PLAN Anti-ship/surface missiles

james smith esq

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
Has the possibility been raised, here, of any military operation in Taiwan being either initiated or concluded by a major drone operation? What Turkey did to Syria and Russia and what Azerbaijan did to Armenia have added new chapters to the anti-armor and anti-A-A battery textbooks!
 
Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
james smith esq said:
What Turkey did to Syria and Russia
Click to expand...
What did Turkey do to Russia?

james smith esq said:
Love the pic, but, the coastal-defense missile thing perplexes me.

At this stage in the game, does anyone really expect adversarial warships to sail within 500 km of China’s coastline during any hostile action? I’m no naval tactician, but, it seems, to me, that several layers/levels of defense would have to have been defeated/neutralized in order to make this an even remotely viable deployment.

Are these missiles deployed for that very purpose, as last case options? ‘cause as big and bad as the US Navy claims to be, I highly doubt they’re comin’ inside the First Island Chain, in the ECS, or as far as the Paracels, in the SCS, to conduct offensive operations. I know I wouldn’t try it.
Click to expand...
First of all, they are already in place. And always there, ensuring coastal protection and immediate response capability.
Secondly, they're allowing freedom of maneuver to more mobile units.
Thirdly - they aren't exactly bolted to the place - and can be redeployed when necessary. For example, forwards.
 
Last edited:
D

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
james smith esq said:
I’m sure that’s true. However, and back to my unpopular opinion, I just don’t see any adversarial Navy deploying major surface vessels in such a constrained environment during high-intensity combat. With the absence of commercial-shipping due to ongoing combat, it’d be pretty easy to detect, track, and target any, and possibly, all surface vessels inside the strait.

I don’t know if Taiwan has vessels like the PLAN Type 022 that might be more difficult to get a bead on. But, even if they do, then coastal batteries might not be the most effective means with which to engage them.
Click to expand...
taiwan literally just deployed a 022 type fast attack craft. and besides Taiwan strait these are also good for deployment on islands in the South China Sea. it certainly beats having to maintain a fleet of JH-7 there.
 
james smith esq

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
drowingfish said:
taiwan literally just deployed a 022 type fast attack craft. and besides Taiwan strait these are also good for deployment on islands in the South China Sea. it certainly beats having to maintain a fleet of JH-7 there.
Click to expand...
So, you think that huge coastal-defense missiles would be effective against Type 022 type fast-attack craft? These ain’t Osa Class boats!

Well, I wasn’t referring to any coastal-defense missile deployments on SCS islands (man-made, or not) only those on the mainland, facing the ECS. And, I was questioning, specifically, the deployment of those with ranges within the “First-Island-Chain”.
 
james smith esq

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
I’m guessing it would be “bad form” to remind some that, from just outside the distal range of the “First Island Chain”, ~850 km, a USN Carrier, or Cruiser/Destroyer, Strike Force can strike ~850 km into the mainland Chinese interior. I haven’t researched the offensive load-out of JMSDF Destroyers, so I don’t know if their their LACM ranges offer similar advantages.

So, someone, please illustrate those scenarios, particularly in the early stages of an engagement, in which major surface combatants, deploying long-ranged cruise-missiles, would neglect the advantages of that range and place themselves at greater risk by closing within range of shorter-ranged platforms.

I certainly hope that PLAN naval strategy won’t be to just sail it’s major naval surface combatants into a potential hail of missiles expecting some “Special Attributes” to ensure victory!
 
Last edited:
S

Sleepyjam

Junior Member
Registered Member
james smith esq said:
I’m guessing it would be “bad form” to remind some that, from just outside the distal range of the “First Island Chain”, ~850 km, a USN Carrier, or Cruiser/Destroyer, Strike Force can strike ~850 km into the mainland Chinese interior. I haven’t researched the offensive load-out of JMSDF Destroyers, so I don’t know if their their LACM ranges offer similar advantages.

So, someone, please illustrate those scenarios, particularly in the early stages of an engagement, in which major surface combatants, deploying long-ranged cruise-missiles, would neglect the advantages of that range and place themselves at greater risk by closing within range of shorter-ranged platforms.

I certainly hope that PLAN naval strategy won’t be to just sail it’s major naval surface combatants into a potential hail of missiles expecting some “Special Attributes” to ensure victory!
Click to expand...
Diaoyudao is only 330km from mainland China, Taiwan about 200km and they possess various types of warships. It‘s idiotic to assume there will be no hostile ships in the area when a conflict starts. What’s this nonsense about ”Special Attributes” to ensure victory.
 
james smith esq

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
Sleepyjam said:
Diaoyudao is only 330km from mainland China, Taiwan about 200km and they possess various types of warships. It‘s idiotic to assume there will be no hostile ships in the area when a conflict starts. What’s this nonsense about ”Special Attributes” to ensure victory.
Click to expand...
Wow, what a persuasive, well-researched, conceptualized, and arrived-upon, conclusion!

Sun Tzu, do you live???
 
james smith esq

james smith esq

Senior Member
Registered Member
Sleepyjam said:
Nice name calling rebuttal
Click to expand...
The only one using epithets was you!
But you obviously lack the reflexive maturity to recognize that!
On to the ignore list with the other immature children, you go!
I’m sorry, tho’; I just realized you’re r a little-girl, or, at least, you’re trying to become one!
And, I should be nice to little-girls and wannabe little-girls, right?
Now, go complain to the moderators that I was the one that initiated disrespect in this discussion and get your childish-ass corrected.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top