Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

Many of the hyponthesis is based on one important factor... human factor. It is assumed that China's pilots are the same as US pilots, not meaning the quantity but the quality... however we all know it is not true.

The US pilots had much more flying hours, better training (not sure) and very much more experience than the China's pilots. Coupled with the fact that the US pilots will be piloting very advance F-16, F-15 and F-22... and in near future, they will also be piloting the F-35. China on the other hand, had the bulk of their air force still operating J-7 and J-8. Although the number of J-11 and J-10 are increasing, they are not near US's F-16 and F-15 squadons.

So I am not sure that by using fighters against fighters, would China actually had much of a advantage... even if it is fought on homeground... that is also because US had fought in a variety of foreign land too.

As someone pointed out before, it would be stupid for US to launch attacks in civilian cities and such in this hypothensis, I will try to remove this factor then.

As it seemed and many had analysis that allies like Japan, SK and Taiwan would not immediately join forces with US, however we cannot forget that, even if these countries only supply bases to US, they will also risk subjected to the Chinese attacks... even if it is only at those bases.

Plus does China had the capability to fight multiple theaters of war... in this hypothnesis, let say, Japan and Taiwan decided to join forces with US, in addition of supplying bases for US to launch their assault, they also provide Navy and air forces to the US.

Could China actually defend against attacks on both Fujian regions and Shandong regions...

China's navy are not nearly big enough to tackle the combined might of the Japanese, Taiwan and US.

In this hynothesis, please not that with US fighting a war with opponent like China... I think they will have to commit quite a vast portion of her airforce and almost the entire Navy in the battle, and lets say that there are no third power ready to attack US in her main soil, then do you think all the other assumption of China's air defence are still capable enough to defend herself.

That say, however, I do not believe such incident will ever occur. This is mainly because of too many things to lose, the cost of that war will be almost incredible as compared to war in Iraq, Afganistan and other theaters.

Plus... a war can never be concluded with air strikes alone... unless ground forces are sent in and occupied the land. So it is kind of meaningless to just look at the effectiveness of air defences... what is more meaningful was to see what will happen after air strikes. You cannot just go in and hammer someone using your air power and thats it... then leave. Because once you stirred up a hornet nest, you are bound to get badly stung.

rhino123 said:

Many of the hyponthesis is based on one important factor... human factor. It is assumed that China's pilots are the same as US pilots, not meaning the quantity but the quality... however we all know it is not true.

The US pilots had much more flying hours, better training (not sure) and very much more experience than the China's pilots. Coupled with the fact that the US pilots will be piloting very advance F-16, F-15 and F-22... and in near future, they will also be piloting the F-35. China on the other hand, had the bulk of their air force still operating J-7 and J-8. Although the number of J-11 and J-10 are increasing, they are not near US's F-16 and F-15 squadons.

So I am not sure that by using fighters against fighters, would China actually had much of a advantage... even if it is fought on homeground... that is also because US had fought in a variety of foreign land too.

As someone pointed out before, it would be stupid for US to launch attacks in civilian cities and such in this hypothensis, I will try to remove this factor then.

As it seemed and many had analysis that allies like Japan, SK and Taiwan would not immediately join forces with US, however we cannot forget that, even if these countries only supply bases to US, they will also risk subjected to the Chinese attacks... even if it is only at those bases.

Plus does China had the capability to fight multiple theaters of war... in this hypothnesis, let say, Japan and Taiwan decided to join forces with US, in addition of supplying bases for US to launch their assault, they also provide Navy and air forces to the US.

Could China actually defend against attacks on both Fujian regions and Shandong regions...

China's navy are not nearly big enough to tackle the combined might of the Japanese, Taiwan and US.

In this hynothesis, please not that with US fighting a war with opponent like China... I think they will have to commit quite a vast portion of her airforce and almost the entire Navy in the battle, and lets say that there are no third power ready to attack US in her main soil, then do you think all the other assumption of China's air defence are still capable enough to defend herself.

That say, however, I do not believe such incident will ever occur. This is mainly because of too many things to lose, the cost of that war will be almost incredible as compared to war in Iraq, Afganistan and other theaters.

Plus... a war can never be concluded with air strikes alone... unless ground forces are sent in and occupied the land. So it is kind of meaningless to just look at the effectiveness of air defences... what is more meaningful was to see what will happen after air strikes. You cannot just go in and hammer someone using your air power and thats it... then leave. Because once you stirred up a hornet nest, you are bound to get badly stung.

Click to expand...

Nice analysis.

I think the best way for China to fight the U.S. Air Force is to fight them while they are still on the ground. Keep in mind that neither the F-16 nor the F-15 (much less the F-22) are carrier capable. If Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, or another U.S. ally in the vicinity decides to let the U.S. use their airbases it would be best for China to seize the opportunity and bombard these bases with ballistic missiles. Things will get unpleasant fast for China once the birds get in the air.

I still don't think that the U.S. will use her entire navy in a potential attack against China unless she is absolutely certain that Russia will not interfere in any way. That said the carriers battle group should NOT be engaged head on by the Chinese navy. Anti-ship missiles (ballistic or otherwise) should be employed and if the carriers come close enough (venture into the Yellow Sea) mass rocket launcher attacks will offer a more economical/harder to intercept alternative. JH-7 and Su-30 MK2 should also be employed but air escort is probably needed, especially for the JH-7 since it is a fighter-bomber and lacks the air-to-air capabilities of the Su-30.

Lastly I think it will be suicide for ANY nation to start a land war in China. The goal for the U.S. Forces would be making the war as short as possible and mostly confined to air and naval engagements (a splendid little war, in a sense). They should try minimizing civilian casualty and maximize damage on the reputation/renown of the Chinese military and government. Once a full land war is dragging on there is no guarantee that either side will refrain from using nuclear weapons.

siegecrossbow said:

Well I want to correct a few things:

#1) You said you watched the X-37b launch, so did I. If you actually paid attention to the reporters you would've realised that the primary purpose for the X-37b, at least for now, is surveillance. It is, in effect, a glorified spy satellite that could change orbit (to avoid Chinese ASAT attacks and perhaps anti-satellite lasers). It DOES NOT carry weapons.

#2) The United States has NOT deployed EMP weapons against Iraq. Currently EMP weapons are generated either by a nuclear explosion in the presence of Earth's magnetic field or explosive pumped flux compression generators. The military is developing a conventional EMP weapon however the flux compression generator is suppposed to be carried by tomahawk missiles, not drones.

#3) It is true that the F-22 is the most capable combat aircraft ever built. However it too has its weaknesses. The stealth coating, for one, is know to deteriorate in rainy conditions and who knows what other problems may pop up (we'll see when the F-22 is used in combat).

#4) The United States airforce is larger than the Chinese airforce. However you must be really naive to think that the U.S. will deploy the ENTIRE airforce in a war with China. What about defending the homesoil against invasions by a third power? Besides the Chinese could certainly build more planes in war time.

#5) Look up the number of kills the SAM scored against the U.S. airforce during the Vietnam war and the number of kills stinger missiles scored against the Soviet airforce during the Afghan Invasion.

Click to expand...

There were no reporters as I was actually watching the launch close up, the X37B has a payload bay that is 2.1x1.4 meters (7x4 feet). Because the ship will be in orbit the anti-satellite missiles it carries are not going to have to be very large.

I expect the USA experimented with a number of weapons in Iraq, if not EMP they may have used what is called Black Bomb on a number of locations to disrupt electric power and communications.

I doubt if "rainy conditions" are going to be problem and by the time the F22's are needed I expect most of the problems will be worked out, I expect the F22's will be more like the tip of the spear in large attacks. Of course the USA would be building many more planes in case of war just the same as China.

"Nor do I expect much from antiaircraft systems, for example By the summer of 1990, Iraq possessed 16,000 radar-guided and heatseeking surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), including the Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, SA-14, and SA-16, and the Franco-German Roland. Additional air defense was provided by Air Force interceptors and organic Army assets, including the SA-7/14, SA-8, SA-9/13, SA-16 missile systems, and the ZSU-23/4 self-propelled AAA system. In addition, the Iraqi air defense had more than 7,500 AAA pieces protecting all targets of value, some deployed on the roofs of numerous buildings in Baghdad housing government facilities, Baghdad had some 60 batteries of Sams."


All of it was useless. Syria antiaircraft systems are useless against Israel.

I doubt if the USA will even use a gravity bomb until all threats have been destroyed, smart glide bombs have a range of over 50 miles.

Just how anxious is a fighter pliot going to be to take on an F22 when they know the Kill Ratio is every thing from 30 to 1 to 180 to 1. Red Flag pliots keep reporting how frustrating it is to keep being shot down by planes they never see.

noname said:

There were no reporters as I was actually watching the launch close up, the X37B has a payload bay that is 2.1x1.4 meters (7x4 feet). Because the ship will be in orbit the anti-satellite missiles it carries are not going to have to be very large.

I expect the USA experimented with a number of weapons in Iraq, if not EMP they may have used what is called Black Bomb on a number of locations to disrupt electric power and communications.

I doubt if "rainy conditions" are going to be problem and by the time the F22's are needed I expect most of the problems will be worked out, I expect the F22's will be more like the tip of the spear in large attacks. Of course the USA would be building many more planes in case of war just the same as China.

"Nor do I expect much from antiaircraft systems, for example By the summer of 1990, Iraq possessed 16,000 radar-guided and heatseeking surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), including the Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, SA-14, and SA-16, and the Franco-German Roland. Additional air defense was provided by Air Force interceptors and organic Army assets, including the SA-7/14, SA-8, SA-9/13, SA-16 missile systems, and the ZSU-23/4 self-propelled AAA system. In addition, the Iraqi air defense had more than 7,500 AAA pieces protecting all targets of value, some deployed on the roofs of numerous buildings in Baghdad housing government facilities, Baghdad had some 60 batteries of Sams."

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

All of it was useless. Syria antiaircraft systems are useless against Israel.

I doubt if the USA will even use a gravity bomb until all threats have been destroyed, smart glide bombs have a range of over 50 miles.

Just how anxious is a fighter pliot going to be to take on an F22 when they know the Kill Ratio is every thing from 30 to 1 to 180 to 1. Red Flag pliots keep reporting how frustrating it is to keep being shot down by planes they never see.

Click to expand...

The Serbians would have done much better with the same quantity of equipment, so I wouldn't consider equipment alone to be the determining factor of effectiveness. As for the X-37 High powered SALs (upon other types of systems) can still negate its effectiveness if deployed properly. If one has AWACS and AESA radars on fighters networked together the F-22 can be tracked and eliminated, unlike the claims of 'wunderwaffe' that its pundits so-loudly proclaim. The key point is that all of the equipment the PRC already possess can effectively counter what the US can throw up, usage is more the issue than the mere presence or absence of a piece of hardware.

rhino123 said:

The US pilots had much more flying hours, better training (not sure) and very much more experience than the China's pilots. Coupled with the fact that the US pilots will be piloting very advance F-16, F-15 and F-22... and in near future, they will also be piloting the F-35. China on the other hand, had the bulk of their air force still operating J-7 and J-8. Although the number of J-11 and J-10 are increasing, they are not near US's F-16 and F-15 squadons.

So I am not sure that by using fighters against fighters, would China actually had much of a advantage... even if it is fought on homeground... that is also because US had fought in a variety of foreign land too.

Click to expand...

Here we come to another piece of my original query. What would be the role of F-16s, F-15s, or even F-22s in an airstrike against China? Would they be delivering the payload, or would they be having an escort role for bombers?

In the first scenario, how much of a payload can US fighter jets carry, and still be able to defend themselves against Chinese fighters? Would the payload delivery make them vulnerable to SAM defenses?

If acting as escorts, how effectively would they be able to protect a bomber when faced with a greater number of Chinese fighter jets?

Also, siegecrossbow raises a good point: what good would advanced US aircraft be, if their airbases are vulnerable to PLA missile attacks?

siegecrossbow said:

Nice analysis.

I think the best way for China to fight the U.S. Air Force is to fight them while they are still on the ground. Keep in mind that neither the F-16 nor the F-15 (much less the F-22) are carrier capable. If Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, or another U.S. ally in the vicinity decides to let the U.S. use their airbases it would be best for China to seize the opportunity and bombard these bases with ballistic missiles. Things will get unpleasant fast for China once the birds get in the air.

I still don't think that the U.S. will use her entire navy in a potential attack against China unless she is absolutely certain that Russia will not interfere in any way. That said the carriers battle group should NOT be engaged head on by the Chinese navy. Anti-ship missiles (ballistic or otherwise) should be employed and if the carriers come close enough (venture into the Yellow Sea) mass rocket launcher attacks will offer a more economical/harder to intercept alternative. JH-7 and Su-30 MK2 should also be employed but air escort is probably needed, especially for the JH-7 since it is a fighter-bomber and lacks the air-to-air capabilities of the Su-30.

Lastly I think it will be suicide for ANY nation to start a land war in China. The goal for the U.S. Forces would be making the war as short as possible and mostly confined to air and naval engagements (a splendid little war, in a sense). They should try minimizing civilian casualty and maximize damage on the reputation/renown of the Chinese military and government. Once a full land war is dragging on there is no guarantee that either side will refrain from using nuclear weapons.

Click to expand...

What you say is very true... but please remember one thing... missiles attack on another foreign country or 'rogue state' will be what US wanted. That is also why they have bases in those area... reason? it is more or less a win-win situation for the US. They operate their base there close to China, have their aircraft refuelled, loaded and repair. And when the Chinese decided to destroy those bases, punches holes in the runway and things like that, it will be an act against that particular country... thus pulling this country into full war with China too.

Unless China could immediately wiped out all these allies, she couldn't help but pull them into battles with her... unless these countries do not ally themselves with the United States, or alienate themselves with her... not even supplying bases for the US to operate, or it will be a reason for them to actually join the fray and suddenly China will be forced to defend multiple fronts.

Wars are never just between two nations... especially in today's context... it is much more complex and many countries (willingly or unwillingly) will be force to take side. And don't think that SK can shy away... she will have to fight too - might be unwillingly... but still have to be forced to fight (and most probably on the side of US).

Someone bring out the fact that Japanese did take part in Afganistan's war... but not as combat units... well, that scenario might be a bit different from what we are seeing now... after all Taleban had no capability to hit Japan... china has and China is just next to Japan, do you think China would let Japan go freely with US forces being deployed there?

As to Taiwan... yes if she act... she will opened herself up to an open invasion... but would China act immediately to invade Taiwan? Afterall don't forget... in our hypothensis... China is under US's attack and she would not just be facing US's air force alone. By thinking that or assuming that is the only attacks US could launch... would be unrealistic. China needed her whole might to defend herself against US air and sea attack... and as mentioned, Korea and Japan's too. And in this scenario... I don't think Taiwan would be left untouch or would want to be left untouch... They will take side... and most probably US and Japan's side.

solarz said:

Here we come to another piece of my original query. What would be the role of F-16s, F-15s, or even F-22s in an airstrike against China? Would they be delivering the payload, or would they be having an escort role for bombers?

In the first scenario, how much of a payload can US fighter jets carry, and still be able to defend themselves against Chinese fighters? Would the payload delivery make them vulnerable to SAM defenses?

If acting as escorts, how effectively would they be able to protect a bomber when faced with a greater number of Chinese fighter jets?

Also, siegecrossbow raises a good point: what good would advanced US aircraft be, if their airbases are vulnerable to PLA missile attacks?

Click to expand...

First waves of US's attacks would most probably came in the forms of ballistic and cruise missiles attack launched from their own destroyers and cruisers, bases from Guam, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea and most probably from ASEAN country like Singapore.

The second waves of attack would most probably from their fighter/bombers and vast number of escorts from both their and their allies fighters.

And we can be sure that the battle will not just end there, forces launched from SK, Japan and Taiwan will mount their land assault from there onward.

And all hell would break lose.

plawolf said:

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.

Click to expand...

IMO the entirety of the Chinese military, including its land, air and naval forces, would be hard pressed to deal with 2 carrier groups at the same time, let alone 11, especially if one of them were the massively oversized George Washington CVBG which is permanently forward-based in Yokosuka. Bringing 4 or 5 carrier groups into the same theater is well within the USN's logistical capabilities and is at least for now enough to neutralize any defense that the Chinese military could mount. A force of such size would be enough to ensure the USN's ability strike coastal targets with relative impunity.

ZTZ99 said:

IMO the entirety of the Chinese military, including its land, air and naval forces, would be hard pressed to deal with 2 carrier groups at the same time, let alone 11, especially if one of them were the massively oversized George Washington CVBG which is permanently forward-based in Yokosuka. Bringing 4 or 5 carrier groups into the same theater is well within the USN's logistical capabilities and is at least for now enough to neutralize any defense that the Chinese military could mount. A force of such size would be enough to ensure the USN's ability strike coastal targets with relative impunity.

Click to expand...

A war of that magnitude would whittle down into a war of attrition. The F-18s will be shot down, and Chinese surface installation will be bombed. Chinese attack vessels and planes will be shot down, and American ships will be sunk as well. It will come down to which one can replace the lost assets the fastest.

dingyibvs said:

A war of that magnitude would whittle down into a war of attrition. The F-18s will be shot down, and Chinese surface installation will be bombed. Chinese attack vessels and planes will be shot down, and American ships will be sunk as well. It will come down to which one can replace the lost assets the fastest.

Click to expand...

Oh... and aren't we forgetting something? The war will be found on Chinese soil... and water... And no matter how much we would want to get the civilians out of the equation... they will be involved. Thus no matter how fast and how much the Chinese could replace their hardware and perhaps by some miracles... trained up enough men for these replaced hardwares... there will be civilian casualty.

And so even if China (which we all know is impossible) are able to replace their assets ten times faster than the US... the loser will still... sadly be China.

Unless somehow, China could also ensure that the US soil are threatened and war be brought to where it hurts, the only loser in this war will still be China... and perhaps some smaller allies of US who are being pulled into the war.

The only thing I can think of that was in China's favour was that any war with her would be very costly... both in term of men and money... so much so that it really is not worth the starting of the war.