And?
Even at 2 operating at once, it would be 15 minutes if 1 is 30.
Still more than the 10 minutes I threw out (and then multiplied with 60 to get 600).
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
Even at 2 operating at once, it would be 15 minutes if 1 is 30.
Still more than the 10 minutes I threw out (and then multiplied with 60 to get 600).
The 10 minutes you threw out would be halved as well.
Halving the amount of time is not insignificant, especially considering the basis of the arguments here are built upon the assumption of total time. If more systems can be in use simultaneously, the time is reduced by an even larger factor.
?
I already reduced the 'original' 30 minutes to 1/3 of it (very unlikely to be achievable in the near term, as in next 5 years, probably more) for 1 TRAM system.
Looking at the picture, I find it doubtful more than 3 can operate at the same time (maybe 2).
For 1 TRAM system, so if you have more than 1 then...
The VLS cells on Burkes are divided into two groups, so it's not unthinkable for two to operate at once. The cells are in a 2:1 ratio, so it wouldn't be exactly twice as fast. Still, the point is to amend the assumptions here of time with another potential possibility.
Yes, but my original reply already went with 10 minutes times 60 (quite a below max VLS cells of a Burke) to get 600 minutes.
Essentially already around the upper limits of the potential possibility achieved with multiple TRAM systems.
Which still bring us to 10 hours, where the ship likely has to slog at below 15 (probably 10) knots, very impaired in ability to defend itself, and also unable to quick speed up and perform evasive maneuvers.
Anyways, I already said it is a capability worth looking into, but I agree with Andrews it currently isn't pressing for PLA (especially around Taiwan and SCS where time to port is likely less than 2 days, not to mention, time to safer, more PLAN and PLAAF controlled areas even less).
Nah, Im pretty sure the original news post that started this discussion was the damaged US Oiler article posted by TPHuang.
so I was just thinking today about China's strategy for second island chain in a westpac conflict. It seems to me that no matter what people say about other bases, they are just not remotely on the same level of relevance as Guam.
I did a direct measurement now and it's almost 3000 km from Anderson AFB to Wenzhou.
In an initial set of strikes against Guam, PLA would likely be launching DF-26s from ground, CJ-10s from H-6K and LACMs from destroyers (stationed on East side of Taiwan)
Given the likely presence of a carrier on the East side of Taiwan, I was thinking about how far out it would have to be for J-15s to launch KF-98A. If we use max operational range KF-98A (let's say 500km) and use 1100 km as the operational radius of J-15s. Let's say 24 J-15s per carrier all take off, half carrying 2 KF-98A and other half doing OCA, DCA and refueling. The entire wing would only be able to launch 24 ground attack missiles. And in order to do this. it would have to be almost half way between Taiwan and Guam.
So it seems that unless they feel comfortable deploy a carrier group 1000 km to the East of Bashi channel, this would be a not so worthy gamble.
Of course now, once they get J-35/CV-18 into service along with more SSNs into service. This might be a more comfortable scenario.
Whether they need this to be an option is another question. If they can get carrier to 1000 km off Guam, then the strike options are just much more potent since you can then start launching gliding PGMs and shorter range ground attack missiles. You can also carry more payload.
I did a direct measurement now and it's almost 3000 km from Anderson AFB to Wenzhou.
In an initial set of strikes against Guam, PLA would likely be launching DF-26s from ground, CJ-10s from H-6K and LACMs from destroyers (stationed on East side of Taiwan)
Given the likely presence of a carrier on the East side of Taiwan, I was thinking about how far out it would have to be for J-15s to launch KF-98A. If we use max operational range KF-98A (let's say 500km) and use 1100 km as the operational radius of J-15s. Let's say 24 J-15s per carrier all take off, half carrying 2 KF-98A and other half doing OCA, DCA and refueling. The entire wing would only be able to launch 24 ground attack missiles. And in order to do this. it would have to be almost half way between Taiwan and Guam.
So it seems that unless they feel comfortable deploy a carrier group 1000 km to the East of Bashi channel, this would be a not so worthy gamble.
Of course now, once they get J-35/CV-18 into service along with more SSNs into service. This might be a more comfortable scenario.
Whether they need this to be an option is another question. If they can get carrier to 1000 km off Guam, then the strike options are just much more potent since you can then start launching gliding PGMs and shorter range ground attack missiles. You can also carry more payload.
Why would they even need to deploy carriers against Guam? It's not that big of a target, IRBMs, H-6s as well as perhaps some HALE UCAVs should be enough to prosecute it for the duration of any conflict. J-16s supported by tankers should be able to reach it as well.
Xi Yazhou analyzing DF-26s vs Guam and America's strategy of reviving old WWII era airports. Now, some of them are quite small, not really suitable for what seems to be more than short 24 hour usage.
It does seem to me that H-6K and cruise missile threats here often get ignored for some reason, when they are definitely going to be part of the equation to give defense more missiles and different threats to deal with.
A carrier based cruise missile strike with only 24 J-15 would only mean 48 missiles and the aircraft would have to get too close to Guam.
In comparison, I could see the PLAAF devoting 100 H-6 sorties per day for Guam. So that would be 400+ cruise missiles.
It would make more sense for the J-15s to provide fighter cover for these H-6 launching at 1500km (the midpoint between China and Guam)
And given the CCTV7 newsreel about the factory capable of producing 1000 cruise missiles per day, this would be sustainable