China’s Plan to Beat U.S.: Missiles, Missiles and More Missiles

[BanglaBhoot]

China is militarily weaker than many people think, especially compared to the United States. This, despite lots of showy jet prototypes and plenty of other factory-fresh equipment.

But Beijing has a brutally simple — if risky — plan to compensate for this relative weakness: buy missiles. And then, buy more of them. All kinds of missiles: short-range and long-range; land-based, air-launched and sea-launched; ballistic and cruise; guided and “dumb.”

Those are the two striking themes that emerge from Chinese Aerospace Power, a new collection of essays edited by Andrew Erickson, an influential China analyst with the U.S. Naval War College.

Today, the PLA possesses as many as 2,000 non-nuclear ballistic and cruise missiles, according to Chinese Aerospace Power. This “growing arsenal of increasingly accurate and lethal conventional ballistic and land-attack cruise missiles has rapidly emerged as a cornerstone of PLA warfighting capability,” Mark Stokes and Ian Easton wrote. For every category of weaponry where the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) lags behind the Pentagon, there’s a Chinese missile to help make up the difference.

The need is clear. Despite introducing a wide range of new hardware in recent years, including jet fighters, helicopters, destroyers, submarines and a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier, China still lacks many of the basic systems, organizations and procedures necessary to defeat a determined, well-equipped foe.

Take, for example, aerial refueling. To deploy large numbers of effective aerial tankers requires the ability to build and support large jet engines — something China cannot yet do. In-air refueling also demands planning and coordination beyond anything the PLA has ever pulled off. As a result, “tanker aircraft are in short supply” in the PLA, Wayne Ulman explained.

That’s putting it lightly. According to Chinese Aerospace Power, the entire PLA operates just 14 H-6U tankers, each carrying 17,000 kilograms of off-loadable fuel. (The U.S. Air Force alone possesses more than 500 tankers, each off-loading around 100,000 kilograms of fuel.) So while the PLA in theory boasts more than 1,500 jet fighters, in reality it can refuel only 50 or 60 at a time, assuming all the H-6 tankers are working perfectly.

In an air war over Taiwan, hundreds of miles from most Chinese bases, only those 50 fighters would be able to spend more than a few minutes’ flight time over the battlefield. Factoring in tankers, China’s 4–1 advantage in jet fighters compared to Taiwan actually shrinks to a roughly 7&ndash1 disadvantage. The gap only grows when you add U.S. fighters to the mix.

The PLA’s solution? Missiles, of course. Up to a thousand ballistic and cruise missiles, most of them fired by land-based launchers, “would likely comprise the initial strike” against Taiwan or U.S. Pacific bases, Ulman wrote. The goal would be to take out as many of an opponent’s aircraft as possible before the dogfighting even begins.

The PLA could take a similar approach to leveling its current disadvantage at sea. Submarines have always been the most potent ship-killers in any nation’s inventory, but China’s subs are too few, too noisy and their crews too inexperienced to take on the U.S. Navy. Once the shooting started, the “Chinese submarine force would be highly vulnerable,” Jeff Hagen predicted.

And forget using jet fighters armed with short-range weapons to attack the American navy. One Chinese analyst referenced in Chinese Aerospace Power estimated it would take between 150 and 200 Su-27-class fighters to destroy one U.S. Ticonderoga-class cruiser. The entire PLA operates only around 300 Su-27s and derivatives. The U.S. Navy has 22 Ticonderoga cruisers.

Again, missiles would compensate. A “supersaturation” attack by scores or hundreds of ballistic missiles has the potential of “instantly rendering the Ticonderoga’s air defenses useless,” Toshi Yoshihara wrote. Close to shore, China could use the older, less-precise, shorter-range missiles it already possesses in abundance. For longer-range strikes, the PLA is developing the DF-21D “carrier-killer” missile that uses satellites and aerial drones for precision targeting.

The downside to China’s missile-centric strategy is that it could represent a “single point of failure.” Over-relying on one weapon could render the PLA highly vulnerable to one kind of countermeasure. In this case, that’s the Pentagon’s anti-ballistic-missile systems, including warships carrying SM-3 missiles and land-based U.S. Army Patriot and Terminal High-Altitude Air-Defense batteries.

Plus, missiles are one-shot weapons. You don’t get to reuse them the way you would a jet fighter or a destroyer. That means, in wartime, China has to win fast — or lose. “China’s entire inventory of conventional ballistic missiles, for example, could deliver about a thousand tons of high explosives on their targets,” Roger Cliff explained. “The U.S. Air Force’s aircraft, by comparison, could deliver several times that amount of high explosives every day for an indefinite period.”

China’s Plan to Beat U.S.: Missiles, Missiles and More Missiles | Danger Room | Wired.com

 

[AUz]

What stupidity? Useless article . . . . .

 

[BanglaBhoot]

What stupidity? Useless article . . . . .

Unfortunately being promoted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

 

[siegecrossbow]

I stopped reading after the article suggested that you need tankers for PLAAF jets to operate over the Taiwan Strait.

 

[Akasa]

Unfortunately being promoted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

So, a random blog found on a website called "Danger Room" (professional, huh?) by a single military enthusiast named David Axe, is being promoted by the Carnegie Endowment?

Perhaps this entire forum should deserve the Nobel Peace Prize.

 

[navp007]

my friend US always aware of china and russia as well,we(china ,india,russia) still working on fifth gen. and US replacing all its jets with fifth gen. jets, looking for 6th gen.

 

[NiceGuy]

I stopped reading after the article suggested that you need tankers for PLAAF jets to operate over the Taiwan Strait.

PLAAF don't need tankers for Taiwan, but without tanker in SCS(esat sea), PLAAF can not fight with VNAF with lost experience in air ambush tactic

 

[gambit]

I stopped reading after the article suggested that you need tankers for PLAAF jets to operate over the Taiwan Strait.

You might want to take a hard look at the map and what he said more carefully.

This is a list of known PLAAF bases...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_People's_Liberation_Army_Air_Force_airbases

All the Chinese members have to do is find out what aircrafts are stationed at which and do rough estimates on the range of each aircraft. Keep in mind that the mission will not allow a direct flight from a base to Taiwan and once a flight enter Taiwanese airspace, it is also not a direct flight to targets. If the Chinese members find that air refuel is required, they must also find out how long it will take to refuel an aircraft lest we see PLAAF fighters dropping out of the sky for lack of fuel in queue.

 

[TEXAS BATTLESTAR]

"Supersaturation" or swarming, is the future in high tech combat engagement. Today's high tech weaponry is also one dimensional relied too much on Satellites to search, track, guide ordinance to target and communication. Both the US and China possess satellite killing vehicles to knock it out, therefore render most of high tech weapons useless. Cyber warfare and space will be the next high tech weaponry of the future, along with UAV drones. Aren't missiles and drones be more effective and less costly in resource and lives than say an aircraft carrier?

 

[lcloo]

Taiwan main island is only 180km away from Fujian. Even a famous super short-leg F-104 can cross the straits during 1960s air battles between CPC and KMT.

J-10 has at least 800km combat radius and 1600km with inflight refueling.

J-11/Su-27 has 3,530km range on HLH mode or 1,340KM on LLL mode. (H = High altitude, L = low altitude).

JH-7A is also a long range and has stand-off weapons beyond most of Taiwan's AA defence, so is H-6.

Even long range rockets (not the guilded missiles) can cover all of Taiwan with ease.

 

[akinkhoo]

Singapore has the most established air refueling force in the south china seas, there is rarely a time where RSAF fighter ain't in the south china seas... for the simple reason we don't have any airspace of our own! so they can only clock flying hours there.


but really, China doesn't need much air refuelling to do a saturation attack on Taiwan. drop tanks provide enough range at the cost of payload.

 

[Oldman1]

No different than beating the Chinese in possible conflict. Ohio class SSGNs, carrier battle groups equipped with Tomahawks, B52s equipped with Tomahawks, etc. As well as non-Tomahawk missles that can hit targets from hundreds of miles away. Not to mention bombs converted to hit targets from almost a hundred miles. These are just bombs.

 

[dingyibvs]

I'm sure the Chinese military isn't as far behind their American counterpart as much as say the North Vietnamese military did in the 70's or the Chinese/North Koreans did in the 50's. In the end, the Americans lost both wars. This proves that you don't have to be superior than the U.S. to win, you just have to make it costly enough for the Americans to shake their will.

With that said, talk of a war with each country's current strength is useless. People aren't promoting the China threat theory because how strong the Chinese military is right now, it's how fast they're GROWING right now and thus how great a threat China can be in the future, perhaps the fairly near future. Let's not forget that just 20 years ago a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be predetermined to fail even without American intervention, and now it's predetermined that they'd win without American intervention. Who knows, maybe in 20 more years the Chinese can even win with limited U.S. intervention.

 

[Oldman1]

I'm sure the Chinese military isn't as far behind their American counterpart as much as say the North Vietnamese military did in the 70's or the Chinese/North Koreans did in the 50's. In the end, the Americans lost both wars. This proves that you don't have to be superior than the U.S. to win, you just have to make it costly enough for the Americans to shake their will.

With that said, talk of a war with each country's current strength is useless. People aren't promoting the China threat theory because how strong the Chinese military is right now, it's how fast they're GROWING right now and thus how great a threat China can be in the future, perhaps the fairly near future. Let's not forget that just 20 years ago a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would be predetermined to fail even without American intervention, and now it's predetermined that they'd win without American intervention. Who knows, maybe in 20 more years the Chinese can even win with limited U.S. intervention.

Didn't China got their ***** whooped when they invaded Vietnam? That tells me that they are not all that powerful and don't have the will to win. Just like in the Korean War which is still currently still ongoing. After all South Korea still exists so we in fact won that war if you will.

 

[Swatwolf]

I think instead of underrating China's ability to fight a regional war, we should stop overestimating the USA ability to fight a far away war. War of such magnitude don't get done in days or weeks, and the countermeasure that China could deliver is something the USA never had to face before so lets break it down into a hot war scenario between both countries. To even contemplate starting such a war the USA must have full support from the countries it wish to launch it's war in, the obvious choices are Japan and Korea, and Singapore (possibly India), the other are Guam and Australia which are both abit out of reach. A hypothetical scenario in which both Korea and japan agree to help the USA with rearmament of munitions used, repair and servicing of arms, and reconstruction of damaged infrastructure, that will still leave the Americans short when it comes to negating the impact of the Chinese manpower and proximity to rearm and produce host and host of missiles that could swarm these bases. Compared to American military asset in the pacific, China's asset are also far greater both in missiles and Naval, air facilities. The USA will be unable to overcome this logistic chocking point given the current reality. For example they may have 11 aircraft carriers roaming the seas, but there is no way for them to base all 11 in the pacific at a given time. Only a few type of ports could host, service and rearm these carriers, and political and economic reasons as well point to this as futility. Second these aircraft carriers if proven to be vulnerable to submarine, air and balistic missile attacks, something again the USA never have to faced in the countries they choose to invade, it would be a moot point because surely in times of war they would be the first target along with the American bases in the first countermeasure phase. Bearing in mind that these carriers must be at the very least 500 Km away from Chinese coastline to be even effective, with the latest F-35. In these type of wars stealth and range matters and it matters a whole lot, missiles are far cheaper and have more range, and far easier to produce in numbers, till America is able to produce a fool proof missile defense shield that point is moot. China again at this point is able to with homefield advantage field far more and far quicker of anything the Americans can throw on them, in the end if it is a war of attrition, you can guess who is the victor. America will run out of resources within a year, because they are not able to logistically support their bases 10000 miles away. For America it is about building up coalition and hope with fingers crossed other countries do their dirty work for them so they don't have to. To summarize things up will America win a regional all out war against China by themselves in the pacific? The answer, an impossibility. Will it be a stalemate? Possibly for awhile till America runs out of airbases, munitions ports to fight with, then maybe they could lob a few nukes from submarines, and expect a reciprocal response, but that is about it.