PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

siegecrossbow said:

It won’t during terminal phase. First engine first in the starting phase and second engine fires during mid phase.

Click to expand...

AndrewS said:

Wouldn't it be better to have the second pulse during the terminal phase?

So the first pulse gets the PL-15 to a ballistic trajectory which allows for maximum range for a first pulse.
Then the second pulse is for terminal targeting, as unpowered missiles can be outmanoeuvred a lot easier.

--

If the PL-15 were to fire mid-phase, the missile still has a fair amount of kinetic energy, plus gravity will provide additional impulse on the way down anyway.

But a mid-phase pulse would make sense if the target is too far away or has changed location, so needs a second pulse just to get enough range

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

I don’t think you understood what I meant by mid-phase.

Click to expand...

siegecrossbow said:

I think the main issue is that the calculus has changed. People used to think that PL-15/17 can only shoot down large, unmaneuverable aircraft like tankers and refuelers when fired at extreme range but PAF has demonstrated that it is not the case by hitting state of the art IAF aircraft flying within their airspace.

Click to expand...

Wrought said:

PL-15 should not be lumpted together with PL-17 at all. Different missiles for different roles.

Click to expand...

zlixOS said:

While we must take into account that while the PL-15 has been vastly underestimated and Western 4.5th gen technology over, much of the reason that a Rafale was able to be shot down by a J-10C or JF-17 (doesn't even matter) was because of IAF incompetence. Prepare for the worst, and we will not end up in the same mindset as that of the Indian Man.

Click to expand...

drowingfish said:

what that aerial battle proves is that with sufficient EW dominance and AWACS coverage, it is possible to suppress enemy fighters by shooting them as they take off. Geographically this would apply well to Taiwan's west coast airbases. they are geographically concentrated, closely watched (not only by PLAAF assets but possibly even observers on the ground), and tactically exposed. There is a bit more cover for fighters taking off from the east side of the island. It makes sense to concentrate SRBM and CM fire on those targets.

the idea of destroying the entire ROCAF on the ground was an old one and it stemmed from the concern that if allowed to take off, they are still a formidable force. I think in this day and age even if a few fighters managed to take off, they will not trouble the PLAAF much. the emphasis for the rocket force and ground force long range fire is then liberated from the very inefficient task of cratering runways towards hitting more high value targets that degrades ROC's ability to resist the PLA in other domains. some runways still have to be cratered but it is likely not as important and cumbersome as once thought.

Click to expand...

zlixOS said:

PERSONAL CONJECTURE ALERT:

Although true may it be that the PLAAF and PLAN would likely be able to obliterate the entire ROCAF and the gross or so F-35s within the SIC while in the sky, I feel that if the exchange ratios are not in the PLA's favour, even a victorious outcome wouldn't be very politically palatable.

The exchange ratios would more likely favour the PLA than not, but this is a consideration that has to be made and we can't blind ourselves with the mass firepower of the PLA.

Click to expand...