China's SCS Strategy Thread


BoraTas

Junior Member
Registered Member

Kinda interesting video although there's lots of problems with it (all the assumptions, inaccuracies, the various decisions made etc.).

But hey, checked and didn't see it posted here (might be in another thread) and it might be fun overall to discuss about it.
I think it is quite fair. This is mostly a single squadron of J-15s, a few J-16s, 70ish J-11s, 12 H-6s against a carrier group. It leaves out anti-sub warfare (mostly) and stealth fighters. The only thing that bothered me is the absolute ineffectiveness of PL-12s. The PLAN decision to launch 60 J-11s with ASuW load against a carrier group was a bit weird too. It is essentially sending most of them to death, a good chunk facing it without getting to fire their YJ-83s. BTW how many J-16 squadrons are in the area in real life? The J-11 can not be the primary long range fighter in the area right?
 

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
I think it is quite fair. This is mostly a single squadron of J-15s, a few J-16s, 70ish J-11s, 12 H-6s against a carrier group. It leaves out anti-sub warfare (mostly) and stealth fighters. The only thing that bothered me is the absolute ineffectiveness of PL-12s. The PLAN decision to launch 60 J-11s with ASuW load against a carrier group was a bit weird too. It is essentially sending most of them to death, a good chunk facing it without getting to fire their YJ-83s. BTW how many J-16 squadrons are in the area in real life? The J-11 can not be the primary long range fighter in the area right?

@Michaelsinodef


I think this scenario is unrealistic and it's basically copium.

You would expect PL-15s to be launched, which should be more effective than any AMRAAM.
Plus there is no way 60 J-11s would be launched in a single wave. Plus they are launched with ASuW weapons and waiting to be slaughtered, instead of being equipped with air-to-air loadouts

If you had that many J-11s to send, it would be straightforward to send smaller waves of Chinese fighters continuously for a few hours, to spam long-range AAMs at the US fighters. The E-2s would also be a top priority with PL-21 missiles.

There's no way that a US carrier can launch, recover and rearm their aircraft fast enough

How about the WZ-7 hypersonic surveillance drones used to locate US ships.
The you would have the anti-ship ballistic missiles launch first.
From Hainan, you're looking at a missile flight time of less than 10 minutes to the notional location of the US carrier
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Colonel
Registered Member
From the Singapore Defence Minister

US should 'stay very far away' from physically confronting China over Taiwan: Ng Eng Hen
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


SINGAPORE: The United States should "stay very far away" from engaging in physical confrontation with China over Taiwan, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said, adding that "miscalculations can occur".

Dr Ng made those comments following his keynote speech on Singapore's perspectives on US and China at the 12th Aspen Security Forum in Washington DC on Thursday (Nov 4).
 

Sardaukar20

Junior Member
Registered Member

Kinda interesting video although there's lots of problems with it (all the assumptions, inaccuracies, the various decisions made etc.).

But hey, checked and didn't see it posted here (might be in another thread) and it might be fun overall to discuss about it.
Interesting video in the sense that it simulates the amount of munitions and planes needed by both sides to fight a limited air and naval combat. The biggest problem with this video is the huge amount of American copium with regards to how badly the PLAAF and PLAN would fare against a single US CSG. On the good side, it also gives us viewers a look at the fighting tactics and limitations of a US CSG.

I'll point out the copium 1st:
1) The assumption that PLAAF pilots have no guts to face enemy fire. This video assumes that Chinese pilots have no guts to wait for enemy missiles to close in a bit before pulling evasive maneuvers, hence making it easy for US AMRAAMs to to follow and hit their targets. Well if there is still any assumption of Chinese pilot cowardice, look back at the 2001 Hainan Island ramming incident.
2) PL-12s are junk. Well we have no real life battlefield data to refer to. The PL-12 is on paper inferior to the AIM-120C. But referring to just DCS simulation is not called realism. I remembered for a time that DCS introduced the SD-10 (Pakistani PL-12s), and that was called OP and then had to be nerfed. So how realistic can this simulation be?
3) Chinese Flankers cannot dodge missiles. The video shows the US F/A-18s easily dodging PL-12s, HQ-16s, and even PL-15s! Flankers by design have greater agility than Hornets, so why can't they perform nearly as well against AIM 120Cs and SM 6 missiles?
4) AIM-120C > PL-15. In this video, the narrator mentioned that although PL-15s have superior range, US pilots can easily dodge them. While AIM-120Cs have shorter range, but the Chinese pilots have no chance in hell of dodging them. They are just too super modern for the Chinese to handle. What?!
5) PLAN ships like to go solo against a US CSG, making it easy to Harpoon spam them. The US almost always fight in a CSG formation, with plenty of SM-6 protection. Only in 1 case where a US Burke is caught solo, and that is because it was 'ambushed' by a Chinese Sub.
6) A Type 039 is easily detectable by a US Burke. Hence when it ambushes that Burke, it gets itself obliterated by the Burke's ASROC. Modern diesel subs are notorious for their silence when running on silent battery mode. There was no explanation as to how the Burke had already spotted and tracked that Chinese 039 sub. Its just another copium assumption.
7) Chinese drones have no role to play other than recon. No mention of Chinese UCAVs, decoy, or swarm drones.
8) No J-20 involvement. Although to be fair, there were no F-35s involved in that video.
9) Chinese ships all blow up and sink with no to little survivors. All US ships after getting hit have time to abandon ship. This is the biggest giveaway that the video's author is high on copium. When a DF-21D warhead hits a Burke or a Nimitz. Is there no chance of magazine explosions, blazing fires, or rapid sinking? What if the USS Ronald Reagan CVN suffers a massive magazine detonation and sinks within minutes? How fast could her 5000-6000 crews abandon ship? The author dares not discuss such a scenario.
10) The assumption that the Chinese military is always subservient to Chinese politics. Because of that, it can be manipulated into doing suicide charges to 'save the CCP's face'. Well the Art of War books that are sitting in your Pentagon libraries were written by an ancient Chinese general. Assume China's stupidity at your peril.
11) In the video, the conflict started after a USN Burke DDG (USS Mustin) fired at PLAAF jets for recklessly doing a mock combat maneuver on that ship. That simply does not happen unless the USN is looking for a fight. The US does this only to 3rd world enemies like 1980s Iran or Libya. The US have not shown to have the guts to this with Russia or China. The Russians did exactly the same type of mock combat maneuver in 2015, when Su-24s made low passes over the USS Ross in the Black Sea. The USS Ross did not get spooked and opened fire. They knew what was at stake.

After talking about all the copium. There are some useful points to observe from such a video:
1) The amount of expended munitions in such a limited conflict could go into the hundreds. Missile capabilities aside. Based on the current force balance, the US has larger stocks of missiles to spam than China. Its a reminder that China should ramp up production of their more modern missiles, if they already have not.
2) Chinese planes and pilots are not for spamming. China cannot afford to pointlessly lose 30-40 planes in a limited naval skirmish with a US CSG. The US OTOH can. There is a bigger war to fight. This is not the 1990s, so China can afford to pursue more modern, and asset-efficient battle tactics. Their drones and AshBM developments are good examples of this.
3) Chinese Diesel Subs (SSK) should not become an afterthought in any SCS naval battle. PLAN SSKs may not be as impressive as the USN SSNs, but in the SCS, they have the home ground advantage. They should be given just as much production and training priority as PLAN surface ships. The USN should not just be worrying about missiles and jets. They should also be faced with a situation where they get outnumbered in the undersea battlefield of the SCS. The USN would be hard-pressed to commit many SSNs into the SCS. If they know that there are many sharks in the water, it would severely limit their battleplan and morale.
4) The US has a general preference to launch AshMs from planes. So China should aim to neutralize or mission-kill their CVNs 1st (US airbases only when the big war breaks out). US DDGs can launch AshMs too, but China has a relative superiority in AshMs to slug it out with them. Plus China could still launch AshMs from submarines. Additionally, surface ships are easier to track than air wings.

All in all. This video is just pure speculation and copium for American fans. The PLAN and PLAAF are not omnipotent, but they are nowhere near as stupid or useless as depicted in this video. This video only shows the ultimate victory achieved by China only when the PLARF comes into play, long after the PLAN and PLAAF got their asses kicked. In the real world, China would not be recklessly sacrificing pilots and sailors just to show that only the PLARF is useful against the USN. All of the PLAAF, PLAN, and PLARF have their roles to play. If the US CSG air defence proves too strong after a Chinese probing attack, they wont just be sending wave after wave of jets for pointless sacrifice. Their battleplans will adapt to the situation, and the DF-21Ds could come into play much sooner.
 
Last edited:

Top