Weakness of the PLAN

Originally Posted by MIGleader

the 52c and B and 956ems will own the kidds. if taiwan rejoins china peacefully, china will have Four of the latest us weapons...

The Kidd's were designed as multirole warships and have MUCH better AAW capability than the Sovremney with the NTU update.

Given the Kidd's capacity of 68 SM-2MR(70 mile range) missiles, and inner defenses of 2 Phalanx and 5" guns, a Kidd is far more likely to survive an attack against 8 Sunburns than a Sovremnny is against 68 SM-2MR's and 8 Harpoons...

Kidd has vastly better ECM/ECCM and much, much better sonar.

Even today Kidd's are among the most powerful warships afloat.

Originally Posted by IDonT

The Kidd's were designed as multirole warships and have MUCH better AAW capability than the Sovremney with the NTU update.

Given the Kidd's capacity of 68 SM-2MR(70 mile range) missiles, and inner defenses of 2 Phalanx and 5" guns, a Kidd is far more likely to survive an attack against 8 Sunburns than a Sovremnny is against 68 SM-2MR's and 8 Harpoons...

Kidd has vastly better ECM/ECCM and much, much better sonar.

Even today Kidd's are among the most powerful warships afloat.

what's the range on the harpoon missles?

The range of the harpoon is over 67 nautical miles.

http://navysite.de/weapons/harpoon.htm

Originally Posted by BrotherofSnake

The range of the harpoon is over 67 nautical miles.

that doesn't sound like a lot at all.

Originally Posted by IDonT

http://navysite.de/weapons/harpoon.htm

cool, the slamER definitely has an impressive range. Is that range for both surface launched and air launched or just air launched as listed on that web page?

Originally Posted by tphuang

that doesn't sound like a lot at all.

The US navy got rid of its large long range anti ship ordinances after the cold war. There were not enough targets.

Tomahawk anti-ship missiles had a range of 250 miles.
The problem with long range anti-ship missiles is over the horizon targeting. You can't see a ship beacuse the curvature of the earth "hides" it. Besides, the US relies on its aerial assets for anti-ship strikes. B-1 and B52 bombers can carry an insane amounts of harpoons.

Originally Posted by IDonT

The US navy got rid of its large long range anti ship ordinances after the cold war. There were not enough targets.

Tomahawk anti-ship missiles had a range of 250 miles.
The problem with long range anti-ship missiles is over the horizon targeting. You can't see a ship beacuse the curvature of the earth "hides" it. Besides, the US relies on its aerial assets for anti-ship strikes. B-1 and B52 bombers can carry an insane amounts of harpoons.

I guess PLAN will have to launch it's missles before B-2s get to it then.

Yakont's have a 250km range. That is far superior to the range on the Harpoon. And also, 956EMs can fire 16 Yakonts, which is far superior to firing 8 Sunburns and 8 Harpoons.

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

Yakont's have a 250km range. That is far superior to the range on the Harpoon. And also, 956EMs can fire 16 Yakonts, which is far superior to firing 8 Sunburns and 8 Harpoons.

The YJ-85 should have a 300 KM range. The issue is no whether or not our missles have a greater range, but whether or not we can detect them before they start to send cruise missles at us.

Originally Posted by tphuang

The YJ-85 should have a 300 KM range. The issue is no whether or not our missles have a greater range, but whether or not we can detect them before they start to send cruise missles at us.

We can use our sattelite recconaissance system to spot them!

Originally Posted by FriedRiceNSpice

We can use our sattelite recconaissance system to spot them!

PLAN destroyers will be sunk well before they get within range of their anti-ship missiles.

Surface Action Group are classified by the US navy as class C threat.

Shouldn't you put the things in real world war context? There will never be one on one engagments. Nor is it likely even a fleet vs fleet engagement will be in neutral teritorry in the middle of the pacific.

Realistically, chinese won't go after the us before us goes after the chinese. That means USN getting in range to attack PLAN which, in turn, would stick close enough to the coast to enjoy PLAAF air cover, possibly even air defence system. If PLAN is to try to strike a USN force it will do so when it decides it has a chance, meaning overwhelming numbers. Of course it'd be suicide rushing something like three grouped CBGs. Same thing with US forces. They will wait until they can deliver a powerful enough blow. Attacking early with insufficient forces, risking a loss, is just plain stupid.

A really good move on china's behalf would be putting okinawa base out of comission. Of course, only if US attacks somewhere else first early enough, before they even have enough forces in the area to defend from such attack - which is unlikely. Then again, such a mission would probably involve PLAAF/ airlifted ground forces much more than PLAN so it's kinda off topic here.

Once again, all these arguments have any point if we agree that US would not commit half (or more) of it's navy and air forces to the war but a smaller chunk, something china could fight off.

Originally Posted by Totoro

Shouldn't you put the things in real world war context? There will never be one on one engagments. Nor is it likely even a fleet vs fleet engagement will be in neutral teritorry in the middle of the pacific.

Realistically, chinese won't go after the us before us goes after the chinese. That means USN getting in range to attack PLAN which, in turn, would stick close enough to the coast to enjoy PLAAF air cover, possibly even air defence system. If PLAN is to try to strike a USN force it will do so when it decides it has a chance, meaning overwhelming numbers. Of course it'd be suicide rushing something like three grouped CBGs. Same thing with US forces. They will wait until they can deliver a powerful enough blow. Attacking early with insufficient forces, risking a loss, is just plain stupid.

A really good move on china's behalf would be putting okinawa base out of comission. Of course, only if US attacks somewhere else first early enough, before they even have enough forces in the area to defend from such attack - which is unlikely. Then again, such a mission would probably involve PLAAF/ airlifted ground forces much more than PLAN so it's kinda off topic here.

Once again, all these arguments have any point if we agree that US would not commit half (or more) of it's navy and air forces to the war but a smaller chunk, something china could fight off.

The only plausible context for an armed conflict between PRC and USA is Taiwan. An unprovoke invasion of the island, unprovoke meaning the Taiwanese did not uninamously declared independence, will have the PLA going on the offensive.

Going on the offensive means that you have go uncover your forces, lgroup them, and offend someone (taiwan). In which case, PRC's forces will be out in the open, away from the SAM umbrella and further away from fighter cover. The further you are from the coast, the less effective your fighter cover, more fuel spent on transit than cover, and the more effective your opponent's fighter cover will be.

USA will not attack Chinese soil and I don't think China will attack a third party soil. Both sides will not want to enlarge the conflict further.