PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[AndrewS]

They can field around 48-72 F-35 there but Futenma realistically cannot field alot due to runway limitations that’s why it’s mostly used for helicopters but given Kadena is 1,000 miles from China, 2 types of ballistic missiles can hit it DF-21 and DF-26 and some cruise missiles.

The distance is more like 500 miles.

That means DF-16 and DF-17 are suitable

 

[PLAwatcher12]

The distance is more like 500 miles.

That means DF-16 and DF-17 are suitable

Your right it’s 370
Miles from Taiwan well within range of many more missiles. I thought it was further away but you are right

 

[votran]

Not alot. The phillpines house zero F-35, and Japan only houses less than 50 but those are up north so those are pretty nonexistent in any war and South Korea has none. So the most they could realistically do is 43 on their 3 carriers what is about the most they can deploy to any region at any given time. But given the fact that carriers would need to stay atleast 1,000 miles away from China to avoid sinking the F-35 would be close to useless against China.

F-35 is biggest threat to china carrier J-15 , carrier awac often must operation far away from homeland

without J-35 in reasonable number , J-15 gonna have hard time protect carrier and even themselves

 

[AndrewS]

Manufacturing output is NOT the equivalent of Missile production which will depend on Military Budget, Military priorities and doctrine. Iran basically gave up everything just to focus on Missiles. So, their missile count is disproportionally higher compared to pretty much any country.

If Iran has 3-5000 missiles, then China simply cannot have 10x or 30 thousand Ballistic missiles on land.

China most likely has 2X of Iran in missiles as the upper limit. Yes, they can produce more in times of War but they don't have 10x stockpile.

Would China actually need 10,000 ballistic missiles?

The idea is that missiles would keep opposing airbases and carriers under attack, so they are non-functioning.
Then the Air Force or other cheaper munitions can be used instead.

---

Note that the DF-17 cost is supposedly about $2 Mn, which would be roughly equivalent to the JASSM.
And that the US is ramping to 1000 JASSM/LRASMs per year.

 

[CMP]

Would China actually need 10,000 ballistic missiles?

The idea is that missiles would keep opposing airbases and carriers under attack, so they are non-functioning.
Then the Air Force or other cheaper munitions can be used instead.

---

Note that the DF-17 cost is supposedly about $2 Mn, which would be roughly equivalent to the JASSM.
And that the US is ramping to 1000 JASSM/LRASMs per year.

JASSM-ER and LRASM have only ~60% of the operational range of DF-17 and furthermore:

The initial platform for the JASSM-ER is the B-1.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

While both the original JASSM and the JASSM-ER are several inches too long to be carried in the internal weapons bay of the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, the F-35 will be able to carry both missiles externally, which would compromise the aircraft's stealth features.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This image suggests LRASM has the same downside:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Perhaps F-47 can have a large enough internal bay to resolve this issue for both JASSM and LRASM.

 

[AndrewS]

Each carrier has around 14 F-35C onboard and the most carriers the US can deploy to a region is 2-3 so that is 28-42 F-35C the US can realistically have in Taiwan scenario. But given the fact China has hundreds of “carrier killers” (DF-21d) the US would try to stay atleast 1,000 nm from Chinas coast that is very risky for the F-35c to fly.

The DF-21D have mostly been replaced by the DF-26 already?

 

[PLAwatcher12]

F-35 is biggest threat to china carrier J-15 , carrier awac often must operation far away from homeland

without J-35 in reasonable number , J-15 gonna have hard time protect carrier and even themselves

Im not denying that but look at how much they have its not a lot, and given that they would stay 1,000 miles out to avoid being sunk in any war over Taiwan they are close to useless in

The DF-21D have mostly been replaced by the DF-26 already?

yes they have but in a war over Taiwan I think they will keep them operating for backup against ships.

 

[grulle]

I read an article once on The Warzone regarding the AIM-174B. To my great satisfaction, even the Warzone authors acknowledged that with EXISTING air to air missiles in the US inventory, the US will be "hard pressed" to get within range to destroy Chinese fighters. Because the PL15 and PL17 out-range the AIM120D. This means that with CURRENT US missile inventory, China can easily achieve and maintain air superiority in the areas around Taiwan. However, the bad news is that the AIM-174B and AIM-260 are now slowly coming online. These missiles likely out-range the PL15 and PL17 and give the US a very long range option to target Chinese aerial assets.

What are China's options to deal with this real and substantial threat?

 

[FriedRiceNSpice]

I read an article once on The Warzone regarding the AIM-174B. To my great satisfaction, even the Warzone authors acknowledged that with EXISTING air to air missiles in the US inventory, the US will be "hard pressed" to get within range to destroy Chinese fighters. Because the PL15 and PL17 out-range the AIM120D. This means that with CURRENT US missile inventory, China can easily achieve and maintain air superiority in the areas around Taiwan. However, the bad news is that the AIM-174B and AIM-260 are now slowly coming online. These missiles likely out-range the PL15 and PL17 and give the US a very long range option to target Chinese aerial assets.

What are China's options to deal with this real and substantial threat?

What makes you believe those missiles have a longer range than PL-17? And in a battle involving stealth fighters, missile range is not the primary determinant to which side will be able to gain a first shit advantage. As for the missiles themselves, comparing maximum range along is insufficient for evaluating missile performance. You need to assess the missiles kinematic performance across the entire flight envelope, as well as the capabilities of the seeker and datalinks on the missile.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

I read an article once on The Warzone regarding the AIM-174B. To my great satisfaction, even the Warzone authors acknowledged that with EXISTING air to air missiles in the US inventory, the US will be "hard pressed" to get within range to destroy Chinese fighters. Because the PL15 and PL17 out-range the AIM120D. This means that with CURRENT US missile inventory, China can easily achieve and maintain air superiority in the areas around Taiwan. However, the bad news is that the AIM-174B and AIM-260 are now slowly coming online. These missiles likely out-range the PL15 and PL17 and give the US a very long range option to target Chinese aerial assets.

What are China's options to deal with this real and substantial threat?

Aim 260 is smaller than pl-15 in size, so pl-15 or its successor should be able to maintain a greater range if they employ similar level of propellant efficiency.

I think the same case applies to pl-17 which is bigger than aim- 174b