Battle for Taiwan.

[Peter Cairns]

lucero1148,

Originally I had envisaged a Civil War scenario which would have distrupted or even ment no air defences, however, if The chinese fired first and intervened, they have more than the Cruise missile capability to take out a lot of radars on the ground, and plains too.

There is also the issue of commandos, and sleepers. The Chinese have their version of a 0.5 anti material rifle so they can take out ground radars too.

The key would be could the Chinese airforce take out the Taiwanese quick enough to get it's force ashore in numbers before the US reacted.

Bare in mind that in both Gulf wars the US preperation time was the best part of a year, and that although Iraq had the same time to prepare, the attacker in choosing the time of battle had a huge advantage, particularly against fixed instalations.

Having said that if it was a CM:SF module then it could contain two distinct phases, China v Taiwan and China v US. It's one of the good things about it as you get to use the latest US kit, and things like M-60's.

Peter.

[cassh]

Although technically de jure a civil war, it would de facto be an international conflict as the RoC and PRoC are very much different countries with separate armed forces and governments no matter what they have to say in public.

An invasion of the Taiwanese held islands Kinmen (Quemoy), Matsu and Wuchiu by PRoC is one in which game balance can be met the easiest whilst not having to constrict or fudge reality too much.

It is also the scenario in which a contained conflict would be most likely.

The downside is I cannot envisage the U.S. getting involved to secure or retake these virtual fortress islands given that they are not heavily inhabited and few civilians would need ‘saving’, so from a game point of view it would be a Chinese/Taiwanese affair.

If the focus were an invasion of Penghu off the west coast or Taiping (Itu Aba) in the Spratlys then the U.S. involvement would be more likely and make for a more marketable game.

Personally I’d like Taiping (Itu Aba) in the Spratlys as the oil connection makes this more plausible in foreign policy/strategy terms for the Mainland government. Its invasion could be conducted under the auspices of punitive measure against any independence signals coming from Taipei. It is also far enough from mainland China and the PLAAF to make the U.S. consider getting involved. You also have a nice mix of nations (China, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, USA) and small archipelagos to fight over and play with... could be fun

[Peter Cairns]

cassh,

The problem with all the "Island" variants is that it's like playing CMBB on a map the size of a ball park, there is no space to do anything, it wouldn't even be on a par with a Falklands Module.

Quemoy is a bit better as it's bigger but so much of it is within mainland Chinese artillery range, that it would be another WW1 style game.

As for oil, you can sieze and claim what you like, but you can only exploit it in friendly waters, as it's to expensive and vulnerable to try to extract if someone doesn't want you too.

Peter.

[lucero1148]

There are a lot of if'sin a battle for Taiwan and if China were to attack it would have to engage in maskarova on an epic scale to launch a surprise attack.

For the Chinese to be as successful as the US was in both Gulf Wars how much prep time would they need and since they have to add the response of the US to their final equation would they even risk it.

If Taiwan declares independence China has stated they would go to war to bring Taiwan back ito the fold. They would then need to buildup their forces and logistics in the immediate areas. Taiwan would go on the alert making PROC commando ops difficult to succeeed. The US in the meantime would be steaming towards the conflict but standoff maybe 500 or more miles away and rely on aerial tankers to maintain their aerial defensive perimeter. That being the case China wouldn't be able to launch a surprise attack in such a scenario.

As to whether the Spratleys would make a better area of strategic conflict...as far as the US is concerned if china was to invade the area they probably wouldn't get involved even though they signed a treaty with the Philippines to help protect their sovereign waters. My guess is that if China were to invade they would standy idly by and encourage the American oil companies to assist China in exploring the area for oil and gas.

The Chinese already have armed installations in the Spratleys with gunships actively patrolling 2 or 3 atolls and reefs (with bases built on them).

Malaysia, Philippines and Vietnam also have their armed bases but none of them would be able to take on the Chinese navy or airforce.

[Peter Cairns]

lucero1148,

As a scenario yours is fine, and probably pretty accurate, but it rules out the version with a Tawainese civil war, and at least one faction "inviting" the chinese.

As to the US standing off and using tankers, China could just bind it's time. It has more than the capacity to keeep 100,000 men on "Active" excercises along it's coast and the airforce doing routine patrols out to Taiwanese air space.

How many months could the US keep up intense air patrols using tankers 500miles form bases and carriers, before crew and aircraft attrition started to take it's toll, and how much would it cost.

Previously we have had discussions here on the attrition rates for Iraq compared to peace rtime use, and the cost of the war.

Given the burden that GW1 had on the USAF, could they really keep that amount of flying up at those ranges over water for six months to a year.

As to defending the airspace of an "independent Taiwan", that really depends on whether the US recognisies it diplomatically, which it doesn't at the moment.

Peter.

[lucero1148]

Well first off in an actual war I would bet the US would start any defensive campaign against the PROC with several salvo's of cruise missles at their air bases, radar sites and communications. That would immediately take a bit of pressure off the US. Possibly even forcing the Chinese to push back their air bases or to divert resources to protect their own bases. Undoubtably the US would also be on the lookout for missile attacks but with its superior technology would probably be less vulnerable than the PROC.

China would also be under a economic /diplomatic time clock. How long could they keep on refueling their own planes over a long period of time. Like the US they also must import most of their fuel. Despite the fact that most of the world kowtows to the PROC's "One China" stance I doubt very much if the UN would stand silent. The EU would also weigh in for peace. the pressure would be on China to step back.

Would the US have the backbone to make good on defending Taiwan? That's an entirely different question as it is ambiguous on what it will do. For the sake of a scenario that it does come in aggressivley for Taiwan it's hi tech capabilities wouyld clearly give it an edge in the long run.

[Peter Cairns]

lucero1148,

I just don't see the US hitting the Chinese mainland first, China is a far bigger target than anything the US has taken on before, Iraq and bosnia are tiny in comparison, and it also opens up the hour glass aspect.

For the tactic to succeed the US would have to launch hundreds of cruise missiles over a sustained period and hope that a nation of 1.2bn didn't have the manpower to keep it repaired.

By comparison, less advanced or not, to stop the US air offensive, the chinese only have to disrupt about a half dozen sited in the pacific.

Again I think for a nation the size of China to keep planes fueled and flying over it's own airspace is a lot more sustainable than the US trying to do it 8,000 plus miles across the Pacific from California. US avaiation fuel would have to be shipped in oil tankers or by air toislands under attack.

We got through the entire Korean war killing each others troops in droves while the US never attacked the Chinese mainland and the Chinese never once tried to bomb a US carrier.

If the US could avoid attacking the Chinese mainland it would be in it's own interests. Just because it could cruise the Chinese mainland doesn't make it a good idea. Broadening the conflict is a bad idea because fighting over thse distances through so few instalations is hard enough without them being under attack.

Peter.

[lucero1148]

Very good point there. Didn't think about the implications of the US striking the mainland.

Question. Are the Chinese manufacturing their own SU27's under license? If not that's their only front line fighter with their J7's as backup. They have the logistical edge over the US but it's still a toss up if the US stands by Taiwan and only in a defensive role to prevent a landing.

Should China sink a carrier or any US capital ship though I would think US public opinion would weigh in heavily for destruction of the missile sites and air bases on the mainland. That being the case the US would say to hell with the expense and will strike back at China with all intentions of winning a war of limited objectives. China could escalate by going nuclear but they have more to lose on that route.

America may not be the manufacturing juggernaut it was during WW2 but can certainly hold its own against China today.

China has as many restrictions as the US in a war over Taiwan and for them to go for it would require a lot of resources and planning for a long term conflict which China may not be able to handle.

[lucero1148]

All in all this would make a better naval/air war simulator than a CMSF module.

[cassh]

Peter Said -

As a scenario yours is fine, and probably pretty accurate, but it rules out the version with a Tawainese civil war, and at least one faction "inviting" the chinese.

Peter with the best will in the world that would never, ever, ever, ever, ever happen. Taiwanese inviting Chinese into their country would be synonymous with Eire inviting the UK to re-invade.

As to a Taiwanese internal civil war - my simple question is why? No major racial/social/political/religious divides that I can think of..? They are a fairly integrated society, and whether your background is partially indigenous aboriginal, Sino-Taiwanese, Japanese or post-war Chinese it really makes no odds. The Taiwanese have a great sense of national identity and are grounded in that view by the over-shadowing threat from the mainland communists.

lucero1148 said -

Are the Chinese manufacturing their own SU27's under license? If not that's their only front line fighter with their J7's as backup. They have the logistical edge over the US but it's still a toss up if the US stands by Taiwan and only in a defensive role to prevent a landing.

That will be a yes. It is the J-11 and has been in production since 1998 with an estimate 40 airframes a year going into service. Couple this with the 64 Su-27 and 38 Su-30 from Russia and you have a frontline strength of 320 - 380 Su-27/Su-30/J-11. There are also approximately 300 J-10 fighters as well which are decent aircraft and capable of causing the Taiwanese airforce a few headaches. Then there is the question of whether any FC-1/JF-17 are deployed in China? These are again more than capable of causing Taiwanese/US aviators a few problems.

In Red Flag training at Nellis AFB lowly F5s flown by aggressor squadrons, demonstrate routinely that low cost aircraft such as the JF-17, can be incredible dangerous and effective against the most advanced aerial packages the west can offer. So to some extent the J-8 and J-7 by sheer numbers can be added to the soup of doubt.

Then there is the question of the J-XX (J-13/J-14) fifth generation stealth aircraft that has just gone into service that is designed to compete with the F-22. If the game scenario is set three or four years from now they could have anything from 30 - 80 advanced air superiority aircraft of this type.

These airframes are all air-to-air.

Then one must consider strike capability as well with the JH-7 entering service in 2004 and the aging Q-5, H-5 and H-6 still being used as strike platforms; these are more than capable of dropping lots of nasty stuff over Taiwan.

The H-6D maritime strike bomber would pose the greatest airborne threat to any USN platforms operating in theatre during a conflict. H-6D combat radius is 2000km and with the YJ-6 Kraken anti-shipping missile range of 90km (180km modification upgrade programme models) gives the PLAN a good stand-off strike capability. If the YJ-6 is set to attack at its low level altitude of 50 meters, and fired in volley pairs as is Chinese doctrine, then it has good low-level penetration capabilities and would pose a serious threat to any CBG.

[Peter Cairns]

cassh,

Then there is the question of the J-XX (J-13/J-14) fifth generation stealth aircraft that has just gone into service that is designed to compete with the F-22. If the game scenario is set three or four years from now they could have anything from 30 - 80 advanced air superiority aircraft of this type.

Where did you get the information that the J-XX is in service, as far as anything I have read or heard it hasn't left the drawing board let alone flown.

Peter.

[cassh]

The planes are very much off the drawing board. The prototypes from CAC and SAC have been selected are now in service with the PLAAF for testing and evaluation. The winning aircraft will then be selected for full production within the next 18 months or so after full avionics and wpns evaluation. Add another 12 months for squadron conversion training plus programme overuns which usually occur and we'll probably see the first operational wings in about 4 years.

Chengdu J-XX Prototype?

[Peter Cairns]

cassh,

I've seen those pictures before, and don't believe them for a minute, they are extremely poor quality and given that I've seen moked up pictures of a shark leaping out of the water at a helicopter and a very good piece of film of a submarine launched F-15. i'll stick with what "JANE" are saying.

F-15 from below the waves...

Peter.

[cassh]

Do you mean "Jane's".

The images may be faked, but they may also be real. Regardless Jane's have reported the CAC and SAC prototypes have been selected by the PLAAF for testing and evaluation - an advanced stage of any aircraft development programme. Jane's are usually very reliable on their data so I have little reason to doubt them this time.

[Peter Cairns]

Janes are reporting that their designs have been selected for portotypes, not that there prototypes have been selected,

Peter.

[John Kettler]

The one on the bottom bears a more than passing resemblance to the F-22 Raptor.

Regards,

John Kettler

[cassh]

[LongLeftFlank]

While I don't expect non-native English speakers, particularly engineers, to write (or edit) flawless King's English in this day and age, this piece definitely crosses well into AYBABTU, throwing the credibility of the entire article into question.

Warning flags: general use of passive voice ("it has been known that") and biased adjectives ("clearly", "surely", "apparently"). If the author has sources and data to substantiate his assertions, he needs to quote them, not layer on weasel words. No sale, sorry.

[Peter Cairns]

LongLeftFlank,

Pretty much with you on this one, but it is still an intersting picture.

If the idea put forward here about the test airframe is correct, then what they seem to be doing is a sort of Non-CAD version of what was done by Airbus, Boeing and Lockheed, (who built and flew the JSF, 787 and A380 on computer before building protypes and used the CAD process to not only refine and test the design, but also to streamline the manufacturing process)

As a Scottish nationalist I shouldn't really fly the flag for the UK but a big part of the computer design suite for the JSF design was developed from the British one used to design the Eurofighter.

If this is the case it shows that the Chinese are both picking up ideas and learnibg but also a very long way behind.

The idea that they could have " 40 or 50" in service by 2010 is fantasy as far as I can see.

Peter.

[Peter Cairns]

Notice any similarities in layout and overall design......

Mig designs

Russian Mig 1.42/1.44/MFI

Peter.

[cassh]

LongLeftFlank - are you saying Mr. Coniglio's use of words such as surely invalidate the article? If that is the case then you are the harshest critic I've ever encountered.

His statement "J-14 will surely be fitted with a fly-by-wire flight control system" would seem common sense.

His statement "apparently designated J-14" is valid in that it is the most likely name, but still unconfirmed.

His statement "clearly based on the J-12" also seems valid given the shape of the airframe.

If you read the third to last paragraph he outlines exactly what assumptions have been made and why.

My only agreement with you would be in the syntax of the first sentence of the second paragraph - but as you say he is both a non-native English speaker - and an engineer - not both known for their excellent English prose.

he needs to quote them, not layer on weasel words

Or highly emotive statements perhaps...

Mr. Coniglio's audience in the defence and engineering sectors will surely not stretch to such grammatical pedantry, but be rather interested to see what the Chinese are developing.

Peter - I suspect you well know the close ties between Russian, Israeli and French defence contractors in the development of various Chinese aircraft over the past decade or so.

It seems that the Chinese will be basing much of their 5th generation programme on Russian and Israeli systems and sub-systems - most likely including airframe configuration.

The idea that they could have " 40 or 50" in service by 2010 is fantasy as far as I can see.

Well...set a reminder in outlook or some such thing, and if this forum is still going in 2010 we'll have a look-see and weigh up where the Chinese are. My suspicion is that they will be much further down the line than you give them credit for a present... but we shall have to wait and see.

[Peter Cairns]

cassh.

I am going back more than a decade, but the rule of thumb then was twelve and eight. It was in the time of F-15/16 era taking us about twelve years to from design to in service for a new plane.

In contrast things like the Mig-23 were taking in the region of only eight years. In part it was because the Soviets did a lot of reverse engineering and copying of basic ideas.

If anything those times have lengthened in fifth generfation aircraft if you look at Wikipedias entry on the French Rsfale it is first flight 1984, in service 2000.

If the Chinese are at mock up stage in 2005, having 40 plus in service in only five years would be the aerospace record of all time.

The First flight to service of the J-10 is down as seven years and the J-12/13 is no where near as far on as that and is a more complex aircraft, all be it one that may use the same engines and much of the avionics from the J-10 and J-11 (SU-27, particularly the vectored thrust nossils).

If it is to be anything more than a twin engined J-10 or a J-11 in a new skin, which it would have to be to be a match for an F-22, you would be looking at closer to 15 years than five.

Peter

[cassh]

Peter - I agree 12 to 16 years development from requirement through to operational deployment is normal. China seems to be doing this more quickly in recent projects by harnessing fully developed foreign sub-systems and proven concepts - thus negating some prolonged R&D and testing phases. Admittedly, the J-10 was not an overly complex aircraft, but 10 years is quick in any ones book.

I'm sure the Chinese identified the requirement in the early 1990's and that sub-systems have been in development since then. For example, the Chinese publicly demonstrated their first iteration of a thrust-vector engine back in 1996.

Now I'm not saying this was directly initiated for the J-XX (J-14) programme, but surely their desire for this technology and knowledge of a requirement for fifth generation air-superiority platforms goes back to at least the early to mid 1990's when the F-22, Eurofighter and Mig-35 programmes were well known. They may already have 8 - 9 years under their belt, and with faster development scales than in the west, I think their programme could be nearer 12 rather than 16 years.

I'm just wondering how much they have already, and how much bolt-in technology the Russians are willing sell to get some much needed cash. Your observation about the similarities between the airframe concept of the Mig-35 and J-XX is one that underscores the very point about compressing development scales by incorporating proven foreign technologies...

[Peter Cairns]

cassh,

The Mig 35 isn't really much more than an updated Mig-29 and if that is what is going in to the J-12/13/14, it's not in the F-22 class. As to cutting the development time Lockheed had the F-22 as the template for the F-35 plus CAD and thats going to still take a decade.

It's interesting to look at the L-15, as it's basically an up enegined version of the Yak-140, which had it's first flight this year. It's roughly in the class of the Korean T/A-50, and has been developed quite quickly (very in fact), but to that you have to add the development effort that the Italians and Russians had already done.

Peter.

[John Kettler]

The "weasel words" some of you are objecting to are de rigeur in the intelligence field and, unless procedures have changed, used to be tied to specific probability ranges. Let's now look at some of the observations on why MiGs got developed faster than their Western counterparts. Years ago, a guy named Ward? wrote a great article on the Soviet aircraft design process. If you can find it, read it. You'll learn a great deal.

First, MiGs were generally smaller, simpler and lighter than their Western counterparts. These factors can shave years off the development cycle

all by themselves. Generally speaking, their electronics were much less complex, too, in part because they weren't really designed to operate autonomously, but under GCI. We tried this stripped down, lightweight, maneuverable approach with the F-16 as our answer to the MiG-21. By the time it was all said and done, the plane had every bell and whistle, including nuclear strike capability, and cost almost as much as an

F-15--while sporting a fire control system much, much worse and initially, with no beyond visual range missile capability at all.

Second, during the Cold War and continuing since, Soviet/Russian technical intelligence has been very aggressive and exceedingly effective, to include acquiring the Redeye (SA-7 GRAIL) and Sidewinder (AA-2 ATOLL), the latter smuggled out

rolled up in a carpet sticking out the back of a station wagon. A more on point example includes

obtaining extensive material via Polish intel penetration of Hughes (Richard Bell case) on the APG-18 LD/SD radar, which U.S. analysis found saved the then Soviets years of development time and thousands of manhours, notably by skirting all the technical approaches which didn't work but would otherwise have to be explored.

Third, they practiced and practice a kind of cookbook approach to aircraft design, rather than starting with the proverbial clean sheet of paper.

IOW, the aircraft designers work from a set of

predesigned and technically validated components, to include things like wing designs, inlets, powerplants, control surfaces, avionics, etc., which they are then allowed to combine with a few higher risk items.

Thus, the MiG-23 is a hybrid of many proven components, but with the novel variable geometry wing (VGW), and it builds on the partial VGW we saw operationally deployed on the Su-17 family of strike aircraft. Only where a new operational requirement suddenly arises will you see a truly new aircraft and then only when there's no other way to get the capability.

Consider the MiG-25 FOXBAT. The West scared itself to death with the FOXBAT and spent billions to combat it, when in reality it was a case of the Soviets committing massive resources to production against a threat which never materialized. The FOXBAT, you see, was developed in response to a perceived high altitude supersonic bomber threat,

as exemplified by the XB-70 Valkyrie program, which was canceled. By then it was too late for the Soviets, and hundreds of FOXBAT were built.

Most of them were interceptors carrying 4 monstrous AA-6 ACRID missiles designed for head-on hypersonic intercept, but some were configured for

photo recon and ELINT. It was in a recon capacity that the FOXBAT really raised Western hackles, flying so high and so fast it was unengageable

for a long time. The FOXBAT was THE justification for the F-15, but we in the West did not understand the FOXBAT, but instead analyzed the plane from our own technical biases. Did we ever get a shock when we got to examine Belenko's FOXBAT when he flew it to Japan.

We thought it was mostly titanium, but it was mostly steel, with titanium only when and where needed. IOW, the plane was MUCH heavier than we ever imagined. We expected a smooth finish throughout, but the plane was only smooth where it had to be and nowhere else. We expected a tubeless

fire control system and laughed at those "backward

Russians" when we found the X-band set had vacuum tubes, only to stop laughing when someone pointed out that vacuum tube technology was inherently EMP hardened, whereas the Western approach was inherently EMP vulnerable. This showed the Soviets were deadly serious about fighting in a nuclear environment. Faces grew long indeed when we discovered the radar was phenomenally powerful (to burn through jamming), had a bunch of previously unknown war reserve frequencies for the X-band radar (very embarassing for threat library based ECM gear) and that the FOXBAT also carried a complete J-band set, of which we knew absolutely nothing, as an additional antijamming measure. And did I mention that the engines were simply staggering in size and power, basically putting Western propulsion specialists into shock? Even so, that amazing FOXBAT was full of standardized

components.

By reconfiguring the FOXBAT, though, the Soviets

fielded a long range response to the threat of

U.S. strategic bombers armed with swarms of ALCMs,

the MiG-31 FOXHOUND sporting true LD/SD track while scan radar, the Phoenixskiy AAM (espionage against F-14s supplied to Iran), AA-8 dogfight missiles and a standard issue 23mm gun. The inlets and engines were changed for low level operation, the radar allows for unprecedented autonomy, as well as a miniAWACs

application, with or without Il-76M MAINSTAY (AWACS) support.

If China has borrowed from the Russian playbook,

then it would be reasonable to expect the same sort of development compression. Offsetting this, though, is that China's going where it's never really been before in production aircraft, building a highly complex, technically demanding aircraft. Even with expert help, that's a steep and painful learning curve.

Regards,

John Kettler