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

tamsen_ikard said:

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.

Click to expand...

tamsen_ikard said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

AndrewS said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yes youre overall strategic thinking is correct. There is simply no way to cheat your way out of producing an absolute behemoth of a navy. No airforce is reproducing the conventional firepower of the navy. PLA is indeed on its way to produce that 5x USN. Their capacity is at least 20x the US if they want to shift the levers that way. It can go up to 50x (US sources claim 100x but that's converting too many commercial small scale production capacity which is not conservative an estimation).

It is already roughly 1:1 when measuring in theatre and modern end of the respective navies. China has weaknesses here and there like SSN and SSGN but has distinct in threatre advantages too with proliferation of an entire ecosystem of high end underwater unmanned platforms and underwater sensor networks within 1IC. China's production rate and economics is so much more advantageous the US has not a chance to engage in arms race. The US military leaders know this though.

They're now betting big on trade and tech war to upset China's resource accumulation that powers China's military and MIC growth. Strategically the US has gone all in on a dead dog - AI.