PLAN Amphibious assault capability

Gollevainen said:

Well thats sounds like in some video game..."I have this ammount of missiles and I fire the there and then the images of airport vannish from the CP screen and I can do other things..."

Well lets do little math, shall we??

The real number of ballistic missiles headed against Taiwan is around 500 missiles. Each missile carries 500 kg warhead so 500x500 is 250 000 kg of TNT to be fielded against Taiwan. It seems big, but lets compare that ammount against normal fire supporting availble to all normal armies...

Lets take a normal chinese group army which consist of 4 divisions (one amoured and 3 infantry) and one artillery division. Thats roughly 576 tubes.
If we count that one "piggie" weights 50 kg, we get the total number of 28 800 kg one firing sortie. 250 000 kg/28 800 kg = 8,6 rounds. So a single group army can put the same ammount of damage than the entire ballistic missile arsenal for just firing 9 times which is really nothing at all.

for example in Tienhaara battles in Karelia ishtmuss in summer 1944 Soviets fired 25 000 grenades (roughly 750 000 Kg of TNT...thats three times the ammunt of entire PLAs ballistic missiles ) into single village...and they didn't even brake the Finnish army defences....and thats with the artillerys accuracy (~25-50 meters CEP)

Perhaps PLA can destry single airport if they want to waste their entire arsenal to accomplish gnat level fire effect on horrible accuracy, but somehow I think they wont.

Sometimes I wonder do you actually think what you claim and say, or do you just throw things out from your hats? Ballistic missiles are good to threat enemy, expecially with WMD warheads...but thats pretty much of it.

Click to expand...

Dragon's teeth - Chinese missiles raise their game
By Robert Hewson

China now builds and supplies missiles that can be used in combat from the beach, across the coastal/littoral environment, and out to extended-range engagements far over the horizon. This has largely been achieved through an evolutionary process of staged improvement.

At the same time, China has shown that it can embrace entirely new concepts to serve the essential operational requirements of the People's Liberation Army, the navy and naval air force, and the air force.

The potential use of tactical ballistic missiles against targets at sea is the best example of this and the intent that drives the process is clear: China has spent a great deal of time analysing how best to neutralise US naval forces in the Pacific - in particular the carrier strike groups.

C-602

The C-602 stands apart from the rest of China's anti-ship missiles because it is such a radical departure in terms of range and accuracy. It is effectively a cruise missile, repackaged for the maritime attack role. Its basic design is clearly scalable and the C-602's performance today is probably at the lower end of this configuration's theoretical capabilities. It has been offered on the export market since 2005.

At first sight the C-602 export designation would suggest a linkage to the much older C-601 missile (YJ-6/YJ-61 family), a 1960s-era Chinese design based on the Soviet SS-N-2 'Styx'. However, the turbojet-powered C-602 is a completely new, very modern design with a maximum range of 280 km.

Going ballistic

Most of what China has accomplished in the development of its anti-ship missile -capabilities parallels that of Europe, the US and elsewhere. But one element of China's ship-killing strategy stands out as a remarkable application of technology, and an unprecedented threat.

In Chinese terms, this is a Shashaojian - the assassin's mace - a 'silver bullet' weapon that would, literally, drop from the clear blue sky.

A 2004 report by the US Office of Naval Intelligence made it plain that China was developing the capability to use its DF-21 tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs) against tar¬gets at sea. The DF-21 carries a single warhead of about 500/600 kg over a distance of 1,500 km to 2,000 km, or more.

Designed as a nuclear delivery system, the DF-21 can also be fitted with a conventional payload. If made to work, such a weapon would be
a 'carrier killer' without equal.

China develops anti-ship missile

By Ted Parsons JDW Correspondent
Virginia, US

The Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) is in the advanced stages of developing a revolutionary anti-ship ballistic missile to supplement its well known Ying-Ji family of anti-ship cruise missiles.

The development programme has been confirmed by both US government and Asian military sources, with the latter estimating that the PLA may be able to deploy the space targeting systems needed to make its anti-ship ballistic missile operational by 2009.

PLA efforts to provide terminal guidance capabilities to both its 600 km-range DF-15 (CSS-6) short-range ballistic missile and DF-21 (CSS-5) medium-range ballistic missile with a range of 2,150 km, or 2,500 km for the DF-21A (CSS-5 Mod 2), have been known since the mid-1990s. The existence of a terminally guided DF-21C has long been reported. Asian military sources said that the PLA will be using a version of the DF-21 for its ballistic anti-ship missions.

However, the PLA would need to make substantial advances in missile guidance and countermeasures in order to achieve the very high precision required to attack a moving target. To do so, the US Office of Naval Intelligence noted: "The current TBM force would be modified by changing some to the current missiles' re-entry vehicles to manoeuvring re-entry vehicles with radar or infra-red seekers to provide the accuracy needed to attack ships at sea."

Whats that to do with your claims of tactical missiles tactical aplications in destroying Taiwanese airfields?

Ps. Besides, we tend to require members own input to post, not reply with Copy and paste method of others writing

Gollevainen said:

Whats that to do with your claims of tactical missiles tactical aplications in destroying Taiwanese airfields?

Ps. Besides, we tend to require members own input to post, not reply with Copy and paste method of others writing

Click to expand...

Haha.. If a ballistic missile can knock out a moving carrier. I don see how it can't knock out a airfield with even more ease as it is a fix target. Worst of all dozen of ballistic is going at a same target. I don't see how a air defense like Taiwan can handle it?

By the way,it is reported from Janes. A link is even given.If is my own input,I think somebody will make a attack of its credibilities. Funny that even a article from from a well-known website is even question. looks like someone can't accept the fact that ballisitc missile can really achieve great accuracy and thinking PRC is stupid to use ballisitc missile on Taiwan. They think those ballisitic missile is useless? They can try it!

a) Thats Janes article is pretty old, since then its contest has been questioned. Whats the main idea was, that China migth devolp a antiship capacity to its ballistic missiles or devolp an entire new missile for such.
Yet the current level of PLAs ballistic missile accuracity doesent face the demands of percission strike.

b) the warhead still is 500kg. A fligth of Su-30MKKs with KAB-500 GBs will do lot better impact..

c) Only if PLA is dump enough to waste its all arsenall to attack Taiwan, it can propaply fire one missile into every seccond important target that founds in that Island...perhaps 60~80 % of them migth penetrate the Taiwanese AAD.

I dont know in what planet you are planning this hypothetical assault to take place but in this planet, 500 kg is not even near the ammount of explosives that you need to destroy such a large place as an airport in a single strike.....perspective my son, perspective

d) Read the forum rules what they say about posting only copy/pasted material without the posters own input.

It seems to me that such missiles fitted with Cluster Munitions could be a very effective Airfeild Denial weapon,targeting the runways, especailly if a variety of slow time fuses were in the mix.

I think this would give maximum benefit from minimum missile expenditure, which combined with a high altitude dispersal would make interception virtually impossible.

One ot two mssiles per day, per target, during a campaign should be sufficent to do the trick.

If nothing else it would provide acute psychological anxiety for Pilots operating out of those airfields (not to mention runway repair crews) who would be wondering whether or not they will be returning to a servicable airfeild. This could especially true if the timing of the strikes were to coincide with the return from mission of the aircraft based there. Needing to redirect at the last minute could catch some out and cause losses due to fuel exhaustion.

Hm I think such attacks were the subordnance is released at altitude it will spread very widely and only an unsufficiant number will actually damage run-, taxiways and so on. Unless there's a sufficiant capability in precise deliver and release methods, most of those charges will impact in fields around or none importand places on the airfield.
Now we've come ff

I've another question here. I already asked it but it may not be noticesed.
It's about the PLANs capability to deliver Special Forces with subs. Does anyone know something about that ? Or is there already something about it in the sub thread and I didn't noticee it ?

well I dont know wheter all subs can by nature to conduct some limited inflirtation, but in large numbers...Atleast I havent heard of any such capacity. Neither there are dedicated mini subs like in DPRK...

SampanViking said:

It seems to me that such missiles fitted with Cluster Munitions could be a very effective Airfeild Denial weapon,targeting the runways, especailly if a variety of slow time fuses were in the mix.

I think this would give maximum benefit from minimum missile expenditure, which combined with a high altitude dispersal would make interception virtually impossible.

One ot two mssiles per day, per target, during a campaign should be sufficent to do the trick.

If nothing else it would provide acute psychological anxiety for Pilots operating out of those airfields (not to mention runway repair crews) who would be wondering whether or not they will be returning to a servicable airfeild. This could especially true if the timing of the strikes were to coincide with the return from mission of the aircraft based there. Needing to redirect at the last minute could catch some out and cause losses due to fuel exhaustion.

Click to expand...

Now that's thinking Sampan. Much more effective than "shock and awe". However, when using the "constant steady bombardment" strategy you lose the instant effectiveness of a massive initial strike (assuming that that actually works.) Of course, I believe that that does not work and therefore would prefer a steady constant beating.

I think that it is critical for China to develop more helicopter movement capability to bring troops to Taiwan in either an airborne assault to accompany an amphibious landing or after the landing. However, I can see a sort of large Special Forces assault the Pescadores Islands In the middle of the Strait.

China shouldn't have problems inflirtating a territory with subs. The Germans did so trying to attack America, and used a pontoon.

China today have The Song, Yuan, and Kilo, all bigger and quieter, and China have frogmen recon that you can launch through torpedo tubes along with pontoon units like the Germans.

In Taiwan's case, you can do this on the East Coast, since they can march through on foot and you don't need a big road and grab attention. (Although motorbikes are better, but is it possible to launch those out of a sub? Are there motorbike rentals in Eastern Taiwan? )

Slightly off tangent but related to amphibious assault. Anyone think China tunneling to Taiwan would work?