Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
Londo Molari
Junior Member
Its a pretty thick air defense with lots of fighters and layers of SAM. So it would be too costly to painful and expensive to use fighters. US would have to use stealth bombers and fighters to take out SAMs and attack fighters on the ground. Then its possible to win. Otherwise China is safe.
I tend to view strategic defense as a part of the equation as well.
for GW1, according to wikipedia, coalition forces assemebled 1820 aircraft (1376 american), 8 carriers (6 US CV), which took about a month to clear the skies and acheive total air supremacy.
if the Chinese-US tech gap remains similar to the US-Iraq back then, then by sheer area estimation where China is 20 times larger will mean that 20 times the aircraft will be required to achieve similar results. this is also not taking into consideration the majority of US strike aircraft cannot transverse the width of China nor did the US have bases surrounding China (in Russia, or India, etc).
so I would believe that China can absorb a potential US air strike because the US pocesses 11 CVBG on which around 1000 will be stationed. even with the forces Japan, Korea and Philippines - there simpliy is insufficient strike aircraft able to confidently eliminate Chinese second and third strike capability.
nor could the US maintain such a fleet within strike range without the Chinese knowing and therefore reacting. Also, I doubt the US will put all its eggs in one basket, 11 tactical nuke can basically eliminate the US naval dominance.
for GW1, according to wikipedia, coalition forces assemebled 1820 aircraft (1376 american), 8 carriers (6 US CV), which took about a month to clear the skies and acheive total air supremacy.
if the Chinese-US tech gap remains similar to the US-Iraq back then, then by sheer area estimation where China is 20 times larger will mean that 20 times the aircraft will be required to achieve similar results. this is also not taking into consideration the majority of US strike aircraft cannot transverse the width of China nor did the US have bases surrounding China (in Russia, or India, etc).
so I would believe that China can absorb a potential US air strike because the US pocesses 11 CVBG on which around 1000 will be stationed. even with the forces Japan, Korea and Philippines - there simpliy is insufficient strike aircraft able to confidently eliminate Chinese second and third strike capability.
nor could the US maintain such a fleet within strike range without the Chinese knowing and therefore reacting. Also, I doubt the US will put all its eggs in one basket, 11 tactical nuke can basically eliminate the US naval dominance.
Basically I believe the main deterrence of China to prevent an US strike would not be her air defence... It would be the nuke.
US would not be stupid enough to strike CHina as would CHina wouldn't risking an all out nuclear warfare which will most likely ended in a third world war. I believe that China's air defence is aimed more likely against strikes on her mainland by countries like Japan, SK and Taiwan.
Against other nuclear armed countries... the only deterrence will only be nuclear. Limited war and airstrikes are almost not possible to happen... and not on CHina's mainland.
US would not be stupid enough to strike CHina as would CHina wouldn't risking an all out nuclear warfare which will most likely ended in a third world war. I believe that China's air defence is aimed more likely against strikes on her mainland by countries like Japan, SK and Taiwan.
Against other nuclear armed countries... the only deterrence will only be nuclear. Limited war and airstrikes are almost not possible to happen... and not on CHina's mainland.
solarz
Brigadier
Let's not bring nukes into this, because the only conclusion from that is MAD. Instead, I'm more interested in knowing how well China can defend her important coastal cities from air strikes.
Remember the opium war? The British didn't try to occupy China or launch a ground invasion. Instead, they used their superior naval firepower to raid Qing's coastal cities, and they were impossible for the Qing's navy to catch or to defeat if they did catch them. Would an American-led NATO force be able to pull a similar tactic (except with airstrikes instead of cannons) today?
Well this is only going to be hypothetical since there is really no reason for the U.S. to destroy their own factories
...If the U.S. wants to raid the coastal cities air power by itself isn't going to cut it. The thick SAM network and large air force is going to make air superiority too costly for the American forces to achieve, unless a significant number of stealth fighters are employed. Cruise and ballistic missiles seem to be a better alternative.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
China's defense is as much economics as it is military. Those important Chinese coastal cities create as much wealth for American and other western nations as they do for China, and much of the world has become quite dependent on Chinese exports. To 'raid' those cities would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face, to use an old saying.
In terms of sheer military power alone, the picture isn't very clear cut either. The US has only a few air bases within range of China, all of which are not hardened and within land based missile range of PLA forces, never mind air and naval launched weapons. It will be extremely difficult to operate out of those bases for any length of time, and almost impossible to do so without heavy losses on the ground.
Without total air dominance, the US will never risk its precious B2s. They might be effective against fixed ground based SAMs, but they are by no means invisible to radar. What more, they are said to be detectable by low frequency radars. Not good enough to guide missiles with, but certainly good enough to vector in fighters. Once you get a powerful enough radar emitting close enough, any stealth target will show up, especially if its getting illuminated at an unfavorable angle, such as from above.
Point being, if you send B2s in unsupported, then there is a very good chance they will get shot down.
That means that the primary strike assets will have to come from USN carriers. In this game, detection is key. If the PLA can find the carriers, they can kill them quite comfortably since the PLAAF and PLANAF has enough strike aircraft, subs and FACs etc to launch more than enough missiles to completely overwhelm a carrier battle group's defenses. And with China relying on Chinese weapons and China's industrial capabilities, it will go for overkill and such a strike could easily wipe out an entire battle group with plenty of missiles to spare.
Until the F35 comes online, the USN's primary strike aircraft the FA18E does not enjoy many advantages against current front-line PLA fighters, so even if the PLA has trouble finding the carriers, the strike packages coming in will still have a very hard time. Especially if you factor in things like ground and PLAN naval radars and missiles, as well as the PLA's own AWACS and tanker Assets.
If the US brings all 11 carriers as well as all its SSGNs and most of all its fleets as well as be willing to take heavy losses keeping their island airbases open, then they can overwhelm the PLA conventionally. But it will come at a very heavy price, certainly at an exchange rate that will make US generals and politicians bulk. And that is not factoring in the very real possibly that the PLA might resort to the use of tactical nukes if things really started to go south for them.
The US would then be left in a very difficult position. If the PLA used nukes on US naval assets, a tactical nuclear strike against Chinese military targets based on the Chinese mainland could easily be seen as an escalation into the strategic use area, as no-one can tell exactly where the nukes will land until very close to detonation. But the PLA would be able to tell pretty early on that the American nukes are aimed at mainland China, so they may mistake that for a full strategic strike and initiate MAD against the US before the US missiles hit.
Even if the US does risk it and launch tactical attacks, its still a bad trade for them, as they loose their navy in exchange for PLA forces that must already be pretty battered at this stage to force Beijing into the use of nukes in the first place.
War between nuclear powers are always filled with massive risk and uncertainty. That's one of the reasons two nuclear powers have never gone to war with each other yet - there is just no way to tell where that will end, so all sides have been more willing to seek out peaceful compromises.
In terms of sheer military power alone, the picture isn't very clear cut either. The US has only a few air bases within range of China, all of which are not hardened and within land based missile range of PLA forces, never mind air and naval launched weapons. It will be extremely difficult to operate out of those bases for any length of time, and almost impossible to do so without heavy losses on the ground.
Without total air dominance, the US will never risk its precious B2s. They might be effective against fixed ground based SAMs, but they are by no means invisible to radar. What more, they are said to be detectable by low frequency radars. Not good enough to guide missiles with, but certainly good enough to vector in fighters. Once you get a powerful enough radar emitting close enough, any stealth target will show up, especially if its getting illuminated at an unfavorable angle, such as from above.
Point being, if you send B2s in unsupported, then there is a very good chance they will get shot down.
That means that the primary strike assets will have to come from USN carriers. In this game, detection is key. If the PLA can find the carriers, they can kill them quite comfortably since the PLAAF and PLANAF has enough strike aircraft, subs and FACs etc to launch more than enough missiles to completely overwhelm a carrier battle group's defenses. And with China relying on Chinese weapons and China's industrial capabilities, it will go for overkill and such a strike could easily wipe out an entire battle group with plenty of missiles to spare.
Until the F35 comes online, the USN's primary strike aircraft the FA18E does not enjoy many advantages against current front-line PLA fighters, so even if the PLA has trouble finding the carriers, the strike packages coming in will still have a very hard time. Especially if you factor in things like ground and PLAN naval radars and missiles, as well as the PLA's own AWACS and tanker Assets.
If the US brings all 11 carriers as well as all its SSGNs and most of all its fleets as well as be willing to take heavy losses keeping their island airbases open, then they can overwhelm the PLA conventionally. But it will come at a very heavy price, certainly at an exchange rate that will make US generals and politicians bulk. And that is not factoring in the very real possibly that the PLA might resort to the use of tactical nukes if things really started to go south for them.
The US would then be left in a very difficult position. If the PLA used nukes on US naval assets, a tactical nuclear strike against Chinese military targets based on the Chinese mainland could easily be seen as an escalation into the strategic use area, as no-one can tell exactly where the nukes will land until very close to detonation. But the PLA would be able to tell pretty early on that the American nukes are aimed at mainland China, so they may mistake that for a full strategic strike and initiate MAD against the US before the US missiles hit.
Even if the US does risk it and launch tactical attacks, its still a bad trade for them, as they loose their navy in exchange for PLA forces that must already be pretty battered at this stage to force Beijing into the use of nukes in the first place.
War between nuclear powers are always filled with massive risk and uncertainty. That's one of the reasons two nuclear powers have never gone to war with each other yet - there is just no way to tell where that will end, so all sides have been more willing to seek out peaceful compromises.
solarz
Brigadier
Thank you for the in-depth analysis!
One thing I don't understand is, how are ground-based SAMs effective against fighter jets? Are the missiles that much faster than jets?
Also, I believe there are US aircrafts that operate at an altitude outside the range of Chinese detection/SAMs. How would China defend against such aircrafts?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Modern SAMs travel at high supersonic speeds, there is no outrunning them unless you have a fighter designed for speed and the missile was launched at you from the edge of its engagement envelop. You get within the effective combat range of a modern SAM like the S300 or HQ9 and you are in deep trouble.
And I do not know what aircraft you are talking about that can fly above the operating ceiling of modern long range SAMs. Just as an example, the F22's service ceiling is 60,000ft, which is roughly 18,000m. The S300's operating ceiling is 25,000m.
SAMs are really a second line defense, as they are fairly static and have limited mobility. They are there to catch anything that gets past your primary line of defense, which are you own fighters.
The role of the defending fighters are to try and intercept the incoming strikers before they can launch their stand-off weapons. If they can get to the attackers, they can force mission kills as the aggressors are forced to ditch their munitions to defend themselves. If they cannot reach the attackers before they launch, a portion of the defending fighters can peel off and aim to shoot down as many of the income cruise missiles as possible before they get within SAM range. The fighters would also be able to provide the exact vector the missiles are coming in from, so that AAA and SAM sites could be read and waiting for them.
With a fighter screen in place, the PLAAF will happily intercept USN cruise missiles all day long as they have the numbers to keep enough planes on rotation 24/7.
Cruise missiles don't grow on trees, and USN ships only carry a finite amount. Cruise missiles are the scalpel of the USN, they might make deep cuts, but against someone as large and resilient as China, it will only be an irritant on its own. The USN's main hammer weapon are its freefall and glide bombs, of which they carry vast quantities of.
But to use them, they will have to get uncomfortably close to their targets. That means a requirement to neutralize the PLA's air cover as well as SAMs, or else they will never be able to land a telling blow. But it will be very difficult and costly to try and do that. With what the USN has compared to what China has.
And I do not know what aircraft you are talking about that can fly above the operating ceiling of modern long range SAMs. Just as an example, the F22's service ceiling is 60,000ft, which is roughly 18,000m. The S300's operating ceiling is 25,000m.
SAMs are really a second line defense, as they are fairly static and have limited mobility. They are there to catch anything that gets past your primary line of defense, which are you own fighters.
The role of the defending fighters are to try and intercept the incoming strikers before they can launch their stand-off weapons. If they can get to the attackers, they can force mission kills as the aggressors are forced to ditch their munitions to defend themselves. If they cannot reach the attackers before they launch, a portion of the defending fighters can peel off and aim to shoot down as many of the income cruise missiles as possible before they get within SAM range. The fighters would also be able to provide the exact vector the missiles are coming in from, so that AAA and SAM sites could be read and waiting for them.
With a fighter screen in place, the PLAAF will happily intercept USN cruise missiles all day long as they have the numbers to keep enough planes on rotation 24/7.
Cruise missiles don't grow on trees, and USN ships only carry a finite amount. Cruise missiles are the scalpel of the USN, they might make deep cuts, but against someone as large and resilient as China, it will only be an irritant on its own. The USN's main hammer weapon are its freefall and glide bombs, of which they carry vast quantities of.
But to use them, they will have to get uncomfortably close to their targets. That means a requirement to neutralize the PLA's air cover as well as SAMs, or else they will never be able to land a telling blow. But it will be very difficult and costly to try and do that. With what the USN has compared to what China has.
The opium war is a very bad example - and it by itself did not bring down the Qing. you had the Qing, swords and bow versus the Brits with guns and cannons.
During the 8 nation alliance/ boxer rebellion period, to bring china to her knees, the 8 nations did land around 50,000 men. Can NATO do that today? or the better question is, Can NATO accept the losses, that they will face?
Tactical nukes are very relevant to this question. The US IIRC considers an attack on their flat tops a direct assault on the mainland. Is it that hard for China to feel that a CVBG is a WMD? - With each supper FA18 carrying 8 metric ton of ordinance, 90 from a carrier will be able to deliver 720 tons of ordinance theoretically. swap in TNT equivalent, thats 0.7 kilo ton which is more than the minimal setting on a variable yield B61 bomb (0.3 kilo ton).
So if the US do launch an all out air strike, I won't be suprized that the response is several 1 kilo ton tactical nukes delivered by DF21 to each CVBG.