Agree! Plus China still needs 2-5 years to fully reshape and distribute all the new equipment to front line troops. For example, the J-20B (WS-10 equipped) won't be combat ready until late 2021. The PLAGF also needs more time to acquire and fully trained to use new long-range artilleries like the 370mm MRL. The new recruitment and conscription systems were delayed for one year due to COVID. Then you got nuclear weapons. I don't know if China even has plans to restart the production of weapon grade plutoniums. Thus, China would not be in an ideal position to start a war before 2025.
Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
Indeed, but it also sets the opponent back comprehensively. If it is a full scale war, I expect PLAAF to target the hangars in a couple of key airbases, like Ambala, Adampur and/or Pathankot (depending on the situation)
Yep, the whole point of this new 'AI' paradigm is to eliminate dependence on network updates.
Reports have been claiming since 2016 that China was 'developing' them. But I bet work on this started in China well before then, as a response to the 'network centric warfare' the Americans introduced in 1991. Here's a couple of articles I just found (linked below.) I wish I had access to journals, I've actually been looking for serious literature on this but it's very hard to find on open source. Praveen Sawhney has talked about this too in his videos.
One such project I know of (by name) is Lockheed's Gray Wolf. There's also other projects which have AI as a core element, like the USAF's 'Loyal Wingman.' As for Chinese projects, we know of no names or their status.
Just remember, this is all software, specifically Neural Networks. All the hardware for this already exists. You can take existing Tomahawks and upgrade them with this capability. Even I can build a rudimentary NNs in Python, you just need a massive dataset to 'train' your NN on. Once it's trained, give it a simple priority driven rule-set and you're basically done. That's the essence of it. And it's probably much easier to build than an autonomous car's NN.
I am betting this tech already exists, just like the F-117 existed before 1991. I think this tech is just waiting for its 'unveiling.'
All I'm saying is that we should keep this new paradigm in mind when we hypothesize on how a future conflict will play out. I think our current ways of thinking about warfare have already become obsolete, we just don't realize it yet... This happened many times before in military history. Planning for the 'last war' is political and institutional inertia.
Last edited:
In short and middle future, never think about Indonesia help, Indonesian are mostly anti China ( maybe equal to India ) because of 1965 , and the newest thing is Natuna and the death of Indonesian ship crew in China fish boat
Brumby
Major
That certainly is an option. Maybe it is for this reason why my estimate of PGMs required is a lot less than the Indian estimate as my premise was on runway disablement and not an expanded hit list. In turn the expanded hits would support the notion of the inventory running out sooner rather than later. Targeting planes sitting on tarmac are targets of opportunity (TOE) and will not work using cruise missiles because they are time sensitive.
I am not aware of the US working on 'AI" as a center piece for cruise missiles because that is not how AI is envisaged to be used. Gray Wolf is a low cost cruise missile project with swarming capability - that is about it. There are three Vanguard programs the US is engaged in and two of them are related in some degree to our conversation but they are much broader than the idea of cruise missiles with AI. The US already has MALD and MALD-X which are loitering autonomous ECM platforms designed for day one application against high density IADS.
Skyborg is the AI software for autonomous platforms and loyal wingman is to provide long range low cost penetration with ISR, strike and ECM capabilities. Eventually IMO, these two programs will converge. However they are somewhere between experimental and development. It will be at least 10 years before they can be considered truly operational. The US approach is to have systems in place that would address operational requirements 20 to 30 years into the future and not current threats.
In my view, these programs are effectively the US 6th gen program and the reason why the formal 6th gen is constantly being pushed back. The general view is single platforms can no longer deliver the necessary effects at acceptable cost.
Clearly such discussions are way of what would be relevant to any conflict associated with Ladakh. The point being if conflict was to arise tomorrow, how would the air campaign be conducted and how would China conduct SEAD/DEAD and with what platforms? I suspect the job will rest on the J-10 supported by KG700 ECM pod. I think the J-16 will have a tougher time conducting SEAD/DEAD because of its higher RCS even with composites.
I agree that anti-Chinese hatred in Indonesia is still quite serious. I disagree though that their hate rivals that of India. Their hate towards China in reality is not even close to the levels of Vietnam.
All I can say with what I can observe is that Indonesia's relations to China is mixed. The government is relatively friendly to China. They are relatively open to Chinese investments. They are also a significant purchaser of Chinese arms; in particular naval weapons. Natuna is a friction point, but the Indonesian government hasn't made a big fuss about it on the levels of Vietnam and the Philippines.
There is a large ethnic Chinese demographic in Indonesia who are more or less friendly, or at worse slightly distrustful of China. As for the majority ethnic Indonesians, it is rather mixed. The majority probably don't really care, or at most are moderately anti-China. There are minorities who are the Muslim extremists or racist haters who are very anti-Chinese, but these guys have not reached the level to fully influence the government.
Well things can still change in the future. It remains to be seen if Indonesia would eventually become friendly or hostile with China. It is up to the governments on both sides to work this out. This depends more heavily on how the CPC manages this relationship. The current method of bullying Indonesians out of Natuna is clearly not a smart way. A smarter foreign policy is needed to both build Indonesian friendliness while at the same time staking China's historic claim in the SCS.
Brumby
Major
Fair enough. Even if China had operational systems in this category, it won't unveil them against India.
I reckon that 'AI' is the true centerpiece of next gen unmanned platforms, because networks are going to be the first casualty in a true 21st century near-peer war... But discussing this topic doesn't make sense in this thread, so I'll leave it be.
The problem with the Indian estimates is that they're assuming the Chinese will just go for the runways, and nothing else. If the runways are knocked out, however, the planes are trapped on the ground, and DF-16s can likely have enough force to penetrate the HAS top and explode inside with 700 kg of explosives.
NATO HAS, in general, are designed to withstand a direct hit by a 250 kg bomb. Even the DH-10 cruise missile has a warhead of 500 kg.
And you have to remember, Beijing has Beidou up and India is close enough to its core target territories. Indian EW isn't rated as first-class, so there's no guarantee they can jam DF-16s and DH-10s or CJ-10s, which can have Beidou guidance for high precision.
NATO HAS, in general, are designed to withstand a direct hit by a 250 kg bomb. Even the DH-10 cruise missile has a warhead of 500 kg.
And you have to remember, Beijing has Beidou up and India is close enough to its core target territories. Indian EW isn't rated as first-class, so there's no guarantee they can jam DF-16s and DH-10s or CJ-10s, which can have Beidou guidance for high precision.
- Status