Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
Just because they were the best in a region doesn't make them competitive to NATO. The only thing that would of made the Libyan IADS competitive to the NATO air offensive was if Russia delivered their S-300s quickly. That didn't happen. The difference between the Chinese IADS and Libyan IADS has already been stated. Chances are, if say, an invasion of China from the U.S., we'll probably end up securing air dominance over small regions, i.e. cities, but then leave the rest of the air space for the PLAAF. China is simply too advanced, too numerous of equipment, and too numerous of land mass for NATO air forces to establish air dominance or even air supremacy in a reasonable amount of time. Most likely it'll be like Battle of Britain as one guy said.
williamhou
Junior Member
I think China needs to strengthen its air defense against cruise missiles (especially Tomahawk strikes), China's current air defense is too weak to defend itself. PLA should learn something from NATO's action in Libya - I mean how to defend against air strikes, not how to attack like NATO, as China is not so interested in attacking other countries, naturally.
While PLA is much stronger than the Libyan army and can deter surface combatants to keep a distance from the mainland initially, Tomahawk has a range of 1000km+, can PLA be a threat to a modern fleet, most likely a CVBG, 1000km+ from the mainland?
Hostile subs - yeah that's a real problem, probably will remain a problem for quite some time, and some very quiet subs carry loads of Tomahawks.
Tomahawks are used to achieve air superiority by taking out air defenses and key assets, they are quite often used before air superiority is achieved, and it has proven itself over and over again.
How can the likes of J7 be an effective measure to counter mass cruise missile attacks? Shoot them using PL-9/PL-10??
Point defense systems: Tomahawks will probably be spotted by radars (some latest cruise missiles have stealth features, but let's not make it too hard for China, for now...) - PLA's latest SAMs (not the long range ones) and AAA could be effective to a certain extent - but they can only defend a small area, and we know Tomahawk users use the missiles generously. Can the point defense systems handle several Tomahawks at the same time? 5 missiles coming in short intervals, if PLA could intercept 80% (that's quite impressive...), 1 still hits the radar station and will weaken/disable the SAMs, and it gets easier to penetrate the air defense.
Long-range SAMs - if they are effective against cruise missiles, how many S-300, S-300PMU and HQ-9 China can deploy in a certain area? And we do roughly know where they are currently deployed - what about those vast areas with coverage? And are they really effective against cruise missiles? I hope someone knows.
CIWS is effective against slow cruise missiles, however we don't see a lot in the army. Key assets including radar stations and SAM batteries need to have adequate CIWS protection.
And...we haven't considered stealth fighters and stealth bombers that can take the lead in air strikes.
China is lucky such a strike against it not very likely in the near future, however as time goes and political environment changes, it should really learn how to defend the world's second largest economy effectively.
While PLA is much stronger than the Libyan army and can deter surface combatants to keep a distance from the mainland initially, Tomahawk has a range of 1000km+, can PLA be a threat to a modern fleet, most likely a CVBG, 1000km+ from the mainland?
Hostile subs - yeah that's a real problem, probably will remain a problem for quite some time, and some very quiet subs carry loads of Tomahawks.
Tomahawks are used to achieve air superiority by taking out air defenses and key assets, they are quite often used before air superiority is achieved, and it has proven itself over and over again.
How can the likes of J7 be an effective measure to counter mass cruise missile attacks? Shoot them using PL-9/PL-10??
Point defense systems: Tomahawks will probably be spotted by radars (some latest cruise missiles have stealth features, but let's not make it too hard for China, for now...) - PLA's latest SAMs (not the long range ones) and AAA could be effective to a certain extent - but they can only defend a small area, and we know Tomahawk users use the missiles generously. Can the point defense systems handle several Tomahawks at the same time? 5 missiles coming in short intervals, if PLA could intercept 80% (that's quite impressive...), 1 still hits the radar station and will weaken/disable the SAMs, and it gets easier to penetrate the air defense.
Long-range SAMs - if they are effective against cruise missiles, how many S-300, S-300PMU and HQ-9 China can deploy in a certain area? And we do roughly know where they are currently deployed - what about those vast areas with coverage? And are they really effective against cruise missiles? I hope someone knows.
CIWS is effective against slow cruise missiles, however we don't see a lot in the army. Key assets including radar stations and SAM batteries need to have adequate CIWS protection.
And...we haven't considered stealth fighters and stealth bombers that can take the lead in air strikes.
China is lucky such a strike against it not very likely in the near future, however as time goes and political environment changes, it should really learn how to defend the world's second largest economy effectively.
IronsightSniper
Junior Member
I'm quite sure that China follows the Soviet Air Defense tactic of lots of high-mobility radar stations, so those are probably safe, unless prior knowledge of their whereabouts is attained by the NATO strike force. However, China most likely does have several high-powered strategic radar stations that are the bread and the butter of the Chinese IADS, most of the time, such stations are immobile, however, some can still be mobile, but requires at least 24 hours of deployment time. Assuming the target is an immobile Chinese strategic radar post, and said post is guarded by Low-altitude radars, the Tomahawk, which cruises at 100 m altitude at about 245 meters per second, that low-altitude radar should detect the Tomahawk from 50 km away, which means that there would be about 200 seconds before impact, enough time for preparation from cold start to engagement by Chinese defense systems. I doubt Naval CIWS would be used in said defenses, but Chinese Short-Medium range tactical air defenses like the Tor missile system and or Buk missile system should have no problem engaging the incoming tomahawks.
In regards to Chinese strategic SAMs, they are able to engage cruise missiles, although they probably wouldn't be used as such. Most likely, they're there to hit high-value targets like AWACs, or strategic bombers like B-52. I wouldn't know much about China's anti-stealth technologies, but if they're on par with Russian ones, the F-22 and B-2 should be relatively safe.
vesicles
Colonel
Let's leave the sophistication of weapon systems alone and only consider the intangibles. Fighting a country the size of China is so much different than fighting a country the size of Libya. A couple of strikes would be needed to secure the air space in Libya. China, however, is completely different. Even IF (that's a big IF) the coastal areas are completely penetrated, China still has the vast interior areas. Those airbases and strategic facilities located in the central, Western, Northern and Southern parts of China would be safe. These facilities can continuously supply fighters, AAA, missiles, etc. to the East without having to worry too much about being attacked. The supply line would be a lot more efficient than the attacking navy, which needs to be supplied on the sea. This supply line would be completely exposed.
Assuming some navy is using Tomahawk to attack China's Eastern coast from 1000 km away. It should be easy to assume that China's air defense is thick enough that they would need a huge number of missiles to penetrate the defense. So the said navy would have to dedicate the majority of their missiles to attack targets in a small area. While those missiles are traveling to their targets in Eastern China, PLA fighters and missiles in other areas in China would immediately mount counter attacks against ships and subs of the attacking navy. Yes, the subs are hard to detect, but once they launch their missiles, their positions are completely exposed. Yes, there is a possibility that the attacking navy may be able to penetrate China's air defense on the East coast and destroy a few targets, but at the same time, the attacking navy will also be under attack by China's air force and navy from other areas. China is simply too vast for the kind of tactics used by NATO to attack Libya to work.
Another factor is the finance. Each Tomahawk costs a lot of money (hundreds of millions?? I'm totally guessing here...). They would need to use less than 100 to completely finish off Libya. How many do you think they would need to penetrate China's air defense on the East coast, let alone the entire China? A lot more than 100, I would guess. Can any economy support this kind of usage?
The strategies developed in fighting all the recent wars by the West is useless in fighting China, IMHO...
Assuming some navy is using Tomahawk to attack China's Eastern coast from 1000 km away. It should be easy to assume that China's air defense is thick enough that they would need a huge number of missiles to penetrate the defense. So the said navy would have to dedicate the majority of their missiles to attack targets in a small area. While those missiles are traveling to their targets in Eastern China, PLA fighters and missiles in other areas in China would immediately mount counter attacks against ships and subs of the attacking navy. Yes, the subs are hard to detect, but once they launch their missiles, their positions are completely exposed. Yes, there is a possibility that the attacking navy may be able to penetrate China's air defense on the East coast and destroy a few targets, but at the same time, the attacking navy will also be under attack by China's air force and navy from other areas. China is simply too vast for the kind of tactics used by NATO to attack Libya to work.
Another factor is the finance. Each Tomahawk costs a lot of money (hundreds of millions?? I'm totally guessing here...). They would need to use less than 100 to completely finish off Libya. How many do you think they would need to penetrate China's air defense on the East coast, let alone the entire China? A lot more than 100, I would guess. Can any economy support this kind of usage?
The strategies developed in fighting all the recent wars by the West is useless in fighting China, IMHO...
vesicles
Colonel
The main strategy used by NATO after the Vietnam War has been to mass their forces ahead of the attack near the border of the targeted nation. These nations had no ability to do anything about this force mustering, but helplessly watching the whole event unfolding. Would China do the same thing? Simply let the attacking military gather and get everything set? Not a chance. Once the opposing military begins deploying, China's counter force would also immediately deploy into the same area. It's also possible that China might even attack first and won't even give the attacking force a chance to complete their deployment. Let's face it, a surprise attack won't work in fighting China. A small task force won't even scratch the surface in China. Any large gathering would be detected immediately. China can use massive force to attack opposing navies at the very beginning of their gathering in the Pacific ocean. So a few opposing navy ships would have to face massive Chinese navy ships. China would simply sit there and wait and attack whichever opposing ships coming their way and not giving them a chance to gather and form large formations. No matter what China will do, China will NOT simply sit around and watch how the opposing forces gather. So like I said in the post above, the same strategies used by NATO in recent wars won't work in fighting China.
Last edited:
solarz
Brigadier
Tomahawks cost about 1 million $ each, according to wikipedia. 110 Tomahawks were used on the first day of the Libyan attack.
williamhou said:
Your thoughts parallel my own. Air defenses are worthless if they cannot protect themselves from missile attacks.
vesicles
Colonel
thanks for the info. So that's $110 million/day when attacking a country like Libya. So how many missiles would be used to attack China? 10 times that much? 100 times that much? 1000 times that much? My impression is that the economic impact of a war would be exponentially correlated with the economic strength of the opposing nation. Can any of the govn't sustain this kind of budget? The attacking country would be bankrupted long before any strategic victory is achieved.
solarz
Brigadier
Well not really, as the tomahawk attacks don't need to be sustained. Apparently, 110 were enough to cripple Libya's air defences, allowing the French to operate attack jets.
The missile are already paid for.
at 1.X million a pop, 100 tomahawks are great buy, in that even if 1 airplane with a pilot is shot down it would easily cause more than 100 million (pilot + Jet + rescue cost + political backlash).
But.
US and Co. is not the only country in the world with Long Range LACMs.
And.
If in some scenario some one is dumb enough to engage china in a conventional missiles shoot out in western pacific, I put my money on China to came out on top. scared and bruised may be, but came on top in the end.