When was the last time the US even bothered to officially declare war?
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
Even if LRASM is not a problem, US will have HGV/HCM soon. Defending is always more difficult than attacking.
Yes. But the US has so few bases, ships and planes to launch offensive missiles - and there are so many targets in China.
It's so much easier for China to field enough missiles to overwhelm US defences in the 1st and 2nd Island Chains.
‘So many targets’ are not necessary, sinking amphibious fleet is enough and they are much more vulnerable than any other targets.
The scenario I described above definitely involves us military attacking china without warning. In this scenario, I think it's reasonable to assume that pla would be on full alert, just as us military bases would be on full alert. If they are not on full alert, then they are just stupid.
The missile launching would be tracked by reconnaissance drones or satellite. The only way to stop that is for us military to shoot them down, which also would be an act of war. My point is that pla should have plenty of warning time in any attack. Sufficient time for counter attack as long as they are on high alert. Due to just the sheer number of missile launching platforms on china side, the result likely will not be good us military.
Just think about it this way, what's bigger loss? Firing 20 hypersonic missiles that cost $30 million each and another 400 cruise missiles that cost $5 million each and sinking maybe a couple of destroyers and taking out a 5% of china's ground missile launchers?
Or firing 400 antiship missiles of supersonic and hypersonic variety and sinking 1 carrier and multiple destroyers?
Doing pre emptive attack would already be unpopular. If they do it and loose a carrier, that would cause any political leadership in us to have to resign in humiliation.
USA would be better off focusing on areas where it has major advantage like nuclear submarine rather than an area where it is behind china like hypersonic missiles.
The missile launching would be tracked by reconnaissance drones or satellite. The only way to stop that is for us military to shoot them down, which also would be an act of war. My point is that pla should have plenty of warning time in any attack. Sufficient time for counter attack as long as they are on high alert. Due to just the sheer number of missile launching platforms on china side, the result likely will not be good us military.
Just think about it this way, what's bigger loss? Firing 20 hypersonic missiles that cost $30 million each and another 400 cruise missiles that cost $5 million each and sinking maybe a couple of destroyers and taking out a 5% of china's ground missile launchers?
Or firing 400 antiship missiles of supersonic and hypersonic variety and sinking 1 carrier and multiple destroyers?
Doing pre emptive attack would already be unpopular. If they do it and loose a carrier, that would cause any political leadership in us to have to resign in humiliation.
USA would be better off focusing on areas where it has major advantage like nuclear submarine rather than an area where it is behind china like hypersonic missiles.
Launching a 1st strike (for either side) will itself be a success, because of the operational damage that it will cause.
Case in point:
I see problems here with each assumption.
I'll just reply to this paragraph in detail, because everything else which follows depends on these premises:
- "....US Navy supposedly has 4000 Tomahawk missiles"
- "....move 1000 of them to Asian theater"
- "....they probably don't have the range to be launched from more than 1500 km out"
- "....they'd have to be launched from carrier group ships maybe 1000 km off the mainland shores or SSNs from 1000 km out or military bases in the first chain of island."
All of these are valid considerations. And in evaluating them, from what I can see, the best option is to ensure that you strike first in any scenario. Because whichever side launches first will have an advantage.
Last edited:
The issue is that nuclear submarines can't be used in the Taiwan Straits because the water is too shallow and there are too many Chinese ships and aircraft overhead.
And if you use submarines as missile carriers, they are awfully expensive platforms and the individual missiles can still be engaged from a reasonable distance. Plus how would you coordinate a missile strike with multiple submarines?
The missile purchase numbers is available for all to see. These things cost a lot of money to develop and then produce.
What ballistic missiles program are you thinking of? US hasn't had one since Pershings for obvious reasons. Are you saying they should do it just because PLA is doing it? where would you launch it from? How many ground launchers can you have in the region? What are the costs and how many can Pentagon order per year?
As for drone swarms. Again, how much range will you get with drones? Please be specific on the size, capabilities, mission profiles and cost part of things.
Just imagining weapons is not really conducive to this conversation.
Let's say they will move more than 1000 to the theater. You still need delivery platforms. Having enough delivery platforms in the theater to even launch 400 at one burst would be quite the achievement. Keep in mind, this would also need to balance out with likely attacks in South China Sea against China's island bases. Those are clear areas that USN would have to take care of if it wants to win a battle in SCS.
Keep in mind that US dropped 700 cruise missiles in Iraq from Operational Iraqi freedom in the first 11 days.
And have we seen Tomahawk been launched further out than 1500 km? What other missiles would have the range to be effective from that far out? The point is that wherever carrier group that launches tomahawk missiles are at, PLAN surface fleet and ground launchers and air launchers are likely close enough to launch retaliatory ASBM strikes. And I would be surprised if they can't muster 50 to 100 supersonic missiles at one go with all the platforms they have at disposal.
I only used carrier group as an example. They will have drones and satellites covering all of these places that might launch missiles. And as long as they fire missiles, China will be able to track it and retaliate.
China is a large country with a lot of targets and a lot of air defense, difficult terrain and strong EW pressure. A lot of targets are not going to hit the right places. A lot will get intercepted. Some with get through, but with so many targets, how can you degrade it enough. It's a strange strategy to try to beat China with the same strategy that China would use to attack US. They have different strengths and weaknesses.
No, I think you are working too hard to justify an idea that is not the biggest threat China will face. US military simply does not have enough missiles to give themselves a real advantage. China can use ballistic missiles because they are cheap, abundant and have fewer targets. Even for China, it does not make sense to use ballistic missiles for repeat strikes.
The PLAN fleet would be operating on the other side of Taiwan and the greatest threat they face is the USN submarines. It wouldn't be from missiles, but from torpedoes. You wouldn't really want to use SSNs to launch missiles when Chinese carrier is still around. The value of sinking a Chinese carrier with torpedo is so much more enticing than targeting land base missile launchers.
Keep in mind you can hit a carrier with subsonic missiles multiple times and it will probably still be operational. 1 torpedo, it might need to go back to the port.
Hold on... let me get this straight... Are you saying you want an exact ORBAT and strike capacity for an enemy's 1st strike capability? Well... I don't what to tell you man.
How many F-117s did you see on the books before 1991? And that was nothing compared to the priority of this 1st strike on China scenario. This strike would be a matter of existential importance for Pax Americana. They're not gonna show you their cards.
The MGM-140 ATACMS which Taiwan has. It's in-range and in-scope.
I've already mentioned how this might work at least twice on this thread. I'm not gonna keep repeating myself, nor am I gonna deal with points already dealt with.
If that's your conclusion, you're welcome to it. I hope the Chinese military comes to a very different conclusion and makes sure to strike first. Do not assume that you'll be able to absorb the 1st strike without critical damage. Even an amateur on the street can knock out a professional fighter if he lands the first shot. And the US is not an amateur.
Last edited:
The prior scenario mentioned an amphibious invasion fleet, which would have to end up in the Taiwan Straits.
And I'd argue it is very difficult to coordinate a first strike with a submarine, particularly if the submarine wants to remain undetected and stay within torpedo range of a carrier.