PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

[Jason_]

2000s:
"With only 300+ Tomahawk missiles from the Ohio SSGNs, we can easily destroy any targets all across China and wipe the floor clean with the PLA!"

2025:
"With only 150+ B-21s and 300+ F-47s, we can easily destroy any targets all across China and wipe the floor clean with the PLA!"

Looks like some people do be stuck with the same mindsets for 20+ years...

If China has 150 H-20 and 300+ J-36 (with adequate support/UCAV wingmans etc), it can actually wipe the floor clean with the US basically anywhere in the world.

 

[Jason_]

well, I don't disagree that B-21 is a threat, but there are plenty of other major threats like nuclear submarines for example. F-47 in the future and even B-52s operating from Alaska and Australia.

I agree that US SSNs are the number two threat after the B-21. Why number two? Because its threat toward Chinese mainland/ground targets are low whereas the B-21 can threaten everything. F-47 when fielded would have immense difficulty taking off from an intact airfield and B-52 are worse in every way to the B-21.

 

[lych470]

2000s:
"With only 300+ Tomahawk missiles from the Ohio SSGNs, we can easily destroy any targets all across China and wipe the floor clean with the PLA!"

2025:
"With only 150+ B-21s and 300+ F-47s, we can easily destroy any targets all across China and wipe the floor clean with the PLA!"

Looks like some people do be stuck with the same mindsets for 20+ years...

Reminds me of that particular scene in 'Downfall':

"Mit dem Angriff Steiners wird das alles in Ordung kommen."

 

[Wrought]

If China has 150 H-20 and 300+ J-36 (with adequate support/UCAV wingmans etc), it can actually wipe the floor clean with the US basically anywhere in the world.

Anywhere in the world with the necessary logistics, which excludes most of the world. As the US is discovering right now, projecting power across the world is not at all trivial—and you usually lose a lot of it along the way.

 

[lych470]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think articles such as this explains the USAF logic very well and explains why B-21 if uncountered is such a great threat to China.

Just read the article.

In a way I'm pretty glad that all those USAF Colonel quacks (and have you noticed, all the quacks who write opinion pieces are all Colonels) are all retired. Because what the article, and by extension, its writer, is advocating for is unlimited conventional strikes on Chinese mainland.

To quote: "It is not enough for the U.S. to simply prevent the PLA from seizing ground on the shores of Taiwan. That by itself will not guarantee victory. A war-winning strategy must also deny sanctuaries to the PLA—including sanctuaries on China’s mainland—and enable U.S. forces to degrade China’s ability to launch long-range air and missile salvos that could cripple U.S. joint force operations in the Pacific. ...

History has repeatedly demonstrated the imperative to deny operational sanctuaries that enable adversaries to husband resources, produce war materiel, train replacement warfighters, secure military leadership, and protect their lines of communication. Because freedom from attack is crucial to enable the freedom to attack, denying sanctuaries is an essential element of any successful warfighting strategy."

Anyone with half a brain-cell would know that such proposed actions will result in nuclear war.

 

[Tomboy]

Just read the article.

In a way I'm pretty glad that all those USAF Colonel quacks (and have you noticed, all the quacks who write opinion pieces are all Colonels) are all retired. Because what the article, and by extension, its writer, is advocating for is unlimited conventional strikes on Chinese mainland.

To quote: "It is not enough for the U.S. to simply prevent the PLA from seizing ground on the shores of Taiwan. That by itself will not guarantee victory. A war-winning strategy must also deny sanctuaries to the PLA—including sanctuaries on China’s mainland—and enable U.S. forces to degrade China’s ability to launch long-range air and missile salvos that could cripple U.S. joint force operations in the Pacific. ...

History has repeatedly demonstrated the imperative to deny operational sanctuaries that enable adversaries to husband resources, produce war materiel, train replacement warfighters, secure military leadership, and protect their lines of communication. Because freedom from attack is crucial to enable the freedom to attack, denying sanctuaries is an essential element of any successful warfighting strategy."

Anyone with half a brain-cell would know that such proposed actions will result in nuclear war.

Easiest fix is to simply build up H-20 and 095 numbers and do constant patrols outside CONUS. Show them their precious homeland is not safe from crippling attacks, if they even attempt a mass strike on the mainland, a counter strike on CONUS will follow.

 

[vincent]

Just read the article.

In a way I'm pretty glad that all those USAF Colonel quacks (and have you noticed, all the quacks who write opinion pieces are all Colonels) are all retired. Because what the article, and by extension, its writer, is advocating for is unlimited conventional strikes on Chinese mainland.
…
Anyone with half a brain-cell would know that such proposed actions will result in nuclear war.

Easiest fix is to simply build up H-20 and 095 numbers and do constant patrols outside CONUS. Show them their precious homeland is not safe from crippling attacks, if they even attempt a mass strike on the mainland, a counter strike on CONUS will follow.

You guys are commenting on someone‘s wet dream.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

I agree that US SSNs are the number two threat after the B-21. Why number two? Because its threat toward Chinese mainland/ground targets are low whereas the B-21 can threaten everything. F-47 when fielded would have immense difficulty taking off from an intact airfield and B-52 are worse in every way to the B-21.

I don't think subsonic stealth plane is that big of a threat to current day China. First of all, stealth is only going to get more and more useless as sensor technology and AI gets better and better.

Radars are progressively getting more and more powerful these days. So they detect smaller object from longer distance. Moreover, AI is getting more smarter, which means even small radar signatures can be identified as a stealth bomber with pattern recognition.

Then there is detection using IR and visible light itself. No amount of stealth technology is going to work against that, unless you have technology to make planes transparent. Due to AI and extreme high powered camera type detection systems, you will have ability to detect objects 100s of KMS away.

Moreover, China will have enough radar, planes and ships to essentially forward deploy and act as forward observers during wartime. So, any B-21 that comes close will be detect way before they come anywhere close to the mainland.

I am not even counting satellite detection since they could be destroyed in a full scale superpower war. But they are an option too.

I think all of these factors will make B-21 detection so much easier that there will be marginal difference between a B-21 detection range and a B-52.

If China can keep B-21 at a distance then it can only launch very large hypersonic missiles to cover the long distance. That will limit how many missiles it can carry in its internal bay. A B-21 that can only carry 1-2 standoff hypersonic missiles is not a big of a threat to China. If they try to carry smaller subsonic missiles, well those missiles are easily intercepted.

 

[lych470]

You guys are commenting on someone‘s wet dream.

Well, if nuclear annihilation can be anyone's wet dream, that is.

What the PLA must manage is the dying empire's death throes. The job becomes easier after the US realises that it can no longer maintain its global hegemony and must retreat and draw up its own spheres of influence. What we are witnessing now is the final uncontrollable bowel movements of an organism in its final stages of demise.

 

[dingyibvs]

Just read the article.

In a way I'm pretty glad that all those USAF Colonel quacks (and have you noticed, all the quacks who write opinion pieces are all Colonels) are all retired. Because what the article, and by extension, its writer, is advocating for is unlimited conventional strikes on Chinese mainland.

To quote: "It is not enough for the U.S. to simply prevent the PLA from seizing ground on the shores of Taiwan. That by itself will not guarantee victory. A war-winning strategy must also deny sanctuaries to the PLA—including sanctuaries on China’s mainland—and enable U.S. forces to degrade China’s ability to launch long-range air and missile salvos that could cripple U.S. joint force operations in the Pacific. ...

History has repeatedly demonstrated the imperative to deny operational sanctuaries that enable adversaries to husband resources, produce war materiel, train replacement warfighters, secure military leadership, and protect their lines of communication. Because freedom from attack is crucial to enable the freedom to attack, denying sanctuaries is an essential element of any successful warfighting strategy."

Anyone with half a brain-cell would know that such proposed actions will result in nuclear war.

Not if it can be effectively repelled.