Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

plawolf said:

Just because the Israelis were able to such down the export version of Russian systems supplied to Syria is not any indication that they can do the same to China's.

It would also be interesting to know how the Syrian systems were networked. The Chinese have long relied upon hardline fiber-optic communications for their air defense network. It would be almost standard that such a network would be secure and isolated. That means you will need to physically access the hard line in order to gain access.

Click to expand...

Quite some time ago I was reading on howthe Chinese were beefing up the Iraq's air defence system in the wake of GW1. This also involved the laying of fibre optics and possibly supplying the Iraqis with those laser dazzler unit thingys.
My question is , how well did the Iraqi air defences perform in GW2 after this chinese help.

bladerunner said:

Quite some time ago I was reading on howthe Chinese were beefing up the Iraq's air defence system in the wake of GW1. This also involved the laying of fibre optics and possibly supplying the Iraqis with those laser dazzler unit thingys.
My question is , how well did the Iraqi air defences perform in GW2 after this chinese help.

Click to expand...

I would expect that whatever you sold to others will not be the best of what you employed and are using. And given that Iraq fared pretty badly in GW2... and somehow I noticed that there are very limited air campaign, so in actual fact Iraq didn't put up much of a fight.

GW1 and GW2 is totally different manner, whereby during GW2, it was more like beating a dead dog, while GW1 might be a bit different.

Anyway, if the Chinese are the one that integrate all the air defence of Iraq, then they probably will get to learn something about how badly the defence fared.

Plus, like I had always state, to fight a war defensively... you will always end up as the ultimate loser. China must and I believe already had the best defence any country would have... and that is the capability to strike you where you hurt. So unless you can totally wiped out China's entire defences and offensive weaponries in the first go... the second strikes capability will hurt alot. And that is the best deterrence agaisnt any potential enemies.

noname said:

At one time about every city in the USA with a population of over 10,000 people had a trolly, if it was efficent enought many of them still would have such a system.

Let me ask a question, since China just bought 15 batteries of S300 from Russia why would Chiina buy Missles if it could produce sopisticated anti-aircraft missles?

Since Israel and I expect the USA has in all probability already obtained and countered that S300 technology as I suspect from Greece why would any one expect it to be worth while....

Also why would Russia sell S300 to China if the technology still has value since they expect China to copy the technology and resell it. Is it because Russia thinks the technology is worthless.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

China is in the midst of modernizing long range sam. They are buying both S300 and HQ9 to improve the air defense.
They have actually expanded many HQ-9 battalions. And Russians produce S-300 at really good value and really fast too. China already has something at least on the same level as S-300.
They've finally gotten to the point where HQ-9 is mature and can be mass produced. So they don't really need to buy S-300 anymore. They may choose to buy certain subsystems like command station, search radar or target radar to improve redundancy in air defense, but we will have to wait and see. They are buying a lot of that from Belarus too.

China's export version HQ-9 is at least PMU1 level. Is the domestic version PMU2 level? I expect what they are researching now with the ballistic missile intercepts is the PMU3 level, i.e. S-400.

tphuang said:

China is in the midst of modernizing long range sam. They are buying both S300 and HQ9 to improve the air defense.
They have actually expanded many HQ-9 battalions. And Russians produce S-300 at really good value and really fast too. China already has something at least on the same level as S-300.
They've finally gotten to the point where HQ-9 is mature and can be mass produced. So they don't really need to buy S-300 anymore. They may choose to buy certain subsystems like command station, search radar or target radar to improve redundancy in air defense, but we will have to wait and see. They are buying a lot of that from Belarus too.

Click to expand...

Hey TPhuang I've heard about the rumor that the S-300 that the Russians exported to China can't lock on to Russian planes. Is this true? If so has the Chinese modified the missiles so that they could lock-on to any non-Chinese planes? (They'd have a hard time deploying them along the Northern borders if that were the case lol).

Because of China's great size and topography, and because of her extensive and growing rail networks, I think the most logical thing would be to have a SAM train system. Similar to the german WWII flak train, but carrying batteries of S-300 or HQ-9 instead. These trains could hide in rail tunnels under high mountains and still maintain communications with the center. The center could coordinate these trains and dilute or concentrate them in areas where air attack is coming. The americans would have a hell of a time finding and destroying these SAM trains. The SAM trains could also still be complemented by FLAK trains with the latest chinese swiss designed contraves type of multi barrelled flak guns.
I am also a firm believer in the use of proximity /fragmentation type of warheads. This would do well against F35, or B1/2 type of narrow cross section wide area aircraft with wide engine intakes.
As an american, I feel sad that america is going the way Rome is going, Rome still had the most formidable army in the world in the 3rd century AD. But arrogance and folly of their leaders led them to multi disasters against enemies such as the Goths and Sassanid persians.
I personally think America's picking a fight with China is uncalled for. China and the US share no borders, China and the US have much symmetries than asymmetries. Till today, it is the dream of many chinese to go , study and prosper in the US. This was the same aspiration, the germanic tribes north of the Rhine and Danube had for Rome. But like Rome, America despised and suspect the Chinese as the Romans did to her german neighbors. I am saddened greatly by my country's failed foreign policies , most particularly her anatagonistic attitude to China which in no time will create the very power that will destroy her. Recall the burning of Rome in 455AD by Alaric.
Cheers
Clive

Hi Clive

Off topic somewhat, but today,s China Daily carried an opinion piece which looked at the same issue and illustrated it with a delightful story from the warring states period.

There is an anti-militarism paradigmatic story from China's Warring States Period (475-221 BC) that is widely circulated in ancient Chinese literature. A conversation between two characters later recorded in the Huai Nan Zi version is translated below:

Wei-wu-hou (the martial marquis of the state of Wei) asks Li Ke (the prime minister): "What is the reason for the state of Wu to perish?"

Li Ke answers: "Wu had frequent battles and frequent victories."

Wei-wu-hou says: "Frequent battles and frequent victories are a blessing for a state. Why Wu perished for this very reason?"

Li Ke says: "Frequent battles impoverish people. Frequent victories create false pride in leaders. When proud leaders manage impoverished people, for that state not to perish is rare indeed. The false pride in leaders leads to licentiousness, and licentiousness leads to exhaustive wastage of resources. The impoverishment of people leads to complaining, and complaining leads to exhaustive worry. When the leaders and the people both are exhausted, the self-destruction of the state of Wu is not a moment too soon."

Click to expand...

The commentators on that article just can't seem to understand how important good economics is to sustainable national well-being, so similar to the yahoo commentators.

SampanViking said:

Hi Clive

Off topic somewhat, but today,s China Daily carried an opinion piece which looked at the same issue and illustrated it with a delightful story from the warring states period.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Well that pretty well lets the USA out, we usually cant wait 4 years to throw the bumbs out at the next election. Also you cant count Iraq and Afghanstan as much of a war, USA has only lost about 600 men a year in the last 9 years. I doubt if the railroads are going to be much of an asset in a war for China. Because China is very dependent on railroads those will be the first targets, especially bridges. One of main reasons for the USA Interstate road system was in case of a nuclear war.

President Eisenhower the importance of efficient highways. In the 1950s, America was frightened of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union (people were even building bomb shelters at home). It was thought that a modern interstate highway system could provide citizens with evacuation routes from the cities and would also allow the rapid movement of military equipment across the country.

noname said:

Well that pretty well lets the USA out, we usually cant wait 4 years to throw the bumbs out at the next election. Also you cant count Iraq and Afghanstan as much of a war, USA has only lost about 600 men a year in the last 9 years. I doubt if the railroads are going to be much of an asset in a war for China. Because China is very dependent on railroads those will be the first targets, especially bridges. One of main reasons for the USA Interstate road system was in case of a nuclear war.

President Eisenhower the importance of efficient highways. In the 1950s, America was frightened of nuclear attack by the Soviet Union (people were even building bomb shelters at home). It was thought that a modern interstate highway system could provide citizens with evacuation routes from the cities and would also allow the rapid movement of military equipment across the country.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

I am sure a physical war isn't what he was talking about there...