China can and will achieve total air superiority over Taiwan

crobato said:

We'll see but I don't consider it to be a very efficient use of resources. You can regard this as a political maneuver rather than a cost effective weapon. But of course the CCP leadership is going to see through that and won't be impressed. Hitting civilian targets with the cruise missiles will only enrage the mainland population more and they would feel more justified in attacking Taiwan. This is like the Hitlerite fascination for V weapons to attack Britain while losing the war in the main fronts. Or like the Hitlerite idea of turning Me-262s into bombers while they are desperately needed as fighters.

This would be a diversion that won't have any impact on the war but only divert resources from areas that would have needed it more. HF-2E and TK-2proposed SSM are both a freaking waste of money. Why not just make more TC-2 and TC-2A missiles? Buy more AMRAAM. Deploy more TK-2 SAMs. Finish the HF-3 supersonic AshM and deploy them.

Click to expand...

I totally agree crobato. Taiwan needs to gets its defensive priorities straight. Its biggest weakness is the lack of AAM missles for its F-16s. Without them, most of its air force is useless. For SSMs, Taiwan can use the HF-3. The only thing that it would need the HF-2 for is to have limited numbers of it act as LACMs to hit mainland targets. I mean like enough for one strike to give the ROCAF and ROCN breathing room. Otherwise it is pointless because Taiwan will never be able to compete with China in that area. The real use for SSMs for China is to hit the invasion fleet as it crosses. They would be much, much more vunerable than any mainland target. The ships of the ROCN, the strike aircraft of the ROCAF, land based launchers, even artillery on the island-they all would be best used to hit the invasion fleet as it crosses. All else-the ROCAFs fighters, SAMs, LACMs-exists to in one way or another protect the assets that would hit the ships. Of course, I left the ROCA out of this equation, its purpose is to deal with any forces that make it across.

That is my strategy. Its main weakness is that it is inherently defensive and lets the enemy attack at the time of his choosing, at time at which I (if I am the ROC) may not have anything left to hit the ships with. But with the clock of US intervention ticking against the PRC, that is a risk I am willing to take.

This applies to the whole issue of air superiority because it is important to remember that air superiority exsists to further other goals. And since the PLAAF cannot win the air battle with BMs alone as the first post of this thread stated, time is working against the PLAAF if the US will intervene.

The ROC should not consider wasting their resources strike the mainland, except for one particular area. Ground radar stations. Ground stations along with the AEW/AWACS and various Y-8 variants will be used to coordinate the PLAAF strikes across the strait. While the IDF cannot take out the AWACS alone, using the TC-2A they can at least hit the ground stations, including civilian airport radars, blindsiding the PLAAF. While this may not take out the sensor and command ability of the PLAAF, it would at least impair their efficiency, give you some breathing room, and the effects can cascade down the entire campaign.

Hi all, I am new to the forum.

I was reading this and I this topic caught my attention and I just had to post a reply.

Back in my day, I used to fly F-15E for USAF. Now, I am a commercial airline pilot for Jet Blue. Naturally, I have always taken an interest in military aviation. Today, I am surprised and fascinated by how quickly the modern aircraft and air defenses are evolving, especially in regard the PLAAF is starting to shape up as a contemporary and future air power.

Anyway, as of now, I still think the PLAAF still probably is not able to achieve air superiority over Taiwan. Despite some improvements in the best, elite squadrons it seems to me, most of the airmen are still flying outdated Mig-21and are still ill-prepared for an all-out air war. Most of the pilots still get less than 100 hours a year in their aircraft. PLAAF doesn't seem to have effective countermeasures against enemy SAMs also. They do not have an effective anti-radiation missile or effective ECM or jamming. Most of their aircraft do not even have chaff/flare dispensors installed and I doubt the pilots would know how to use them correctly even if they did have them.

J-10 seems to me like an F-16 clone, not a true air superiority aircraft like the F-15C. In my opinion, J-10 is not as capable as F-15E in air-to-air or definitely not air-to-ground roles.

If any of you are interested, I served two tours over the southern "no-fly" zone in Iraq, once in 1993 and again in 1995. If any of you can recognize, I flew the 'Strike' variant of the F-15 Eagle family. Yes, I have been engaged by Iraqi air defenses before, repeatedly in fact. Usually Sa-2 or Sa-6 or concealed ZSU. HARM anti-radiation shots were very effective though. The moment the Haajis realized we fired them (if they had time to realize), they shut off their radar and the SAM was easily defeated. They were even afraid to turn on their microwave ovens.

By the way, I realize that I am very pro-American, hope that doesn't bother you.

It's always interesting to hear from combat veterens, glad you could join the discussion.

A few things I don't completely agree:
1. PLAAF has already obtained Russian Kh-31P and Israeli Harpy, so the capability is there.
2. On average, PLAAF pilots flying hour is still not very high. However, elite regiment pilots are exceptions - 150+ hrs per year for Special and First grade pilots should be expected.
3. Unlike early production SU-27s, PLAAF Flankers do not lack chaff/flare. Newer aircrafts such as J-10 or advanced versions of J-7/J-8 have them as well. What PLAAF really lack is towed decoys in large quantity.

PLA's modernization efforts concentrate on selective units rather than fleet or army wide implementations. It's much more important to consider the "usable" parts of PLA in a potential War Zone Campaign, when discussing potential regional conflicts.

Finn McCool said:

I totally agree crobato. Taiwan needs to gets its defensive priorities straight. Its biggest weakness is the lack of AAM missles for its F-16s. Without them, most of its air force is useless. For SSMs, Taiwan can use the HF-3. The only thing that it would need the HF-2 for is to have limited numbers of it act as LACMs to hit mainland targets. I mean like enough for one strike to give the ROCAF and ROCN breathing room. Otherwise it is pointless because Taiwan will never be able to compete with China in that area. The real use for SSMs for China is to hit the invasion fleet as it crosses. They would be much, much more vunerable than any mainland target. The ships of the ROCN, the strike aircraft of the ROCAF, land based launchers, even artillery on the island-they all would be best used to hit the invasion fleet as it crosses. All else-the ROCAFs fighters, SAMs, LACMs-exists to in one way or another protect the assets that would hit the ships. Of course, I left the ROCA out of this equation, its purpose is to deal with any forces that make it across.

Click to expand...

I would not call AIM-7M "useless", it still has one of the highest kill rate among BVR missiles.

The goal of Taiwan's offensive actions would never be head to head competition with PLA in raw attack power. The strategic objectives are different, therefore you should not use the same standards to judge the values.

Other points I have to disagree.

Mostly MiG-21 aircraft? There are at least over 300 Flankers in the PLAAF, of which about a hundred belong to the multirole Su-30 type. J-10s may be around 80 to 120 now. In addition to that, there are over 300 to 400 J-8IIs. Don't mistake the MiG-21 like wing configuration, these planes can carry radar big enough for BVR engagement. At least 100 of these planes belong to the latest variants (J-8F/H) or D models being upgraded as such. These upgrades include the use of active guidance missiles, helmet sighting with wide off boresight missiles. There are at least over 100 JH-7 and JH-7A strike bombers capable of precision strike.

I don't expect the J-10 to match the F-15E on air to ground roles but I expect the J-10 to be an extremely agile aircraft. Compared to an F-16, they got lower drag to lift ratios, lower wing loading and very likely better instantaneous turn rates. Variable engine inlet, more acute wing sweep and a lower drag canopy can mean the J-10 being faster in supersonic flight than an F-16. J-10s also have HMS and wide offboresight missiles but the ROCAF F-16s lack AIM-9X.

As for ECM, the PLAAF has dedicated Y-8 and H-5 aircraft. The PLAAF Flankers often carry wingtip ECM pods in exercises. Its far more frequent to spot PLAAF Flankers with ECM pods than you do with pics of RuAF Flankers.

Ive seen one PLAAF pilot certificate highlighting an 800 flight hour and a 1500 flight hour in his career. The 800 mark was achieved in December 2000 and the 1500 hour mark in October 2004. The guy is averaging over 180 hours each year. This may be the pattern for elite regiments, but the definition of elite regiments also cover those using the latest J-8II and J-7E/G aircraft.

I'd be interested in whats the readiness state of the PLAAF. It's said they have 300 Flankers. Do they have the crews to man all those AC ? Do they have enough weapons to arm all, is there enough fuel for several missions and enough technicians for maintenance ??
Of course all this applys to the ROCAF as well ...

And about AIM-7. As I can recall, in several cases I read about an incident with US fighters involved, it's stated that 2-3 Sparrow were fired against a single target. If thats the normal procedure, wouldn't the ROCAF run out of ammo pretty fast ... ?

I still do not think China can achieve total air superiority over Taiwan. It might have limited success in doing so, through sheer numbers, but I don't think it is fully possible.

First of all, you have to understand that total air superiority means TOTAL air superiority. Can they wipe out the entire ROCAF and all of the PAC-2s and Hawk SAMs? In any future conflict, I see the ground based SAM batteries taking a huge toll on the Chinese aircraft. PLAAF does not have much SEAD capability, or ECM/jamming, so as of now I predict at least 40% of SAMs fired will score hit-to-kill. Any information of PLAAF anti-radiation missiles or precision guided munitions? Those two things are critical to SEAD. If I remember correctly, PLAAF lacks both of them. The PLAAF will take grevious casualties if they are simply going to try to drop dumb bombs on SAMs and radar sites. PGM makes your job so much easier. Furthermore, any Taiwanese pilot who ejects lives to fight another day so ROCAF will have an easier time replacing pilots, unlike PLAAF. I will leave the USAF out of this, but if we ever got involved there is no question as to what will happen.

Even 1990s USAF, which I served in, was a least 5 times better than the PLAAF. Today, with all the new stuff coming out (though I have never worked with F-22 or F-35) the USAF is several times stronger than it was then. Back then, 2 sorties per target. Now, 3 targets per sortie.

If any of you are interested, I suggest you read Tom Clancy's Fighter Wing. There is a lot of information in there on my former squadron and on F-15E, the plane I used to fly. The book details just how professional and well-equipped an air force has to be in order to achieve total air superiority. By the way, I am a big Tom Clancy fan, I think his novels are quite realistic (the military aspect at least, not political aspect). Anyway, PLAAF is still a long way from that level in my opinion. Taiwanese air force may not be the best, but they have they home court advantage. Maybe 10 or 20 years the PLAAF will be able to achieve TOTAL air superiority, but you never know what can happen in that long.

Frankly I don't consider Tom Clancy to be very realistic. I and among others think he is becoming more of a hack. Larry Bond was better.

And why don't you read the post again and again. The PLAAF does have PGMs, they have ECM, and they have ARMs. I already gave you some information about their PGMs, ARMs, and ECM capabilities.

That's over 300 Flankers alone out there that is capable of using two ECM pods each.

As for ARMs, they have the Kh-31P, Harpies and the YJ-91. They have laser targeting pods and LGBs both of Chinese and Russian origin, mainly the LT-2 and KAB-500L. For TV guided weapons, they have the Kh-59ME, which is a standoff weapon like the SLAM, the Kh-29TE, which is akin to a Maverick, TV guided bombs like the KAB-500kr and the KAB-1500kr, which is a bunker buster. Lately they appear to have JDAM/JSOW devices like the FT-1, FT-2 and LS-6, which can be used to convert unguided bombs. TV guided stand off missiles include the KD-88 and KD-63.

The number of aircraft capable of using PGMs may be a little short, but they still encompass over 100 JH-7 and JH-7As, 100 Su-30s, some updated variants of the J-8II, H-6 bombers, and Q-5 attackers with an LTD in the nose. These numbers continue to rise every year.

Taiwan may have a home court advantage but the problem is, the adversary has the right-next door-neighbor advantage.

Clancy isn't a hack he is a businessman. He job is to sell novels. Everything in his books is factual, jsut selectively. he tend sto give the US the latest generation of technology and weapons while giving the enemy the oldest technology he can possibly get away with.

I would agree J-10 is still no match for F-15, especially consider the overall mission capability. Even without comparing to Strike Eagle, latest F-15C fitted with APG-63(v)2 AESA radar is great in air superiority role.

J-10's comparison with F-16 is more difficult. There are many blocks of F-16s, and the lack of data on J-10 complicates things.

This article on ROCAF F-16 Block 20 is a bit old, but has some basic information on it:

USAF F-16 has since upgraded its Block 40s and Block 50s, the comparison may no longer be correct.

While Block 20 isn't as suitable for air-to-ground missions as C/D versions, it does have good flight performance. It still does not have weapon options like JDAM/HARM/JSOW, and have not received larger pgrades such as PW-229 or AIM-9X/JHMCS. Block 20 did have some minor pgrades and additions: Harpoon, ALE-50, RWR upgrade, MFD upgrade etc.

I expect one of J-10's design goal to be suppressing F-16 and similiar types. I would not be surprised if exchange ratio ends up in J-10's favor. But I doubt that it'd be as high as EF-2000 / Rafale vs. F-16.

There is nothing wrong with Tom Clancy's nonfiction books, I have read some before. His novel...

I'd be cautious in evaluating PLAAF's PGM. There is no public information on the quantity and numbers of units that has them, much less the quality. The ones purchased from Russia are already in service, but status of ndigenous ones is unknown.

The overall Electronic Warfare capability of PLAAF is also questionable at this moment.