Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

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. .

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

Click to expand...

You can leave Japan out for the foreseeable time Japan has neither the mean nor the will to engage in disastrous confrontation with China. Japan will be busy rebuilding the country.

All your defense measures is not going to be any good against ASBM hurtling at 8-10 time of the speed sound from the top of your head . Even if they managed successful hit the kinetic energy will keep hitting the sensitive sensor rendering it operational ineffective. As far as I know there is nothing in US arsenal that can defeat the ASBM.

Just illustration, in Falkland war the Argentinian only has 8 Exocet at their disposal because they just recently get it from France . See how much havoc it create to the the British fleet .

Read this gloomy assesment by Rand organization about the state of Taiwan- China imbalance Here what rand has to say
Executive Summary of Taiwan-China Question of Balance


Today, the job of defending Taiwan is getting harder. As discussed above, the combat
effectiveness of Taiwan’s air force is seriously imperiled by China’s growing force of modern
SRBMs, but other changes are afoot as well. China’s force of modern surface combatants and
submarines will make it difficult and costly for Taiwan’s navy to operate in the Strait, while
advanced SAMs and modern fighters will confront any Taiwanese or American aircraft that
manage to become airborne with a highly lethal environment. U.S. Navy carriers and other
warships will soon be at risk not just from PLAN submarines equipped with supersonic anti-ship
missiles but from the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), a version of China’s DF-21
(CSS-5) medium range ballistic missile (MRBM). When integrated with the appropriate
surveillance and targeting capabilities—provided by satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),
or long range “over-the horizon” radars, all of which China has or is developing—the ASBM will
threaten U.S. carriers operating closer than about 1,000nm from China’s coast. Finally, if China
can suppress Taiwan’s air force and air defenses, the increasingly modern PLAAF will be able to
strike many target classes with PGMs. These changes lay hard strategic, operational, and
programmatic decisions before both Washington and Taipei, and they obviously do not bode well
6
for the future stability of the situation along the Taiwan Strait. There is no quick, easy, or
inexpensive way out.
In the longer term, the United States and Taiwan may confront an even more fundamental
strategic dilemma, one inherent in the basic geography of the situation. Taiwan lies only a few
hundred miles from the military might of the PLA; Taipei, meanwhile, is about 1,500nm from the
nearest U.S. territory on Guam; it is nearly 4,400nm from Honolulu, and about 5,600nm from the
West Coast of the United States. This geographic asymmetry combined with the limited array of
forward basing options for U.S. forces—and China’s growing ability to mount sustained and
effective attacks on those forward bases—calls into question Washington’s ability to credibly
serve as guarantor of Taiwan’s security in the long run

Bltizo said:

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).



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.

Click to expand...

As far as I can remember the test was conducted at a comparatively lower altitude.

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. .

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

Click to expand...

You can leave Japan out of the equation for the foreseeable time Japan has neither the mean nor the will to engage in disastrous confrontation with China. Japan will be busy rebuilding the country.

All your defense measures is not going to be any good against ASBM hurtling at 8-10 time of the speed sound from the top of your head . Even if they managed successful hit the kinetic energy will keep hitting the sensitive sensor rendering it operational ineffective. As far as I know there is nothing in US arsenal that can defeat the ASBM.

Just illustration, in Falkland war the Argentinian only has 8 Exocet at their disposal because they just recently get it from France . See how much havoc it create to the the British fleet .

Read this gloomy assesment by Rand organization about the state of Taiwan- China imbalance Here what rand has to say
Executive Summary of Taiwan-China Question of Balance


Today, the job of defending Taiwan is getting harder. As discussed above, the combat
effectiveness of Taiwan’s air force is seriously imperiled by China’s growing force of modern
SRBMs, but other changes are afoot as well. China’s force of modern surface combatants and
submarines will make it difficult and costly for Taiwan’s navy to operate in the Strait, while
advanced SAMs and modern fighters will confront any Taiwanese or American aircraft that
manage to become airborne with a highly lethal environment. U.S. Navy carriers and other
warships will soon be at risk not just from PLAN submarines equipped with supersonic anti-ship
missiles but from the world’s first anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM), a version of China’s DF-21
(CSS-5) medium range ballistic missile (MRBM). When integrated with the appropriate
surveillance and targeting capabilities—provided by satellites, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs),
or long range “over-the horizon” radars, all of which China has or is developing—the ASBM will
threaten U.S. carriers operating closer than about 1,000nm from China’s coast. Finally, if China
can suppress Taiwan’s air force and air defenses, the increasingly modern PLAAF will be able to
strike many target classes with PGMs. These changes lay hard strategic, operational, and
programmatic decisions before both Washington and Taipei, and they obviously do not bode well
6
for the future stability of the situation along the Taiwan Strait. There is no quick, easy, or
inexpensive way out.
In the longer term, the United States and Taiwan may confront an even more fundamental
strategic dilemma, one inherent in the basic geography of the situation. Taiwan lies only a few
hundred miles from the military might of the PLA; Taipei, meanwhile, is about 1,500nm from the
nearest U.S. territory on Guam; it is nearly 4,400nm from Honolulu, and about 5,600nm from the
West Coast of the United States. This geographic asymmetry combined with the limited array of
forward basing options for U.S. forces—and China’s growing ability to mount sustained and
effective attacks on those forward bases—calls into question Washington’s ability to credibly
serve as guarantor of Taiwan’s security in the long run

Just illustration, in Falkland war the Argentinian only has 8 Exocet at their disposal because they just recently get it from France . See how much havoc it create to the the British fleet .

Click to expand...

Who won the war? The British..game over.

Have fun guys!

bd popeye said:

Who won the war? The British..game over.

Have fun guys!

Click to expand...

wiki said:

Actions were taken to contain the Exocet threat. During the preparation for the war Britain benefited from the help of France, which gave the Exocet's code and homing radar.[16] A major intelligence operation was also initiated to prevent the Argentine Navy from acquiring more on the international market.[17] The operation included British intelligence agents claiming to be arms dealers able to supply large numbers of Exocet to Argentina, who diverted Argentina from pursuing sources which could genuinely supply a few missiles. France denied deliveries of Exocet AM39s purchased by Peru to avoid the possibility of them getting to Argentina.

Click to expand...

This sounds like the British were pretty scared of the Exocet. Another moral of this story? Relying on other countries for your weapons has its downside....

This sounds like the British were pretty scared of the Exocet. Another moral of this story? Relying on other countries for your weapons has its downside....

Click to expand...

I don't think the Royal Navy is afraid of anything. Now or at any time ..ever.

I agree with your last statement. I'll have Obi Wan answer you on the rest..if he wishes...

But check the scoreboard.. the British won the war.

solarz said:

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

Click to expand...

A thorough read of the naval forum should help you there From time to time, articles concernining the lack of operational trainining missions made by Chinese Subs / and other naval units get published.Info supplied courtesy of the US of course You might even find them reproduced in the naval forum.

I once came across an old exchange "Typhung" was engaged in another forum , concerning the lack of air conditioning in the bulk of the Chinese naval units.(excluding their newer boats). This would impair their ability to have all those fancy electronic bells and whistles, essential for directing/tracking this n that.

Out of interests sake , how many training cruises have the CHinese made with those Carrier Killer Russian Sov's they purchased.?

bladerunner said:

A thorough read of the naval forum might help you there From time to time, articles concernining the lack of operational trainining missions made by Chinese Subs / and other naval units get published.Info supplied courtesy of the US of course You might even find them reproduced in the naval forum.

I once came across an old exchange "Typhung" was engaged in another forum , concerning the lack of air conditioning in the bulk of the Chinese naval units.(excluding their newer boats). This would impair their ability to have all those fancy electronic bells and whistles, essential for directing/tracking this n that.

Out of interests sake , how many training cruises have the CHinese made with those Carrier Killer Russian Sov's they purchased.?

Click to expand...

Almost never, the PLAN prefer their own vessels. Whether that's for "showing off" or for real practical reasons is unknown but I'd speculate it's the latter -- I'm sure there's a reason most Russian purchased submarines and ships don't get as much in the ocean as the rest of the fleet...

How is this relevant btw?

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...

No. GPS satellites are in Geosynchronous orbit, with the entire 24 satellite constellation over 35,000 km above sea level. There is no terrestrial ASAT weapon outside a nuke that can hit a target from that high.

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...

Also nope.

Although dependence on Chinese manufacturing is high, there is no reason why the U.S. cannot exist without a PRC. For example:

1. China only owns 6% of the U.S. public debt
2. 1/3 of foreign oil imported to the U.S. comes from Canada and Mexico
3. The Population of South America has one of the largest growth rate in the world (more people, needs more jobs)
4. U.S. unemployment averages at 10% or 1 in 10 people, with less labor laws, this will attract more companies to hire American

So thus, although admittedly our economy would suffer, China would suffer more as their infrastructure is not prepared for a U.S.-less economy, or even Western-less economy, while ours is dependent on Cheap labor countries, which is in vast abundance to the South.

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...

1. That is not the case (I will explain later in the post)
2. Only to a certain degree. Many U.S. planes are capable of STOL, unlike Sovet-Gen IV planes which are generally heavier and take off on longer platforms than our planes
3. True.

Really, the U.S. won't be able to blockade China completely, China can imitate U-boats in both world wars, but that won't last long. The U.S. outproduces and outqualities (in most cases) the PLAAN so a loss of a Sub to China is worth more than a loss to the U.S.

Hendrik_2000 said:

You can leave Japan out of the equation for the foreseeable time Japan has neither the mean nor the will to engage in disastrous confrontation with China. Japan will be busy rebuilding the country.

All your defense measures is not going to be any good against ASBM hurtling at 8-10 time of the speed sound from the top of your head . Even if they managed successful hit the kinetic energy will keep hitting the sensitive sensor rendering it operational ineffective. As far as I know there is nothing in US arsenal that can defeat the ASBM.

Just illustration, in Falkland war the Argentinian only has 8 Exocet at their disposal because they just recently get it from France . See how much havoc it create to the the British fleet .

Click to expand...

Incorrect. The biggest flaw of a AShBM is the fact that it's a BM. It's high altitude launch will only mean very early warning for U.S. ships. AN/SPY-2s will be able to see it from hundreds of kilometers away, which would allow SM-2/3 and ESSMs to start engagement. The Kinetic energy of the AShBM is irrelevant unless the it actually hits, the explosive nature of the warhead, if airbursted via defensive weapons, is not enough to damage electronic equipment (unless it's really close).

And really, the British experience in the Falkands is just a bad case of ancient warfare, so to say.

Quickie said:

As far as I can remember the test was conducted at a comparatively lower altitude.

Click to expand...

He is right, the SM-3 engaged a falling satellite at about 500 km height (maybe less, I didn't fact check). While the DF-21 ASAT weapon hit something at over 1,000 km height. But to be even fairer, the DF-21 ASAT was based off a ballistic missile, the SM-3 wasn't.

1/3rd of oil comes from Canada and Mexico? I always though Canada produces 40% of the oil used in America?