Comparing 1990 with today

SampanViking · Feb 21, 2006

Well nobody enjoys a good laugh more than me but really:roll:

600 is a bit much, more like 200-300. The majority will be wild weasel aircraft.

I admire your patriotisem IDont, but really this is descent into fantasy. You would lose more than that attacking Britain.

Sometimes I really wonder if some people here actually read what has been written in previous posts...

You can say that again Totoro.

Anyway, we all seem to agree that US would win such an air war, no one is disputing that.

I must be nobody then cos I cannot see how the US; with or without a stated objective could possibly win.

Now bear with me as my time is limited but their is a lot to go through.

1) If it is a purely air war, then no attacks are being launched from or across the air space of any land adjoining country as either act would be a an effective declaration of war on China, who would respond in the obvious and appropriate manner and quickly eliminate any such bases. Besides....

India is more likely to do so but since it would have to live with china next to its border afterwards - it too has far more to lose politically in aiding the US. Similar logic would say no indochina country would let its bases be used

I think that is a pretty safe assumption.

It is my belief russia would no way let US use its airspace, let alone its land to base attacks from.

Well considering China is Russia Ally and best customer another pretty safe assumption. Might Russia join in with China to fulfill its SCO obligations? well you never know. Certainly Russian factories would be working around the clock to sell toys to its friend.

That being the case you are attacking from Japan, possibly the Phillippines, from Carriers and long distance from US Territory.

2

How many S-300 sams do China possess?

Or any other missile for that matter. A better question is how many can they buy or produce. Do you really think you could hit for a few weeks and walk away?. This would be an open ended commitment the main result of which would be to restructure China "National Configuration of Power" away from Civil production and into Military, as the whole country mobilises. I think it would be very interesting to see the worlds largest Industrial Base mobilised in this way don't you?

3

most of planes china could muster would be old pieces of junk.

This is somthing a lot of people seem to have missed. The biggest loss from losing "a piece of junk" is the loss of the pilot. So when I read last year about the PLAAF turning its old Migs into Remote Controlled AV's I really took notice.

I know they were mainly talking about using them as flying bombs to ram Carriers, but they would work just as well (better in many ECM respects) as close defence around Airfields and other High Value targets. Personally I think it is only a short step from that to actually flying them as R C Interceptors, firing missiles, landing and reloading etc, but no matte, without a pilot to worry about, what does it matter, you could strap an engine and wings onto an old fridge if you needed too.

It might matter to the US F22 and F16 pilots though. They would need to use up all their missiles shooting these old wrecks down and then what??? bug out I suppose... except..... thats when we can expect to see the Flankers turn up, fresh, fully fueled and fully armed..... Oh Dear!!!

And thats the rub, China as the defender has a lot of advantages, the loss of a lot of old tin cans for the decimation of the US front line Air Strike force would be a price well worth paying, especially if it could be done with minimal pilot loss.

4)

Attacks can originate along the entirety of the Chinese coast. That is a lot of real estate to defend

A huge amount to attack you mean, huge if you spread the attackers forces that thin, all you are doing is maximising their exposure to the highest number of defenders. The US would be hard pressed to Saturate attack one major province and as soon as it was finished and moved to the next, the defences would simply be reconstructed again.

But this has been the weakness of the whole thread. What is the objective??? You can bomb bridges all you like I am sure China can throw up Pontoons as quick as anybody else. But if the aim is to destroy China's Industrial Military/Economic Infrastructure then

do you guys have any idea how much of it there is.

5) The central weakness of the whole arguement is to assume China could be overwhelmed like Iraq or Serbia (Serbia is a good example of how to defend against an Air Campaign and only a fool will ignore it. Serbia however is tiny, little bigger than Wales.)

The attacks on China would be pinpricks. Yes US Planes and Missiles would get through, but so would Chinese ones. "The bomber always gets through" Under those circumstances, the ability of the US to attack would be exhausted long before China lost the will or ability to defend. Period!!:coffee:

bd popeye · Feb 21, 2006

Hummmmmm

Well Slacpiv, a man of his word, who has not posted in two weeks said it best below......Please read;

http://www.sinodefenceforum.com/showthread.php?p=24258#post24258

Sea Dog. Just give up. You're in a Chinese military forum. If the people here believe that china can hit a moving target the size of vessel when no missile can do that against a static target, then let them. If they think China can launch their 200 - 300km missiles at US naval assets without being harrased by F-18S, sea wolfs, LAs, then they can. If they think that they can launch missiles without over the horizon reconaissance, then they can. If they dont believe that the sm-3, sm-3, ESSM, sea ram, or the phalanx can intercept their missiles when they number in the hundreds in a US carrier group, let them. If they think the only thing to stealth technology is an airframe and paint, let them. If they thin the 093 is more powerful than anything the Russians have to offer when every other soures days it's in the same class as the victor III, let them. If they think the J-10 is more capable than a su-27 when most sources say it's on the same level as a f-16 blk 30, let them. If they think China can catch up in engine, radar, and avionics technology in less than a decade to match the f-22 let them. If they think cheap labor can get them cheap advanced fighters, let them. If they think that they can take on 4+ US carriers at once, let them. If they think they have the same level of missile saturation ability as the soviets did in the hieght of their power let them. I've given up.

I agree with most of waht he posted. I have relugated myself to simple post and posting lots of pictures of the worlds greatest Navy.

Personally I would like to see a strong PRC for the sake of Asia.

Keep smilin'

IDonT · Feb 21, 2006

A huge amount to attack you mean, huge if you spread the attackers forces that thin, all you are doing is maximising their exposure to the highest number of defenders. The US would be hard pressed to Saturate attack one major province and as soon as it was finished and moved to the next, the defences would simply be reconstructed again.

But this has been the weakness of the whole thread. What is the objective??? You can bomb bridges all you like I am sure China can throw up Pontoons as quick as anybody else. But if the aim is to destroy China's Industrial Military/Economic Infrastructure then do you guys have any idea how much of it there is.

You misunderstand me. As the attacker, the US has the initiative. It can choose the time and place to attack. Being in the PLAAF shoes, you do not know where the attack will come from, so you put your best assets on the most likely targets.

If the US attacks at point A, can you move your assets at that position in a time frame to make a difference? How about 2 simultanous attacks, with one being the decoy? What then?

You still did not take into account the pin point cruise missile strikes that degrade PLAAF command &c Control, radar ops, etc. Though maybe half will survive, their destruction lessens the PLAAF's ability to detect, track, and vector its assets to meet the threat in time.

As for the S-300, they are very good SAM. Do you know why? Because the Russians rely on them to deny the enemy air superiority. Deny is not the same as take. US doctrine has always stressed that the best way to take out an air threat is not with a SAM but with an air superiorty fighter. Relying on SAMs for airdefence, is a war losing strategy. They do not grant you air superiority.

The central weakness of the whole arguement is to assume China could be overwhelmed like Iraq or Serbia (Serbia is a good example of how to defend against an Air Campaign and only a fool will ignore it. Serbia however is tiny, little bigger than Wales.)

The attacks on China would be pinpricks. Yes US Planes and Missiles would get through, but so would Chinese ones. "The bomber always gets through" Under those circumstances, the ability of the US to attack would be exhausted long before China lost the will or ability to defend. Period

Serbia is a bad example...of the tens of thousands of sorties they manage to only shot down two (2) aircraft. Shoot down by the same battery because 1.) its commander was very good 2.) NATO got sloppy and used the same route.

Pinpricks...These pinpricks if acurately guided can be very painful. Again, the scenario does not involved carpet bombing of cities ala WWII. It only takes one guided bomb to take out one target. Take out enough sensitive targets (power generation, telephone exchange, communications node, etc) in a small time frame you degrade their ability to defend.

KYli · Feb 21, 2006

IDonT said:
You misunderstand me. As the attacker, the US has the initiative. It can choose the time and place to attack. Being in the PLAAF shoes, you do not know where the attack will come from, so you put your best assets on the most likely targets.

Are you suggesting that China will just wait for US, so US can gather all their force and attack that China will not make any attempt to pre-empty offensive attack. US may has choose the time and place to attack, but before that the US needs to place their force in the attacking range first. I doubt China will sit there and do nothing. Don't forget all the M9 and M11, cruise missiles that chinese have.

IDONT said:
If the US attacks at point A, can you move your assets at that position in a time frame to make a difference? How about 2 simultanous attacks, with one being the decoy? What then?

Well, US do have options to chose their targets and time, but since US will only attack valueable asserts. China do have the mean to chose what they consider important to protect. No matter how many attacks US could launch at same time. I doubt US could do much damage to Chinese infrastrucsture, you forgot how big and many asserts China have. It is going to weeks or even months before real damages will be acheive, China have the time and capability to repair by then.

You still did not take into account the pin point cruise missile strikes that degrade PLAAF command &c Control, radar ops, etc. Though maybe half will survive, their destruction lessens the PLAAF's ability to detect, track, and vector its assets to meet the threat in time.

Cruise missile will degrade half the PLAAF commandcontrol and radar, that is not possible. Do you know how big of network chinese have, and mulitple systems chinese have for communcation will make it rather difficult to take out.

As for the S-300, they are very good SAM. Do you know why? Because the Russians rely on them to deny the enemy air superiority. Deny is not the same as take. US doctrine has always stressed that the best way to take out an air threat is not with a SAM but with an air superiorty fighter. Relying on SAMs for airdefence, is a war losing strategy. They do not grant you air superiority.

China have many good SAM, and S300 is only one of them. How about the FT2000, TY90, TY80, HQ15, HQ16, HQ17 and etc. US dotrine is always stressed the best way to take out air threat with air superiorty fighter, but before this going to happen. How about take care of all the planes China have first. The 100SuMKK, 200J11, 50-100J10, 300J8, 500J7, 75 JH7, 300Q5, 100H6 and 3000J6, you had to take care all of them before gaining air superiorty and stop any chinese attempt for counter attack.

Serbia is a bad example...of the tens of thousands of sorties they manage to only shot down two (2) aircraft. Shoot down by the same battery because 1.) its commander was very good 2.) NATO got sloppy and used the same route.

China is not Serbia, and they have many times more air defence asserts than the Serbia had.

Pinpricks...These pinpricks if acurately guided can be very painful. Again, the scenario does not involved carpet bombing of cities ala WWII. It only takes one guided bomb to take out one target. Take out enough sensitive targets (power generation, telephone exchange, communications node, etc) in a small time frame you degrade their ability to defend.

The problem is the China have thousands of power generation, telephone and communciation node etc, and US won't have a free fly without take care of chinese Air force and Air defence first. Even by then China could still repair them.

No one deny that US is the most powerful Airforce in the World, but you have to take in to mind that the chinese is on the defensive. That will give China many advantages.

SampanViking · Feb 21, 2006

BD Popeye and IDont.

Please do not take me wrong, mine is no "see once again how the decadent Western Dogs fall before the glorious forces of the revolution" position. I am seriously questioning the ability of anyone to effectively degrade the infrastructure of a country as massive and complex as modern China.

Even if the country was undefended, the scale of the task would probably defeat the ability of the west to achieve it.

You misunderstand the point about Serbia. Yes this was one good officer, NATO was lucky that he fought for a small country that did not have the capability of capitalising on the opportunites he provided.

It only takes one guided bomb to take out one target. Take out enough sensitive targets (power generation, telephone exchange, communications node, etc) in a small time frame you degrade their ability to defend.

Sure no arguement, but there is a huge amount of it and they can repair damage.

If the US attacks at point A, can you move your assets at that position in a time frame to make a difference? How about 2 simultanous attacks, with one being the decoy? What then?

You will have good days and you will have bad days - on a good day you go on you hit your target and you go home. On a bad day - you dont go home. This would would go on every day, for weeks, months years.

You still did not take into account the pin point cruise missile strikes that degrade PLAAF command &c Control, radar ops, etc.

Yes I do, but damage is a fact of war, you spend and train a lot to minimise the effect of that damage and to get facilites up and running again, either on the original spot or elsewere.

How many Cruise Missiles does the US have, how quickly can they be built. A common complaint by bankers on the use of Chinese Govt money is regarding the oversupply of International Capable Airports. It seems every City wants to have its own. Useful in an emergency though.

Size and time are the critical things here China is physically bigger than the USA (including Hawai and Alaska) It is more densly populated, it has far more cities with populationsof over 500 000. Each province is equivalent to a major European Country.

Sooner or later BD a Chinese Strike would get lucky and a Carrier would go down. Not every shot, not every day but sooner or later.

The US may be able to contain the PRC on the Sea and in the Air, but the days it could brake down the door and charge in with impunity have gone for ever. Trust me if people were saying somthing similar about China raiding the US, I would take the very same attitude.

In Conclusion, The US is good - but not that good.

Roger604 · Feb 21, 2006

Sea Dog. Just give up. You're in a Chinese military forum. If the people here believe that china can hit a moving target the size of vessel when no missile can do that against a static target, then let them. If they think China can launch their 200 - 300km missiles at US naval assets without being harrased by F-18S, sea wolfs, LAs, then they can. If they think that they can launch missiles without over the horizon reconaissance, then they can. If they dont believe that the sm-3, sm-3, ESSM, sea ram, or the phalanx can intercept their missiles when they number in the hundreds in a US carrier group, let them. If they think the only thing to stealth technology is an airframe and paint, let them. If they thin the 093 is more powerful than anything the Russians have to offer when every other soures days it's in the same class as the victor III, let them. If they think the J-10 is more capable than a su-27 when most sources say it's on the same level as a f-16 blk 30, let them. If they think China can catch up in engine, radar, and avionics technology in less than a decade to match the f-22 let them. If they think cheap labor can get them cheap advanced fighters, let them. If they think that they can take on 4+ US carriers at once, let them. If they think they have the same level of missile saturation ability as the soviets did in the hieght of their power let them. I've given up.

The logical fallacy is that the Chinese don't just assume (like Slavpiv deceptively implies) that the PLAAF and PLAN can just blow the USAF and USN away.

Of course that would be silly.

Rather, the Chinese accept that there will be casualties on both sides. It is the American posters (like IDont) who comes up with laughable casualty figures for the American side.

Notice how IDont vehemently denies the 600 plane loss estimate Totoro gives. Perhaps this is because IDont thinks 600 planes would be "unacceptable losses"?

So what happens if China shoots down 600 planes (including F-22's and B-2's)? The Americans will probably start negotiating.

That's why China will "win" this engagement. It's like a soccer game between one team that is much better than the other. But under the rules of the game, the inferior team need only score one goal to win, and the superior team loses if they let in even one goal.

IDonT · Feb 21, 2006

SampanViking,

We are going to go in circles in this type of threads.
In your scenario, no ground forces will be involved. Therefore, the population density of China is a non factor. In a land war, the sheer numbers of the PLA, if you can concentrate them, will overwhelm US ground forces. In fact, PLA troops are the only troops to drive the US marines from a beach.

You are right of course that China is no Iraq, Iran, and Serbia COMBINED. However, its present threat level is not comparable to the late Soviet Union. It has decades before it can even match it, and at the same time, the US technological gap is widening.

As for my 300 number losses, I stand by it. Why, US uses a lot of standoff munitions in high threat environment, thereby lowering the risk of getting shot down. The threat to actual air assets that actually go "feet dry" on Chinese soil, will be diminished from the stand off attacks, lowering the probability of being shot down. As this hypothetical airwar drags on, Chinese operational tempo will not be able to sustain or keep up with that of the US.

Are you suggesting that China will just wait for US, so US can gather all their force and attack that China will not make any attempt to pre-empty offensive attack. US may has choose the time and place to attack, but before that the US needs to place their force in the attacking range first. I doubt China will sit there and do nothing. Don't forget all the M9 and M11, cruise missiles that chinese have

How accurate are those missiles?
The main problem of the US airwar is basing. There are the carriers, Guam, Okinawa, and possibly Taiwan. The carriers are highly mobile and trying to locate and attack them is another discussion entirely. Let's just say they are very very difficult to attack. Second is basing...Guam can host the US bombers while Okinawa and Taiwan will have the US fighter planes. (Hypothetical scenario ignoring political consideration) As far as I know, Taiwan and Okinawa have very excellent hardened shelters. Does the PLAAF have the accuracy of hitting these with their ballistic missiles? Do they have "bunker buster" type guided munitions designed to take out steel reinforced concrete?

China have many good SAM, and S300 is only one of them. How about the FT2000, TY90, TY80, HQ15, HQ16, HQ17 and etc. US dotrine is always stressed the best way to take out air threat with air superiorty fighter, but before this going to happen. How about take care of all the planes China have first. The 100SuMKK, 200J11, 50-100J10, 300J8, 500J7, 75 JH7, 300Q5, 100H6 and 3000J6, you had to take care all of them before gaining air superiorty and stop any chinese attempt for counter attack.

If your read my post earlier, one of the things I stressed is AEW. PLAAF is just not up to speed in tracking and organizing those numbers of aircraft plus processing the multitude of information from a fluid air battle. How will they handle IFF? How accurately vector armed aircraft to hostiles, empty aircraft to tankers, and aircraft with no ammo to go down and reload? If you are a SAM commander, how would you know if what your shooting at is hostile or friendly? That is even before we factor in decoys and jamming. IF you only know the capabilities of the Prowlers. It can disrupt both radar AND communication signals. So a PLAAF pilot may received false data, etc...

All I can see is, China is good- but not that good. It still has a long way to go before it can stand toe to toe with the US.

SampanViking · Feb 21, 2006

Here we go again

OK Idont

In your scenario, no ground forces will be involved.

Its not my scenario. this is the scenario Totoro presented us with. I wish to God I knew what the supposed objective it of is. Nobody seems able to tell me, so in that sense it seems highly unrealistic.

Therefore, the population density of China is a non factor.

Oh it is, because these are not rice farmers living on stilt huts. The ones on the East Coast live largely modern lives in big modern cities with lots of Infrastructure and Factories and Roads and Railways, Telephone Exchanges, Bridges etc. These are the targets you are talking about. My point is that there are thousands of them in every Coastal Province and they are increasing across the country at about 10% per annum in line with the countries growth.

Without the need for ground forces, many workers would be available to work in Emergency Air Defence Armaments factories.

China is no Iraq, Iran, and Serbia COMBINED.

Quite right, it is many times bigger. It is the worlds second largest country by land area, after the Russian Federation.

You mentioned earlier about the attacker being able to choose its targets. Probably true, they could. I never denied or doubted the ability of the attacker to penetrate China and bomb targets. It was the getting out I have always questioned. Damaged planes, Tired Pilots, Low/No Ammo being hit by the best the PLAAF has. Thats where my high casualty figures come from. Remember if you only scratch the Coastal strip you are leaving most of the country untouched. If you go deep, the risk of detection and interception increase exponentially.

US uses a lot of standoff munitions in high threat environment, thereby lowering the risk of getting shot down.

How many thousands did you say you have stockpiled? How many hundreds can you manufacture per week? Cos those are the figures you would need just for one major province.

The main problem of the US airwar is basing. There are the carriers, Guam, Okinawa, and possibly Taiwan.

Seriously, I am very disappointed by this, mentioning Taiwan in this context looks very close to flaming. You would be well advised to edit out any such reference.

But before you post again, get the Atlas, look at the maps, go online, find some pictures of Modern China and I hope some of what we are trying to tell you might come into a better focus.

KYli · Feb 21, 2006

IDonT said:
1.) Aerial Refueling - The capability to keep the MAJORITY of your forces in
the front lines for longer periods of time.

Agreed, but since US is doing the offensive, so this cannot consider as a disadvantage of China. Secondly, how many bases US could use beside Carriers, Okinawa and Guam. Guam may only used as bomber base, and Okinawa could only attack the east coast infrastucture. Carriers would try to stay as far away from land as possible.

2.) Highly Trained Ground Personel - Affects the sortie rate of your aircraft. In the Arab-Israeli wars, thanks to IDF ground crews, the IDF aircraft can be put in the air at a higher rate than their Arab counter parts. For example, you have 4 planes that you can sortie 4 per day vs your enemy with 6 planes that can sortie 2 per day. You have him outnumbered even though they have more aircraft.

True, but again how many planes US could bring to Asia to launch attack, and China do have quantity to match US.

3.) AEW - provides situational awareness. PLAN AEW is at its infancy...it cannot track as much aircraft as the US ones. Therefore, US aircraft know at all times, where friendly and hostile forces are, while PLA aircraft are mostly blind. Also, since the US has used its AEW equipment more, this leads to something called "equipment familiarity" - the ability to know in which condition your equipment works best, etc. It is something you get from years of training and experience

Well, I would agree if that is few years ago. Now China do have few platforms of AEW(KJ2000, Y8X,Y8J, Y8blance beam,etc). so eventhrough US is way better. Does not mean China will not have good awareness.

4.) ELINT support - Jamming and decoys...will have PLA Sams and aircraft going after non existing USAF strike, wasting resources, revealing their position, and leaving them vulnerable to an ambush.

China also have ELINT, actually China have been working on jamming and decoys for long time now. So I will have to ask how effective will be US cruise missiles and fighters.

5.) Stealth - The F-22, B-2, and F-117 provides USAF generals with a multitude of strategic options that conventional aircraft cannot. I mean, just to try and shoot one of these will tie up PLAN assets that could be needed elsewhere.
6.) Training and experience - USAF and USN pilots have actually dropped bombs and shot down other aircraft in a combat setting. These experiences are further sharpened by military exercises such as Red Flag, etc. In fact, no other nation spends more money in training the the US.

Agreed.

7.) Weapons - USAF and USN percent of precision and standoff weapons are approaching 80% of inventory.

You will need lot more than these.

8.) Numbers - PLAN 4th gen aircraft number around 500-600 airframes, US has over 2,000 F-16 alone.

I doubt US still operate 2000 F16, please check the numbers and provide links. And even US have 4th gen aircraft than China, how many US could bring into conflict. And do take into consideration about the 300J8, 500J7 and 3000J6, they might be outdate but they are rather good at dogfighter and interceptors.

KYli · Feb 21, 2006

IDont said:
How accurate are those missiles? [

FT200 is as good as S300. others are also good medium air defence missiles.

The main problem of the US airwar is basing. There are the carriers, Guam, Okinawa, and possibly Taiwan. The carriers are highly mobile and trying to locate and attack them is another discussion entirely. Let's just say they are very very difficult to attack. Second is basing...Guam can host the US bombers while Okinawa and Taiwan will have the US fighter planes. (Hypothetical scenario ignoring political consideration) As far as I know, Taiwan and Okinawa have very excellent hardened shelters. Does the PLAAF have the accuracy of hitting these with their ballistic missiles? Do they have "bunker buster" type guided munitions designed to take out steel reinforced concrete?

Since US probably will not bring all of their carriers, Guam only host the US bombers while OKinawa do have their limit. I have doubt US phanes deployment could exceed one thousand. I seriouly doubt US planes will base at Taiwan, but since we are not allow to talk about Taiwan. I would not go into details. Taiwan is too close to China, if US do not have major force station at there. It won't be such good idea. The ballistic missiles have improve greatly, and the modifield missiles will probably pretty accurate and powerful.

If your read my post earlier, one of the things I stressed is AEW. PLAAF is just not up to speed in tracking and organizing those numbers of aircraft plus processing the multitude of information from a fluid air battle. How will they handle IFF? How accurately vector armed aircraft to hostiles, empty aircraft to tankers, and aircraft with no ammo to go down and reload? If you are a SAM commander, how would you know if what your shooting at is hostile or friendly? That is even before we factor in decoys and jamming. IF you only know the capabilities of the Prowlers. It can disrupt both radar AND communication signals. So a PLAAF pilot may received false data, etc...

In the post above, I already answer the AEW or ELint, so I will only answer the others things in this message.
That will be true if US is doing defensive, but since US is doing the offensive. The effective of decoys and jamming will greatly decrease, and China will also doing its' part of jamming and decoys also.

All I can see is, China is good- but not that good. It still has a long way to go before it can stand toe to toe with the US.

I will say again. US has more powerful Airforce, and there are no dispute about it. But in a defensive battle, China do not need to match toe to toe with the US. Since China have a vast landmass, and huge infrastucture and huge but medium tech Air force and Air defence. It will not be as easy as you think to defeat China and gain air superior.

Comparing 1990 with today

SampanViking

The Capitalist

bd popeye

The Last Jedi

IDonT

Senior Member

KYli

Brigadier

SampanViking

The Capitalist

Roger604

Senior Member

IDonT

Senior Member

SampanViking

The Capitalist

KYli

Brigadier

KYli

Brigadier