PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
tphuang said:

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.
Click to expand...
AndrewS said:
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)
Click to expand...

H-6s will play a major part in launching strike missions to destroy and/or deal damages against military facilities at Guam.

However, suppression and/or clean-up missions following the initial strike missions to prevent effective repair and replacement of damaged facilities and equipment will have to conducted over significant periods of time, such that the enemy forces will be rendered incapable of mounting meaningful offensive and defensive threats against the PLA's operational and strategic interests from those locations.

In this regard, the H-6s cannot do that constantly for extended periods of time. Doing so in the long run means that they (both the airframe and crew) are going to break down sooner rather than later.

Such missions will be better suited for unmanned units, e.g. GJ-11 and CH-7 (plus hopefully GJ-XX powered by two non-AB WS-21/19/10C engines in the future).
 
Last edited:
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
H-6s will play a major part in launching strike missions to destroy and/or deal damages against military facilities at Guam.

However, suppression and/or clean-up missions following the initial strike missions to prevent effective repair and replacement of damaged facilities and equipment will have to conducted over significant periods of time, such that the enemy forces will be rendered incapable of mounting meaningful offensive and defensive threats against the PLA's operational and strategic interests from those locations.

In this regard, the H-6s cannot do that constantly for extended periods of time. Doing so in the long run means that they (both the airframe and crew) are going to break down sooner rather than later.

Such missions will be better suited for unmanned units, e.g. GJ-11 and CH-7 (plus hopefully GJ-XX powered by two non-AB WS-21/19/10C engines in the future).
Click to expand...

Let's go with the figure of 1000 cruise missiles per day.

All targets within the 1st Island Chain can be covered by CJ-10 launch trucks on mainland China.

Yet China also has an inventory of 200-odd H-6 bombers.

If it's 1 sortie every 2 days, that is a sustained 100 sorties per day.

Then consider a campaign lasting 1 month. We're looking at every single Patriot SAM being used up.

Using CH-7 or GJ-11 is riskier, as they have to get a lot closer to Guam, and there will likely be US aircraft carriers still covering Guam airspace.
 
H

HighGround

Senior Member
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Let's go with the figure of 1000 cruise missiles per day.

All targets within the 1st Island Chain can be covered by CJ-10 launch trucks on mainland China.

Yet China also has an inventory of 200-odd H-6 bombers.

If it's 1 sortie every 2 days, that is a sustained 100 sorties per day.

Then consider a campaign lasting 1 month. We're looking at every single Patriot SAM being used up.

Using CH-7 or GJ-11 is riskier, as they have to get a lot closer to Guam, and there will likely be US aircraft carriers still covering Guam airspace.
Click to expand...
You don't need X amount per day. After the first few waves, cumulative damage will make air defenses less and less effective. Considering the logistics challenges United States will face in defense of Guam, you're going to need significantly fewer missiles to achieve the same effect.

But IMO you're making it far too simple. I don't think the US Navy's plan is to simply sit in Guam and absorb missiles until they lose.
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
HighGround said:
You don't need X amount per day. After the first few waves, cumulative damage will make air defenses less and less effective. Considering the logistics challenges United States will face in defense of Guam, you're going to need significantly fewer missiles to achieve the same effect.

But IMO you're making it far too simple. I don't think the US Navy's plan is to simply sit in Guam and absorb missiles until they lose.
Click to expand...
The point is to take out Guam as a viable base of operations.
 
D

drowingfish

Junior Member
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Honestly I'd like ask - Where do you guys get this figure from? And what are the capabilities for the cruise missiles in question?
Click to expand...
there was a video that had a line about a missile factory being capable of producing 1000 missiles per day in wartime. the video was from CCTV so it is assumed to be legit.
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
drowingfish said:
there was a video that had a line about a missile factory being capable of producing 1000 missiles per day in wartime. the video was from CCTV so it is assumed to be legit.
Click to expand...

Is the video with the "1000 cruise missiles per day" line being the English voiceovers covering the original Chinese voiceovers, or was the line actually from the original Chinese voiceover itself?

I do recall having seen that English voiceover-ed video.
 
Last edited:
PiSigma

PiSigma

"the engineer"
ACuriousPLAFan said:
Is the video with the "1000 cruise missiles per day" line being the English voiceovers covering the original Chinese voiceovers, or was the line actually from the original Chinese voiceover itself?

I do recall having seen that English voiceover-ed video.
Click to expand...
It was official chinese header for the article they were reporting.

The report was talking about the automation of said factory and its capabilities. This was at least 2-3 years ago.

I think people also need to remember that CCTV never report the newest and greatest military tech in China. So if they say a factory can produce 1000 cruise missiles a day 2 years ago, that means it probably achieved that years before then. And there are other factories that can produce even more than 1000/d.
 
I

ismellcopium

Junior Member
Registered Member
PiSigma said:
It was official chinese header for the article they were reporting.

The report was talking about the automation of said factory and its capabilities. This was at least 2-3 years ago.

I think people also need to remember that CCTV never report the newest and greatest military tech in China. So if they say a factory can produce 1000 cruise missiles a day 2 years ago, that means it probably achieved that years before then. And there are other factories that can produce even more than 1000/d.
Click to expand...
I also remember seeing that but didn't think much of it. I find 1000 final units produced per day a bit on the harder to believe end, even for China. Aren't the jet engines the limiting factor for cruise missiles? The number you can build depends on the rate of the slowest component to manufacture.

Remember Lockmart is struggling to build 500 per year lol.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top