Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G)

[AndrewS]

You lack imagination. If China is fighting the US, it is fighting the US in the whole world and US will also use all its bases in the whole world on this fight. Which means US bases in Diego Garcia to the Middle-East to Europe, any of them can launch Bombers and Missiles against China. And China will also not let those bases intact either. It needs to destroy them to prevent not only US ability to airlift supplies but also prevent those long distance tanker supported attacks.

And for H20, the entire CONUS should be its target. Entire US ability to wage war including air bases, training centers to factories should be targets for H20.

So, No, there is no lack of targets and 100 Bombers are an awefully low number. And I haven't even brought all the allies of US yet, if they support US military, they are also legitimate targets.

My point is that the economics rapidly disadvantages bombers because airborne refuelling requirements grow exponentially past a certain point.

My guesstimate is that for targets beyond the 3IC, the cost-capability equation highly favours aircraft carrier strike groups over bombers. So the bulk of spending and capability should go towards the Navy for these target sets.

---

Also note that I've previously written (many times) that China should build a blue water Navy significantly larger than the US Navy.

This will be able to control the high seas and protect China's global trade.

But if required, such a Navy would also allow China to isolate the US with a blockade and also attack targets in CONUS.

 

[charles18]

You lack imagination. If China is fighting the US, it is fighting the US in the whole world and US will also use all its bases in the whole world on this fight. Which means US bases in Diego Garcia to the Middle-East to Europe, any of them can launch Bombers and Missiles against China. And China will also not let those bases intact either. It needs to destroy them to prevent not only US ability to airlift supplies but also prevent those long distance tanker supported attacks.

And for H20, the entire CONUS should be its target. Entire US ability to wage war including air bases, training centers to factories should be targets for H20.

So, No, there is no lack of targets and 100 Bombers are an awefully low number. And I haven't even brought all the allies of US yet, if they support US military, they are also legitimate targets.

Like what someone else said, "I think you're extending this scope way too much."
I believe the ultimate fate of China is to create a military whose global reach will be "respected" everywhere.
However let's take things one step at a time here....it's not 2050 yet.

China can fight and win against any foe only within the 1st island chain right now.
The next step is to extend this power to the 2nd chain then the 3rd....

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

In comparison, let's work with the assumption that for the Chinese:

1. the GJ-X is primarily for the 2IC
2. the H-20 is for the 3IC and beyond

It just seems to me that even 100 of each type is overkill in terms of direct attack mission requirements.
After all, it is only a handful of isolated airbases, naval bases and aircraft carriers.

Such assumptions are faulty.

1. Who says that the GJ-X can only be primarily used for 2IC scenarios?
2. Who says that the H-20 is only for the 3IC and beyond?

Next, speaking of number of targets - There are actually tonnes of viable targets lined along and around the vicinity of the 1IC. There are also a lot of targets along and around the 2IC, in addition to the region within the 1IC-2IC belt.

In addition, what about the Xizang frontier? There's a whole subcontinental mass of enemy targets to deal with.

And we haven't reached some other wartime factors and considerations that are equally important on determining how much munitions would be truly required.

(As a matter of fact, I do have a firm feeling that some people here in this forum have serious underestimations on how massive and immense things can actually get when dealing with a continental/oceanic-scale conflict.)

So, no - Even with the PLARF, PLAN (and in some intances, the PLAGF) in the mix, China does need a sizeable fleet of airborne strike platforms from the PLAAF. In this regard, both the GJ-X and H-20 are very much useful and valuable for missions close to home, as they are for missions far away.

 

[AndrewS]

Such assumptions are faulty.

1. Who says that the GJ-X can only be primarily used for 2IC scenarios?
2. Who says that the H-20 is only for the 3IC and beyond?

Next, speaking of number of targets - There are actually tonnes of viable targets lined along and around the vicinity of the 1IC. There are also a lot of targets along and around the 2IC, in addition to the region within the 1IC-2IC belt.

In addition, what about the Xizang frontier? There's a whole subcontinental mass of enemy targets to deal with.

And we haven't reached some other wartime factors and considerations that are equally important on determining how much munitions would be truly required.

(As a matter of fact, I do have a firm feeling that some people here in this forum have serious underestimations on how massive and immense things can actually get when dealing with a continental/oceanic-scale conflict.)

So, no - Even with the PLARF, PLAN (and in some intances, the PLAGF) in the mix, China does need a sizeable fleet of airborne strike platforms from the PLAAF. In this regard, both the GJ-X and H-20 are very much useful and valuable for missions close to home, as they are for missions far away.

Of course, longer-ranged platforms can be used on closer targets, or higher performance platforms used against easy targets.
This will inevitably happen.

But it would be an inefficient allocation of resources, if you have platforms designed for a certain range/mission, being used elsewhere.

1. Within the 1IC, China can aim for air superiority and all the targets are near the coast.
Using lots of long-range stealth bombers for strike would be inefficient, considering that there already exist a lot of 4th-gen non-stealthy heavyweight strike fighters and also ground-attack UCAVs available, which would have enough range.

2. For the 2IC, I don't actually see many targets. It's only a handful of runways and seaports. If those are out of commission, then the forces on there are ineffective and can be dealt with at leisure.

3. My view (for 3 years now), is that very large numbers of low-cost Shaheed-type piston-engine munitions (with a range of 2000-3000km) should be the default for ground attack for soft, fixed targets.

Let's say a bomber costs $500 Mn and a Shaheed costs $25K. You could buy 20K shaheeds for the cost of a single stealth bomber.

---

As for India, I think you're overestimating the problem.

Most of India is within 1000km of the Chinese border. That is 1IC distance.
In 2030, China will have ~1000 stealth fighters in service. Just 100 should be enough to wipe out the Indian Air Force and allow deep strikes. That will allow large numbers of Shaheed.

But what is the end goal? It's not realistic for China to conquer and occupy India, and aerial bombing won't force them to surrender.

So there has to be a political settlement anyway.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

Of course, longer-ranged platforms can be used on closer targets, or higher performance platforms used against easy targets.
This will inevitably happen.

But it would be an inefficient allocation of resources, if you have platforms designed for a certain range/mission, being used elsewhere.

1. Within the 1IC, China can aim for air superiority and all the targets are near the coast.
Using lots of long-range stealth bombers for strike would be inefficient, considering that there already exist a lot of 4th-gen non-stealthy heavyweight strike fighters and also ground-attack UCAVs available, which would have enough range.

2. For the 2IC, I don't actually see many targets. It's only a handful of runways and seaports. If those are out of commission, then the forces on there are ineffective and can be dealt with at leisure.

3. My view (for 3 years now), is that very large numbers of low-cost Shaheed-type piston-engine munitions (with a range of 2000-3000km) should be the default for ground attack for soft, fixed targets.

Let's say a bomber costs $500 Mn and a Shaheed costs $25K. You could buy 20K shaheeds for the cost of a single stealth bomber.

---

As for India, I think you're overestimating the problem.

Most of India is within 1000km of the Chinese border. That is 1IC distance.
In 2030, China will have ~1000 stealth fighters in service. Just 100 should be enough to wipe out the Indian Air Force and allow deep strikes. That will allow large numbers of Shaheed.

But what is the end goal? It's not realistic for China to conquer and occupy India, and aerial bombing won't force them to surrender.

So there has to be a political settlement anyway.

If Shahed-type drones are indeed as all-mighty powerful as certain people have claimed over the past couple years, then China should have never bothered with building such massive fleets of platforms and arsenals of weaponry for the PLAAF, PLAN and PLARF. You know, the exact opposite of what they're actually doing right now.

Just launch the Shaheds, man.

And, no - Nowhere has I ever advocated for conquering and occupying India - And the same applies with Japan.

It appears my feelings (or better yet, hunch) on certain group of users in this forum regarding their naivety about the realities of all-out wars are indeed spot on.

 

[AndrewS]

If Shahed-type drones are indeed as all-mighty powerful as certain people have claimed over the past couple years, then China should have never bothered with building such massive fleets of platforms and arsenals of weaponry for the PLAAF, PLAN and PLARF. You know, the exact opposite of what they're actually doing right now.

A Shaheed is about the same cost as a JDAM.
So you can compare a Shaheed to a JDAM that can fly to the target by itself.

If you treat Shaheeds as a munition, they are complementary to the larger platforms of the PLAAF, PLAN and PLARF.

Note that Shaheeds do have limitations in terms of relatively small warhead, range and vulnerability.
So you still need other platforms to drop large bombs for hardened targets, and aircraft conduct DEAD to destroy air defences, etc etc

Think about US doctrine. It was to gain air superiority, which then allows multi-role aircraft to drop short-range JDAMs.
But in an era where air superiority is difficult to obtain, it's better to focus on air superiority, and use Shaheeds in place of JDAMs.

---

Note that Shaheed-types are now the primary deep strike munition in Ukraine, with swarms of up to 800.

Also note that the USA has a stockpile of ~200K JDAMs. So let's say China were to build a modest stockpile of say 40K shaheeds. That could be 50 swarms comprising 800 munitions each. My guess is that it could take less than a week to launch them all. Combined with everything else, it would represent a level of shock-and-awe that surpasses even Desert Storm.

Just launch the Shaheds, man.

And, no - Nowhere has I ever advocated for conquering and occupying India - And the same applies with Japan.

It appears my feelings (or better yet, hunch) on certain group of users in this forum regarding their naivety about the realities of all-out wars are indeed spot on.

Even in an all-out war scenario, there are fundamental limitations affecting the US in terms of:

1. available bases due to geography in the Pacific
2. the timelines to build navy ships, which includes carriers
3. the demonstrated inability of the US industrial sector to expand war production

I also don't see a US-China war as inevitable. I would put it at around 20%. But given the catastrophic consequences of such a war, I do think China should aim for an obvious rolfstomp capability, at least to the 2IC. So I do think 100 GJ-X should be more than sufficient for this, when combined with other assets. If need be, you could operate H-20s for 2IC targets, but after the initial days, I expect H-20s can focus exclusively on targets in the 3IC and beyond.

For the 3IC and beyond, I think it's really an issue of building a larger navy, which means a lot more aircraft carriers.

 

[MC530]

The Shaheed is a suicide drone, not all suicide drones.

China's potential suicide drones range from large cruise missiles to small propeller-driven drones capable of airdropping.

The Shaheed's greatest advantages are its low cost, low production requirements, and mass production.

If we consider the demands of a full-scale war, 100,000 launches per day would be sufficient. We have very good reference numbers: China produced nearly 3.5 million electric motorcycles and nearly 20 million gasoline motorcycles last year, 25 million small gasoline engines for various non-transportation applications such as lawn mowers, generators, and water pumps, and over 1.6 billion mobile phones.

Combining these circuit boards, housings, and power sources, we can easily assume that, in a full-scale mobilization, China could easily utilize its existing production equipment to increase production of drones like the Shaheed to 25-30 million units.

That's over 80,000 suicide drones per day, with a range of 2,000-3,000 km.

The question now becomes why this full-scale mobilization is necessary, and why Shaheed production is necessary.

Who is the enemy?

The concept of total war has faded from the minds of many, including the fools in the Pentagon and Brussels. Perhaps they know about it but aren't going to tell the average person?

China's industrial share of 40% of the world's total is a terrifying fact.

 

[AndrewS]

The Shaheed is a suicide drone, not all suicide drones.

China's potential suicide drones range from large cruise missiles to small propeller-driven drones capable of airdropping.

The Shaheed's greatest advantages are its low cost, low production requirements, and mass production.

If we consider the demands of a full-scale war, 100,000 launches per day would be sufficient. We have very good reference numbers: China produced nearly 3.5 million electric motorcycles and nearly 20 million gasoline motorcycles last year, 25 million small gasoline engines for various non-transportation applications such as lawn mowers, generators, and water pumps, and over 1.6 billion mobile phones.

Combining these circuit boards, housings, and power sources, we can easily assume that, in a full-scale mobilization, China could easily utilize its existing production equipment to increase production of drones like the Shaheed to 25-30 million units.

That's over 80,000 suicide drones per day, with a range of 2,000-3,000 km.

The question now becomes why this full-scale mobilization is necessary, and why Shaheed production is necessary.

Who is the enemy?

The concept of total war has faded from the minds of many, including the fools in the Pentagon and Brussels. Perhaps they know about it but aren't going to tell the average person?

China's industrial share of 40% of the world's total is a terrifying fact.

I think 100K Shaheeds per day is way too excessive.
Over 7 days, that is 700K aimpoints.
Over 30 days, that is 3 million aimpoints. Although I doubt there are enough worthwhile targets for all these munitions.

---

I think just 10K per day would be more than sufficient.
Over 7 days, that is 70K aimpoints.
Over 30 days, that is 300K aimpoints

Anyway, back on topic.

 

[GTI]

Simply put:

- you are at zero / the centre of a circle with variable radius.

- the enemy they want to strike can be 1cm to 20,000km away, in any direction.

- they will strike that enemy using the most efficient and cost-effective means to achieve the required outcome, based on urgency and priority.

Most pointless argument ever.

Although it did start with what I initially thought was a misinterpretation:

Such assumptions are faulty.

1. Who says that the GJ-X can only be primarily used for 2IC scenarios?
2. Who says that the H-20 is only for the 3IC and beyond?

His exact words were:

1. the GJ-X is primarily for the 2IC
2. the H-20 is for the 3IC and beyond

Technically, or grammatically (Blitzo will let us know) some of that is correct. You probably also shouldn’t be adding the “only” to someone else’s words to be fair. Also to be fair, a couple of separate assertions in the wider comment could’ve been… of better quality.

If H-20 eventuates as the most effective manned or unmanned aerial platform to launch conventional munitions and tactical nukes {we’ll stop here} at targets in 3IC and “you know where”, then that’s technically appropriate to use the term “for”. It might even turn out to be the only above-stated-platform type capable of that. He just didn’t add — “and anything else from minimum range up to that same distance, in any direction, should it be required”.

And “primarily” means “for the most part”, literally not “only”. But it is a bit much to assert that to be fair. Might’ve been better to say — “GJ-X would excel at…”

Of course, longer-ranged platforms can be used on closer targets, or higher performance platforms used against easy targets.

Should’ve stopped here. Gets more indefensible the longer you went on.

 

[wuguanhui]

2. For the 2IC, I don't actually see many targets. It's only a handful of runways and seaports. If those are out of commission, then the forces on there are ineffective and can be dealt with at leisure.

China has a wide variety of ballistic and hypersonic missiles that can deal with runways, ports and other high value targets.

But what about Low Value Targets? PLAAF needs cheap expendable platform that can round-trip Japan and renovate it from the sky. PLAAF missiles already got range, speed and precision against expensive American carriers. What they lack is volume cheap enough to throw at every bridge, train station, warehouse, factory, transformer, school, hospital and shopping mall. Missiles are expensive. Are you really going fire $10m+ Dongfengs at every Soapland suspected of being the Japanese PM's hideout?