would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier group?

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

If the thread does not maintain quality discussion, it will be under consideration for locking. Having said this I'm not happy about the potential flame bait the topic of the thread brings.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

bd popeye said:

The AEGIS system has been constantly updated an improved upon since it's inception.

Click to expand...

Agreed totally. It keeps raising the bar.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

We're not talking ICBMs here... the PLA will be using SRBMs only, which do not leave the atmosphere.

Click to expand...

IF that is true, then how is SM-3 going to work?

FriedRiceNSpice said:

It means the USN will try to scramble either 1) radar signals to and from the missile 2) signals from the warhead to GPS/Beidou/GLONASS or 3) guidance signals from other sources.

Click to expand...

Let's say a Growler / Prowler jams the guidance on a warhead 50 km away, how far away do you think a carrier can move in the time that it takes for the warhead to reach its destination?

The warhead moves at Mach 6, it won't move fast enough to evade.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

And how is satellites going to play a big role? I hope you mean the use of satellites to detect the USN submarines that will be launching the missiles since they sure as hell are not going to do anything about the missiles itself.

Click to expand...

Satellites would play a support role to monitor the surface.

Subs would be a problem for PLAN. China has huge numbers of diesel subs that can control the littorals. Maybe about 4 Type 093's (those not assigned to escort other subs) can do sweeps further out.

China does lack a good surface-based ASW though.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

Destroyers will serve as SAM, while the intercepting is going to be done by F-18s... obviously.

There, the PLA's SAM coverage fades, and instead will be under the cover of AEGIS once further inland and Taiwanese SAMs.

Click to expand...

I think you are under a HUGELY mistaken impression that ROC and US forces could work as an integrated whole. The communications are separate. The command is separate. The most they can do is share information at a strategic level, they don't conduct joint operations together. I don't recall them even doing any exercises together in recent memory.

Having the US fly its fighters over Taiwan and having its SAMs flying over Taiwan is a bad idea. They're more likely to hit the ROCAF, indeed more likely to hit their own F-18's, then any PLAAF. And no ROCAF nor any aircraft can do illumination for the SM-2.

FriedRiceNSpice said:

J-10s and J-11's have superior performance and maneuverability, but USN aircraft enjoy an advantage in EW and avionics.

Click to expand...

I disagree. China is very advanced in electronics, as you can see from the huge range of AWACS / AEW aircraft it has.

The most important advantage the US has is training and experience!

ROCAF has no advantages whatsoever.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

The ROCAF has no advantages you say? How about utilizing the terrain for defensive purposes. Every defensive country has their advantages like: patriotism and natural knowledge of terrain. Another is that the major highways having the ability to be used as runways, thats one advantage right there, because the Chinese during the first stages of attack wont attack civilian targets especially with the crowded highways. Taiwan is also upgrading their air defence systems and air to air missiles used by their fighter planes.

No doubt China outranks/outperforms Taiwan is many ways, however you cannot simply say the ROCAF has no advantages.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

^ No PLAAF wont bomb crowded highways, but if the highways are crowded how is ROCAF suppose to use them as runways? Once ROCAF fighter are able to land on highways they would be empty; that's when theyll most likely get attacked...both the fighters and the highway.
Better knowledge of terrain is an advantage, but not patriotism as the mainland side would be just as patriotic about their cause.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

Cutting of part of the highway, as runways only require certain amount of length. Of course this will only last for a short while.

All of my statements are just to outline that Taiwan still has some advantages.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

Regarding this exo/endo atmospheric TMB kill part.
Doesn't the SM-2 IV have a rudimentary ABM capability? (I realize that the ABM specialized -2 IV A was cancaled.) Would the SM-2 IV then be the endoatmospheric TBM interceptor? It's perhaps not suited for a direct kill, but it's warhead should be able to knock the TBM off course, perhaps.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

I think the emphasis is on "rudimentary". Look, even the PAC-3, totally redesigned to engage atmospheric BM, and with no practical limitations on the size of the missiles or the launcher, has an effective range of about 15 km.

Something in the size range of the SM-2 is going to be much more limited, like 5-10 km.

At mach 6, 5-10 km can be covered in about a second.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

Well, but then the -2 IV is a lot bigger and has more stages then the rather thin, single staged PAC-3.
So I don't get how you come to believe the SM with much more propallent would only get 5-10km. Even if effective range against TBMs is much less then the max range against air-breating targets, wich is still somewhere over 200km,
I think 5-10 is far understated.
Because of size the maneuverability may suffer but not the range in the way you described I believe.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

Really don't see Tawain or Japan attacking China, its like them throwing a small hammer at them but in retalliation China throws a Sledge hammer back. US won't get far into China airspace they have abudant amount of SAM's around their major cities and have fighter airbase not too far from those cities. As for the US navy it sounds like China doesn't even have any and that US navy will park on Chinese harbours. China has large number of subs that even a wrong move by us navy vessel will send them to the bottom ocean floor. Dont forget China's cruise missle, Destroyers, Frigates, Subs etc...maybe they can't reach out to Tawain but they can sure as hell make a pretty defend wall within their sea territory.

US if they attack China everybody would be thinking "You serious," US wont defend Georgia cause Russia are too tough and strong to be defended against if it was lets say Georgia and weaker nation then yeah US will defend and help them.

Not bashing USA, I admire their Navy and are indeed better then China's, But Land and Air their too close to call who will win.

Re: would MLRS and PGMs be a deterrent force in the taiwan strait against carrier gro

Scratch said:

Because of size the maneuverability may suffer but not the range in the way you described I believe.

Click to expand...

You're right, it's the performance demands that limit the size of the PAC-3. So that wouldn't be affected by putting it on a ship.

Still, the point is that an SM-2 with "rudimentary" BMD is not going to be any better than a PAC-3. And a PAC-3 would intercept out at 15 km or so, we're still talking about a handful of seconds before impact.

That sounds too much like a "last second" prayer.