5 ms·

> The addition of the HQ-9 — which was first reported by Fox News on Feb. 17 — would greatly increase the People’s Liberation Army’s air defense capabilities in

> The addition of the HQ-9 — which was first reported by Fox News on Feb. 17 — would greatly increase the People’s Liberation Army’s air defense capabilities in the region. Like the Russian-made Almaz Antey S-300 air defense system, the HQ-9 has the ability to render vast swaths of territory into virtual no-fly zones. Only the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit stealth bomber can safely operate in the vicinity of an HQ-9 for any length of time. The title is simply wrong. 1) B-2, F-22, and F-35 can all be used to throw missiles at these sorts of targets and then exit the area. The HQ-9 / Patriot can't track stealth aircraft at extreme range effectively. Or you throw sea skimming / low altitude cruise missiles with jamming to provide EW cover. http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/american-f-22s-b-2-bombers-vs-russias-s-300-syria-who-wins-13905 http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/american-f-22s-b-2... > The Raptors “kick down the door” using their unique combination of stealth, high altitude and blistering speed to target the nodes of the integrated air defense system so that the B-2s can proceed to their targets unmolested. It’s a mission the F-22s have only gotten better at with the Increment 3.1 upgrade that allows the jet to geo-locate emitters much more precisely than before. And that capability will continue to improve with the Raptor’s forthcoming Increment 3.2B upgrade. > The other option to take down an integrated air defense system is to use a combination of standoff weapons like the JASSM and JASSM-ER cruise missiles together with electronic attacks from a platform like the EA-18G Growler. The Growler can not only jam the enemy’s radar, but can generate an ellipse to target the missile site. The problem there is precisely updating the cruise missile with current track data before the enemy moves during the incoming weapons’ time of flight. 2) HQ-9 [if based on Patriot] is actually less effective than the modern Russian systems. Without the ability to move substantial distances, HQ-9 isn't a serious threat to the US. However, pretty much every US ally in the region isn't capable of standing up to that sort of thing. Given the region is largely divided into the US / Chinese spheres of influence at this point it doesn't really matter because there aren't neutral parties. 3) I'm honestly more concerned about China sparking a major war than I am about their ability to create no-fly zones. ------ EDIT: Since I'm rate limited: Realistically, whether you realize or it, China is in that position and has been for 20 years. A missile base in Hainan would have the range to hit anything transiting to Vietnam via the sea. Short of taking Hainan away from China, Vietnam can be closed to ships by China at any time. China isn't interested in provoking a military conflict but rather guaranteeing its security and a world position equal to the US in all theaters. Similarly, its why Hainan has a semi-covert submarine base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulin_Naval_Base https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yulin_Naval_Base

smacktoward 11y ago
The problem isn't what happens after the shooting starts, it's how these developments make the starting of shooting more likely. Nobody in the West wants to get into a war with China, but by covering the region with sophisticated defenses the Chinese could conceivably put the West in a position where they either have to accept Chinese hegemony over the region, or launch the exact war they don't want to fight in order to restore the old status quo. Like, say China keeps building up its defensive network in the region, and then one day they announce that henceforth no freight or passenger vessels will be allowed to pass into Vietnamese (or Philippine, or Taiwanese, or Japanese) airports or seaports without first getting Chinese approval. Vietnam would obviously oppose that, and so would the U.S., because they are important trade partners with each other. But the Chinese could just say "if you don't like it, come fight us over it." And then the only choices available to the U.S. are to accept the new status quo, effectively abandoning Vietnam to becoming a Chinese client state, or to launch World War III to keep the trade routes open. That's not a position anyone in Washington wants to be maneuvered into.
- hga 11y ago
  An economic threat backed by military power doesn't require a military response. We and the Vietnamese have all sorts of potential economic responses, although of course our's are much greater, including the "nice pile of US Treasury debt you have there, it would be a shame if we declared it worthless to anyone who might buy it". And the PRC's actions are already getting its neighbors to band together, even with Japan (!). Or there's the convoy approach, we task some ships and subs to escort convoys of merchant ships to and from Vietnam, following our long freedom of the seas policy. We're already sending the occasional Arleigh Burke class destroyer into the new areas of the ocean that the PRC is claiming.
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    > the PRC's actions are already getting its neighbors to band together, even with Japan (!). Yes, this is probably the best argument that can be made that the PRC's strategy is failing -- the bluntness of it is definitely drawing the whole region into a new anti-Chinese bloc, which (combined with the U.S.) could present a formidable counter to Chinese regional power. A more subtle "divide and conquer" strategy might have let them take on potential opponents one by one, or even play them against each other.

smacktoward 11y ago

The problem isn't what happens after the shooting starts, it's how these developments make the starting of shooting more likely. Nobody in the West wants to get into a war with China, but by covering the region with sophisticated defenses the Chinese could conceivably put the West in a position where they either have to accept Chinese hegemony over the region, or launch the exact war they don't want to fight in order to restore the old status quo. Like, say China keeps building up its defensive network in the region, and then one day they announce that henceforth no freight or passenger vessels will be allowed to pass into Vietnamese (or Philippine, or Taiwanese, or Japanese) airports or seaports without first getting Chinese approval. Vietnam would obviously oppose that, and so would the U.S., because they are important trade partners with each other. But the Chinese could just say "if you don't like it, come fight us over it." And then the only choices available to the U.S. are to accept the new status quo, effectively abandoning Vietnam to becoming a Chinese client state, or to launch World War III to keep the trade routes open. That's not a position anyone in Washington wants to be maneuvered into.

hga 11y ago
An economic threat backed by military power doesn't require a military response. We and the Vietnamese have all sorts of potential economic responses, although of course our's are much greater, including the "nice pile of US Treasury debt you have there, it would be a shame if we declared it worthless to anyone who might buy it". And the PRC's actions are already getting its neighbors to band together, even with Japan (!). Or there's the convoy approach, we task some ships and subs to escort convoys of merchant ships to and from Vietnam, following our long freedom of the seas policy. We're already sending the occasional Arleigh Burke class destroyer into the new areas of the ocean that the PRC is claiming.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  > the PRC's actions are already getting its neighbors to band together, even with Japan (!). Yes, this is probably the best argument that can be made that the PRC's strategy is failing -- the bluntness of it is definitely drawing the whole region into a new anti-Chinese bloc, which (combined with the U.S.) could present a formidable counter to Chinese regional power. A more subtle "divide and conquer" strategy might have let them take on potential opponents one by one, or even play them against each other.