Chinese Air Power analysis - Justin Bronk

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2675
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post09 Sep 2021, 22:32

Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4975
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post10 Sep 2021, 15:11

Have to hand it to them on the J-10, great fighter. By most accounts, it punches well above its weight. The J-16 looks even better in some regards, but I'm suspicious of "reduced RCS" claims. Reduced by how much? Flanker is a HUGE airframe with lots of right angles and such. Nobody (not even the US) can turn an airframe with no RCS reduction measures/LO shape into a truly LO aircraft.

So I see the J-16 much like the F-15EX. Dangerous bird, but nothing close to an F-35/F-22.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2675
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post11 Sep 2021, 16:34

mixelflick wrote:So I see the J-16 much like the F-15EX.


Yes that's what it looks like - possibly the most advanced Flanker ever but nothing more.
Offline

jessmo112

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1030
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post27 Sep 2022, 05:18

A really good article here.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ch ... wan-204972

However, a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan depends on three other capabilities that China is moving rapidly to address. First, China needs to be able to dominate its continental shelf sufficiently to exclude U.S. and allied submarines, which requires a major overhaul of its anti-submarine warfare capability. Second, China needs to augment the power of its air force to the extent that it could indefinitely achieve air supremacy over and around Taiwan.

It seems like Chinese political and military needs are closely linked. They need enough airpower to completely
Dominate across the straight, while having political backing from Russia.

I didn't realize that during the cold war the Soviets had 300 submarines to throw at the west.
Offline

usafr

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 125
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2012, 16:44
  • Location: Washington State

Unread post27 Sep 2022, 05:47

And the US Navy had 24 active and 13 Reserve P-3 squadrons each with 8 aircraft plus another 180 S-3 Vikings. Those nearly 500 sub hunters would have made life hell for Soviet subs. It would not have been pretty.
Offline

not_kent

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 79
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2021, 12:59

Unread post27 Sep 2022, 11:45

Also geography was a factor; the water between Greenland, Iceland, and the United Kingdom – the so-called GIUK Gap – is a strategic chokepoint because Soviet ballistic-missile submarines had to pass through that gap to threaten the United States.

The Sound Surveillance System (SOSUS) By the mid-1970s, the SOSUS system consisted of 20 NAVFACs, two Ocean Systems commands (COMOCEANSYSLANT and COMOCEANSYSPAC), and about 3,500 personnel.

SOSUS was very successful in tracking Soviet submarines.
Offline

tphuang

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 241
  • Joined: 13 Aug 2018, 02:42

Unread post27 Sep 2022, 13:45

jessmo112 wrote:A really good article here.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ch ... wan-204972

However, a Chinese blockade or invasion of Taiwan depends on three other capabilities that China is moving rapidly to address. First, China needs to be able to dominate its continental shelf sufficiently to exclude U.S. and allied submarines, which requires a major overhaul of its anti-submarine warfare capability. Second, China needs to augment the power of its air force to the extent that it could indefinitely achieve air supremacy over and around Taiwan.

It seems like Chinese political and military needs are closely linked. They need enough airpower to completely
Dominate across the straight, while having political backing from Russia.

I didn't realize that during the cold war the Soviets had 300 submarines to throw at the west.


No, it's a terrible article with full of ignorance. It's truly unfortunate that people like this are providing the thoughts behind US foreign policy.

He seems to have no idea of China's ASW capability improvement in the past 5 years at all. He seems to have no clue of the amount of fire power from just PLA's Eastern theater command. By the way, PLA ETC could destroy all of Russian Air Force and air defense by itself. That's how well equipped it is.

Here is a really good write up of what a Chinese blockade would look like from someone that actually does war gaming.
https://rentry.co/tw-human-material-state

I also asked him ETC AF alone dealing with ROC Air Force and air defense. You can get a good sense here of how overmatched ROC would be vs just the Air Force of ETC.
https://rentry.co/9iuwc

btw, in the recent PLARF missile launches over Taiwan, PLA found that none of the Taiwanese air defense radar outside of the Pave paw radar at Leshan mountain could track them.
Offline

jessmo112

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1030
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post27 Sep 2022, 15:27

How is the last point about radars even remotely accurate considering that Taiwan uses patriot?
And your missing the point. China is improving in ASW but they don't have enough ASW and fighter over match to fight a coalition. That's Taiwan, Japan, the U.S. Australia, SK, and possibly India on a 2nd front.
Russia held the promise of a strong partnership, but Putins days could be numbered.
How do the Chinese track and kill allied subs that are nearly 1k miles away and don't have air cover?
You realize that Tomahawk has a 1k mile range correct?
Online

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1935
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post27 Sep 2022, 15:29

jessmo112 wrote:A really good article here.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ch ... wan-204972



China has fifty-eight submarines, of which only six are nuclear. In comparison, the USSR had 300 submarines, even though it never achieved the capability of hunting U.S. SSBNs across the world’s oceans.


Soviets didn't plan to hunt subs but surface transport and cargo ships this is why they go with so many subs which were quite poor quality (very noisy) so because soviet diesel subs were noisy USN consider diesel or more precise non nuclear sub as not danger at all which proven quite wrong, for example during war games partner's non nuclear subs were problem and during Falkland war all might of Royal navy wasn't able to hunt one operational Argentinian Type 209 sub, Brits killed lot of whales during that hunt. Gauchos say they had Royal navy carrier in crosshair but because of faulty FCS and they couldn't do much, Germans didn't want to repair it because of British pressure if I remember right something with advanced torpedo guidence computer on sub. Even if that is not true fact is Royal navy tried to hunt and failed ordinary diesel sub which was correct build nothing special to be precise but build lot better then Soviet junk.

First good convetional sub Soviets built was Kilo, and NATO nickname it "black hole" how silent it was compared to older subs. And how bought lot of Kilos? Chinese, and what Chinese did? Use it as base for new domestic subs :D

So I really think USN isn't crazy nor its allies to send its subs near Chinese coast it would be bery dangerous.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8957
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post28 Sep 2022, 09:11

tphuang wrote:
No, it's a terrible article with full of ignorance. It's truly unfortunate that people like this are providing the thoughts behind US foreign policy.

He seems to have no idea of China's ASW capability improvement in the past 5 years at all. He seems to have no clue of the amount of fire power from just PLA's Eastern theater command. By the way, PLA ETC could destroy all of Russian Air Force and air defense by itself. That's how well equipped it is.


While, I wouldn't say National Interest is a credible source on such topics in general. China nonetheless is in no real position to successfully invade and hold Taiwan. This has been discussed countless times and at length.....

Just a few points that should make the above obvious!

1.) Taiwan is not a small island and the terrain would make any invasion challenging to say the least. As a matter of fact any such Invasion force would be bigger than Normandy (D-Day) and Okinawa (Iceberg) combined! The supporting Armies of the time were vastly larger than anything we have today! Same could be said of their navies! If, you took the entire worlds navies today combined. They still wouldn't match the size and scope of either of those invasion fleets let alone combined! (think about it)

Taiwan vs Okinawa (size)

TAIOKI.jpg



2.) The Invasion Force the PLA (China) would have to mount would be nothing short of "MASSIVE". This would take a very long time to build up too! You really think they could conceal such a force today from the World? This would allow Taiwan and her Allies to prepared well in advance of any forthcoming Invasion. Hell, US Bombers alone would just devastate the Chinese Invasion Fleet and they would be powerless to prevent it.

3.) The PLAN wouldn't even be able to break out without massive losses against the Allied Navies. Which, have vastly better SSK's,SSN's, DDG's, FFG's, CVN's, and all supported by MPA, ASW Helicopters, Stealth Fighters/Bombers, etc. etc. These would be waiting in the wings for any attempt to leave port!

4.) China imports and exports the majority of her goods via the sea and the SLOC would "easily" be cut of the second. China made any attempt to attack/invade Taiwan. Hell, even today China is careful to show to much support to Russia in the War against Ukraine. As they are very much afraid of Western Sanctions. Just think would happen if they attacked Taiwan!

5.) China has virtually no allies or friends.....Yet, would face much of the Free World and most of the Major Globe Powers! From the US to Europe to India to Asia!

Honestly, I could go on and on.........
Online

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1935
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post28 Sep 2022, 10:31

It is very unlikely China will invade Taiwan now or in future even if China have much bigger navy and lot more capable air force because it would cost a lot and gain could only be political victory, I mean getting open access to Pacific don't mean if you cant export your goods to rich western markets.

But people forget one problem which analysts don't. Everything is fine while world economy is fine, if US and EU (they are quite connected) go in hard recession or even worse depression well China will not need to worry about exports either, so commies could see successful war as option.

It is true China don't have allies now. But if Vlad somehow survive this war in Ukraine, Russia will be chinese bitch.
Offline

not_kent

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 79
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2021, 12:59

Unread post28 Sep 2022, 12:25

milosh wrote:Soviets didn't plan to hunt subs but surface transport and cargo ships this is why they go with so many subs which were quite poor quality (very noisy) so because soviet diesel subs were noisy USN consider diesel or more precise non nuclear sub as not danger at all which proven quite wrong, for example during war games partner's non nuclear subs were problem and during Falkland war all might of Royal navy wasn't able to hunt one operational Argentinian Type 209 sub, Brits killed lot of whales during that hunt. Gauchos say they had Royal navy carrier in crosshair but because of faulty FCS and they couldn't do much, Germans didn't want to repair it because of British pressure if I remember right something with advanced torpedo guidence computer on sub. Even if that is not true fact is Royal navy tried to hunt and failed ordinary diesel sub which was correct build nothing special to be precise but build lot better then Soviet junk.

First good convetional sub Soviets built was Kilo, and NATO nickname it "black hole" how silent it was compared to older subs. And how bought lot of Kilos? Chinese, and what Chinese did? Use it as base for new domestic subs :D


The US has always know that Diesel-electric subs are quieter while running in electric mode than nuke subs but the greater range and no need to run diesels engines more than offset the downsides. You are using a Strawman argument.

The Chinese have used a lot of Russian equipment as the base for their new weapons, not looking like such a good idea right now.
Online

milosh

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1935
  • Joined: 27 Feb 2008, 23:40
  • Location: Serbia, Belgrade

Unread post28 Sep 2022, 20:32

not_kent wrote:The US has always know that Diesel-electric subs are quieter while running in electric mode than nuke subs but the greater range and no need to run diesels engines more than offset the downsides. You are using a Strawman argument.

The Chinese have used a lot of Russian equipment as the base for their new weapons, not looking like such a good idea right now.


I read earlier some study of diesel subs I think done by USN folks and they didn't think it can compare to silence to nuclear one (at least US ones) even when run on batteries only.

Could be lack of enough practicing with such subs, or could be they weren't that silent back then. I don't think for example most of cold war diesel subs use rafting at all.

Of course I don't think Chinese diesel sub have any chance going deeper in ocean but closer to China, and inside Taiwan straight and even around Taiwan I think they will be quite problematic.

On other hand we do have unsuccessful hunt for gauchos Type 209 by lot of Royal navy assets which didn't do much. So how knows maybe even diesels can be problematic even in deeper waters?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2965
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post29 Sep 2022, 07:06

ww2 diesel subs used to ply every corner of every ocean but somehow today's diesel can't?

The main limitation on diesels is range. Not exactly a big issue for China currently if one understand their submarine conops to date.

Having said that, their requirements are changing. They have prioritized SSNs for CVBGs. They have also been innovative in UUVs. The Chinese are now starting to think past the 2nd island chain. Expect to see SSNs grow in number.

Trying to figure out how to tie this back to the thread topic though.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4269
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post29 Sep 2022, 09:19

I think China has some serious weaknesses when it comes to air power, somewhat similarly to Russia. For example their EW and SEAD capabilities don't seem very good. Yes they do have some ARMs but those are Russian or derivatives of Russian ARMs and those have not fared well in Ukraine. No dedicated SEAD aircraft AFAIK. They have small number of EW aircraft but nothing like US Growler fleet for example.

Sure J-20 could very well cause problems but Taiwanese F-16s with AESAs will likely also be formidable opponent for those. Most of their attack aircraft are rather obsolete and would have serious problems trying to get to Taiwan. Sure their cruise and ballistic missiles would cause havoc on the island, but I doubt they would weaken the defences enough to allow successful landing.
Next

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests