PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

grulle said:

I read an article once on The Warzone regarding the AIM-174B. To my great satisfaction, even the Warzone authors acknowledged that with EXISTING air to air missiles in the US inventory, the US will be "hard pressed" to get within range to destroy Chinese fighters. Because the PL15 and PL17 out-range the AIM120D. This means that with CURRENT US missile inventory, China can easily achieve and maintain air superiority in the areas around Taiwan. However, the bad news is that the AIM-174B and AIM-260 are now slowly coming online. These missiles likely out-range the PL15 and PL17 and give the US a very long range option to target Chinese aerial assets.

What are China's options to deal with this real and substantial threat?

Click to expand...

For starters, you shouldn't read something like "The Warzone" that doesn't cite where exactly it's pulling all its data from, down to every last number or assertion. In my view, websites like that are more just military tabloids than reliable sources of information.

PL-17 - 400+ km
Barrie, Douglas (20 January 2024). . International Institute for Strategic Studies.

AIM-174B - 370 km assuming it is closely equivalent to SM-6, though FriedRiceNSpice states it is not since it is missing the SM-6's additional booster stage, in which case maybe we can estimate it is closer to 250-300 km
West, Lisa (2024-07-06). . UK Defence Journal. Retrieved 2024-07-07.

PL-15 - 200-300 km
Bronk 2020, p. 36, (PDF) (Report). Whitehall Report. Vol. 3–20. London: Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies. . (PDF) from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
Wood, Yang & Cliff 2020, pp. 38–39, (PDF). Montgomery, Alabama: China Aerospace Studies Institute. . (PDF) from the original on 27 October 2024. Retrieved 10 August 2022.

AIM-260 - 200+ km
. Global Security. from the original on October 23, 2020. Retrieved March 14, 2020.

CMP said:

PL-17 - 400+ km - Barrie, Douglas (20 January 2024).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. International Institute for Strategic Studies.
PL-15 - 200-300 km -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, p. 36.,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, pp. 38–39.
AIM-260 - 200+ km

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Global Security.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from the original on October 23, 2020. Retrieved March 14, 2020.
AIM-174B - 240+ km - West, Lisa (2024-07-06).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. UK Defence Journal. Retrieved 2024-07-07.

Click to expand...

Even your own data doesn't suggest the new US missiles can outrange PL-15, let alone the PL-17. Despite the maximum ranges on the US missiles being classified, it is highly doubtful either US missile can out-range PL-17, and indeterminate whether either missile can even outrange PL-15.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Even your own data doesn't suggest the new US missiles can outrange PL-15/PL-17. Highly doubtful either US missile can out-range PL-17, and dubious if either missile can even outrange PL-15.

Click to expand...

You're confused. I posted that data precisely to debunk grulle's assertions. I'm on the fence about whether I should ignore list him for making radical assertions with no evidence. He clearly doesn't do any of his own homework.

CMP said:

You're confused. I posted that data precisely to debunk grulle's assertions.

Click to expand...

My bad, I thought that was @grulle's post. To be fair, I think at least he is pretty open about not being very knowledgeable about military developments and portrays himself as someone primarily frequenting the forum to learn more.

CMP said:

For starters, you shouldn't read something like "The Warzone" that doesn't cite where exactly it's pulling all its data from, down to every last number or assertion. In my view, websites like that are more just military tabloids than reliable sources of information.

PL-17 - 400+ km
Barrie, Douglas (20 January 2024).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. International Institute for Strategic Studies.

PL-15 - 200-300 km
Bronk 2020, p. 36,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(PDF) (Report). Whitehall Report. Vol. 3–20. London: Royal United Services Institute for Defence and Security Studies.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(PDF) from the original on 8 March 2022. Retrieved 1 October 2021.
Wood, Yang & Cliff 2020, pp. 38–39,

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(PDF). Montgomery, Alabama: China Aerospace Studies Institute.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

(PDF) from the original on 27 October 2024. Retrieved 10 August 2022.

AIM-260 - 200+ km

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Global Security.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

from the original on October 23, 2020. Retrieved March 14, 2020.

AIM-174B - 240+ km
West, Lisa (2024-07-06).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. UK Defence Journal. Retrieved 2024-07-07.

Click to expand...

its plausible that the aim260 can be more or less equal to the PL15. But that still leaves the aim174b. Your article says the aim174b is derived from the sm6 which has 240miles or 380km. Launched from high altitude with less air resistance, the aim174b should have substantially longer range. This is from the article itself. 500km+ is not out of the question. Basically right now you guys are saying that these missiles don't out range the pla. But let's assume the worst. What are China's options?

grulle said:

its plausible that the aim260 can be more or less equal to the PL15. But that still leaves the aim174b. Your article says the aim174b is derived from the sm6 which has 240miles or 380km. Launched from high altitude with less air resistance, the aim174b should have substantially longer range. This is from the article itself. 500km+ is not out of the question. Basically right now you guys are saying that these missiles don't out range the pla. But let's assume the worst. What are China's options?

Click to expand...

Did you read my initial response? When both sides are using predominantly stealth fighters, sensor performance and persistence, and EW capabilities become much more important than missile range. I believe you are conceptualizing air combat as being far simpler than it actually is. Fighters from both sides are not just going to be cruising towards each other and launching their missiles at maximum ranges. First, you must detect the general location of enemy fighters. Then, you must narrow down the precise location of enemy assets to the point where your sensors and missiles are actually able to get a firing solution. Concurrently, your adversary is filling the EM spectrum with emissions intended to confuse and locate your sensors and disrupt your communications/datalinks, while you are attempting to do the same to enemy sensors. Also, PL-17 true maximum range is unknown, and how the AIM-174B's kinematics compare to the PL-17 is also unknown. Lastly, your assumption about the AIM-174Bs range based on the SM-6 is also incorrect, as the SM-6 has an additional booster stage that the AIM-174B does not have SM-6 is over 50% heavier than AIM-174B).

grulle said:

its plausible that the aim260 can be more or less equal to the PL15. But that still leaves the aim174b. Your article says the aim174b is derived from the sm6 which has 240miles or 380km. Launched from high altitude with less air resistance, the aim174b should have substantially longer range. This is from the article itself. 500km+ is not out of the question. Basically right now you guys are saying that these missiles don't out range the pla. But let's assume the worst. What are China's options?

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing out the miles vs kilometers difference. I went ahead and updated my post to fix that. I hate that Americans are pretty much the only ones that use miles. Even so, that still puts them at 370 km which falls short. So if you look closely, the AIM-174B is the US attempt at matching the PL-17, and it still falls short. The AIM-260 appears to be an attempt to match PL-15, and falls short as well. Also, why is it that you assume Chinese planes cannot launch from high altitude with less air resistance as well?

And I'll reiterate what FR&S already said:

FriedRiceNSpice said:

What makes you believe those missiles have a longer range than PL-17? And in a battle involving stealth fighters, missile range is not the primary determinant to which side will be able to gain a first shit advantage. As for the missiles themselves, comparing maximum range along is insufficient for evaluating missile performance. You need to assess the missiles kinematic performance across the entire flight envelope, as well as the capabilities of the seeker and datalinks on the missile.

Click to expand...

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Did you read my initial response? When both sides are using predominantly stealth fighters, sensor performance and persistence and EW capabilities become much more important than missile range. I believe you are conceptualizing air combat as being far simpler than it actually is. Fighters from both sides are not just going to be cruising towards each other and launching their missiles at maximum ranges. First, you must detect the general location of enemy fighters. Then, you must need to narrow down the precise location of enemy assets to the point where your sensors and missiles are actually able to get a firing solution. Also, PL-17 true maximum range is unknown, and how the AIM-174B's kinematics compare to the PL-17 is also unknown. Lastly, your assumption about the AIM-174Bs range based on the SM-6 is also incorrect, as the SM-6 has an additional booster stage that the AIM-174B does not have.

Click to expand...

Thanks for highlighting the lack of additional booster stage. Went ahead and updated my original post to reflect that as well.

Opps, I meant "first shot," advantage, not "first shit."

Ok I guess stealth takes the range out of the equation. That makes sense. Good thing china will very soon have two types of stealth fighters in service. And radar coverage along China's coast is substantial. They better pump out those J35 and J35A like dumplings haha.

How many f22 and f35 you guys think the US can base in Japan and Korea in a Taiwan scenario? We need to have a lot more than them obviously.

grulle said:

How many f22 and f35 you guys think the US can base in Japan and Korea in a Taiwan scenario? We need to have a lot more than them obviously.

Click to expand...

Again, focusing on numbers is an incorrect approach to assessing the relative strengths of opposing air forces. Not going into all the other considerations nor repeating myself for a 3rd time, range by itself is a huge factor. Both the ranges of the fighter platforms involved, as well as distance between the air bases of each side and the actual area of operations needs to be taken into consideration. In case of aircraft based in Japan, where in Japan the aircraft is based also needs to be taken into consideration, rather than how many if spread out across the entirety of Japan.

I would say China should just continue to match the US in annual production of 5th generation fighters, at least until 6th gens enter production. Primary goal should be to attain a decisive advantage in sensors, communications, and electronics tech. I believe these areas to be the most important factors in air combat for the foreseeable future.