Countering Western SAMs

Okay, as most of us would agree, US air defence systems would totally mop up any current Chinese aircraft in a battle where China atempts to gain air superiority. China currently does not have the technology to deal with such advance anti-air missiles such as the patriot and whatever the US is dishing out every year.

But ins't there a much cheaper alternative than produce aircraft systems with high-end jammers and stealth? Lets look at what I believe is the real picture: Yes, China is advancing steadily in its military tech, but every step we make, the Americans and other rivals gain another ahead of us.

One of my favourite quotes is:
"The best solutions are usually the most simple".
and:
"A soldier with a gun but no bullets would soon be a dead soldier."

Here I would list some of the key points why US modern air defense (mobile launchers) would kickass:

• The missiles themselves are fill with dozens of high tech gadgets to make them almost 100% lethal against any conventional Chinese aircraft
• Those passive sensors make it alot harder to detect and destroy a mobile air defense launcher
• Any Chinese aircraft would probably be shot down before the pilot can even detect the mobile launcher(s)
• We can assume that these launchers would have anti-munition countermeasures to deal with a Chinese ASM

[/LIST]
[/LIST]

Of course, no matter what kind of high end hardware the Americans come up with, there is one weakness that would always be prominent.........sooner or later, a mobile launcher would run out of missiles to shoot at planes. If we can launch some kind of flying decoys before we enter the fighters, it could be possible to expend a mobile launcher's ammunition, hence rendering it useless against any passing Chinese aircraft. The main question is, how many missiles can a mobile launcher carry?

Would it be possible for the the PRC to manufacture aircraft loaded decoys (or any type of decoy) that would fool and empty out Western anti-air defense? Would it be economically and military feasible to employ such a strategy?

Heres something to illustrate:



if you can't read it heres a link to original:

What air defenses? Land based? Sea based? In what theater? Because it just fanstasy to believe anytime soon China is about to attack the US which is what you're suggesting. And when people usually draw up these scenarios in these types of forums, they only allow factors that favor their situation only. Nothing realistic at all. Yeah, I'm sure if one side got to define how the other side fights, they'd win all the time.

Let's not go through this again about documented flaws in American air defenses in real wartime environments as shown in places like Iraq. US defenses aren't 100% invunerable like much of the hype out there says. I can bring those incidents up again but I know how it ruffles the feathers to hear how US defenses have been defeated by the most obsolete of technology.

If the US is always one step ahead, then why all the alarm about China closing the gap?

Clariify the scenario, please.

You're aliases wouldn't happen to be anything like Americanoilman or WorldPolice? You have the same passive aggressive tone. If that is you... now don't get riled like before when people dare to counter. It's called freedom of speech.

who says the the US and PRC have to be at war. I mean the US military has had to deal with PRC weapon systems without engaging the PLA. Iraq for example the US shoot up PRC APCs. Also for the Chinese arms industry that would the best selling point. A system that could reduce effectivness of US made SAM systems.
Now to the issue of trying to beat the system. Simple Have a bomer with loaded with non leatha long range cruise missles to deploy massive heat and light flares. A long missiles with a bursts alumium confedee or metals that are easily picked up by radar. This mixed bag of party favors should blind any system like snow storm. It should not be about hiding planes but not letting them know how many are coming or where from.

The S-300/400 series is not that bad. According to gf0021-aust of DT, Russians have traditionally had superior systems. There is no evidence that Chinese aircraft can't counter Patriot missiles if they have air superiority over the area.

* The missiles themselves are fill with dozens of high tech gadgets to make them almost 100% lethal against any conventional Chinese aircraft

Click to expand...

If AMRAAM can't have 100% kill rate vs opposing aircraft, what do you think the much larger and less maneuverable SAM will be able to do.

* Those passive sensors make it alot harder to detect and destroy a mobile air defense launcher

Click to expand...

which missile system are you talking about? Certainly not PAC. So what if it's mobile? Do you think the launcher can move and do air defense at the same time?

* Any Chinese aircraft would probably be shot down before the pilot can even detect the mobile launcher(s)

Click to expand...

Where do you even get stuff like this? Maybe you should check up the detection range of some of these systems.

* We can assume that these launchers would have anti-munition countermeasures to deal with a Chinese ASM

Click to expand...

anti-munition countermeasures? you mean SAM?

Okay, to clarify, the scenario is where a initial intrusion from a enemy force (not neccessary US, I personally believe a direct war between America and PRC is less than 0.01% probable) manages to secure a part of chinese territory and the enemy sets up US-made air defence components around its forward bases. Chinese forces then counterattack, first by deploying ground attack aircraft to soften up targets for the main ground force. This mostly applies to a land base theatre of war. Also, a action against Taiwanese coastal air defence can apply.

The anti-munition refers to the new anti-projectile systems the US are developing to protect land vehicles from RPGs and missiles.

Sorry about my vague points, I am a simple high school student with much to learn. Hey, thats why I sign up for this forum, to ask questions and learn. Thank you tphuang and AssassinsMace for correcting me, and ABC78 for the comment.

Okay, now that I have been told that US SAMs dont have 100% kill rate (it seems that I have been mislead by the words of Discovery Channel documentaries), can I still assume that US SAMs still have a high kill rate against Chinese aircraft? All this hype about US weaponary being top end and highly dependable, I don't know who to believe. You see, I don't want to underestimate or overestimate the capabilities of these things.

Also, I was not aware the mobile launchers can not fire their weapons while on the move.

Now, can anyone answer the original question? Would the stated strategy work on US or any other Western military system?

If the US is always one step ahead, then why all the alarm about China closing the gap?

Click to expand...

The alarm is created by sabre rattling neo-cons. The neo-cons & the DoD need to keep congress thinking about possible foes so when they ask for more money they get it.

Let's not go through this again about documented flaws in American air defenses in real wartime environments as shown in places like Iraq. US defenses aren't 100% invunerable like much of the hype out there says. I can bring those incidents up again but I know how it ruffles the feathers to hear how US defenses have been defeated by the most obsolete of technology.

Click to expand...

Smart move on your part. We don't need another flame war.

All SAMs, both western and Russian, suffer from the same critical disadvantage; they always start their intercept at zero(0) speed and at zero (0) elevation. That is the main reason why US doctrine in air-defence does rely on air superiority fighter than the SAM. It is much easier for an air superiority fighter to destroy an enemy aircraft than a SAM, because it can manuever and any missile fired have an advantage in elevation and speed (energy state) when it is actually fired at an enemy.

The best way to gain air superiority over the US is to defeat its air force. This is infinitely harder than destroying the SAM sites.

A few comments-What? Does this system ONLY work against WESTERN systems? Does it do nothing against a Russian one?

Other than that...I think that this is a good idea. You guys are being overly hard on it. The only problem is that Kovona is not demonstrating its use in the proper scenario.

This decoy system is much more useful if it used in conjuctuion with a larege cruise missle attack. Just one plane could theoretically carry dozens. It would force the enemy to guess which radar signatures are the real missles and which are the decoys, at least initially. Imagine a few plane-loads of decoys being let loose in conjunction with a large cruise missle strike on, say, Taiwan. It would tax their radar tracking capability, force them to fire missles at decoys and generally help overwhelm the defences.

So should this be a strategy used by the PLA, and would it be wise for the PLA to develop equipment and training for this sort of thing?