invisible when they have them in a great big flashing neon crosshairs, well that’s the best outcome the PLA could want as that makes it so much easier to kill those carriers when needed.
If you are looking for the ‘smoking gun’, you will never see it till after it has shot you.
I am basing my assumptions on overall capabilities, priority, timing and real world events.
Does the Chinese have the technological know-how to develop high-end HALE UAVs and manufacture them? Almost certainty. Even you much vaunted global hawk is hardly cutting edge stuff. In fact, one of its main selling points is that it is mostly a kit-bash of existing off-the-shelf parts to reduce cost and speed up development time. That is hardly technology out of reach of the Chinese when they are able to roll out a fifth gen prototype.
From the vast amount of literature and the breath and depth of the work every single Chinese aerospace company has been doing on UAVs, you can be sure they recognise their significance and are not neglecting them.
Resources are hardly going to be a problem for the Chinese, and they have been hard at work on UAVs for many years.
That’s all the ingredients you need for a successful UAV industry, and the only question is time. How long it will take for the Chinese to roll out suitable UAVs, and the money is on it being sooner rather than later.
You can keep your head in the sand and demand unrealistic levels of proof, so you can keep convincing yourself that the Chinese have no means of finding and targeting USN carriers. That’s fine by me, and if the head of the USN thinks like that as well, I’m sure some important people in the PLA will be cracking open a bottle to celebrate.
Just don’t be too surprised when the Chinese drop more ‘J20 bombshells’ in the future.
plawolfIrrelevent. Chinese engagement of US satellites is limited to those passing into the engagement window of the Chinese ASAT system. The only crucial systems that the US would need for theatre entry are GPS and comms. Comms is geosync and if China’s ASAT has got up there I’ve not heard of it.
That seems like a self-serving requirement that the Chinese ‘demonstrate’ the ability to send an ASAT weapon into geosync orbit.
Once you break out of the atmosphere, going further out become progressively easier. If you have the sensors to accuratetly hit something in LEO, you have the sensors to accurately target something in GEO, the only question would be if you had a rocket big enough to reach GEO, which the Chinese do.
Compared to the level of advancement needed to make the direct assent ASAT hit in the first place, stepping from LEO to GEO is childsplay.
GPS you could play merry hell with I imagine, but, that would be about the limit of the impact Chinese ASAT’s could have. The impact of China losing satellites while trying to stop a USN CSG theatre entry is proportionately much greater for obvious reasons. The USN dropping of Chinese satellites therefore could trigger a shooting war in space, but, its one with very much greater rewards than risks for the US side.
That is a very narrow minded and unrealistic view to take.
Firstly, theater entry is not an ends in itself. Once a CBG has achieved entry, it is going to be very reliant on space assets for communications, intelligence, targeting and damage assessment just to name a few obvious ones.
If denied access to space, your CBG is going to have to start using its own sensor platforms, be it AWACS or even ship-borne active sensors. That is not something you want to do when half the PLA is actively hunting you.
Secondly, it is naive and irresponsible to thing that the damage and threat from ASAT weapons comes only from direct weapons impact with satellites. Space is an unique battlefield in that all the mess stays up there for decades or centuries after. Satellites have already been lost to space junk impact, and when you are talking about space warfare, you are talking about multiplying the number of dangerous rouge objects in space by magnitudes almost overnight. You are going to loose birds from all the new junk all over the globe, and that’s just the start. Read up on the Kessler effect if you are not familiar with it.
This is the point. The US fixed-target list supporting CSG theatre entry is onerous enough on its own. It doesnt really NEED realtime space-based imagery to support its deployment. Nice to have, but, not crucial. That isnt really the case the other way around.
Well, where did this unrealistic theater entry only requirement come from? Do you think the CBG is going to break out the bubbly and beach brollies and have a merry picnic once they achieve theater entry?
Getting into position is only the first step, and once that is gone, a CBG is heavily reliant on space based assets to operate the way they would like, have done some and are used to. As soon as you force someone to operate outside their comfort zone, you increase the difficulty for them and also the likelihood of errors and mistakes, especially under pressure.
Absolutely. HALE UAV’s will very definitely be key systems in the ISTAR battle…I’ve said so frequently. Apart from a few prototypes imaged every now and again where are the Chinese examples you speak of PLA?. How many are in squadron service?. Where are they deployed?. What is their range and endurance?. I’m not suggesting China cant field a Globalhawk clone, but, I am saying that there is precious little evidence for you to base your confident predictions on!.
Maybe you want to look up on Giant Eagle.
That may not be global hawk size, but it is more than big enough for at least second island chain operations, and these have been spotted in combat camo and in operational bases. That means they are way past the prototype stage and has achieve IOC at least a year ago when these pictures first appeared.
There are also direct global hawk and reaper like UAC projects which have reached at least high speed taxi tests, again this is years old as the info was first released officially at one of the ZhuHai airshows. Think it was 08, but my memory is a bit spotty there.
As with everything relating to the PLA, there is a great deal of secrecy so numbers and deployment are never anything you are likely to get. Since these UAVs are not considered ‘sexy’ enough, the normal channels of finding such information out are not available as most spotters in China don’t care enough to report them when they see them.
The main issue here is how much importance the PLA places on something. The Chinese have the technology, money and enough trained people to develop the kinds of UACs that they need. The only issue is whether there is enough recognition of the need and prioritization, but from all the literature and the sheer scope of the Chinese UAV development work, it seems pretty obvious that they recognize how important UAVs are, and have invested quite considerable resources towards their development. Every major Chinese aerospace firm as well as a plethora of newcomers are working on every UAC project imaginable, and some are already baring fruit.
It would unrealistic to demand that level of evidence before acknowledging this work, as I suspect even the likes of the CIA would dearly love to get their hands on that level of information.
Thing is though PLA subs, OTH radars and satellites have tried to keep track of carrier battlegroups in the past and been found wanting.
And the PLA has been briefing you on their efforts?
OTOH, a PLAN Song has been consistently reported as having surfaced within sight of the Kitty Hawk, no mean feat with a slow SSK.
I also remember interesting Japanese comments about how the PLA seemed to be able to keep good track of their ships during an encounter not too long ago when a PLAN flotilla was passing between some Japanese islands in international waters and the Japanese were whining that the PLAN ships were ‘tailing’ some of their warships or similar nonsense. What piqued my interest were have you said the PLAN were using space based assets to track their ships and direct their own fleet movements. Thats well into the second island chain, and we were talking about destroyer sized targets here.
Make of that what you will.
Now they need to actually provide target discrimination, identification and MAINTAIN tracking resolution sufficient to target a missile off.
Considering a IRBM can hit a target several thousand miles out in around 10 minutes or so, thats not as long as you might think.
For a target as important as a carrier, the PLA will happily reposition as many ‘birds’ as needs be to see the job done.
Quite the opposite pal. The search and targetting element is the absolute hardest part of the whole setup and its very, very rarely been achieved by anyone before. There will have to be a lot more demonstrated than a couple of satellites in orbit, a few pictures of prototype HALE UAV’s and flotilla of aged SSK’s before this becomes believeable as an operational capability.
My point is that it is the only important, because the PLA’s entire ability to challenge USN carrier ops against the Chinese mainland will depend on their ability to find, track and target the carries, no matter what means they ultimately use to attack the carrier with.
That means that the search and targeting element of the ASBM programme will be its most important and highest priority.
The PLA can afford to let any other element of the ASBM project fail, but it cannot and will not stint on this critical element.
My point was that even if there was some technical bottleneck big enough to kill the ASBM project, the search and target element of that project will still be kept alive.
You are also being a little melodramatic and being a little less than fair or objective in your insistence that there are only prototypes of HALE UAVs (they have been operationally deployed for at least a year now, and I seem to remember pointing that out to you some time ago during another discussion, although the actual name as not known then) and that the PLAN’s SSK fleet is ‘aged’.
Lets not let emotion get the better of us shall we? 🙂
plawolfThe US Pershing(L) and its illegitimate Chinese offspring, the DF-15 (M) and the alleged DF-21(R) AsBM.
Utter baseless nonsense.
The DF15 and DF21 are no more illegitimate offspring of the Pershing than you are the creation of one of mine indiscreet adventures. 😛
plawolfOTH radar at theatre entry range doesnt have the resolution to target a missile off…..thats not picking on the Chinese its simple physics. OTH is a cueing asset for a higher resolution platform.
The message that the SM-3 ASAT shot, very clearly, gave out was of the pointlessness of trying to target USN warships from LEO satellite platforms. Very little need to shoot down the missiles when you can poke out the eyes of the sighting system!.
And once the USN starts a shooting war in space, you think the Chinese will hold back? The US is far more reliant than China on Space based assets, and China has already demonstrated a viable ASAT capability.
The sky is pretty crowded with junk already, a shooting war between two space powers may just be the tipping point to make the Kessler theory a reality.
The significance of China demonstrating its ASAT capability is as much to signal to the US of China’s ability to achieve MAD in space, and thus help to safeguard Chinese space assets against possible attack.
It is no accident that there has been a marked increase in Chinese military satellite launches after the ASAT test. Before the Chinese have always had to temper their desire for more and better space based assets with the probability that these very same expensive assets may well be take out in the opening stages of hostilities. Thus there has always been some degree of reluctance to invest too heavily or become too dependent on such vulnerable systems.
With the new found security, that is now changing.
At the end of the day, both the US and Chinese now know that they need to share the use of space in the event of hostilities, or no-one gets to use it.
Besides, satellites are far from the only, or probably the main search and targeting method for finding carriers. The PLA has invested significantly in UACs in recent years, and that focus looks set to only intensify. The PLA already have several long-range, long-endurance UACs that would be well suited to long range volume search, and these combined with subs and OTH radars and supplemented with satellite support should give the PLA a good foundation to try and locate USN CBGs.
Focusing on targeting as the ‘weak link’ is missing the point. The PLAN will need to find and generate useful targeting information no matter if they are using ASBMs, torpedoes, AShMs or even iron bombs, any method of attack would pre-requisite the ability to find, track and target the carriers and escorts and so that is not something the PLA is likely to overlook.
If there is a single element about the ASBM programme you can bet is most likely to be working as intended, then that is the search and targeting element.
plawolfThere was a US – ROC Mutual Defense Treaty but the US cancelled it when it made the political decision to recognize the PROC. It was replaced with the Treaty of Taiwan which commits the US to provide defensive arms to Taiwan and provide some assurance of American ability to support Taiwan in case of hostilities. Its not as ironclad a commitment as the Mutual Defense Treaty had been and doesn’t explicitly committhe US to use force in defense of Taiwan. Something for the lawyers to resolve while Taiwan is being pounded by missiles from the mainland.
Exactly. Whether the US defends Taiwan or not is entirely at the discretion of the US President.
My personal opinion is that the US cannot afford NOT to aggressively defend Taiwan against a PROC attack. Not to do so would be seen as conceding half of the Pacific to the PROC and the US would be a superpower status would morph into that of a paper tiger.
To adapt an old phrase, ‘its better to shut up and be thought of as a paper tiger then to open your month and prove it beyond all doubt’.
Have you ever thought of the consequences of what would happen if the US intervenes and is unsuccessful? US planners would have or they are not doing their jobs properly. Any decision to intervene in Taiwan would be influenced by all possible outcomes and their consequences.
As China’s technological and military capacity closes with the US, the chances of this ‘unthinkable’ possibility increases. That’s an added factor to consider on top of the economic and strategic implications.
plawolfThat’s if there wasn’t GPS denial/degradation involved.
That’s why China has its own BeiDou system and ASAT weapons to make it extremely costly for the US to take the satellites out.
plawolfNo i have knowledge, you are using a ilogical concept, China will be the first hurt by not selling to the US, Mexico has the ability to attract enough investment to supply the US market,
Did you even bother to read what has been written?
I will not waste time repeating myself. Go read the part about how long it will take Mexico to build up anything close to the manufacturing capacity it will take to replace Chinese output. Hell, have you even considered the size and population of China compared to Mexico? Even if every Mexican went and worked in a factor Mexico still could not hope to cover Chinese output.
China only has cheaper salaries which has forced Mexico to go a level up in the type of manufactures it sells to the US, most people think China is the only one trying to sell their products but that is not true, for China the US market is primordial if it wants to at least keep the demands of the chinese population for jobs.
Let me guess, most if not all of your economic knowledge comes from someone else and you are just repeating what has been told to you? And it doesn’t come from a reputable or impartial source. Read some current and reputable articles. Chinese salaries have outstripped Vietnamese salaries long ago and Chinese companies are increasingly competing on quality as well as price.
China and the US won`t do things that will affect their economies and remember India has the same level to compete with China in low cost products
Yet more mickey mouse economics. Just because there are 1 billion Indians does not mean India has the same abilities as China. Indian manufacturing capacity is incomparable to China’s.
China won`t go to war if it affects its economy. Invading Taiwan will have more disadvantages than advantages, that is the reason even having a more powerful military than Taiwan does not invade it.
Ah yes, the negative stereotypes never cease. :rolleyes: Contrary to what you think, China has objectives beyond merely economics and Taiwan is one of the core interests China will throw economic growth out the window for.
China will not invade because time is on China’s side and there is a very good chance that Taiwan will voluntarily reunify with the mainland in the future so why destroy what you could get intact?
But if Taiwan does something that crosses China’s red line, such as declaring independence or seeking nuclear weapons, China will not hesitate to take the island by force. Doubt that at your peril.
plawolfMassive surprise attack? More like massive evidence of how you have no idea how hard it is to prepare for such a coordinated strike in secret. You think only China has spies?
Guess the fact that I was giving examples of the two extremes was too complex a concept for you to understand. :rolleyes:
Or that this can be carried out without any noticeable alteration in PLA daily behaviour? Astounding naiveness. :rolleyes:
Yes, on your part. Why do you think Taiwan complain so much about the ” over a thousand” tactical ballistic missiles “aimed at them”? Its because those missiles are based within firing range of the island. If they really needed to, most of the launchers can drive all of 10 meters out of their sheds and launch their missiles from inside their base.
Not that they would ever need to. Many of the launchers would be on rotational deployment in the field as a matter of standard operating procedures. Hence why they have wheels, in case you always wondered what they were for.
The PLA second artillery corps trains hard to be able to launch their missiles accurately in the shortest time possible exactly for this reason. The exact reaction time is a tightly guarded secret. But it would be reasonable to assume that even if the launch order was understood by Taiwan and the US the instance it was issued, the extra warning would not be enough to make a material difference in terms of the number of planes the ROCAF could hope to get into the air.
Modern weapons that can cover the entirety of the island? US had modern weapons that can cover the entirety of Iraq and the world’s most advanced sensors operating in a permissive airspace to boot, that didn’t stop scuds from launching in 1991.
Any how big is Iraq compared to Taiwan? How densely populated is Iraq compared to Taiwan? Did the US have any meaningful human intelligence operating in Iraq in 91? Did the US military in 91 had the sensors, processing power, manpower and weapons China has today? Do Scuds need a mile long runway and a huge logistical support train to launch? How many scuds were launched and if converted into sorties, would that have made any meaningful difference to the outcome of the war? Do you even think before posting? :rolleyes:
Move their SAMs and AAW warships into position? Let’s talk about Pk at the edges of the SAM envelopes first. Just how many area AAW warships are there? lets count… 4. I am so overwhelmed. Oh wait. Taiwan has 4 too.
Yes, I’m sure you would not be bothered one bit at the idea of having to fly through the optimum kill zones of a “mere” four S300/HHQ9 armed destroyers just to have a chance to take on a superior number of Flankers and J10s, but we are talking about rational people with some basic intelligence here remember.
And that’s not counting Taiwanese SAMs.
So how are Taiwan’s SAMs going to keep their fighters in their air when their runways are being made into swiss cheeze?
China can shoot its SRBMs, but how many can it fire at once? They are limited by launcher numbers, while Taiwan has runway repair capabilities. It may disrupt some flight operations for a limited time at best.
Well a lot of SRBMs would be the answer. And there will be far more land based and air launched LACMs coming in as a second wave. Some of the newest PLA MLRS are also reaching ranges that can strike Taiwan from the mainland and these things can have a CEP of around 10m with the latest guidance packages. And there have been pictures of the PLA parking MRLS on ships and firing them at sea so these are very relevant weapons. Might not be first strike, but that can certainly play their part.
If the PLA allowed Taiwan to launch a large proportion of their fighters, all they need to do is take out the runways and keep them out for a few hours. After which all the jets buzzing about in the sky will be reaching bingo fuel with nowhere to land and refuel. Any super secret hidden airbases might as well put up a massive neon sign as soon as they start taking planes and it would be a pretty straight forward job to track these planes and direct some missiles onto the tightly packed airfields. The odd plane might land on a nice straight stretch of road. But without its support vehicles, its staying there.
Its a simply impossible position to be in, and only someone without a clue and have massive blinders on could not see that.
And anyway, what’s the point of these 2 silly armchair scenarios?
To illustrate the two extremes in terms of the number of fighters Taiwan can get in the air before a PLA attack is immaterial to the final outcome. Was it really that hard to grasp?
No PLA boots on the ground, doesn’t matter twiddly ****. Or are we to expect a surprise massive invasion of Taiwan in the guise of a military exercise? :rolleyes:
No, only someone with your level of “intelligence” would make such retarded assumptions. Here’s a newsflash, not everyone is restricted to the same limited number of IQ points as you.
I so remember this masterpiece of a suggestion coming from yet again the same joker.
And I also remember the same kind of brainless counters from you. To my total lack of surprise, the level of thought that has gone into them has not improved one iota.
Of course, in an armchair general’s planning no PLA troops will die so coffins need not be prepared, stocking up of first aid supplies etc will not be needed. And of course troops will not need to be given a chance to talk to their families since they will suddenly be issued live ammo and simply be told they are going to war. 😀 Great general plawolf, its Taiwan’s loss you are not commanding the PLA.
Ah yes, the building of the straw man. Yes, well done, you win against arguments I never made. Here’s a pat on the head. Now run along and go play with your imaginary friends and leave the thinking to people with enough intelligence to not make a total fool of themselves when trying it.
plawolfIts amazing how many people with obvious zero economic knowledge are trying to talk about economics with the most absurd notions. :rolleyes:
if the chinese stop selling to the US yeah mexico will take over and later Brazil.
In fact most people in mexico will be delighted if china stops trading with the US. it is a bigger slice for the Mexican manufactures and exporters by the way Chinese exports to the US are not very different to amount of mexican exports to the US around 2/3s of the chinese amount.
In few words no one is so irreplaceable. If China stops selling to the US, India and Mexico will replace it.
Any Mexico and Brazil has several trillion dollars that could be instantaneously transformed into manufacturing capacity equaling China’s total export output to the US? And in case you haven’t noticed, the argument was never about China stopping selling to the US. I was pointing out how absolutely stupid it is to think that the US has the option to simply stop buying from China at the drop of the hat.
For China a war with Taiwan economically speaking means less work for its always growing labour needs, the west has enough clout still to prevent a war that is the reason no need to rush to sell weapons to Taiwan.
It hurts more if no one buys your goods
As you say, China is not irreplaceable. But replacement will take decades and a sudden cessation of Chinese exports will hurt everyone, a lot. Is the western public and government willing or able to make such scarifies without a direct threat to their own countries? Highly doubtful.
A war in the straits will hurt China enormously. But hardly to the degree of total implosion the likes of Madrat seem to have wet dreams about.
plawolfAnd if China was so confident that they could pull it off, why do they have so many four lane superhighways along the coast that lead to nowhere? It’s obvious they plan to use them as runways if necessary.
And this is just another example of how hopelessly out of your depth you are when you try to analyze anything to do with China since you clearly haven’t a clue.
There are brand new superhighways that lead to nowhere all over China. Its more a symptom of centralized planning madness where budgets and performance measures are set centrally and local governments try to spend their budget/meet targets with little regard for market need. Sometimes it can also be because of the scale of Chinese projects. The pearl river delta was just paddy fields 2 decades ago. Entire cities have appeared out of nowhere in a matter of years. A road may lead to nowhere today because someone wants to build a city in that nowhere and to do that, you first need a road.
You do realize that China is in the position of dependent of the United States economy to maintain their internal security? If the United States stopped trading with them tomorrow the regional governments would have little choice but to fend for themselves and the central government would collapse.
Ah yes, more mindless extreme right BS logic.
If the US stopped trade with China, China would suffer greatly, millions would loose their jobs and economic growth would collapse and China will probably slip into a deep recession. But at least everyone will still be clothed and fed and entertained.
Go to any store in the US and see just how much of the goods are made in China and imagine would it would be like if they were all gone.
If American stopped trading with China, the American way of life as you know it would change drastically to the point where you would be hard pressed to recognize it. Well maybe not you since you sound like someone who lives in the hills alone, hates the cities and loves your guns far more then is healthy to. But for everyone else, things will change for the worse.
China and America has a co-dependence relationship. Look it up in a dictionary if necessary.
The bank collapse already has caused friction within their government. I’d hate to see what happens in a unregulated bank collapse. The chaos would be unpredictable.
More brainless foaming at the mouth.
If you knew anyone about the banking sector, you would realise just how stupid that statement is.
The worlds largest banks (by any measure) are Chinese and they have some of the biggest cash reserves in the world and they have weathered the current economic storm far better their the vast majority of western banks.
plawolfThe start of SRBM in China will alert Russia and the USA and could trigger an atomic response. Not a clever idea to stay polite.
As usual, you never fail to come up with completely brainless responses.
The missiles will be hitting their targets in a matter of minutes. Not even enough time for the US or Russia to verify their launch codes. By the time the American and Russian leaders have been notified of a mass missile launch, the target location would have been confirmed if not already being hit. There is no possibility of anyone mistaking a SRBM launched at Taiwan with an ICBM heading for Washington or Moscow and only someone without even the most basic cognitive ability would think that even a remote possibility.
plawolfIIRC, the gameplan was to have a “training fleet” of Taiwanese aircraft,
owned by a Taiwanese corporate entity, parked in said Northern Luzon
airfield, as rentals for PAF to train its Philippine pilots. Live and dummy
munitions, provided by the corporate entity, would of course be part of
any PAF training programme.Realistically? “In a war”?
These aircraft wouldn’t be part of a first or second launch. They’d be last.The Philippines would only know all the aircraft were being launched…
and would “need time to verify allegations” that said aircraft were being
used in war, from Philippine soil. Heck, several sorties could be flown while
the Philippines “investigated” where the aircraft were really heading off to.
By the time the truth was uncovered, the US would have intervened, and
said aircraft would have landed elsewhere (back in Taiwan, or more likely
at US airbases, after inflight refuel).The Philippines would make a big show of protesting Taiwanese abuse of
RP hospitality, and PROC would have to decide if it was worth it to launch
an attack on a “twice-fooled”, innocent Philippines… with US forces nearby.At the very least, a Luzon AB would be a sanctuary for Taiwanese aircraft,
without launching any sorties vs. PROC. Post-war, Taiwan will need those
air assets, but this is all pointless now.IIRC the venture was stillborn, with a commercial air-rights flap thrown into
the works.h.
All your ‘clever’ logic would count for nothing in the end as China would make it clear in no uncertain terms that for any aircraft based at such an airbase to even take off would be considered an act of war and would trigger an immediate, massive and disproportionate military response from the PLA. The legality of the Chinese action would be, as you put it, up for discussion post war. And that would be no consolation to Thailand at that point.
Any ROCAF sent to such an airbase will suffer exactly the same fate as the Iraqi fighters that fled to Iran during the first gulf war.
plawolfThis has been discussed to death many times before. Taiwan has no strategic depth at all which with modern weapons that can cover the entirety of the island, places its defenders at a massive tactical and strategic disadvantage that even superior weapons would be extremely hard pressed to make up for.
To illustrate how easy it would be for the PLAAF to break the back the ROCAF, we can look at two possibly simplified strategies.
The first one is a surprise attack scenario whereby the PLAAF launch a massive surprise attack at Taiwan, with airfields being a top target. How much warning time will Taiwan get between detection of SRBM launches and missiles hitting their targets? A matter of minutes.
How many airplanes can they hope to get in the air in that time frame? Even if by some miracle some runways remain operational, how many fighters can be lofted? Still a fraction of the ROCAF’s full strength. Take into account the disruption to C&C and communications as well as the lack of dedicated support aircraft (AWACS and electronic warfare planes as well as tankers) and the combat effectiveness of the ROCAF is reduced yet further.
Even if Taiwan enjoyed a modest numerical superiority in fighters, the lack of strategic depth could easily cancel that out.
The second scenario is a little more likely but more to the PLAAF’s advantage.
Say Taiwan declares independence and is fully prepared for attack and can expect to get a significant proportion of its fighter strength in the air before the runways are hit.
All the PLAAF need to do is move their SAMs and AAW warships into position, launch a massive fighter wave to trigger a ROCAF full force scramble and then bomb the runways with SRBMs.
The PLAAF fighters give the ground and naval SAMs air cover while the SAMs cover the fighters. The PLAAF does not need to even attack, just simply loiter and wait. They can use their flanker fleet for this role to take advantage of their superior fuel load and combat endurance. Shorter legged fighters like the J7, J8 and J10 can stay on full alert in nearby bases ready to come up as a second wave if the ROCAF looks like they want to make a fight out of it.
If the ROCAF move forward, they fly straight into a SAM shooting gallery as well as the PLAAF top cover. If they stay back, with their runways taken out they have no means to land and refuel and the PLAAF wins by default after a few hours without having to fire a shot.
What Taiwan really need is aircraft carriers of its own.
Sign In
