China can and will achieve total air superiority over Taiwan

Surely the question is, "would the PLA be able to gain air superiority in the first hours of battle?".

Once enemy fighters are on station over an airfield, it's pretty much impossible for any aircraft to take off. They'll be hit while on the ramp, on the runway, or while gaining altitude.

On the other hand, if ROC can maintain a significant number of fighters in the air, they can put up a decent fight. Maybe even hold off the PLA until the U.S. (and maybe Japan) can send help.

For this reason I think the strategy would be (as Finn McCool said) a massive initial strike. Time things so that ballistic and cruise missiles hit high value targets and airfields minutes before air superiority fighters and strike fighters move in.

Throw in some J-6/7 drones if they're available to help overwhelm the air defenses.

In this scenario, using ballistic missiles to take out an airfield for a few hours is probably worth it.

The J-6 Drone's won't be a effective tool, these are analog plane configured to be controled remotely. A effective Ucav needs proper satnav guidence, Sat communication and a propulsion system design to be able to efficiently loiter over the battlefield.
J-6 with droptank has a max radius of 400 mile, it doesn't have enough fuel for a two way trip and where do we put radar on that fossil.

a platform like the globalhawk or NEURON.

dh19440113 said:

The J-6 Drone's won't be a effective tool, these are analog plane configured to be controled remotely. A effective Ucav needs proper satnav guidence, Sat communication and a propulsion system design to be able to efficiently loiter over the battlefield.

a platform like the globalhawk or NEURON.

Click to expand...

==J-6 is sufficient in the context of Taiwan, they just need inertial guidance to fly in a straight line, forcing Taiwanese air defence to open fir, revealing their positions and expending their ammunition, of course, the defender can choose to ignore those drones, but they might fly into something important.

As to targeting the air fields, the missiles should come in four waves, firstly, SRBM's with anti-runway warheads will crater the runways, the second wave of missiles and long range rockets with anti-personnel cluster munition will arrive an hour later to obliterate who ever is trying to repair the runways, then, long range rockets will deliver large amount of land mines on to the airfields and surrounding areas, especially high ways, at last, cruise missiles will destroy hard point targets such as individual aircraft bunkers and cave entrances.

Gollevainen said:

We are talking about DF-11 and DF-15, the missiles which are even remotely practical to be used with conventional warheads and against Taiwan. Of those the DF-15 is reported with later models and after system modernisation still in development to achive the quoted almoust 30 m CEP. The normal CEP of those missiles is several hundred meters, 500 m at max.

But with the usual "If that one has that, then this can have it too" logic, ofcourse smaller CEPs can be achived and applied to all missiles

Click to expand...

I'm saying the figure you see on sinodefense are generally for export versions of the missiles. They were never several hundred m in CEP. And from what I gathered, software/seeker upgrade have been applied to most missiles. I doubt any of the missiles pointing at Taiwan has a CEP greater than 2 digits.

Gollevainen said:

Rodger, a homework to you...How long it takes to normal asphalt (AB) to stiff and harder enough to be able to use after its being laid down??

Click to expand...

I think you need to make sure there are no bumps or ridges on the asphalt, or else the aircraft would not be able to achieve the speed necessary to take off.

Skorzeny said:

I also tried to make the point that you cannot guarantee to crater the entire runway with SRBM`s. You might end up with aircraft taking of immidiately. Without any craters you can clear the submunitions with armoured bulldozers.

Click to expand...

You only need one crater on a runway to make it unusable.

I'm saying the figure you see on sinodefense are generally for export versions of the missiles. They were never several hundred m in CEP. And from what I gathered, software/seeker upgrade have been applied to most missiles. I doubt any of the missiles pointing at Taiwan has a CEP greater than 2 digits.

Click to expand...

Oh yeas, a site that is about PLA and all its branches, has a section for missiles in PLA service and with all nice data like size, range, units deployed, but only one tiny bit, the CEP just happens to be from export versions and not from the PLA version (and its sneakily left without mentioning)...

..that sound...well you know it yourself don't you?

But please provide us something more realible and accurate sources which states that all PLA TBM has a two-digit CEP numbers, things are seddled.

I think you need to make sure there are no bumps or ridges on the asphalt, or else the aircraft would not be able to achieve the speed necessary to take off.

Click to expand...

Yeas you do, but you see the structual intergity and all the type of structual defaults are down to the weight-carrying layer and distripitung layer bellow the Asphalt. And thats where the bulldozers and gravel (well not just gravel but other soiltypes as well, unfortunetly I don't know the proper english terms) comes at hand. And it really isen't rocket sciense. Basicly (without going to too boring details which are hard to me to explain in english) you fill the holes with spesific gravel-type in two to three layers, each time compressing the layers and finally drew the asphalt atop and with special bitumen-mix you make a smooth joints.

And all that doesen't take much time from experineced crew with proper machines and proper materials.

You only need one crater on a runway to make it unusable.

Click to expand...

In wartime-situation, not neccerically. As long as there is a passageway to get even one fighter taking off, thats sufficient. The base may not work 100% efficiency, but it still works.

By missile export controls, missile exports abroad is very difficult, the PLA's tactical missiles rarely exported to foreign countries, even if yes, the type of missile, it would not have the PLA's advanced missiles, and China attaches great importance to national defense secrets, the PLA's missile precision accuracy reports from abroad, or from Taiwan, and exaggerated the accuracy of the PLA missiles, not from China.
What will people think of the PLA's ballistic missile launches, will launch all at once, no one missile remaining, and then again found that Taiwan's fighters still flying as usual take-off, landing ....
China has advanced satellite surveillance series Commission, as well as command and communications systems that the application of the PLA Second Artillery Corps inside, in other words, the first missile deviated from the target, for example, head-deviated from the right, on the second - will recalibrated from left. PLA's short-range tactical ballistic missiles, should be 30m CEP, particularly Taiwan from the Chinese mainland is so close, some people think the PLA's missiles, can become Iraq's Scud missiles, and this is what is called the export versions.
The PLA's tactical missile warhead can be used ground-penetrating high-explosive warheads, Introduction to repair the airport, said so easy the concert needs time to dry hard, in times of war, Taiwan's air force took off landing only 50%, then it will lose air superiority.
Taiwan's air force deployment Mirage 2000, the IDF in northern Taiwan, is prepared to struggle with the PLAAF, the purpose is simply to delay, and F-16ab fighters deployed in southern Taiwan, th main task is to attack maritime targets, stop PLA troops landing.
Then, after the missile attack, Taiwan's air superiority, how many % left?

Gollevainen said:

Oh yeas, a site that is about PLA and all its branches, has a section for missiles in PLA service and with all nice data like size, range, units deployed, but only one tiny bit, the CEP just happens to be from export versions and not from the PLA version (and its sneakily left without mentioning)...

..that sound...well you know it yourself don't you?

But please provide us something more realible and accurate sources which states that all PLA TBM has a two-digit CEP numbers, things are seddled.

Click to expand...

Its a standard procedure around the world even, that missiles are continually upgraded. True for the US, Russian, true for France and Britain, and true for China. For example, the HQ-2s are upgraded with modern eletronics.

You always need to change the electronics once in while in order to assure they will always work. That's just normal policy.

And besides, the vast majority of DF-11s pointed at Taiwan are all brand new.

Yeas you do, but you see the structual intergity and all the type of structual defaults are down to the weight-carrying layer and distripitung layer bellow the Asphalt. And thats where the bulldozers and gravel (well not just gravel but other soiltypes as well, unfortunetly I don't know the proper english terms) comes at hand. And it really isen't rocket sciense. Basicly (without going to too boring details which are hard to me to explain in english) you fill the holes with spesific gravel-type in two to three layers, each time compressing the layers and finally drew the asphalt atop and with special bitumen-mix you make a smooth joints.

And all that doesen't take much time from experineced crew with proper machines and proper materials.


In wartime-situation, not neccerically. As long as there is a passageway to get even one fighter taking off, thats sufficient. The base may not work 100% efficiency, but it still works.

Click to expand...

You seem to forget that missiles are not going to smash through the asphalt, explose and make a very big hole. They will have proximity fuses, so the warhead will blow up when it is around 20 feet from the ground. That increases the size of the crater, added to the missile's own shockwave, while scattering fragments at supersonic speeds well beyond the blast radius.

When missiles can down upon a working repair crew with no apparent warning, I would call it a hazardous work environment.

The whole concept is delay and disrupt. Not just damage the runway for take off and landing of aircraft, but fragmentation can destroy shelters, houses, radar antennas, and leave nice sharp souvenirs sticking out over the ground of a large area. Which is pretty convenient for anything with rubber tires.

Gollevainen said:

Oh yeas, a site that is about PLA and all its branches, has a section for missiles in PLA service and with all nice data like size, range, units deployed, but only one tiny bit, the CEP just happens to be from export versions and not from the PLA version (and its sneakily left without mentioning)...

..that sound...well you know it yourself don't you?

Click to expand...

I certainly don't take anything on sinodefense as gospel (no offense to Dongfeng). As I said, we have an article by Chinese Youth Daily in 2002 that said DF-5 achieved a CEP of 250 m in 80s. Yet, sinodefense has it at 1000 m. So, knowing this and that the export missiles like B-611 and P-12 were mentionned to have CEP of 30-50 m, you tell me what it means. Some cost effective upgrades on DF-11/15/21 can significantly upgrade the CEP of these missiles, why would they not do it?

crobato said:

You seem to forget that missiles are not going to smash through the asphalt, explose and make a very big hole. They will have proximity fuses, so the warhead will blow up when it is around 20 feet from the ground. That increases the size of the crater, added to the missile's own shockwave, while scattering fragments at supersonic speeds well beyond the blast radius.

Click to expand...

There might be a why all airforces use penetrators against runway and not airburst
Shockwave from 20 feet would do little damage to hardened concrete runway. And the fragments are easier to clear then a big hole