Yep. How about that. There’s only 4 airfields closer than 350 miles from Taiwan. The majority of the airfields are nearby Guangzhou and then around Shanghai…in a 400-500 mile radius from Taiwan. (if you don’t trust me, you can go to Sean O’Conner’s blog http://geimint.blogspot.com/ and download his google earth map of the Chinese air force. All the airfields are marked and visible)

Sigh, is it really so hard to do a simple google search and some light reading?

Because I’m feeling generous, I’ll even save you the 2 minutes to do the search.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/files/2008_RAND_Pacific_View_Air_Combat_Briefing.pdf

Extracts regarding air bases are:

“The PLA has 27 airbases within 500nm of Taiwan, while the USAF has 1”

Can a J-10 loaded with AAM or with bombs, cover 1,300-1,600km, stay and fight, and then come back?

A Typhoon has an AA combat radius of 1,400km while a Rafale can go up to 1,800km. Both are of a similar size and configuration to the J10, and since the J10 would have been designed with Taiwan in mind, I would say its a safe bet it will be able to operate just fine in a Taiwan scenario.

This means that shorter-ranges aircraft would have to be based on these 4 airfields nearby Taiwan, to have any hope of affecting the fight. These bases aren’t all that big mind you…so realistically how many fighters for “swarming” could China base there? Most of those bases have only 1 runway.

The only one who seem to be obsessed with ‘swarms’ is you, and I think that is more based on hopelessly outdated and largely inaccurate presumptions.

If you look at the airfield distribution, you will see that there is a distinct and deliberate pattern to their distribution around Taiwan – they are far away enough to give your forces plenty of warning time of any incoming attack as well as a lot of distance any attackers would have to cover to reach those bases.

The few bases near the coast are small for rapid reaction forward units to respond quickly to intercept any suspicious flights in peace time. In war time, the bulk of the hitting power will come from the second string of bases.

The only reason the majority of those bases even exist is because of Taiwan. It is simply absurd to suggest that the Chinese somehow got their maths wrong and built them too far away for them to be of any use in a Taiwan scenario.

I think the Chinese are aware that those bases are going to be out of action pretty soon in any war

And you would be wrong.

This is a fight that is likely to be limited to Su-27/30/J-11s, if it is going to turn into anything more than a 2 day brawl. And China doesn’t have any of those to be “swarming”.

Yet more swarming nonsense, as if the only way the PLAAF could win in a Taiwan conflict is to ‘swarm’ more fighters than could be shot down. :rolleyes:

Please brush up on even remotely modern developments.

I don’t dispute that. If they send BM, they are likely to get some in return.

From who?

J-7s don’t have the range to affect the air battle except from the few closest airfields. And those airfields aren’t big enough to accommodate the hundreds of fighters spoken off in this scenario. Not to mention that if they fly against Taiwan in any fashion, they would be nothing more than blind ducks.

Yet more baseless and hopelessly unrealistic wet dreaming. J7s would serve a secondary offensive role at best. If they are to be deployed offensively, they will be sent in as part of a integrated strike force supported by AWACS, ground based radars and will be working in conjunction with J8s, J10s and Flankers. Not wonder in alone to present easy kills as you seem to hope.

But in all likelihood, the PLA will not need to deploy J7s offensively as their J8, J10 and flanker fleets would be more than sufficient. If J7s are to be used, they will most likely be employed defensively, and be vectored in by AWACS or GCI to intercept incoming cruise missiles.

How would they go about doing this? They have an even bigger problem of range, since no Japanese airfields are even with 600 miles of any Chinese ones. Which means, they can muster up a limited attack by a limited number of planes. But they can’t attack both Japanese airfields and Taiwan at the same time (nor would any Japanese airfields with USAF planes on them, be sitting ducks in any such scenario)

So you can only attack something by flying directly over it? :rolleyes:

China will not attack any Japanese air fields unless they are used against China first. But by the time that happens, chances are the PLA would have already won air superiority over Taiwan, and could refocus their forces against any US, Japanese attack.

There’s 3 major Japanese airfields close enough that any USAF fighter can take off and fight without needing even refueling. A few flights of F-22s is all it would take to dramatically shift the balance of power. We don’t need thousands of fighters…because the Chinese can’t commit more than a few hundred anyway

Again, read the Rand report before you make more hopelessly optimistic declarations.

-Not protection from satellites. Intercepting the ballistic missiles.

ASBM is just the new ‘superthreat of the day’ fanboys have seized on. The PLA’s real knockout blow will come from saturation attacks with hundreds of conventional AShMs.

The equations don’t change all that much today or 2020 – the PLA would be able to put far far more AShMs on target than the USN could hope to intercept, so if the carrier is found and tracked, its going to get sunk.

-It’s naive to think that US air bases don’t take threats(or have plans for repairs) into account, and merely assume they’re invulnerable.

Maybe you want to go and educate RAND then, since it is there most recent report on US air bases in the AsiaPac region that pointed out these critical weaknesses. You may disagree with their theories on tactics or conclusions, but when the make a straight forward assessment based on facts on the ground, its pretty hard to argue with.

You may wish to familiarize yourself with recent publications and facts before making such bombastic claims, otherwise it just looks like chest thumping and flag waving.

-I’m not saying that LGBs would necessarily get a nuclear response. I’m saying the threat of a nuclear response, would in all likelihood deter such an attack in the first place.

Nonsense. The US never has, and never will declare that any attack on Japan will be met with a nuclear response. The US nuclear umbrella only covers Japan against nuclear attack to stop Japan wanting nukes of its own.

Not only would a policy as you describe make the US more grossly irresponsibly than its most staunchest critics would suggest, it is also simply unworkable and plain stupid practically.

How would the US make a nuclear response to a conventional strike on military bases in Japan? A nuclear attack on mainland China, even a tactical weapon, would trigger the same response as a nuclear attack on the CONUS, and everyone knows that.

Conversely, if the US drops a nuke on some PLAN naval targets out at sea, that would just open the door for China to stick nukes on all their ballistic missiles and simply nuke USN carriers and probably also nearby US bases and save themselves a hell of a lot of trouble and headaches.

-why would tankers give away the CBG position? The tankers could take off from land bases(i.e. KC-10, KC-135), and they wouldn’t be in front of the missile picket.

As soon as you set up a naval missile picket, you are greatly limiting the operational area of your warships.

Peeling warships off from a CBG to set up a missile picket for AWACS and tankers would only weaken the defense of your carriers. But if you keep the carriers close so the warships could cover both and it will be a lot easier to find and attack your carriers.

I have not seen any offical literature on the USN using its warships to set up missile pickets for USAF tankers and such. And given the massive impact doing so would have on USN carrier operations, I am far from convinced that this is an actual operational tactic instead of just something you made up yourself.

-where did I mention B-1Rs? I was speaking solely of F-22/F-35 kill ratios(look at the quote I was responding to).

So you just came on to the B1R thread to not talk about the B1R?

I was referring to ‘Silent’ modifications to the JF17 when I was referring to airframe development, such as internal weapon bays. There may be CFTs and other tweaks being developed, but nothing as drastic as changing the wing design, a la F16XL (which never went to production anyway).

The J7G got a new wing, so a wing change is hardly unprecedented.

Besides, for a cheap lightweight fighter, it rather defeats the purpose of then spending additional $$$ on further development, which only adds to its acquisition costs.

The F16 started as a cheap lightweight fighter, and look what it is now. Again not advocating they defile the plane like what LockMart did to the poor F16, but further development is always an option if not a necessity.

Ever successful fighter in history has been continuously developed, modded and improved throughout their lives.

What’s the point of that when the PLAAF have Su-27 variants, J-10B, JH-7 and now J-20 in the works? I doubt the PLAAF would select the JF-17 for strike role considering the above types already in service/being developed further?

Cost and numbers. All of the above types costs significantly more than a JF17 to buy as well as operate. China is a vast country with a lot of airspace to cover and the PLAAF has a lot of obsolete planes in need of replacing, and not all of those planes would be facing threats that warrants a J11 or J10.

If the PLAAF wants to keep their fighter numbers from plummeting without breaking the bank buying thousands of 4th anf 5th gen fighters, then the JF17 would make an excellent filler for J7s and J8s deployed to low threat regions and a dedicated strike version might make a good replacement for the Q5.

Has the PLAAF even decided to induct the JF-17? I doubt they would be interested in it. And even if they are, most likely for ground strike/CAS to replace the Q5 in large numbers, so no real need to create a ‘Silent’ version of it. There may be more advanced versions for the export market, but I doubt any significant changes could be made to the current airframe, such as internal weapon bays. It’s already pretty much at its peak in terms of airframe development, otherwise it’s probably more practical to design/develop a completely new fighter.

That’s like saying the F16A was the peak in the Falcon/Viper’s airframe development.

As much as I cringe at the thought, but there is a real possibility that the JF16 may follow the example of the F16 and morph from a swan into an fugly monstrosity.

The PLAAF is most likely waiting for the domestic engine before committing to the JF17, and if they are to be used as a striker, than conformal tanks becomes a pretty attractive possibility to increase range and payload without having to sacrifice pylons for fuel tanks.

Chinese citizens seem to be getting out pretty well on ferries (the Greeks are running a shuttle to Crete by arrangement with the Chinese govt) & convoys of buses. The LPD would be able to evacuate over a beach, or greater numbers by helicopter, but I don’t see a need for either. The numbers are such (ca 30000) that a few extra helicopters wouldn’t make a significant difference, & neither beach nor helicopter evacuation seems to offer any advantages over walking or even driving (lots of ro-ros) aboard a ferry in a properly equipped port, signposted & easily found, & with co-operative local officials to hand.

I can think of two reasons to send a frigate: it can get there faster, & it’s more heavily armed, in case a show or use of force becomes useful or necessary. It can escort ferries.

Note that it’s the off-season for tourists in the Mediterranean. Ferry routes are operating on winter timetables, greatly reduced from summer levels. Even with the ferries undergoing maintenance (big stuff is always scheduled for winter, where possible), there’s a huge amount of spare capacity at this time of year. One LPD is a drop in the ocean, compared to what can be (& has been) mobilised from those currently underused ferry fleets, which were on the spot, ready to go.

Well, as you say, the vast majority of Chinese nationals are getting out ok on their own, and Chinese embassy staff in neighbouring countries have been doing an exemplary job of organizing transport and accommodation for the people once they get out of Libya.

But there inevitably will be cases where small groups, like those working in remote or inaccessible locations for example, may not be able to easily got out of Libya. The PLAAF recently sent 4 Il76s to fly out some of these people, but having the airlift and accommodation facilities of an LPD would make it feasible to do similar ops to get smaller stranded groups out, especially since it is actually carrying an LCAC and 2 Z8 helos.

The 054A, while better armed, seems to be performing a bit of an unnecessary task as there is no realistic threat to any of the ferries getting foreign nationals out, and the XuZhou seemed to have only arrived in time to ‘escort’ the last ferry with mainly Chinese nationals on board.

Seems a bit too much like a fly the flag PR mission, and they probably missed a good opportunity to get a far bigger and meaningful PR coup.

If they sent the LPD, they could have used it to get other foreign nationals out after the Chinese. Chinese naval helos able to secure safe passage into Libya because of China’s non-intervention policy to rescue stranded British, America, etc nationals would have made a hell of a headline, and would have underscored the benefits of China’s non-intervention policy as well as demonstrate that its military modernization could bring benefits instead of threats.

Quote from the Guardian :

Setting up a no-fly zone over Libya is a nice idea but arming the opposition is not .
It has been debated here in France too .
Typhoons could indeed take off from the Santorin island and police the Libyan sky with ease with only one in-flight refuelling on the way in and another one on the way back .
I welcome the idea 🙂

I am sure that France will not send any Rafale over there but if we decide to , they would (most probably) take off from Corsica and use two in-flight refuelling on the way in and another two on the way back .
The USA are also thinking about a no-fly zone and also putting troops in . It has been reported on French news …

Cheers .

What’s the readiness status of the CdG? I remember hearing from somewhere that she isn’t far from home, and so should be able to contribute to any air policing operations should that be decided.

And I agree that all this talk of arming the opposition or sending in ground troops is foolish and dangerous.

Giving out guns is easy, getting them back after is not so much.

I am also not at all convinced that Ghaddafi is as isolated and lacking in supporters of his own as some seem to think/hope/wish.

Openly supplying the opposition with arms, support or even getting directly involved in the fighting could easily ignite a full fledged ethnical civil war (tribal loyalties run pretty strong in Libya).

Does anyone have any more info on the PLAN’s re-deployment of part of the anti-piracy task force (namely an 054A FFG) to Libyan waters to help with the evacuation of foreign nationals?

Its seems rather interesting that the PLAN brass has decided to send in an FFG when they have an LPD, which would be far more useful in evacuation operations, in the same task force.

Had they sent the 071, she would have been far more useful in helping to get refugees out, while the 054A would have done a better job on station off Somalia providing escort against pirates.

Any insight on the choice of ship? Also, is the PLAN sending a replacement ship for the 054A redeployed, or is it such a short-term mission that its not worth the effort?

Any news on when the 054A would arrive in Libyan waters (if it hasn’t already), and/or what it has been up to when/since it gets/got there?

No way that china could hide the construction of an aircraft carrier, specially a kuznetov-sized one (since its the minimum to operate j-15). There would be photos flying on the internet by now.

Like how there were photos of the new 052Cs (or originals for that matter) when work began on them? :rolleyes:

Modern warships are all modular built, and all of China’s naval (and civilian) ships have been modular built.

If they were to build a carrier, it would probably be harder for them to not build it modularly since all their experience and equipment is geared around modular construction.

If they are building the carrier in modules (as all US carriers are, so its hardly unprecedented), no-one on the outside will get any sort of convincing evidence till they start putting the ship together in dry dock.