Air war: F18s vs. PLAAF

Seacraft, so are you saying that in your opinion US would NOT use non carrier fighters? So basically we'd have just f18s to battle for air supremacy? Seadog doesn't seem to agree with that...

Or are you saying that US would not even try to battle for air supremacy but really rely just on cruise missile strikes and perhaps B2 raids? Carriers staying out of reach of china all the time? Or, at least until US is confident enough airfields / aircraft on the ground have been destroyed that china cant mount a serious attack on a carrier?

Target that i envisioned for the f18s was an incoming force of PLAAF and PLANAF aircraft, on course towards USN carrier. Of course, if the consensus here is that USN would not put a carrier close enough to china before PLAAF and PLANAF are weakened/destroyed (with what, though? cruise missile strikes only?) then there's little point to this. I am afraid with that sort of waiting china would already enjoy air supremacy over taiwan by the time US gathers the forces needed to perform its 'lethal blow'.

Well, in all recent US military campaigns, the 2 Iraq wars & Bosnia, the US started with cruise missiles & stealth attacks. However if any China-US conflict is due to Taiwan, the main objectives of US would be to stop Chinese crossing of the straits, which is slightly different from Iraq & Bosnia. It really depends on whether US is willing to escalate the situation by attacking China mainland which is where cruise missiles & stealth would most likely be used. If they only aim to attack Chinese naval forces on the straits, we'll see more of F-18.

Totoro - it really depends on a lot of stuff:

Target, obviously
Objective - militarily
Objective - politically
Corresponding objectives of partner countries - Japan or ROC may not want US to stage an attack from their soil or the US may also not wish to involve them that abruptly in that case.
Plus a whole horde of other reasons....

So, what I am saying is that depending on a lot of above, there would likely be a lot of different scenarios. Sure, flying F22s from ROC would be the hands down best from a mission point if you want PRC top know it was launched from the ROC

Lessee, 1: flight of Raptors takes off from Chai ROCAF base, at 7pm; 2: 9pm - the PLAAF and PLANAF are short a couple squadrons; 3: 1am - flight of Raptors lands at Chai perhape one less than what took off; 5: USAF unable to keep straight face when denying or no commenting if operations did in fact occur.

I think that would be EXTREME on many levels but a squadron of US Jets taking off from Kadena or ROC might be a little suspicious and not much secret. Other US squadrons in Japan are pretty stinkin' far. Carrier aircraft are obviously available and difficult to forecast. Plus aircraft making L O N G runs from Guam while doable, are one helluva long flight. Doable and more secretive... A pian in the butt but doable...

So while I am saying that US land based fighter a/c may be inlvolved, ot depends on a lot of different factors - it is not a yes or no question with a yes or no answer. I'm not saying carrier A/C might be involved though they are more likely. Depends on an awful lot. Could be no aircraft involved and a couple of VLS subs tossing a few tommyhawks over the shoreline...

Now I'm just taking a WAG and pulling info out of my butt like 98% of everyone else here as 98% of us are laughed at by the 2% of professionals that might read this drivel. An no offense intended as I'm one of the 98% talking stuff that I don't really know about other than my own personal research, interests, and talking to a few that do it or have done if for a living and got the paychecks. Popeye and a few others have actually practiced various pieces of what most of us preach. So keep that in mind too....

I don't expect to see F-22s on ROCAF bases, which will probably be all gone and rubble within fifteen minutes of any conflict, rained upon by hundreds of SSMs, not to mention being hit by China's own cruise missiles and standoff weapons like the DH-10 and YJ-63 and ARMs like the ramjet YJ-91.

The PRC also stated that the stationing of foreign military assets in any ROC base is a condition for war as a direct violation of sovereignty. That's why the US never uses ROCAF bases not even in peacetime.

Seacraft said:

We are not talking all out war but a limited action, right? Eitherway why would you say the carriers would be the only option? A B52 can carry 12-20 CALCMs right? Get 6 of those B52s with a 600+ mile range weapon and
have 72-120 stealthy cruise misslies to deal with. And no carrier really needed, other than to provide CAP for the 52s...
:roll:

Fighters carrying EMP weapons :coffee: - Sharks with Frickin' Laserbeams

So when the EMP loaded Tomahawks or CALCMs :coffee: are cruising into PRC radar coverage, the PRC radar operators would know they were EMP weapons and turn off their radars??

Wh3re do you get that? They would be happy on a carrier.
Hmmm... back to this theoretical excersice. F15's from Kadena would be the closest but that probably would not fly for political reasons. They would still have a 3200 mile round trip ticket tanking in and out at least once each plus time on station. I bet that would make for a real long day.... Guam is 5400 round trip... Damn long way to go.

US fighter aircraft have flown from Europe to the Gulf with weapons hanging in case needed. 3000 one way or so. Routinely fly across the Atlantic, 3600 one way from New England to Frankfurt. Back in 86 the Varks ran from UK to Libya and back (no shortcuts thru French airspace), 6K+ mile jaunt across the Atlantic and Med... Oooh, the protests outside of HQEUCOM were big that day :roll:

So it is theoretically DOABLE and has been attempted a bit but not with shots fired AFAIK.

Would be nice to go out of ROC but that is really not politicaly feasible either

Shucks, back to some F18C/E/F flying CAP and maybe SEAD, with maybe some BUFFs loaded with CALCMs. A couple VLS 688s to lob a few inshore, TLAMS from Burkes and TICOs. A few options available.... BTW, what was the target?? :nana:

Click to expand...

F/A 18 strikes are used in conjucntion with ADM-141C Improved TALD
Just another one of US force multipliers. EF Hornet + E-2 Awacs + EA6 Prowlers + ADM-14C decoy = very hard to beat.



The Tactical Air-Launched Decoy (TALD)/Improved TALD (ITALD) heavy glide/boosted family of passive/active decoys are expendable decoys used in offensive operations against enemy air defense systems by diluting and confusing surface-based and airborne defenses with realistic tactical target characteristics. The TALD is an air-launched, aerodynamic vehicle whose purpose is to minimize the effectiveness of an enemy's air defense system. The TALD is a preprogrammed glide vehicle used to increase the survivability of strike aircraft. The Improved TALD (ITALD) is a TALD which incorporates a propulsion unit. Both systems operate as expendable vehicles with no recovery capabilities. Launch platforms include the F/A-18, F-14, EA-6B, and the P-3.

The TALD is an air launched, preprogrammed, unpowered, glide chaff, RF passive, or RF active vehicle used to deceive and saturate enemy integrated air defenses during strike aircraft operations. The three operational TALD configurations include, the A/B37U-1 (V1) chaff vehicle, A/B37U-1 (V2) radar passive vehicle and the ADM-141A radar active vehicle. While fit, form and function remain the same within version, manufacturing differences have produced variants.

During Operation Desert Storm one effective tactic to fool enemy air defenses involved Navy and Marine Corps (USMC) tactical air launched decoys. The decoys caused Iraqi defenders to turn on their radars, revealing their locations and making them vulnerable to Coalition SEAD aircraft. The tactic confused the Iraqis and helped divert their defensive effort. In the early days of the air campaign, EA-6Bs, A-6Es, and F/A-18s escorted large strike packages into southern Iraq. The F/A-18s, A-6Es, A-7s, and S-3s successfully used TALDs to saturate, confuse, and deceive the air defense system. This tandem combination of soft and hard kill capability proved successful - no Coalition losses to radar-guided SAMs occurred during SEAD escort.

The ITALD is an air launched, preprogrammed, powered RF active vehicle used to deceive and saturate enemy integrated air defenses during strike aircraft operations. It is a Preplaned Product Improvement towhead that adds turbojet propulsion and low-level navigation capability to the TALD. It’s official designation is ADM-141C. All four versions are compatible with and can be launched from the A/A37B-6E Multiple Ejector Rack (MER), A/A37B-5E Triple Ejector Rack (TER) or a BRU-42 Improved Triple Ejector Rack (ITER). All versions are approximately 92 inches long with a nominal 10 inches include width and height. The chaff vehicle weighs approximately 380 pounds, while all RF passive and active versions weight approximately 400 pounds. A computer within each vehicle is preprogrammed with flight profile data prior to loading. It provides flight management and controls of the vehicle through a series of planned maneuvers after launch. The ITALD has enhanced terrain tracking capability and an extended flight envelope for expanded missions.

The Improved Tactical Airlaunch Decoy (ITALD) simulates a fighter/attack size aircraft better than current decoys. The present TALD is becoming less capable even when encountering existing threat integrated air defense systems (IADS). There is an approved operational requirements document for buying more of the ITALD units. However, the Navy chose not to buy any in fiscal year 1999 because of competing budget priorities. The Congress directed an increase of $10.0 million for the acquisition of 70 ITALDs. This increase, in addition to ITALDs already funded, will yield roughly enough systems to support two carrier battle groups. Additional funding for ITALD beyond fiscal year 1999 will be needed to complete this procurement.

Seacraft said:

Wh3re do you get that? They would be happy on a carrier.

Click to expand...

poeye said that there were ea-6bs in japan america could use. i just shot a hole in that.

of sourse the ea-6b is perfectly carrier capable, but that wouldnt let you do a preliminary strike, as china would expect it. theres absolutly no way to hide a cvbg at sea.

MIGleader said:

poeye said that there were ea-6bs in japan america could use. i just shot a hole in that.

of sourse the ea-6b is perfectly carrier capable, but that wouldnt let you do a preliminary strike, as china would expect it. theres absolutly no way to hide a cvbg at sea.

Click to expand...

How is that? How would a Prowler not help in an attack? And why can't the US hide a carrier?


IDont - one thing that concerns me about the TALD / ITALD is that it does not seem like there is enough of them.

Seacraft said:

How is that? How would a Prowler not help in an attack? And why can't the US hide a carrier?


IDont - one thing that concerns me about the TALD / ITALD is that it does not seem like there is enough of them.

Click to expand...

cause a prowler wouldnt survive a few minutes in china. just because it has an ecm package doesnt mean every missle fired at it is going to miss. something will hit eventually, whether it be a sam or a fighters a2a missle. and most coastal defence radars are probaly hardened against jamming. they might help a little, but you would have to send em in with escorts, totally throwing off any chance of a surprise attack

heres of picture of how america is going to apologize to the chinese about the embassy in kosovo:


jokes aside, stealthy lacms are a more ideal first strike solution. i dont really know if chian has the ability to handle than or not.

what do you mean? you think america can actually hide a cvbg from chinese y-8 recon planes(which have been tailing cvbgs since 2004)? or even sattelites.

Prowlers job is to deny the enemy its use of their radar through jamming. You can't actually achieve a radar lock or detect anything if your radar is successfully jammed.

Y-8 would not get near a CSG to detect it. Once it is detected by E-2 awacs, F-18's will be directed to chase it or shoot it down. Now the fact that there is an E-2 and F-18 operating means that a carrier is nearby, but you still do not know its exact location. Here is an example, if you know the exact location of an E-2, put a 600 nm radius around it and you have the probable location of the carrier. That is a lot of ocean to search. (Approximately 1,130,000 square nautical miles that the carrier could occupy).

popeye said that there were ea-6bs in japan america could use. i just shot a hole in that.

of sourse the ea-6b is perfectly carrier capable, but that wouldnt let you do a preliminary strike, as china would expect it. theres absolutly no way to hide a cvbg at sea.

Click to expand...

Miggy..the US is not going to do anything without ECM cover. That's why the USN/USMC team has the Prowlers. They are deploy to Japan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Afghanstian. They suppourt the USAF as well as the USN/USMC team. The Prowler is just not for carriers anymore!

This is the best article I could find about EA-6B deploymnets.