Hypothetical PLAAF No Fly Zone

Bltizo said:

I don't disagree with those choices, but your reasoning is a bit off. I mean what does "state of the art" mean in relation to the roles they're meant to perform. It sounds like it's from a lockheed brochure or something...

Keep in mind what aircraft that are being deployed against country x, it must not degrade the PLAAFs capabilities too much at home.

Against a country like Libya, I think two dozen J-10As, an equal number of JH-7s, and a dozen flankers of any variant should be enough, while not draining the PLAAF capability at home too much. In addition, a number of H-6Ms, capable of carrying CJ-10K missiles and other smaller cruise missiles should also join the fleet to assist in precision bombing of radar and SAM stations if it ever comes to that. (I'm not including H-6Ks because they've only been in service for a few months and are probably not combat ready, and it's a similar situation for J-10Bs and we don't even know if they've entered service at all...)

Before any combat aircraft are deployed, a number of Y-8 GX type aircraft should fly around country x's airspace in ELINT and SIGINT roles, though how useful they'd be during a relatively small duration of time is unknown. Regardless a number of Y-8 GX aircraft should have constant patrol providing EW support and command and control.

In terms of AWACS, a round the clock patrol will need a good number of KJ-200s and/or KJ-2000s. If the PLAN are deploying in support then maybe 052C can assist in the early warning role with their powerful aesas. Also we have to factor in whether the AWACS have provision for aerial refuelling from H-6Us, which would extend their endurance a bit.

On that note, the PLAAF will probably have to give up a good fraction of its tanker and transport fleet for this kind of operation, and I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to convert larger numbers of H-6 during the period this "crisis" goes on for.

Click to expand...

In order to establish a no-fly-zone you do not send in the bombers first, especially when the H-6 is obsolete.

You need to knock out airbases and SAMs using SEAD aircraft such as the JH-7A, J-11B, JF-17, or the J-10S. These aircraft have high air-to-air combat capabilities as well as strong strike and anti-jammer capabilities. These aircraft are for anti-radar purposes.

To knock out airfields and enemy command centers, submarine-launched CJ-10 or DH-10 or HN-I/II/III missiles (launched from Type 093 or Type 094-I/II/III) submarines would be perfect for the job. This way, your forces are not at risk since the submarines can't be attacked from the air (and it'll be difficult to track the missiles).

You certainly do not need more than 10 aircraft for a country like Libya. 10 J-10A fighters or several J-11B fighters will be more than sufficient to do the job. JH-7A is also an option. Remember, these fighters have complete superiority over any Libyan jets and will be supported by KJ-2000 and/or KJ-200 and Y-8 AWACS planes.

We have over 200 J-10As in service, over 120 J-11Bs in service, 192 JH-7A aircraft, and a growing number of J-10B fighters. That is more than enough to send a large force over and "not degrade" the PLAAF at home.

Type 052C is not for early warning. We have the KJ-2000, KJ-200, Y-8 AWACS, and a number of other similar aircraft to fulfill that role. Their L-band AESA is powerful enough to cover the entire zone without much movement.

Tankers shouldn't be a problem, since H-6Ks are in production and our Il-76s can be deployed. Establishing a no-fly-zone also means that we will base our planes in a nearby base.

SinoSoldier said:

In order to establish a no-fly-zone you do not send in the bombers first, especially when the H-6 is obsolete.

Click to expand...

Not quite -- obviously the cold war H-6 are obsolete, but H-6 with CJ-10K and other shorter ranged LACMs are far from obsolete, espicially if it's against a country like Libya. In the opening phases of dismantling country X's air defence you'd use H-6M in conjunction with other fighters like the ones you said.

You need to knock out airbases and SAMs using SEAD aircraft such as the JH-7A, J-11B, JF-17, or the J-10S. These aircraft have high air-to-air combat capabilities as well as strong strike and anti-jammer capabilities. These aircraft are for anti-radar purposes.

Click to expand...

Y-8 GX and H-6Ms have jamming capability while the latter can also hold cruise missiles in the SEAD role, along with other aircraft like JH-7A and J-10s, or even J-8G. You don't necessarily need anti radiation missiles to take out radar stations. An optically guided munition can do just as well.

And I'm not sure how well the PLAAF are trained in SEAD too, if they have any wild weasel type tactics. Also, we need to remember that while PLAAF aircraft are multirole (JH-7A, J-10s, and maybe J-11B), most of their training is for a specific role rather than encompassing all the roles the aircraft can have. So a J-10 pilot would hvae far less strike training than a JH-7 or Su-30MKK pilot, but more air to air training.

o knock out airfields and enemy command centers, submarine-launched CJ-10 or DH-10 or HN-I/II/III missiles (launched from Type 093 or Type 094-I/II/III) submarines would be perfect for the job. This way, your forces are not at risk since the submarines can't be attacked from the air (and it'll be difficult to track the missiles).

Click to expand...

Submarine launched DH-10s could work, but there's nothing in the class of the Ohio SSGNs for the PLAN, so their contribution to taking out targets woudl be minimal, and I imagine most of the damage would come from PLAAF aircraft. And the only ships which can carry long ranged cruise missiles are the 052C, and they can only do so if they replace their YJ-62 tubes on a one to one basis... So don't expect to see a USN style mass tomahawk like in the gulf war.

You certainly do not need more than 10 aircraft for a country like Libya. 10 J-10A fighters or several J-11B fighters will be more than sufficient to do the job. JH-7A is also an option. Remember, these fighters have complete superiority over any Libyan jets and will be supported by KJ-2000 and/or KJ-200 and Y-8 AWACS planes.

Click to expand...

You'll certainly need more than 10, if they have even a small number of half capable aircraft like early F-16s or Mig-29s. You'll need more than 10 even if it's only to have round the clock patrols, never mind if there are half competent enemy SAMs and aircraft around.

We have over 200 J-10As in service, over 120 J-11Bs in service, 192 JH-7A aircraft, and a growing number of J-10B fighters. That is more than enough to send a large force over and "not degrade" the PLAAF at home.

Click to expand...

Sure the fighter force might not be hit as hard, but the EW, transport and tanker sector will be. And again I dispute the notion that production J-10Bs are already entering service.

Type 052C is not for early warning. We have the KJ-2000, KJ-200, Y-8 AWACS, and a number of other similar aircraft to fulfill that role. Their L-band AESA is powerful enough to cover the entire zone without much movement.

Click to expand...

Right, then what would 052C be for?

Tankers shouldn't be a problem, since H-6Ks are in production and our Il-76s can be deployed. Establishing a no-fly-zone also means that we will base our planes in a nearby base.

Click to expand...

The only tankers in the PLAAF fleet are H-6Us and they're not that great, with a relatively low fuel capacity and thirsty turbojet engines. For a no fly zone, deploying from a forward base like PAkistan (which is the only realistic country to offer such a service), you will still need tankers just to provide a decent patrol time. If there's no forward base, then even with H-6U's I can guarantee that PLAAF aircraft won't be able to even reach the middle east or africa from China, with combat in mind.
H-6Ks won't help in the tanker role either, and should be removed from this scenario anyway because they're only starting to enter service and can not be considered as combat ready. Il-76s will be used for transport and is irrelevant to tanker roles as well.

Bltizo said:

Not quite -- obviously the cold war H-6 are obsolete, but H-6 with CJ-10K and other shorter ranged LACMs are far from obsolete, espicially if it's against a country like Libya. In the opening phases of dismantling country X's air defence you'd use H-6M in conjunction with other fighters like the ones you said.



Y-8 GX and H-6Ms have jamming capability while the latter can also hold cruise missiles in the SEAD role, along with other aircraft like JH-7A and J-10s, or even J-8G. You don't necessarily need anti radiation missiles to take out radar stations. An optically guided munition can do just as well.

And I'm not sure how well the PLAAF are trained in SEAD too, if they have any wild weasel type tactics. Also, we need to remember that while PLAAF aircraft are multirole (JH-7A, J-10s, and maybe J-11B), most of their training is for a specific role rather than encompassing all the roles the aircraft can have. So a J-10 pilot would hvae far less strike training than a JH-7 or Su-30MKK pilot, but more air to air training.



Submarine launched DH-10s could work, but there's nothing in the class of the Ohio SSGNs for the PLAN, so their contribution to taking out targets woudl be minimal, and I imagine most of the damage would come from PLAAF aircraft. And the only ships which can carry long ranged cruise missiles are the 052C, and they can only do so if they replace their YJ-62 tubes on a one to one basis... So don't expect to see a USN style mass tomahawk like in the gulf war.



You'll certainly need more than 10, if they have even a small number of half capable aircraft like early F-16s or Mig-29s. You'll need more than 10 even if it's only to have round the clock patrols, never mind if there are half competent enemy SAMs and aircraft around.



Sure the fighter force might not be hit as hard, but the EW, transport and tanker sector will be. And again I dispute the notion that production J-10Bs are already entering service.



Right, then what would 052C be for?



The only tankers in the PLAAF fleet are H-6Us and they're not that great, with a relatively low fuel capacity and thirsty turbojet engines. For a no fly zone, deploying from a forward base like PAkistan (which is the only realistic country to offer such a service), you will still need tankers just to provide a decent patrol time. If there's no forward base, then even with H-6U's I can guarantee that PLAAF aircraft won't be able to even reach the middle east or africa from China, with combat in mind.
H-6Ks won't help in the tanker role either, and should be removed from this scenario anyway because they're only starting to enter service and can not be considered as combat ready. Il-76s will be used for transport and is irrelevant to tanker roles as well.

Click to expand...

H-6K bombers maybe upgraded, but they will be brought down by Libyan MiG-23 fighters as well as Mirage F-1s. Once a fighter jet makes a visual on you, there's no way you can escape as a bomber.

You need to destroy the enemy without losing your own men. In that case, ship-launched cruise missiles or sub-launched missiles are perfect.

We don't need an Ohio-class equivalent to complete the missile (although we'll have them in the future). Type 094 or Type 093 submarines equipped with HN-I/II/III missiles is more than sufficient to disable Libyan airfields and radar systems. Each Type 094-I has 12 missile tubes (while the Type 2 has even more), and 3-5 LACMs could fit in each tube. That's enough to level Tripoli and Benghazi.

The Type 052B/C destroyers AND the Type 054A/B frigates can launch missiles, which will add to the firepower.
Wild Weasel is different from ground strike. Wild Weasel involves smaller, more agile aircraft carrying light anti-radiation weapons. J-10S would be perfect for the job.

Once Libyan air defenses are destroyed, we don't need a significant number of fighter jets at all. These jets would be mainly patrolling, not engaging in combat. KJ-2000 would be the main weapon for monitoring.

J-10Bs are seeing with production serials as well as PLAAF markings and camouflage.

Type 052C will be for long-range air defense, especially at sea. It's more effective than fighter jets because its SAMs have greater range and faster launch time.

Refueling can be provided by countries such as Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Italy, etc. We don't even need to deploy tankers.

By "H-6K" I mean "H-6U". There was a typo error.

SinoSoldier said:

H-6K bombers maybe upgraded, but they will be brought down by Libyan MiG-23 fighters as well as Mirage F-1s. Once a fighter jet makes a visual on you, there's no way you can escape as a bomber.

Click to expand...

First, H-6K bombers won't be used, H-6M will be. H-6K is too immature to be sent on deployment.
Second, they will be launching CJ-10Ks from over a thousand kilometers away. Need I say more?

You need to destroy the enemy without losing your own men. In that case, ship-launched cruise missiles or sub-launched missiles are perfect.

We don't need an Ohio-class equivalent to complete the missile (although we'll have them in the future). Type 094 or Type 093 submarines equipped with HN-I/II/III missiles is more than sufficient to disable Libyan airfields and radar systems. Each Type 094-I has 12 missile tubes (while the Type 2 has even more), and 3-5 LACMs could fit in each tube. That's enough to level Tripoli and Benghazi.

Click to expand...

sigh, Type 094s hold JL-2s. It'll take a long time for them to be modified to hold LACMs, and then you'll lose a good portion of your nuclear deterrent. Is that worth it when you can have H-6Ms do an equivalent job from stand off distances?

The Type 052B/C destroyers AND the Type 054A/B frigates can launch missiles, which will add to the firepower.

Click to expand...

With their anti ship missiles? I know YJ-83 can hit static ground targets, but their range is maybe ~200 km, and that would to fire them they would have to come within range of coastal anti ship batteries or even aircraft. Or did you mean naval based SAMs? If you did mean naval SAMs then remember that their range is fairly limited and requires aircraft to come into their kill zone, out at sea even if we say the HQ-9 has a slant range of 200 km. And they can only take out aircraft if they're relatively high in the sky and airborne, while fighters have look down shoot down.

Ships might be useful for additional surveillance at sea, espiciallyl with the 052C and definitely if they want to enforce a blockade, but apart from that there's not much "firepower" they can inflict against aircraft or inland bases.

Wild Weasel is different from ground strike. Wild Weasel involves smaller, more agile aircraft carrying light anti-radiation weapons. J-10S would be perfect for the job.

Click to expand...

Sure, but you don't need to have Wild weasel type tactics for SEAD. If the SAM positions are fixed a couple of KD-88 will do easily.

Once Libyan air defenses are destroyed, we don't need a significant number of fighter jets at all. These jets would be mainly patrolling, not engaging in combat. KJ-2000 would be the main weapon for monitoring.

Click to expand...

that's assuming they're destroyed, and even then if all Libyan/country x aircraft and SAMs are destroyed you still need a constant fighter presence there to deter aircraft from other countries. The fact is that you still need to enforce the no fly zone even if there seem to be no aircraft from the enemy country able to fly.

J-10Bs are seeing with production serials as well as PLAAF markings and camouflage.

Click to expand...

Once we get a dozen or even a half dozen of them together, then I'll believe. Or maybe a huitong reference could work too.

Type 052C will be for long-range air defense, especially at sea. It's more effective than fighter jets because its SAMs have greater range and faster launch time.

Click to expand...

That statement is just so... subjective. SAMs have greater range compared to what? fighters? air to air missiles? faster launch time -- as compared to how long a fighter takes to take off and get to the combat zone, or compared to how long it takes for a PL-12 to fire from a J-10?

Refueling can be provided by countries such as Iran, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Italy, etc. We don't even need to deploy tankers.

Click to expand...

And the refuelling probes on J-10s and J-8s just happen to fit with those of NATO or the Soviets? And out of those countries you listed, in the current political climate China doesn't have close military ties to many of them (I know that they've held exercises together a few times), but nothing that would allow any of them to lend tanker assets or even allow basing in their soil.
Only Pakistan would allow for that, and maybe if the PAF can allow the PLAAF to modify their Il-78s a little then the PAF might give some tanker support...

It's kind of depressing to think the PAF has a more capable tanker aircraft than the PLAAF.

tanlixiang28776 said:

Well using airfrorce by itself would be pretty stupid. Use of cruise missiles would need to destroy SAMs and airfields if a easy victory is required. Early build F 16s and Mig 29s would be no match for later build J10Bs or J 11Bs along with AWACs support and Electronic warfare platforms.

Click to expand...

Most SAMs proliferated throughout the world are Mobile. Cruise missiles are useless unless you know were they are. Which is usually impossible. Unless of course you have a rather large missile that acts like a UCAV on it's own. Maybe when it detects that it's being tracked and engaged by Enemy radars, it'll launch a sub-missile which has an passive-radar homing warhead. But that's not existent.

SinoSoldier wrote in #5:
"I never said J-10A has TVC. J-10B, from what we know, will be equipped with WS-15 engines or WS-10G engines, both of which incorporate 2D thrust vectoring."

That should be: can incorporate 2D thrust vectoring, if that is, indeed, the case. There can be no obligation to use thrust vectoring with an engine.

I think if this country X is an Asian country, it would be a better hypothesis

Other than that, PLAN doesn't have an operational CV yet, let alone a CBG. It would be hard for PLANAF to send combat aircrafts into long distance.

FarkTypeSoldier said:

I think if this country X is an Asian country, it would be a better hypothesis

Other than that, PLAN doesn't have an operational CV yet, let alone a CBG. It would be hard for PLANAF to send combat aircrafts into long distance.

Click to expand...

Nah let's keep it as an middle eastern country -- that way the PLAAF will have to deploy further, which poses challenges of its own.

This scenario would only include the PLAAF and maybe a few PLAN destroyers or frigates.

No PLAAF operations are then possible unless based in Iran. That demands quite a bit of diplomatic developments.

You can establish a NFZ with helicopters. Would be very difficult.