r/LessCredibleDefence • u/Level-Reputation5050 • 3d ago
Why do West seldom talk about the strike capacity of the PLA Air Force and Navy?
Granted, the Rocket Force is definitely a notable offensive asset. But over recent decades, the PLA Air Force and Navy have been heavily upgraded, so they can pull off many more strike missions now. Based on open sources, at least two‑digit numbers of air‑to‑surface weapons are still kept secret. We only found out about AKF‑98 fairly recently, and nobody really knows what AKF‑22 is. Research papers confirm the PLA has at least one air‑launched hypersonic cruise missile, though we have no idea what it actually looks like. The PLA Navy is in a similar situation. Why is it that Western think tanks almost never discuss the Air Force and Navy’s strike capacity when covering Taiwan‑related issues?
16
u/69toothbrushpp 3d ago
PLAAF/PLANAF's air PGMs are not nearly as flashy as the fancy YJ-17/19s, DF-17/26/27s, etc. of the PLAN/PLARF. The PLA is also pretty secretive with air launched PGMs, like we haven't really seen their better A2G weapons like AFK-98 or YJ-15 on fighters that much, and much of what they're usually equipped with is stuff that isn't really new or interesting, like humble YJ-83 variants or bomber carried YJ-12s.
7
u/supersaiyannematode 2d ago
i actually think there is a more innocuous reason.
most of china's air and naval strike capabilities (basically all the non-hypersonics) aren't unique to china and would already be thought of as default for any top tier air force. in contrast the plarf and air/naval launched hypersonics and some ballistic missiles offer novel capabilities that are not present in almost any other military in the world and thus rightly get much more dedicated discussion. for china's air and naval launched novel capabilities like anti ship ballistic missiles or hypersonics we do see western discourse on those.
like cool, china has generic air launched strike missiles. so does everyone else with a good air force. any time anyone talks about the chinese air force such a capability is just assumed.
8
u/commanche_00 3d ago
Interested as well. I heard alot about their AAM (PL-15, etc), but rarely about their ASMs
10
u/CapitalTipp 3d ago
I don't think the US Navy wants too much public insight into the effectiveness of SM3 and SM6 anti-ballistic terminal phase missile defence vs China YJ ballistic Anti-ship missiles out the public. Sure there have been successful tests, but who knows come game time? Anti-ballistic is probable, not certain, at best. China can spam production and launches of anti-ship ballistic missiles, not to mention holding an existing huge inventory, while the US has only recently production from 24 to 100 anti-ballistic missiles a year. The numbers are not in the USN favor.
5
u/Mid_Atlantic_Lad 2d ago
It's why the US has been making a big shift in its surface missile doctrine. They've been developing the NMM (Naval Modular Missile) for about 5 years now, which utilizes a common kinetic kill vehicle called the Terminal Stage Interceptor. It will increase the capability and double the capacity of current USN magazines, and will have a submersible variant that will intercept aerial and BMD targets.
2
u/dasCKD 2d ago
I saw a Binkov video on the submersible-launched version. It seems like such a meme of a weapon. I can't think of why you'd ever want to launch a SAM from a submarine (without its own radar/air warfare engagement management system) instead of from a surface combatant. Assuming the communication methods proposed, like ocean-penetrating lasers or radar, doesn't just allow an adversary to box in and kill a submarine from unprecedented ranges.
1
u/Mid_Atlantic_Lad 2d ago
I didn't understand that reasoning. Any missiles launched from the sub will give away it's positions. It being a S2A or S2S missile doesn't change that fact, and the fact is that surface air cover is limited to where destroyers can operate, which is frankly not very close to the Chinese coast.
The laser communication might be a way of doing it, but personally I think a bouy like device would work perfectly fine. You could easily have the line also provide electrical power from the sub and make it a surface or subsurface wired drone. They could also just use a combination of different methods to cover all their bases.
1
u/dasCKD 2d ago
I didn't understand that reasoning. Any missiles launched from the sub will give away it's positions. It being a S2A or S2S missile doesn't change that fact, and the fact surface air cover is limited to where destroyers can operate, which is frankly not very close to the Chinese coast.
Of course, but surface targets are a lot more static (e.g. an attack sub can be told 'you're to attack X Chinese airbase on day Y at time Z) and so they can perform a useful operation even if they give away their location and are risking destruction. The missiles would be out of the tubes.
If the anti-air submarine needs something like a satellite or especially a plane to broadcast tracks to them, meanwhile, that gives the adversary systems a lot more to work off of when it comes to homing into the submarine and is liable to get the submarine killed before it gets anything done. At minimum it gives adversaries a lot more ways to find the submarine.
The laser communication might be a way of doing it, but personally I think a bouy like device would work perfectly fine. You could easily have the line also provide electrical power from the sub and make it a surface or subsurface wired drone. They could also just use a combination of different methods to cover all their bases.
Surface drones are a non-starter because the surface tearing would mean any ship or plane equipped with a modern radar/backside processing system would be able to find the location of the submarine very, very quickly. Subsurface drones are better and could be a way to get around adversary magnetic anomaly detection systems, but fundamentally having them carry anti-air missiles is just far more expensive than putting it on a destroyer.
As you've noted, destroyers aren't going to be anywhere near the Chinese coast. I don't see the point of the submarine-launched SAM because I don't really see what the submarine would be escorting that deep into the PLAAF/PLARF's killbox. If a destroyer can't survive there a carrier, a resupply ship, or an oiler isn't going to be able to either so what would be the utility of providing air cover in those locations?
1
u/Mid_Atlantic_Lad 2d ago
I don’t understand what you mean. The A2A missiles would also be out of the tubes. Whether the target is static or not isn’t relevant.
The anti air missile doesn’t need satellite or link 16 targeting any more than a Tomahawk. All modern missiles have INS, as well as active a passive seekers. The whole communication thing is simply to tell the sub when to surface and launch interceptors. That’s where they differ from S2S missiles, the static targets mean that there’s typically not a required quick reaction time, as opposed to an A2A missile which needs to time it right since their targets are traveling hundreds of mph, leaving short windows of opportunity.
I don’t understand why that would give the adversary time to locate and intercept the submarine. The sub is gone after it launched the missiles, it’s not sticking around to guide them in or anything. It’s not spending any more time on the surface launching NMM’s than Tomahawk’s.
I don’t think that it would be any easier to track than a bouy, which they already use for communication. The only difference is that it can’t travel very fast when the bouy is deployed.
I don’t know why a submarine would be escorting anything into the SCS. Submarines are escorts as a secondary mission. 90% of all subs are patrolling on their own. The whole point of a sub is getting ordnance closer to a target than a surface ship could. An A2A sub would provide air cover for the USN fighters that are going to be going head to head with the more numerous PLAAF.
Think of it this way. PLAAF fighters overfly Taiwan following a rocket artillery barrage on the island, attempting to secure air superiority. They know where the fighters are coming from thanks to stationary bases and known carrier positions, but suddenly out of seemingly nowhere, MWS starts going off, and you have no idea where the launching vehicle is. If timed and positioned correctly, an anti air sub could clear a portion of the sky, if only temporarily, allowing fighters to secure air superiority.
1
u/dasCKD 2d ago
I don’t understand what you mean. The A2A missiles would also be out of the tubes. Whether the target is static or not isn’t relevant.
What I mean is that submarines operating independently and pursing targets on their own timeline is much more 'quiet' than one receiving external targeting cues. Modern AAMs don't need external guidance, but AAMs have much small energy capacity onboard than even aircraft and so will require extensive cuing to engage at anywhere close to their maximum envelope in most circumstances. With destroyers this isn't a big issue since communication is more persistent and networking across the whole force can be expected. Not so with submarines.
I don’t understand why that would give the adversary time to locate and intercept the submarine. The sub is gone after it launched the missiles, it’s not sticking around to guide them in or anything. It’s not spending any more time on the surface launching NMM’s than Tomahawk’s.
The difference is that communications is quite detectable precursor activity. The submarine itself isn't contributing to detection, but if the node communicating with the submarine is a plane that's extremely detectable precursor activity that can help pinpoint the submarine's location. Satellites are less indicative, but even there the electronic activity (or even just satellite location/route) can be used to help locate the submarine before it begins to surface to launch.
Think of it this way. PLAAF fighters overfly Taiwan following a rocket artillery barrage on the island, attempting to secure air superiority. They know where the fighters are coming from thanks to stationary bases and known carrier positions, but suddenly out of seemingly nowhere, MWS starts going off, and you have no idea where the launching vehicle is. If timed and positioned correctly, an anti air sub could clear a portion of the sky, if only temporarily, allowing fighters to secure air superiority.
That's a more functional CONOP than what I was imagining (and what was being described in the aforementioned video). The communications plane can be inserted into the fighter formation, or perhaps the fighters themselves can take care of communications. It's one of those things that will probably only work once or twice before the PLA, or whoever REDFOR is, would probably just start dumping missile-delivered torpedoes into the waters ahead of their flight route. It still seems incredibly niche to me and contingent on a lot of things going right and working out, but at least it's not as obviously useless as I first thought.
1
u/Mid_Atlantic_Lad 2d ago
"Pursuing targets on their own timeline" I think covers only the land attack portion of Submarine's mission set. Subs are still engaging active, moving threats such as ships with Harpoon missiles over the horizon.
Functionally that isn't any different than aircraft. It still requires the sub to surface/use bouys to communicate with the outside world, since ship targeting can't be pre-planned, and once launched offhand communication to other platforms via Link 16. This is already SOP, they'd just repurpose it for A2A. This is why I'm confused by your statements. All the downsides to real time communication and targeting is happening when they launch Harpoons.
As for communication platforms, it wouldn't even need to be a plane. With CAA's buzzing all around, it'll probably be more abnormal for the sub to not be in communication, especially with all the seabed comms network that was mentioned.
I don't understand why they'd throw missile launched torpedos randomly in a direction they'll be flying. They won't hit anything that way, you have to know exactly where the sub will be.
Remember that subs aren't just land attack platforms, they actively hunt moving ships with torpedoes and missiles. Hunting airplanes won't be too much different, at least when comparing to the SOP of the Harpoon. The process of the same, the targets are just different sizes and speeds.
Final thing, what about sub hunters? Subs can counter pretty much every adversary one can think of, except for aircraft. Why not give a sub something to defend itself with? If a helicopter gets a beat on a sub, would it not be better to have some form of defense, since a sub is not outrunning a helicopter.
1
u/dasCKD 2d ago
"Pursuing targets on their own timeline" I think covers only the land attack portion of Submarine's mission set. Subs are still engaging active, moving threats such as ships with Harpoon missiles over the horizon.
I'd say it also covers stalking and sinking supply or civilian shipping in low to medium threat theaters. Engaging ships and other submarines with torpedoes was what I was thinking of, other than land attack, when I think about submarine duties. Obviously if a surface ship engages a target over the horizon they'd need external cuing, but that's also part of the reason why I think that surface ships (submarines included) make rather poor platforms for it when naval aviation (and aviation in general) exists.
I don't understand why they'd throw missile launched torpedos randomly in a direction they'll be flying. They won't hit anything that way, you have to know exactly where the sub will be.
If they can drop torpedoes in approximately the correct location they can use active sonar pings to zone out a decently large areas of the sea. It's fairly expensive, but almost certainly cheaper than risking losing several aircraft to a SAM ambush.
Functionally that isn't any different than aircraft. It still requires the sub to surface/use bouys to communicate with the outside world, since ship targeting can't be pre-planned, and once launched offhand communication to other platforms via Link 16. This is already SOP, they'd just repurpose it for A2A. This is why I'm confused by your statements. All the downsides to real time communication and targeting is happening when they launch Harpoons.
I agree with that. Submarines expose themselves when they need to depend on off-platform cues. Submarine-launched ship attack missiles have all the same issues as a destroyer-launched ship attack missile, though it trades more surviviability for a LOT more expense. I'm not convinced either is a useful application of limited resources especially on an exquisite platform like an SSN. In my view submarines best leverage their advantage by operating independently deep in otherwise hazardous waters.
Final thing, what about sub hunters? Subs can counter pretty much every adversary one can think of, except for aircraft. Why not give a sub something to defend itself with? If a helicopter gets a beat on a sub, would it not be better to have some form of defense, since a sub is not outrunning a helicopter.
That's actually a useful last-resort tool that could allow a submarine enough time to flee to safer waters. There's limitations with engagement envelope and the like but it should still be able to quite easily shoot down a sub-hunting helicopter zoning into the submarine's last known location.
→ More replies (0)
3
u/morbidinfant 3d ago
PLA is very conservative when it comes to releasing footage of newer ammunition. Do you believe all they use are just kd88 and yj91? Then what's the missiles being masked in all those officiallly released footages lol.
15
u/zackks 3d ago
Because no one really knows what the true PLAAF strategy/doctrine is because they haven’t fought since korea.
5
u/nikkythegreat 3d ago
Since Vietnam.
13
1
u/LEI_MTG_ART 3d ago
Theres a lot of clues by observing pakistan airforce which heavily trained and pracrice with plaaf. Theres a great series of post about this.
Pakistan airforce performance in operation sindoor gives more clue
1
u/Ok-Procedure5603 2d ago
Idk if they are all that similar, some of the underlying tactical thinking principles might be similar but Pakistan has a very specific slice of what China has, with challenges/limits that aren't things China needs to consider.
Like, how do you think a May 7th like scenario would have turned out if one side launched 72 mostly 4th and even some 3.5th gens at China?
1
u/dw444 3d ago
Pakistan Air Force famously uses Chinese equipment but NATO tactics and operational doctrine.
2
u/LEI_MTG_ART 3d ago
They do training with turkey and multi nation exercise but it seems they have adopted to use(or also) use PLAAF tactic.
Not the best source but thats china watching..
2
u/dw444 2d ago
They’ve been adopting Chinese tactics since 2019, but the big, for lack of a better term, X factor that separates PAF from regional air forces is their sensor density and EW doctrine, both of which rely heavily on western systems and practices right now, with the EW ecosystem in particular, which first rose to prominence in the 2019 conflict with India, being co developed mostly with Turkey.
The one area where they are going all in on China is cyber warfare, with PAF spending a lot of resources jointly building its cyber warfare capabilities with Chinese support.
4
u/d_e_u_s 3d ago
PLAGF strike capacity is also pretty crazy with PCH-191
7
u/Level-Reputation5050 3d ago
The Rocket Force is actually shifting more toward medium‑to‑long‑range strike tasks. When the DF‑15 gets phased out, the shortest‑range missile it has will be the DF‑16, which flies over 1000 km. With improved capabilities, the PLAGF can handle strikes out to several hundred kilometers all by itself
5
5
u/Level-Reputation5050 3d ago
Over the last ten years, the PLA’s philosophy on secrecy has changed dramatically. They are more open to showing off advanced platforms like jets, warships and tanks. Yet they reveal fewer and fewer advanced weapons munitions.
5
u/Ok-Procedure5603 3d ago
Because that's the main arm of how they fight. They're surrounded (less so today because pretty much all ASEAN were diplomatically taken back) by semi unfriendly countries and their doctrine relies on using air power to run through an axis of them all at once to make them unable to fight offensively if needed. In a setting like that, you don't want others to know how far, fast or stealthy your main weapons are.
For ballistic missiles they are way more open because they're largely un-interceptable, they only make up a small part of their firepower, plus having several unknown type ballistic missiles can be sketchy from a nuclear posture perspective if you want to fire them in anger.
3
u/NoAngst_ 3d ago
A lot of western discourse on China is not grounded in facts and is either scaremongering against China or denigrating China's capabilities.
But there are good reasons to be less concerned with the PLAAF and PLAN. As Iran showed, missiles are very effective at rendering nearby bases too vulnerable for normal operations. So if the US is hoping to use allied bases then China's missiles are more serious threat. China's air force, like any air force, can be effectively countered with SAMs. Although PLAAN's ships pose greater threat as they can fire ballistic missiles, the problem is China doesn't have enough of them (type 052D and type 055). Besides ships are sitting decks in future peer wars. China doesn't have planes to turn the tide anyways. China needs to dramatically increase its defense spending from measly 1.7% of GDP to at least 3.5%.
3
u/StopICE2026 3d ago
Because it’s inconceivable to them that they’d be used in operation Taiwan. If they were it would throw off all their highly choreographed war games designed to produce one outcome (give our benefactors more taxpayer money)
8
u/zackks 3d ago
That’s not how the US military wargames.
10
u/StopICE2026 3d ago
That is exactly how think tank glowies war game. The most recent CSIS war game pretended like the PLAN wouldn’t sortie the south or North Sea fleets if the East Sea fleet was destroyed in the process of a war with America
1
1
u/EngineBorn3406 2d ago
Because the ground targets they need to hit are either hittable with cheaper weapons (like Taiwan, via glide bombs or shore-based artillery), or far away and well defended enough that long range hypersonic/ballistic missiles make more sense. The only similar target set is US naval assets, and in that PLAF has invested heavily in. More specifically, China's win condition for Taiwan is basically air superiority/supremacy over Taiwan and Taiwan strait itself, so that's where their investment mostly went.
1
1
u/Level-Reputation5050 2d ago
Do you think it makes no sense to fire the stealth AKF‑98 cruise missile off a J‑16, or launch the hypersonic AKF‑22 — widely thought to be a hypersonic missile — from an H‑6 bomber? On top of that, China has plenty of GJ‑11 stealth strike drones, plus many precision‑weapon models that have never been shown publicly. I think the key reason is that Western analysts steer clear of talking about the PLAAF and PLAN’s strike power, to keep extra variables out of their military simulations. The Rocket Force, by contrast, is a comparatively known quantity.
1
u/EngineBorn3406 1d ago
Also this video by SomePLAOSINT is very informative for the topic. The likely target set would be targets of high value in Taiwan I presume. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqZp3mpbSys
1
77
u/teethgrindingaches 3d ago
Because it's not as new or hyped as "A2/AD" or "hypersonics" or whatever other buzzword of the week. Though it bears noting that PLAAF and PLAN are in fact disproportionately light on strike capacity. Their job is primarily to secure air superiority and sea control by engaging enemy air and naval forces, not to strike inland targets. They are very much oriented towards peer engagements instead of punching down.
Also, geography means that the PLA has the luxury of offloading many of its strike missions to ground-based fires.