Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

s002wjh said:

you have to know which satelite belong to US, and the purpose of such satelite. not really worth while if china destroy some othe countries sat or US commerical sat. also US can certainly destroy chinese sat too

china has a long shoreline with only handful of quite subs, it will give US some pause/caution but will not stop US battle group operating in that area. and those subs will hunted by US seawolf/virgina class subs/airborane system etc.

the fact is china can damage US military but in the end its own defense including ships/subs/air defense will be destroyed.

the first thing US/western might do is create a blockade, not allow any ship in/out of china. food, oil and other supplies will be scarce. then probably will soften up costal defence including stationed air defence/navy port etc etc using missles/stealth aircraft etc.

Click to expand...

Not a problem at all. A map of the location of all the satellites are easily available. One disadvantage of the open sea is that it's like a open desert without the foliage of a jungle to hide your whereabouts, and sea based assets are that much easier to find and attacked compared to military assets in the jungle. Most of China is surrounded by land, so a sea blockade, even if successfull, should not post much of a problem.

There are so many other unknowns. For example, would a carrier group be able to defend itself from anti aircraft carrier missiles?

For example, would a carrier group be able to defend itself from anti aircraft carrier missiles?

Click to expand...

A CVN has escorts equipped with SM-2 & SM-3 missiles.

You fellows seem to think you have all the answers. But you don't. You know only minuscule parts of the equation...minuscule.

But that's ok. Both sides can continue to argue. Have your fun.

To the US side I say..never under estimate your foe.

To the Chinese side I say in the words of that great Glactician , Darth Vader..

"If you only knew the power of a dark side"

I'm out.

solarz said:

Come on, stop making general statements with no facts to back it up.

Military satellites orbit at a different altitude than commercial satellites. Yes, the US can destroy Chinese sats too, but I dare say the US relies a lot more on its satellite network than China does.

You said yourself that it's a big ocean. There's no way that the US can stop Chinese subs from sneaking behind their blockade to disrupt their supply lines.

In fact, how do you plan on creating a blockade when:

1- Your ships are vulnerable to anti-ship ballistic missiles
2- Your bases are vulnerable to SRBM and MRBMs
3- China can easily out-supply via domestic production a US expeditionary force that relies on a few small, non-industrial nations for supply

You don't address any of those points, but just keep repeating your opinion that Chinese defenses will be destroyed.

Click to expand...

the stuff that soo2 sounds like those that you'd find from a person responding to china vs US in yahoo answers; in other words, unfounded and ignorant. this guy probably even believes the US could just walk right into china and all that stuff.

Bltizo said:

On the subject of logistics, if a no fly zone over china were attempted would a blockade occur too? Because then Chinese merchant vessels would e targeted too... Basically my question is how long can china run without sea trade and more importantly, oil?

The only independent country who can possibly impose a NFZ over the PRC is the US. And the other situation would be china vs the world. In the former scenario it would be more difficult for the imposer to try to impose... But in both situations you'll get WWIII and we could easily escalate to nukes.

On the details, someone said something about MRBMs and US bases in Asia... I just want to say that putting those relatively few bases out of action with long range cruise missiles and MRBMs will not be a challenge unless they are defended by lots of patriots or sm-2s... Missiles like DH-10 and DF-21 with terminal guidance should both be in the triple digits by now. And even if older missiles didn't have a CEP in the double digits, put on a submunition warhead and it can inflict damage on any good sized base, even if you're just taking out aircraft on the Tarmac (to my knowledge not many if any us bases in the pacific have hardened hangars).

Click to expand...

It's quite hard to imagine anyone possibly think of boycotting China these days. It's equivalent to delivering the resignation letter from your job, while covered in debt and have 20 kids to feed.

airsuperiority said:

It's quite hard to imagine anyone possibly think of boycotting China these days. It's equivalent to delivering the resignation letter from your job, while covered in debt and have 20 kids to feed.

Click to expand...

if there is a war between US/western, i don't think japan/US/europe will import/export stuff to china? US CAN live without chinese import its HARD but US were fine before china start the economic development.

like popeye said, you guys know little about US tactic, defense etc. Achieve air superiority over costal China will be hard but can be done. blockade can also be done. china don't have enough decent sub that can travel outside its coastal line to make a dent in US supply line. especially when full US fleet are in the area on full alert.

long range defense against anti-ship missiles can be electronically jammed, medium range you have SM-2 & SM-3 missiles, point defense there is gattling gun and other stuff. but those missiles HAS to get through the defense of Entire battle group made up by dozens US cruiser, destroyers, sub, airborne ELint/sgint platform, and other varies of weapon system. few anti-ship missiles is NOT goona work, china has to send waves upon wave of anti-ship missiles to damage the battle group, and it has to has the platform that can reach the attack range, which mean they might have to leave the chinese costal defense. this leave ship/strike plane vulnerable to assault from US jet/sub etc.

s002wjh said:

like popeye said, you guys know little about US tactic, defense etc. Achieve air superiority over costal China will be hard but can be done. blockade can also be done. china don't have enough decent sub that can travel outside its coastal line to make a dent in US supply line. especially when full US fleet are in the area on full alert.

Click to expand...

Yet again you offer nothing other than your opinion.

long range defense against anti-ship missiles can be electronically jammed, medium range you have SM-2 & SM-3 missiles, point defense there is gattling gun and other stuff. but those missiles HAS to get through the defense of Entire battle group made up by dozens US cruiser, destroyers, sub, airborne ELint/sgint platform, and other varies of weapon system. few anti-ship missiles is NOT goona work, china has to send waves upon wave of anti-ship missiles to damage the battle group, and it has to has the platform that can reach the attack range, which mean they might have to leave the chinese costal defense. this leave ship/strike plane vulnerable to assault from US jet/sub etc.

Click to expand...

How much does an anti-ship missile cost? How much does an aircraft carrier cost? How many missile hits does it take to destroy a carrier?

About the no-fly zone or blockade, these things can only be achieved AFTER air and sea supremacy is achieved. So don't assume China can be blocked when its navy and air force are in its full strength.

Also, China has been self-reliant for the most part of its history, thanks to its large size and different terrain and various kinds of resources. Like the US without trading with China, China will suffer from a potential blockade, but it won't die. It can manufacture anything and everything you can think of in the world, as it IS the manufacturing center in the world. So China won't need to import anything. China survived without trading with anyone else for almost 500 years. The latest isolation was from 50's to early 80's. China suffered tremendously, but it survived. Of course, there is oil. Also like the US, which has oil on its own soil but decides not to extract, China also has oil deposit in Tibet/Xinjiang and Northeast. This is why China wants to hold on to Tibet and Xinjiang that much. It is true that the oil deposit in these areas is not that much and cannot be compared to what the Mid East has, but no blockade can last more than a few years. China definitely has enough to last that long.

Again, the same strategies used against small nations are useless or less effective against a large country like China, the US or Russia. A good example is WWII, Nazi Germany had no problem finishing off smaller countries. however, once they started fighting the Soviets, they could not defeat them even though they were winning battles after battles and destroying Soviet armies at the beginning. Some might say it's the infamous Russian winter that ultimately defeated the Germans. Well, that's what happens when you fight a large nation. They typically have many different terrains and weathers and each of them needs to be dealt with using different strategy. If you slip on one of them, you will be defeated.

A small nation has less ability to absorb the blow, while a large nation can absorb the blow and at the same time absorb the resources of attackers and simply out-last their attackers.

Also, winning a war is much more than the technology. You simply cannot predict that a force can win a war because it has advanced technology. Yes, technology is absolutely important, but it's not everything. Korean War and Vietnam War are two good examples of a more technologically advanced force cannot win a war against an inferior enemy. The reason for this can be complicated, but each time the opponent came up with strategies to counter the technology. In these cases, the gap between the US and its opponent is so much wider than the current gap between the US and China. And this gap will become even smaller in the future. As the technological gap gets smaller, the technology becomes less of a factor while strategies, tactics, politics and social factors become more influential.

Also, I've noted a trend with how some posters claim how the US offense can penetrate China's defense and how China's offense won't even scratch the US' defense. Well, sometimes, you have to think about IF China's defense is actually that defenseless and China's offense is actually without a punch. One good example, China's air bases. As I have learned from some of our fellow posters, many of China's bases are super-hardened while none of the US bases in the area are. That would mean it's much easier for China to cause damage to the US bases than the opposite. Also, some claim that even China can damage US bases, it can be easily fixed. The same can also be said of China's bases. These bases can also be easily fixed. Many China's bases have been constructed to make bombing difficult, etc. etc. etc.

So again, I'm not attempting to predict which side will win a war. I don't think anyone can do that even at the beginning of a potential conflict, not even experts. General MacArthur who would be the expert of all experts thought he would win the Korean war in a few months, but ended up fighting to a stalemate. The same went with the Vietnam war. The US would not go to Vietnam thinking that it would lose the conflict. the majority of military experts believed that the war could be won in a few months. and look at the outcome... And what about Napoleon? another expert shown to be unable to predict the outcome of a conflict... So don't even think about predicting the outcome of a potential conflict just because you think you know a few things about weapons. My point is that China is a completely different situation and need to be dealt with using completely different strategies. Those who believe that one can use the same method for catching a chicken to catch a deer (let alone this deer is transforming into a tiger.....) would be in a deep trouble in a potential conflict.

About the no-fly zone or blockade, these things can only be achieved AFTER air and sea supremacy is achieved. So don't assume China can be blocked when its navy and air force are in its full strength.

Also, China has been self-reliant for the most part of its history, thanks to its large size and different terrain and various kinds of resources. Like the US without trading with China, China will suffer from a potential blockade, but it won't die. It can manufacture anything and everything you can think of in the world, as it IS the manufacturing center in the world. So China won't need to import anything. China survived without trading with anyone else for almost 500 years. The latest isolation was from 50's to early 80's. China suffered tremendously, but it survived. Of course, there is oil. Also like the US, which has oil on its own soil but decides not to extract, China also has oil deposit in Tibet/Xinjiang and Northeast. This is why China wants to hold on to Tibet and Xinjiang that much. It is true that the oil deposit in these areas is not that much and cannot be compared to what the Mid East has, but no blockade can last more than a few years. China definitely has enough to last that long.

Again, the same strategies used against small nations are useless or less effective against a large country like China, the US or Russia. A good example is WWII, Nazi Germany had no problem finishing off smaller countries. however, once they started fighting the Soviets, they could not defeat them even though they were winning battles after battles and destroying Soviet armies at the beginning. Against the Soviets, the Nazis enjoyed the same military superiority that they enjoyed in other parts of the world, but still could not win. Some might say it's the infamous Russian winter that ultimately defeated the Germans. Well, that's what happens when you fight a large nation. They typically have many different terrains and weathers and each of them needs to be dealt with using different strategy. If you slip on one of them, you will be defeated.

A small nation has less ability to absorb the blow, while a large nation can absorb the blow and at the same time absorb the resources of attackers and simply out-last their attackers.

Also, winning a war is much more than the technology. You simply cannot predict that a force can win a war because it has advanced technology. Yes, technology is absolutely important, but it's not everything. Korean War and Vietnam War are two good examples of a more technologically advanced force cannot win a war against an inferior enemy. The reason for this can be complicated, but each time the opponent came up with strategies to counter the technology. In these cases, the gap between the US and its opponent is so much wider than the current gap between the US and China. And this gap will become even smaller in the future. As the technological gap gets smaller, the technology becomes less of a factor while strategies, tactics, politics and social factors become more influential.

Also, I've noted a trend with how some posters claim how the US offense can penetrate China's defense and how China's offense won't even scratch the US' defense. Well, sometimes, you have to think about IF China's defense is actually that defenseless and China's offense is actually without a punch. One good example, China's air bases. As I have learned from some of our fellow posters, many of China's bases are super-hardened while none of the US bases in the area are. That would mean it's much easier for China to cause damage to the US bases than the opposite. Also, some claim that even China can damage US bases, it can be easily fixed. The same can also be said of China's bases. These bases can also be easily fixed. Many China's bases have been constructed to make bombing difficult, etc. etc. etc.

So again, I'm not attempting to predict which side will win a war. I don't think anyone can do that even at the beginning of a potential conflict, not even experts. General MacArthur who would be the expert of all experts thought he would win the Korean war in a few months, but ended up fighting to a stalemate. The same went with the Vietnam war. The US would not go to Vietnam thinking that it would lose the conflict. the majority of military experts believed that the war could be won in a few months. and look at the outcome... And what about Napoleon? another expert shown to be unable to predict the outcome of a conflict... So don't even think about predicting the outcome of a potential conflict just because you think you know a few things about weapons. My point is that China is a completely different situation and need to be dealt with using completely different strategies. Those who believe that one can use the same method for catching a chicken to catch a deer would be in a deep trouble in a potential conflict.

solarz said:

That's an excellent point! China's ability to knock out US military satellites is a complete game changer. What use are sophisticated precision weapons and stealth bombers/fighters when you don't have any intelligence on a target?

Click to expand...

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here -- but the US has ASAT weapons too as capable or even more so than what China has demonstrated (SM-3 based on highly mobile destroyers that can be deployed all over the world).

airsuperiority said:

It's quite hard to imagine anyone possibly think of boycotting China these days. It's equivalent to delivering the resignation letter from your job, while covered in debt and have 20 kids to feed.

Click to expand...

I agree, but the scenario we're proposing is basically outright war. If the US (and or other countries) are going attempt to achieve a NFZ over China they will use all their strength to attack every weakness, and destroying merchant vessels and stopping trade with the PRC is just another weapon in their arsenal.

What we're basically talking about is basically WWIII...

I feel that if the US and/or the rest of the world really had the desire to impose a NFZ over China they definitely could -- they will just suffer quite heavy losses, because China will use every weapon she has to defend against such an attack.

s002wjh said:

if there is a war between US/western, i don't think japan/US/europe will import/export stuff to china? US CAN live without chinese import its HARD but US were fine before china start the economic development.

like popeye said, you guys know little about US tactic, defense etc. Achieve air superiority over costal China will be hard but can be done. blockade can also be done. china don't have enough decent sub that can travel outside its coastal line to make a dent in US supply line. especially when full US fleet are in the area on full alert.

long range defense against anti-ship missiles can be electronically jammed, medium range you have SM-2 & SM-3 missiles, point defense there is gattling gun and other stuff. but those missiles HAS to get through the defense of Entire battle group made up by dozens US cruiser, destroyers, sub, airborne ELint/sgint platform, and other varies of weapon system. few anti-ship missiles is NOT goona work, china has to send waves upon wave of anti-ship missiles to damage the battle group, and it has to has the platform that can reach the attack range, which mean they might have to leave the chinese costal defense. this leave ship/strike plane vulnerable to assault from US jet/sub etc.

Click to expand...

A lot of things you just don't know. Like why a modern Israelli warship can't even defend itself against a single anti ship cruise missile. Why a modern South Korean warship don't even have a hint of a torpedo coming its way until it got hit. Yeah, you can blame it on human operation error but nobody really knows whether it's really some software algorithm glitch (of course, nobody will admit this) causing that split second response delay that ultimately leads to the warship being hit. Things don't necessary always work the way you've expected. In addition, on a sinkable platform, a 90% hit rate against oncoming missiles just won't do.