PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

tamsen_ikard said:

The world is not secure enough right now cause US is in decline and China is rising. The status quo is gone. Everyone is agitating. You can't count on the fact that your tanks and planes will rust in storage for another 30 years. There could be a flashpoint next month and you might need them.

Click to expand...

With that being said - Give me a country that can build a navy and an air force with sizes and comprehensive capabilities that are equivalent to the present-day USN and USAF, respectively, in one month - From scratch.

Or let's make it longer - How about 6 months? How about 12? Or 18? What about 24?

I'll wait.

China's pace at building warships is good. 5th gen warplane needs 200/year

Satellite constellation needs to be faster pace.

Need more launchers and missile stockpile.

After seeing what happen to Iran, there is no time to be chilling and relaxing.

bebops said:

Satellite constellation needs to be faster pace.

Click to expand...

This should in theory get faster with Zhuque-3's maiden flight later this year if it proves to be successful. They could start producing these in 2026 if there aren't any delays. The satellite technology is there and probably the satellite itself as well just waiting for a carrier rocket. Zhuque-3 should have faster turnaround as well due to using Methanlox so engines don't get cluttered with soot like RP-1/LOX on the Falcon 9.

I found this article. This could be the WZ-X that was flying 4 years ago? It is either the Rq180 or WZ-X

tphuang said:

Just exactly which air field is setup for bombers in Hawaii? And also Hawaii is 4000 miles away from Iwo Jima. I mean Alaska seems like a more reasonable suggestion.

Click to expand...

It should be straightforward to setup Hickam AFB in Hawaii to operate bombers and tankers.
Hawaii is a shorter journey than Elmendorf AFB in Alaska

tphuang said:

What is the typical mission availability of bombers like B-2? What % of available B-2s can be available for attack missions on any given day?

Any time you add in tankers (+ enough tankers to support say 10 B-2s). You'd need probably 1 tanker per B-2 at least.You don't have a fighter jet that can escort it that far, so you are now vulnerable to long range AAMs from whatever is stationed at Iwo Jima like J-20A for example.


For each carrier, a full sortie of 14 rhinos (rest are used for other purposes) can launch 28 LRASMs per deployment. And these would be rather long missions.

Click to expand...

Hence I used a salvo size of 200, which would be possible from just 10 B-2s.
So that is only 10 tankers plus 10 bombers in a sortie.

Remember that with 2 carriers, you're looking at a significant number of fighters configured for air-to-air.
They will be escorting the bombers in the final stages.
And my guess is that there would be sufficient aircraft to also launch some JASSMs.

Remember that we're talking about land attack against Iwo Jima, not an antiship mission using shorter range LRASMs

tphuang said:

We've seen US military fly over and bomb Houthis. We've also seen Indian lob missiles at Pakistan. Both facing much weaker air defense. How well do you think those attacks went in terms of taking out large tankers and AWACS?

Click to expand...

I think both China and the US have far better precision strike capabilities than what India and Pakistan have.

tphuang said:

Transport won't stay there. It flies stuff in and then turn around and fly away (we've seen them do this with y-20 already when they flew in HQ-12 into Serbia). They can fly in construction equipment, CIWS, repairing tools, radar systems, SAMs, construction material.

Tankers won't stay there until they setup some level of protection.

Y-20 series should have no issue flying 18 hours a day for a few days.

Click to expand...

The issue is that whatever level of defences than China flies in, because Iwo Jima is a fixed location and is isolated, the US has the initiative and can concentrate enough forces to overwhelm whatever defences are in place.

tphuang said:

doing full blockade of East Asia so they can completely sever East Asian supply chain from America and cause US industrial production grind to halt and same with its allies in Europe.

Click to expand...

You're proposing to hunt transport aircraft or ships in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with a single isolated island base.

It's actually a lot easier to do this in the First Island Chain, as all of Japan is within 1300km of mainland China.
It means almost all of China's military capabilities are available.

Plus, it's even easier to go after the airports and seaports in the First Island Chain, as these are fixed targets that don't move.

tphuang said:

Have some number of longer ranged aircraft say J-20A and UCAVs that can help provide protection for carrier groups, so that they can enforce a blockade of America from the industrial center of the globe.

It takes 40 days to work up 3 carrier groups for a Westpac showdown. Let's say China takes Iwo Jima in the first week and then enforce 30 days of full blockade of America from Asian trading routes. What do you think that looks like?

Click to expand...

I don't see this as realistic.

My guess is that it will take at least a week to sufficiently subdue Taiwan and Okinawa.
In any case, China is better off enforcing a blockade by targeting seaports and airports.
Or at least, the aircraft and ships as they approach.

So I see Iwo Jima as a secondary objective that doesn't currently add much. At least until there are enough carriers and J-36s.

tphuang said:

I remember a few years ago, Patch mentioned that at the beginning of a conflict (assuming the 1IC targets and Guam are disseminated in initial strike) that US military options will be down to bombing from Darwin & Diego Garcia. So, I would think those are realistic options for bombers and that attacking targets 6400km away from Alaska or Hawaii are not realistic options.

Click to expand...

Patch didn't consider a Iwo Jima scenario, which is what you are proposing.

If the US is operating bombers from Diego Garcia or Darwin, I think the diplomatic blowback of passing through ASEAN countries would be counterproductive to the US.

ASEAN, with the exception of the Philippines, has made it clear they would be neutral. Operating bombers from Diego Garcia basically drives ASEAN to choose China over the USA.

AndrewS said:

It should be straightforward to setup Hickam AFB in Hawaii to operate bombers and tankers.
Hawaii is a shorter journey than Elmendorf AFB in Alaska


Hence I used a salvo size of 200, which would be possible from just 10 B-2s.
So that is only 10 tankers plus 10 bombers in a sortie.

Click to expand...

Do you understand how operationally difficult it is? 6400km away.
And how much risk those tankers are under?
Again, do you know what available of B-2s are?
Have they ever operated out of Hawaii?

AndrewS said:

Remember that with 2 carriers, you're looking at a significant number of fighters configured for air-to-air.
They will be escorting the bombers in the final stages.
And my guess is that there would be sufficient aircraft to also launch some JASSMs.

Remember that we're talking about land attack against Iwo Jima, not an antiship mission using shorter range LRASMs

Click to expand...

My numbers are based on talking to people that worked in USN. I don't know where your assessment is based on?

AndrewS said:

I think both China and the US have far better precision strike capabilities than what India and Pakistan have.

Click to expand...

The Indian missiles basically hit the correct targets. Satellite photos show it.

Disabling a base is not that easy.

AndrewS said:

The issue is that whatever level of defences than China flies in, because Iwo Jima is a fixed location and is isolated, the US has the initiative and can concentrate enough forces to overwhelm whatever defences are in place.


You're proposing to hunt transport aircraft or ships in the middle of the Pacific Ocean with a single isolated island base.

It's actually a lot easier to do this in the First Island Chain, as all of Japan is within 1300km of mainland China.
It means almost all of China's military capabilities are available.

Plus, it's even easier to go after the airports and seaports in the First Island Chain, as these are fixed targets that don't move.

Click to expand...

It remains to be seen whether having a point in Iwo Jima can cut off trade because it would provide cover for Chinese coast guards, MPAs and 056s to operate to the East of Japan. Of course, they will be assisted by satellite constellation.

AndrewS said:

I don't see this as realistic.

My guess is that it will take at least a week to sufficiently subdue Taiwan and Okinawa.
In any case, China is better off enforcing a blockade by targeting seaports and airports.
Or at least, the aircraft and ships as they approach.

So I see Iwo Jima as a secondary objective that doesn't currently add much. At least until there are enough carriers and J-36s.



Patch didn't consider a Iwo Jima scenario, which is what you are proposing.

If the US is operating bombers from Diego Garcia or Darwin, I think the diplomatic blowback of passing through ASEAN countries would be counterproductive to the US.

ASEAN, with the exception of the Philippines, has made it clear they would be neutral. Operating bombers from Diego Garcia basically drives ASEAN to choose China over the USA.

Click to expand...

So, you think you know more about Westpac conflict than Patch. you think you have spent more time considering Westpac scenario than him.

Just pointing that I don't know what I'm talking about, so what I'm pointing out is a simple conjecture.

I'm really curious what is actually in PLAN's war-planning for westpac scenario, but it's interesting to see them converge around Iwo Jima recently. Hence my proposal. It is entirely possible that taking a place like this in the first week doesn't bring enough benefit to justify the cost of trying to set up a base there. Just as likely, it could enable them to station a couple of J-36s out there and operate further into Pacific Ocean.

I have no idea how much PLA's engineering crew can build up in terms of port to support a fleet operation in there in a short period of time.

But if they can set up enough of a base where they can sustain refueling and re-stocking somewhere that far out, it would give them the ability to operate further into Pacific. And the more they develop blue water capability, the more it makes sense for them to try to do this.

I see Iwo Jima and Guam as strong points PLA can use to force a battle, if the US stay outside of the Fist Island Chain and established a blockade.

tphuang said:

Do you understand how operationally difficult it is? 6400km away.
And how much risk those tankers are under?
Again, do you know what available of B-2s are?
Have they ever operated out of Hawaii?


My numbers are based on talking to people that worked in USN. I don't know where your assessment is based on?

Click to expand...

Missions 6000km away are difficult, but if the US military don't have access to bases in the Second Island Chain or Australia, what else are they supposed to do?

Just give up? Or conduct those long, difficult missions from Hawaii as often as possible.

If you have US aircraft carriers at a distance of 1500km from Iwo Jima, then those tankers should be able to operate safely to a distance of 1500km. The tankers will refuel the bombers and then head back. With this operational profile, the bombers should be fine.

B-2 availability will be very limited, yes. Hence my estimate of a maximum salvo size of 200.
Plus the bombers don't necessarily have to be B-2s. B-1s or B-52s should be workable as well, given that they will have an accompanying fighter escort and the bombers only have to reach 900km from Iwo Jima.

So your USN contacts are saying that the USAF can't operate bombers and tankers from Hawaii, given some prep??

If so, that sounds unbelievable.

---

On the feasibility of Hawaii bomber missions, assuming a 900km JASSM range, the round-trip distances are about:

10600km Hawaii to Iwo Jima
14600km+ Hawaii to China and the Taiwan Straits

Theoretically, the B-2 and B-52 could do Hawaii to Iwo Jima without any tankers.
Although in practice, they would have some tanker support.

But from Hawaii to China, these missions are an additional 4000km+.
This would require daisy chains of tankers refueling tankers, which isn't really feasible.

tphuang said:

The Indian missiles basically hit the correct targets. Satellite photos show it.

Disabling a base is not that easy.


It remains to be seen whether having a point in Iwo Jima can cut off trade because it would provide cover for Chinese coast guards, MPAs and 056s to operate to the East of Japan. Of course, they will be assisted by satellite constellation.

Click to expand...

I agree that Iwo Jima would be useful.
But only if it is defensible, which I don't see until China has enough long-range power projection capability.

tphuang said:

So, you think you know more about Westpac conflict than Patch. you think you have spent more time considering Westpac scenario than him.

Click to expand...

As Patch himself said, he doesn't consider politics in his scenarios.
Nor how China could expand any conflict to potentially the Middle East or Europe.
These are partly political decisions.

For example, suppose there was a China-US war tomorrow and the USAF started violating Malaysian/Indonesian airspace with bomber missions from Darin and Diego Garcia, and turning those countries into warzones.

I wouldn't be surprised if people started burning American flags in the streets with the government tacitly approving...

tphuang said:

Just pointing that I don't know what I'm talking about, so what I'm pointing out is a simple conjecture.

I'm really curious what is actually in PLAN's war-planning for westpac scenario, but it's interesting to see them converge around Iwo Jima recently. Hence my proposal. It is entirely possible that taking a place like this in the first week doesn't bring enough benefit to justify the cost of trying to set up a base there. Just as likely, it could enable them to station a couple of J-36s out there and operate further into Pacific Ocean.

Click to expand...

If we're talking about stationing J-36 on Iwo Jima, realistically this is still a bare minimum of 7 years into the future, probably more like 10 years.

So in 2035, there could be:

a) In excess of 100 J-36
b) 6? Chinese aircraft carriers. That assumes Chinese aircraft carrier production increases to twice the American procurement rate, just like we've already seen in the other categories of naval warships

In such a scenario, I think the force balance shifts decidedly in China's favour around the Second Island Chain, so that Iwo Jima could be survivable. Then we would see Chinese naval and air forces operating in front of Iwo Jima.