China can and will achieve total air superiority over Taiwan

Sure, an aerial bomb has KE, but as the KE is computed in scale 1/2 x mass x velocity to 2, the KE is altogether larger.

Click to expand...

I admitt that maths isen't my best quality (exspecially english language math) but isen't that formula aplying to aerial bombs as well? As the both are same size, the only changing factor is the velocity. How fast is the warhead going when it is done with the carriage missile compared to the free falling bomb?

What's the real cost of having 500-700 aircraft, their escort and support units, ordnance, air superiority missions etc. For "first strike" missions and strikes against time-sensitive targets TBM's are much more effective. Additionally, especially considering Taiwan, TBM's do not give as much warning time as conventional aircraft.

Click to expand...

You have a point, but of those aircrafts, main bulk can be used again in different missions during the conflict. TBMs are one-off weapons, once you press the button its out of your inventory for good.
I'm not saying you cannot or shouldn't use them, its just that they won't anhilinate the Taiwanese defence for good as many wants them to be able.

Cluster munitions have quite large footprint, and accuracy achieved via conventional guidance methods (such as Pershing II's around 30m CEP) is good enough for airfield strikes. SAM batteries are feared to be TBM targets in Finland too, as they were already during Gulf War I. When the location of target is known via ECM, it's much more effective to use TBM's to strike it rather than vulnerable and slow strike aircraft. Of course ARM's have their use outside TBM range and as a self-defense weapons. Aircraft dropped PGM's are really effective only if there's means to strike through enemy air defense, or the enemy air defense has been wiped out

Click to expand...

.

Cluster munitions are good choise for TBMs, but again their accuracy is depended on the missile accuracy. Chinese missiles doesen't have 30 m CEP, only the most modern of them has a guidance backage under development which can reach near to those numbers.

I think you're counting the firepower wrong way around; it's not the mass of ordnance which gets to the target, but number of aimpoints destroyed which counts.

The ultimate mission of artillery is not to produce blasts and roar (although it's nice) but to suppress and destroy targets. For that, guided munitions are much more effective than unguided rounds. Their unit cost is larger, sure, but their total cost when counting the smaller number of needed firing units etc. is much lower. The Vulcano will be available both as anti-ship and land target versions. Sure, it's coming technology but it's not the only smart round around such as projects as ERGM, Bonus, Strix etc show. The future of artillery is mainly in guided rounds aided by some ICM's, HE's, Smoke and illumination rounds. I would predict that we will also see guided rounds which do not have explosive content at all, to eliminate targets with minimum collateral damage.

Click to expand...

I'm not thinking it wrong way. The orginal discussion started of means to take out the Taiwanese airbases and somewhere in the middle someone threw out the idea of artillery being used to do it.

Now the overall idea to use guided artillery rounds is to make the fire accurete enough so you wont need those lagre conserations any longer. Thats the case when you have spesific target area and spesific targets to be destroyed. In the past it was done basicly so that you conserate a ot of fire to that spesific target area and rely to the quantative to destroy the spesific targets as well. Guided rounds brings you basicly the same ability as PGMs brought to aerial bombings.
But we are talking about taking out airfields. In there the spesific target zone is actually the spesific target as well. Best way to destroy airfields is making the airstrip unusable from as large area as possiple Using guided artillery rounds to do that is simply madness as they are designated to destroy single targets with single hit, not fired in large quantatives which is reguired to destroy airfileds.
So thus the orginal idea is impossible unless you can actually bring a artillery regiment or few near enugh to the airfield in the reach of conventional artillery rounds. That requires the landing force to actually getting shore which is however a different story and subject of landwarfare forum or naval forum.

The best bet would to be use a small number of inaccurate SRBM's for psychological impact on the Civil populace.

Literally half a dozen missiles a day flung at each of the two major cities would cause absolute mayhem and may not actually kill or injure many if any, if people were lucky!

If every few hours, day and night, the sirens were going off and (because the missiles were highly inaccurate and could land anywhere in the city limits) everybody had to dash into a shelter, the strain would soon tell.

More importantly the Taiwanese would need to respond in order to avoid looking helpless and unable to defend their people. This would most likely mean having to waste valuable Patriot and other sophisticated missiles to try and shoot down militarily insignificant targets or even try and dispatch aircraft to try and destroy missile launchers on the mainland.

If for the expense of a few hundred very old and basic SRBM's the PLA could exhaust the Taiwanese Air Defences of its most effective deterrents and leave the way open for more precise and intensive airstrikes, and/or destroy the resolve of the civil populace I would say this would be judged SRBM's well spent.

SampanViking said:

The best bet would to be use a small number of inaccurate SRBM's for psychological impact on the Civil populace.

Literally half a dozen missiles a day flung at each of the two major cities would cause absolute mayhem and may not actually kill or injure many if any, if people were lucky!

Click to expand...

That is a war crime!!!
A fine way to guarantee US intervention and an embargo.
You are not a self suffiecent nation and do not exist in a vaccum.

SampanViking said:

The best bet would to be use a small number of inaccurate SRBM's for psychological impact on the Civil populace.

Click to expand...

Nee, area bombing hasn't worked well in the past, why would it ROC-PRC conflict? Besides, even relatively inaccurate old SRBM's might be used against large area targets such as airfields in order to help more accurate missiles to get through, that's more effective way to utilize them.

Gollevainen said:

I admitt that maths isen't my best quality (exspecially english language math) but isen't that formula aplying to aerial bombs as well? As the both are same size, the only changing factor is the velocity. How fast is the warhead going when it is done with the carriage missile compared to the free falling bomb?

Click to expand...

AFAIK, SRBM's velocity is around Mach 6 while free falling bomb is around Mach 1, so the KE difference is around 36 for the missile.

Gollevainen said:

But we are talking about taking out airfields. In there the spesific target zone is actually the spesific target as well. Best way to destroy airfields is making the airstrip unusable from as large area as possiple Using guided artillery rounds to do that is simply madness as they are designated to destroy single targets with single hit, not fired in large quantatives which is reguired to destroy airfileds.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily, even area targets have many point targets. If we take airfield as an example, with PGM's (whether bombs, artillery shells etc.) one can take out runways, parked aircraft, fuelling points etc. which are all aimpoints, with less ordnance mass carried.

Let's take an example of a single runway from Helsinki-Vantaa airport. Checking out from Google Earth, the runways are 60 meters wide and 3000 meters long. Let's say one wants to eliminate it from being used as a fighter runway, which means that one has to have craters every 400m's in runway length and every 10 meters in runway width. So, in total there's 7x5=35 aimpoints.

If one is using weapons with 100m CEP, maybe 60% of those weapons falling within CEP will go astray. If one is using 10m CEP weapons, then all the weapons falling within CEP are going to hit the runway.

Since Vantaa has 3 main runway, all the aggressor needs to know is the satnav coordinates of the runway from start to finish.

dh19440113 said:

Since Vantaa has 3 main runway, all the aggressor needs to know is the satnav coordinates of the runway from start to finish.

Click to expand...

Since I'm living quite close to that airport and have been there quite many times, it was just an example. (Finnish Air Force, just like ROCAF, practices operations from highway strips etc, additionally Helsinki-Vantaa isn't even an active AFB.)

In relevance to this discussion, every ROC (and PRC) runway has probably been mapped and put into some gigantic target excel-file where one can choose aimpoints for various weapons if felt necessary. Additionally, even suitable highway strips can be mapped and aimpointed even during peacetime. The key is, of course, to know which of those highway strips are active, which can be achieved via various means (radar recon, SIGINT, ELINT, spies etc.).

Even with hardened bases, like for example ROCAF Hualien base which seems to have some curious roads ending to the mountains, can be struck more efficiently via precision munitions. For example, tunnel operations can be compromised via striking to the roads going in and out etc...

AFAIK, SRBM's velocity is around Mach 6 while free falling bomb is around Mach 1, so the KE difference is around 36 for the missile.

Click to expand...

Yeas, but what is the velocity of the falling warhead when its detached from missile?

Let's take an example of a single runway from Helsinki-Vantaa airport. Checking out from Google Earth, the runways are 60 meters wide and 3000 meters long. Let's say one wants to eliminate it from being used as a fighter runway, which means that one has to have craters every 400m's in runway length and every 10 meters in runway width. So, in total there's 7x5=35 aimpoints.

If one is using weapons with 100m CEP, maybe 60% of those weapons falling within CEP will go astray. If one is using 10m CEP weapons, then all the weapons falling within CEP are going to hit the runway.

Click to expand...

Good example.
But my point still remains. Most chinese ballistic missiles have around 500-600m CEP. With those the change of hitting 60 meter runway is roughly 12%. And given to the fact that you need to fire several of them to make enough craters, lets say the 35 that you mentioned, it takes around 291 missiles to insure that 35 hits will be made. Tripple it (to take out other three stirps) and you basicly have consumed your entire TBM for one airbase.

With more accurate weapons, the task can be complete but it basicly means either large scale aerial bombings or special runway scathering raids which both are extremely vunrable to defensive AA fire.

Where have you all gotten the idea that taking out the runway is the most important part?
The runway be repaired easily. It might take some time, but with gravel, mesh and bulldozers at standby you will at least have a part of the airport up and going in a few hours.
You want to take out the aircraft (probably in shelters), the fuel system, command and control (tower and backup thats usually in a bunker) and as much personell as possibly.
All of these components are very difficult to replace. Fixing runway is easy.

Ballistic missiles are not a good choice for hitting buried point targets.
If you want to waste them on digging holes in the ground (runway), its your choice.

Where have you all gotten the idea that taking out the runway is the most important part?
The runway be repaired easily. It might take some time, but with gravel, mesh and bulldozers at standby you will at least have a part of the airport up and going in a few hours.

Click to expand...

Exactly...give me the size of the holes and the avaialbe machines and I will count the theoretical time that waht it should take...after all its what I've been studying for few years now

Ballistic missiles are not a good choice for hitting buried point targets.
If you want to waste them on digging holes in the ground (runway), its your choice

Click to expand...

Well like I with poor math counted, they actually aren't so goo ad it either.