Number of Ships PLAN must have to be supreme

Slow, but exceptionally low which make it harder to engage and under certain weather condition hard to detect at long range. But the same
go for the yj-62

Click to expand...

Very true. But long range detection isnt essential, nor practical with CIWS.

Ground aircraft yes, but not SAM the HQ-9 has an maximum range of 200km and S-300PMU has 90km, while the Harpoon has an max operation range of greater then 112km the SLAM-ER has an operation range of over 278 which mean the f-18 can release their missile outside the SAM range.

Click to expand...

The s-300 pmu2 has a range of 200 also. Thats enough to cover Harpoon. Slammer is a little harder to intercept, but i do remeber the s-300 being valid against cruise missles as well as aircraft.

India may join SCO or they may also join US book of allied.

Click to expand...

or both

Very true. But long range detection isnt essential, nor practical with CIWS.

Click to expand...

If you relied on your CIWS as your only defence after a salvo of AsM you as good as dead. Long rangedetection is essential to your SAM to allow a muti layer air defence.

The s-300 pmu2 has a range of 200 also. Thats enough to cover Harpoon. Slammer is a little harder to intercept, but i do remeber the s-300 being valid against cruise missles as well as aircraft.

Click to expand...

Valid against cruise but how effective it is, you gotta remeneber these missile fly as low as 20m.

or both

Click to expand...

Highly unlikey

MIGleader said:

So? thw harpoon is slow and can be shot down by the hq-9 or a CIWS. If China chooses to opearte its destroyers near shore, ground aircraft can handle the f-18s, along with SAMs.

Click to expand...

Yes that’s what CIWS are for... S-300 and HQ-9 can shot down Harpoon but what is the range for target that is Harpoons size? How many targets can S-300 engage simultaneously?
The S-300 missile is guided by the 30N6E phased array radar, which can direct 12 missiles to engage 6 targets simultaneously. So you think that there will be only 8-9 Harpoons lunched? And who will defend the rest of the fleet during attack on ADM destroyers?

If you choose to operate destroyers near shore why have you build them? They are not made for costal defenses... Why not use FAC instead?

Ps.
Why are everybody obsessed only with number of ships and range of missiles? They alone don’t worth a shit… What matters is training and tactical and strategic knowledge… Israelis in 1973 destroyed 11 Arab ships with Gabriel missile. Gabriel1 had only 20km range. Arab had Styx (range 45 - 80km)… Israelis used better tactic and win..

isthvan said:

Yes that’s what CIWS are for... S-300 and HQ-9 can shot down Harpoon but what is the range for target that is Harpoons size? How many targets can S-300 engage simultaneously?
The S-300 missile is guided by the 30N6E phased array radar, which can direct 12 missiles to engage 6 targets simultaneously. So you think that there will be only 8-9 Harpoons lunched? And who will defend the rest of the fleet during attack on ADM destroyers?

If you choose to operate destroyers near shore why have you build them? They are not made for costal defenses... Why not use FAC instead?

Ps.
Why are everybody obsessed only with number of ships and range of missiles? They alone don’t worth a shit… What matters is training and tactical and strategic knowledge… Israelis in 1973 destroyed 11 Arab ships with Gabriel missile. Gabriel1 had only 20km range. Arab had Styx (range 45 - 80km)… Israelis used better tactic and win..

Click to expand...

The s-300 you speak of is only the naval s-300F. The ground based s-300pmu/pmu2 is buided by the Clam Shell and Flap Lid radars. The Clam Shell can attack 6 targets, assigning TWO missles a target. And remeber, this is only one group of TELs(around 12, each with four missles). China can deploy far more if she wishes.

FACs do not have the air-defence ability of DDGs. DDG's such as the 52c and the 51c can provide valuable supplemetary air defence. Chians DDGs will most likely operate in taiwan strait. The range of the s-300 has them covered.

MIGleader said:

The s-300 you speak of is only the naval s-300F. The ground based s-300pmu/pmu2 is buided by the Clam Shell and Flap Lid radars. The Clam Shell can attack 6 targets, assigning TWO missles a target. And remeber, this is only one group of TELs(around 12, each with four missles). China can deploy far more if she wishes.

FACs do not have the air-defence ability of DDGs. DDG's such as the 52c and the 51c can provide valuable supplemetary air defence. Chians DDGs will most likely operate in taiwan strait. The range of the s-300 has them covered.

Click to expand...

Yes I was speaking of s-300 naval version because I have assumed that this thread is about Chinese navy and not about PLA’s air defenses… Ship systems and land base versions are not same because different environment in which they operate. I can not se how land based SAM could destroy anti ship missile or protect fleet from such attack… Yes it will help with air defenses but will also limit fleet operations (limited area of operation)… And everyone is focused on ship and air based Harpoons and totally forgetting about sub version… With PLAN limited ASW capabilities they are considerable treat to Chinese fleet…

isthvan said:

Yes I was speaking of s-300 naval version because I have assumed that this thread is about Chinese navy and not about PLA’s air defenses… Ship systems and land base versions are not same because different environment in which they operate. I can not se how land based SAM could destroy anti ship missile or protect fleet from such attack… Yes it will help with air defenses but will also limit fleet operations (limited area of operation)… And everyone is focused on ship and air based Harpoons and totally forgetting about sub version… With PLAN limited ASW capabilities they are considerable treat to Chinese fleet…

Click to expand...

chiense coastal radar is perfectly capable of watching and tracking enemy Anti-ship missles. As long as PLAB operations stay in thew taiwan strait, most of the PLAAFs and PLA's land rescources are availabel to assist them. also, in littoral waters such as the strait, chinese ASW is not as weak as it might be in deeper waters. The reason is SSKs can go out and hunt for U.s subs, assisted by ground based ka-28s.

MIGleader said:

chiense coastal radar is perfectly capable of watching and tracking enemy Anti-ship missles. As long as PLAB operations stay in thew taiwan strait, most of the PLAAFs and PLA's land rescources are availabel to assist them. also, in littoral waters such as the strait, chinese ASW is not as weak as it might be in deeper waters. The reason is SSKs can go out and hunt for U.s subs, assisted by ground based ka-28s.

Click to expand...

I don’t think so... First of all you need consider detection time of anti ship missile, which is not exactly 200km (more like 30 - 40km), distance from s-300 battery to fleet, number of Harpoons heeded toward fleet, reaction time of s-300 battery etc. Now count in jamming and multiple treats and you are getting my point…
Ships alone without AWACS-s have average detection range for ASMs of 14 – 17 km… Now with Harpoon that will give you 40 sec to destroy Harpoons… I definitely would not count on ground based SAM to do that for me…
As for SSK and Ka-28 against US subs I will put my money on US SSN… Do not forget that in your scenario other side has capable SAMs also, so I do not believe that to much Ka-27s would fly around long enough to threaten US sub …

To stay a safe distance away, U.s CSGs would most likely not be close enough to use their standards on ka-28s flying above the strait. In a near future situation, China definitly would deploy AWACs over the strait.

as for u.s subs, they cannot touch the ka-28. Once the u.s SSN is detected, the ka-28 can guide the kilos to the correct destination.

To stay a safe distance away, U.s CSGs would most likely not be close enough to use their standards on ka-28s flying above the strait. In a near future situation, China definitly would deploy AWACs over the strait.

as for u.s subs, they cannot touch the ka-28. Once the u.s SSN is detected, the ka-28 can guide the kilos to the correct destination.

Click to expand...

Miggy... Are you discounting the US ablity to deploy ECM that will confound the whole situation for the PLA forces? And when did the PLAN ASW gain so much as to have the ablity to track a USN LA class SSN continusoly? Are you discounting the USN's ablity to conduct ASW with assest like a P-3, Arliegh Burke DDG's, FFG's and SH-60 variants?

Another way the US would attack PLAN surface vessels is with JDAM's and other precision air launched guided munitions.

Just how would the PLAN forces defend themselves against the USN assets?

Oh by the way..war sucks....

Well obviously no one ship will be safe if all the adversary's assets are directed to it. But the PLAN destroyers won't be alone. There will be subs all over the Taiwan strait. Few things are deadlier to the USN than Yuan subs. JH-7A's with antiship missiles. AWACS and J-10/11's. Who knows what else?

With fighters, AWACS, ground based SAMS, and the destroyer's own air defense, it would be a very dangerous mission for a wing of F-18's to attack a PLAN destroyer with harpoons.

I also object to assuming that PLAN's tactics are not good enough to fully exploit the capabilities of its equipment. I also think PLAN has more than a few electronic warfare techniques up its sleeve to counter those the USN. I think it is widely acknowledged that information warfare is one area where the gap between China and the US is quite small.


According to this article, the USN would lose a conflict with PLAN if it sends only 3 CVBG's. (I'll translate it if I have time later.)