Effectiveness of China's Air Defence?

N

noname

Banned Idiot
I doubt that ballistic missiles are going to be that useful armed with conventional warheads, by some figures it would takes several thousand armed with 2000 lb payloads to take out a square mile.

In a test conducted Sept. 10 at the Utah Test and Training Range at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, a B-2 stealth bomber successfully released 80 independently targeted guided weapons against 80 separate targets. The B-2 released the weapons in a single pass. The test marks the first time an aircraft has delivered this many guided independently targeted weapons at one time.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Note the fact this was in 2003.
 
Last edited:
D

delft

Brigadier
In such a war, South Korea would also be a loser. Besides, SK knows, that reunification can only be brought about with the help of China. So, when the US would start to build a vast naval and air armada for agression against China, the bright thing to do would be to close all US bases in the country and throw the bums out. That might inspire Japan to do the same.
Otherwise, without a war, SK will change sides when PLAN has several aircraft carriers, say around 2020. Of course, this is an incentive for the US to act sooner.
 
N

noname

Banned Idiot
delft said:
In such a war, South Korea would also be a loser. Besides, SK knows, that reunification can only be brought about with the help of China. So, when the US would start to build a vast naval and air armada for agression against China, the bright thing to do would be to close all US bases in the country and throw the bums out. That might inspire Japan to do the same.
Otherwise, without a war, SK will change sides when PLAN has several aircraft carriers, say around 2020. Of course, this is an incentive for the US to act sooner.
Click to expand...

From my point of view if China sides with North Korea China would be the loser.

Most of the world sees North Korea as an insane evil country that is cracked.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and if China sides with North Korea then most people in other countries are going just look on China as another version of North Korea. You know those old sayings "Birds of a feather flock togather" "You are knowen by the friends you keep"
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
delft said:
Otherwise, without a war, SK will change sides when PLAN has several aircraft carriers, say around 2020. Of course, this is an incentive for the US to act sooner.
Click to expand...

Today is 2010... and to date, China didn't have even 1 aircraft carrier... although one of it is near completion... and she didn't have a crew that is very well verse in carrier operation yet... no matter how much you train on the ground, it will be different in real carrier...

How does your several aircraft carriers by 2020, came about?
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
noname said:
From my point of view if China sides with North Korea China would be the loser.

Most of the world sees North Korea as an insane evil country that is cracked.

and if China sides with North Korea then most people in other countries are going just look on China as another version of North Korea. You know those old sayings "Birds of a feather flock togather" "You are knowen by the friends you keep"
Click to expand...

You are naive my friend. As I have pointed out before, sometime taking side on whatever countries are not always willingly... sometime it is unwillingly. And sometime the choice is forced upon you.

China had preciously few allies in neighbouring country, NK is one of them. Although not to be trusted fully, but was an ally nevertheless. Do you seriously think that in a war with US, China would not actually find as much help from whoever possible?

NK might not be much of a help... but her land is useful... from there China could hold back SK for the time being... and launching missiles from NK to Japan is easier than other places in China. NK is a good watch dog against SK and Japan.

Sometime it is not just taking side on a regime... it is the geographical, political and military advantage that matters.
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
noname said:
I doubt that ballistic missiles are going to be that useful armed with conventional warheads, by some figures it would takes several thousand armed with 2000 lb payloads to take out a square mile.
Click to expand...

Pray... show us that figures... and the source for that figure. Plus if you want to cover a square mile, dumb and semi-dumb munition like rockets are enough to do the job. Ballistic missiles, cruise missiles could be used for more tactical role.

And if you still think that the idea of using cruise missiles and tactical missiles is to bomb an area only... then you seriously is no expert in military.

Not going to go deeper into this topic... as I will be off topic and I believe more people in this forum would be able to fill in the technical and tactical aspect of the ballistic and cruise missiles.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

Field Marshall
Staff member
Super Moderator
noname said:
From my point of view if China sides with North Korea China would be the loser.

Most of the world sees North Korea as an insane evil country that is cracked.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and if China sides with North Korea then most people in other countries are going just look on China as another version of North Korea. You know those old sayings "Birds of a feather flock togather" "You are knowen by the friends you keep"
Click to expand...

Dude Cracked is a humor website. Why are you using at a source?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I would know since it is one of my favorites humor site :D!

Besides the U.S. supports Saudi Arabia but no one in the world sees Americans as crazy misyognists!
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
ZTZ99 said:
IMO the entirety of the Chinese military, including its land, air and naval forces, would be hard pressed to deal with 2 carrier groups at the same time
Click to expand...

On what basis do you base this conclusion?

Oh... and aren't we forgetting something? The war will be found on Chinese soil... and water... And no matter how much we would want to get the civilians out of the equation... they will be involved. Thus no matter how fast and how much the Chinese could replace their hardware and perhaps by some miracles... trained up enough men for these replaced hardwares... there will be civilian casualty.

And so even if China (which we all know is impossible) are able to replace their assets ten times faster than the US... the loser will still... sadly be China.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. What does soil and water have to do with anything? Why does China need to replace their assets 10x faster than the US?

Today is 2010... and to date, China didn't have even 1 aircraft carrier... although one of it is near completion... and she didn't have a crew that is very well verse in carrier operation yet... no matter how much you train on the ground, it will be different in real carrier...
Click to expand...

China doesn't need a carrier in a defensive scenario.
 
siegecrossbow

siegecrossbow

Field Marshall
Staff member
Super Moderator
noname said:
There were no reporters as I was actually watching the launch close up, the X37B has a payload bay that is 2.1x1.4 meters (7x4 feet). Because the ship will be in orbit the anti-satellite missiles it carries are not going to have to be very large.

I expect the USA experimented with a number of weapons in Iraq, if not EMP they may have used what is called Black Bomb on a number of locations to disrupt electric power and communications.

I doubt if "rainy conditions" are going to be problem and by the time the F22's are needed I expect most of the problems will be worked out, I expect the F22's will be more like the tip of the spear in large attacks. Of course the USA would be building many more planes in case of war just the same as China.

"Nor do I expect much from antiaircraft systems, for example By the summer of 1990, Iraq possessed 16,000 radar-guided and heatseeking surface-to-air missiles (SAMs), including the Soviet SA-2, SA-3, SA-6, SA-7, SA-8, SA-9, SA-13, SA-14, and SA-16, and the Franco-German Roland. Additional air defense was provided by Air Force interceptors and organic Army assets, including the SA-7/14, SA-8, SA-9/13, SA-16 missile systems, and the ZSU-23/4 self-propelled AAA system. In addition, the Iraqi air defense had more than 7,500 AAA pieces protecting all targets of value, some deployed on the roofs of numerous buildings in Baghdad housing government facilities, Baghdad had some 60 batteries of Sams."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


All of it was useless. Syria antiaircraft systems are useless against Israel.

I doubt if the USA will even use a gravity bomb until all threats have been destroyed, smart glide bombs have a range of over 50 miles.

Just how anxious is a fighter pliot going to be to take on an F22 when they know the Kill Ratio is every thing from 30 to 1 to 180 to 1. Red Flag pliots keep reporting how frustrating it is to keep being shot down by planes they never see.
Click to expand...

Here we go again:

You said that the X-37B is capable of carrying a anti-satellite ordinance in space. You have no source backing it up. I, however, have a source that backs up the contrary:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Secrecy and paranoia

As for space weapon capabilities, Weeden rated that likelihood as "zero."

The payload restrictions would make it difficult for an X-37B to deploy hyperkinetic weapons which travel at high speeds with pinpoint accuracy, given that any weapon would require big thrusters to perform a de-orbit burn for reentry into Earth's atmosphere.
Click to expand...

You may say that the Pentagon is probably just trying to "coverup" the fact that the X-37b could carry anti-satellite weapons. Is it possible for the U.S. to develop a spaceplane that could carry ASATs? YES!!! The United States is still the leading space power but the question is WHY WOULD ANYONE SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS DEVELOPING ORBITAL ASATS WHEN HE HAS THIS:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


and THIS since the friggin 80s!!!:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Currently it costs around $10,000 putting a pound of payload into Low Earth Orbit. Why spend an extra couple of million when there are ground based things that are capable of doing the same friggin thing? Just because some nerd wants an orbital space fighter???:rofl::rofl::rofl:

F-22 being the speartip of a massive attack??? WTF? F-22 is an air superiority plane with limited anti-ground capability. The role that it will play is to escort the multirole and attack planes as they attack Chinese ground assets. How does that make them the "spear tip" as you call it?

The role of the American paralysis of Sadam's digital network had a great role in the success of U.S. attack against Sadam's air defence. It took six coalition CVBGs to get the job done and despite the crippling of Sadam's air defence the coalition still lost around 70 aircrafts during the campaign. Iraq is not comparable to China, a much larger nation with a well developed, indigenious air defence system. Deep internal penetration of Iraq is relatively easy due to its flat terrain and small size but China? Have you heard of the "underground great wall"? Think about all those back ups tucked neatly in all the mountains, ravines, and dugout air shelters!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top