FriedRiceNSpice
Captain
By the time Taiwan's declaration is made public, the Taiwanese leadership would be deep underground in a bunker in the mountains.
Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
On the topic of bombs, one thing I am quite curious about is the design requirement for the F-35A/C to be able to carry a 2000lb/1000kg bomb internally. Is there such a class of bomb in PLA service? Is it necessary? Assuming the internal weapon bay of the J-20/FC-31/J-XX can carry 4*1000lb class bombs, would this configuration be better or worse compared to 2*2000lb?
Some new papers from a USAF quarterly journal:
A few quotes from the papers above:
"Our adversary took notice. Their military strategists studied our success and began conceptualizing a military that could stand against our preferred way of war. It must be acknowledged that, at a time when their GDP was barely 7 percent of ours and poverty was rampant, they conceived of a plan to assert control of their fate and began to execute it. As we look back, we must acknowledge the power of their belief. It is one of the many things that makes them a worthy rival."
"Today, peer threats pose unacceptable risk to current means of command and control when the US military is attempting to operate inside an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) environment. For over 30 years, the US Air Force has essentially been on a command and control holiday having the luxury of not being contested in the aerospace domains. Those days are over."
"That, in turn, gives planners some ideas about how quickly US forces must be able to reach and neutralize enemy centers of gravity. The following criteria provide a starting point:
• Impose strategic paralysis within 48 hours of initial enemy attack.
• Be capable of making first attacks on the enemy’s strategic depths within minutes to hours of attack decision.
• Ensure attack platforms are numerous and survivable enough to neutralize enemy centers of gravity that number about the same as those of the United States.
• Base multiple attack platforms on multiple modalities such as low visibility, velocity, and standoff distance to improve the chances of successful attack and greatly complicate enemy defensive preparation.
• Ensure no single-point failure nodes that would affect the success of the attack force, such as universal dependence on global positioning satellites (GPS).
• Strive to have multiple revolutionary capabilities that are fielded quickly enough to thoroughly confound enemy force development."
A few quotes from the papers above:
"Our adversary took notice. Their military strategists studied our success and began conceptualizing a military that could stand against our preferred way of war. It must be acknowledged that, at a time when their GDP was barely 7 percent of ours and poverty was rampant, they conceived of a plan to assert control of their fate and began to execute it. As we look back, we must acknowledge the power of their belief. It is one of the many things that makes them a worthy rival."
"Today, peer threats pose unacceptable risk to current means of command and control when the US military is attempting to operate inside an anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) environment. For over 30 years, the US Air Force has essentially been on a command and control holiday having the luxury of not being contested in the aerospace domains. Those days are over."
"That, in turn, gives planners some ideas about how quickly US forces must be able to reach and neutralize enemy centers of gravity. The following criteria provide a starting point:
• Impose strategic paralysis within 48 hours of initial enemy attack.
• Be capable of making first attacks on the enemy’s strategic depths within minutes to hours of attack decision.
• Ensure attack platforms are numerous and survivable enough to neutralize enemy centers of gravity that number about the same as those of the United States.
• Base multiple attack platforms on multiple modalities such as low visibility, velocity, and standoff distance to improve the chances of successful attack and greatly complicate enemy defensive preparation.
• Ensure no single-point failure nodes that would affect the success of the attack force, such as universal dependence on global positioning satellites (GPS).
• Strive to have multiple revolutionary capabilities that are fielded quickly enough to thoroughly confound enemy force development."
Highly biased anti-China history "lesson".
One thing that the war in Ukraine has shown is that you need a dedicated platform for close air support for ground forces. Something like the A-10 Thunderbolt, SU-25 Frogfoot or the Harrier. Platforms that China at the moment doesn't have. Maybe the L-15 can do close air support but it wouldn't be ideal. You need a dedicated platform for that task.
I disagree with that. Based on the videos and photos that are posted, platforms like A-10's and SU25's are at the highest risk of being destroyed or severely damaged by aa weapons, including Stingers. Drones or strike and multirole aircraft with guided munitions (I'm leaning more towards drones though) can do a much better job performing CAS missions.
Everything A10 and Su25 can do, drones can too. Bar strafing ground target with brrrrtttt.
A major problem with drones is the limited bandwidth and latency from the operator to the sensor platform. I am sure this will improve with time and AI techniques.
Not sure about the speed of military satcom, but if they can do 5G medical operation. It should suffice eh.
- Status