PLA missile defense system

WOW 5800 RPM that's impressive. That's good for China! But how about stealthy cruise missiles? Does China possess the technology to successfully detect, track and lock on to stealthy cruise missiles? For example the Storm Shadow short-range stealth LACM. I think China can practice shooting down stealth LACMs by building one of their own and firing it with an empty warhead at an air defense unit to see and test how China's air defense fares against stealth LACMs.

One tactic for China to defend air bases from LACMs is by building super-hard underground shelters for J-10s and J-11s, so that LACMs can't even touch those jets. Also underground living quarters for some pilots, command centers, party leaders housings so that USAF can only rely on Close-Range Bunker-Busting Bombs.(Which China can shoot down the aircarft at long range with S-300 except for B-2s)
Defending against enemy EMP attack would also be tricky. Also China should also convey to USA that China considers tactical nuclear weapons as a "No-Use" weapon to discourage US use of it. For example China will not use any kinds of nukes unless if USA uses it first. This is an attempt to discourage US use of tactical nukes if in a conflict a carrier is sunk by a conventional warhead, USA can only respond with conventional warheads. A tactical nuke with even a 1KT warhead would do a lot of damage to an airbase.

Gallaghan36 said:

A tactical nuke with even a 1KT warhead would do a lot of damage to an airbase.

Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what a nuke is all about? 1KT could destroy not just an airbase. And if you want to damage an airbase, you don't need a nuke.

Gallaghan36 said:

WOW 5800 RPM that's impressive. That's good for China! But how about stealthy cruise missiles? Does China possess the technology to successfully detect, track and lock on to stealthy cruise missiles? For example the Storm Shadow short-range stealth LACM. I think China can practice shooting down stealth LACMs by building one of their own and firing it with an empty warhead at an air defense unit to see and test how China's air defense fares against stealth LACMs.

Click to expand...

I think tracking stealthy targets really depends on how accurate your sensors (radar, IRST) are and then integrating that information in a network with a gun or missile system to intercept it.

China has some pretty capable AESA radars -- KJ-2000, KJ-200, and I think one of the HQ-9's ground based radars are also AESA. I'm not sure how sensitive China's infrared sensors are, but I'd imagine radars would be the greatest component in detecting stealthy contacts.

If the PLA can integrate all their assets over an area then the chances of detecting, tracking and destroying stealthy targets will increase dramatically.

rhino123 said:

Do you have any idea what a nuke is all about? 1KT could destroy not just an airbase. And if you want to damage an airbase, you don't need a nuke.

Click to expand...

Yeah i know what a nuke is the one that destroyed Hiroshima is 15KT nuke warhead. Even one 15 times smaller would wipe out an airbase and the surroundings.

Gallaghan36 said:

Yeah i know what a nuke is the one that destroyed Hiroshima is 15KT nuke warhead. Even one 15 times smaller would wipe out an airbase and the surroundings.

Click to expand...

Elevating a conventional war to nuclear isn't exactly what I would call intelligent strategic consideration.

Gallaghan36 said:

Yeah i know what a nuke is the one that destroyed Hiroshima is 15KT nuke warhead. Even one 15 times smaller would wipe out an airbase and the surroundings.

Click to expand...

Seriously... do some research before you post such things. Do you know what 1kt equals to? It would be what I would call, using a chopper to kill a fly.

Plus like what Seigecrossbow had pointed out, it is not a very clever thing to do to escalate a war into nuclear when conventional missiles could do the same job.

rhino123 said:

Seriously... do some research before you post such things. Do you know what 1kt equals to? It would be what I would call, using a chopper to kill a fly.

Plus like what Seigecrossbow had pointed out, it is not a very clever thing to do to escalate a war into nuclear when conventional missiles could do the same job.

Click to expand...

I think he could be making a reference to reinforced airbases here, in an "all or nothing WW III" type scenario.

And Gallaghan, China has the "no first use" policy in place, basically saying that if you use nukes against us in any way then we will nuke you back. No country would want to kick things into that ball park so... yeah. (this includes detonating say, a tactical nuke at high altitude to cause EMP damage to airbases as you suggested -- the US nor China nor any nation state will use any nukes, strategic or tactical at all in any forseeable conflict.)

Bltizo said:

I think he could be making a reference to reinforced airbases here, in an "all or nothing WW III" type scenario.

And Gallaghan, China has the "no first use" policy in place, basically saying that if you use nukes against us in any way then we will nuke you back. No country would want to kick things into that ball park so... yeah. (this includes detonating say, a tactical nuke at high altitude to cause EMP damage to airbases as you suggested -- the US nor China nor any nation state will use any nukes, strategic or tactical at all in any forseeable conflict.)

Click to expand...

Granted that it is a WWIII type of scenario. No one in the right mind would use nuclear to destroy airbases. It is simply not worth the money.

In an all out WWIII scenario when all countries will be joining the fight, nuclear will be used in a grand scale and not in some petty blasting of airbases.

Plus even if it was an reinforced airbase, I believe conventional missiles specially built to debunker a base is still able to do the job.

So I think we all pretty much agree that the idea of the Second Artillery using nukes against air fields is pretty much stupid. Time to move on guys.

siegecrossbow said:

So I think we all pretty much agree that the idea of the Second Artillery using nukes against air fields is pretty much stupid. Time to move on guys.

Click to expand...

Nope i'm not implying that China will use nukes first. I'm implying a what-if scenario in which after China sinks a US carrier with conventional warheads on ASBMs, the US might strike PLAAF airbases with tactical nukes of 1KT or below. That's what i'm concerned about because US statements claim that they value the carrier so much.