That doesn't address what I wrote.
If you agree with my position, a "fair enough" is fine.
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
That doesn't address what I wrote.
If you agree with my position, a "fair enough" is fine.
I do agree. It will mean the start of an arm race the moment one side starts to procure lots of weapons and it is money wasted on weapons instead of developing the economy and invest in R & D
Actually, I totally missed that piece of news earlier.
I'm waiting to see Shilao's podcast/talk on this topic. I'm sure PLA is watching closely how its civilian drones are getting used by Russians and Ukrainians. I remember a while back, one of the military analysts on bilibili was boasting how much better DJI drones were than Orlan-10.
There will be massive drone attacks coming in this conflict, but it will most likely be done by China against Taiwan/first island chain bases. I will probably write up a post on this in the UAV thread, but the possibilities are quite broad. Pretty much all the fuel depot, communication centers, power sources in these bases are screwed if China can launch these from land area 700 km away (or from naval ships) and still reach them. It's not hard to see how you can launch a bunch of small and stealthy reconnaissance drones for 24/7 coverage of these island bases. It'd be hard for them to all get shot down. And then with improved material, AI and larger size, you could easily see attack versions acting in suicidal/non-suicidal roles to intelligently pick out weak points of defense and cause greatest damage. For example, you might deal as much damage to a base by having a small drone floating over top of runway repair workers and drop a bomb on them vs causing multiple crates along the runway with several stand off missiles/PGMs.
PLA is probably going to take a lot of lessons from this war. They already have these cheap drones operating off CV-17. You can store 100 of these things in the hangar or weapons room and just use them as things see fit. The attacking prowess shown here by the Ukrainians may get PLA to do a lot of thinking.
China needs a modified mass produced drone but with military grade communication link. Not this civilian fluff which can be jammed or intercepted easily. It would be as simple as software change to the software defined radio.
I would not say the DJI drone is 100% better than Orlan-10 because it lacks the laser target designator. Without the laser designator the accuracy in pointing a target will be a bit hit and miss. The main advantage is it is way cheaper and easier to recover. Likely also more portable. The control unit for Orlan-10 seems to be a laptop. The Russian Army needs to move to ruggedized tablets I think.
Orlan-10's combustion engine will mean it will have more range, but also noisier and likely easier to spot as a result.
I would not say the DJI drone is 100% better than Orlan-10 because it lacks the laser target designator. Without the laser designator the accuracy in pointing a target will be a bit hit and miss. The main advantage is it is way cheaper and easier to recover. Likely also more portable. The control unit for Orlan-10 seems to be a laptop. The Russian Army needs to move to ruggedized tablets I think.
Orlan-10's combustion engine will mean it will have more range, but also noisier and likely easier to spot as a result.
Wouldn't a DF-17 missile fit on the same launcher as a DF-16?
What would be nice on a Chinese cheap recon drone is optical telescope and camera, IR telescope and camera, laser designator and a coordinate finder kit (laser rangefinder, Beidou receiver, electronic compass and altimeter to establish 3D position, angle to target and range to target) in addition to a high efficiency rotary engine for long time on station.
This should cost around maybe 60k which is very low, and in exchange get the value of an entire artillery observation platoon.
In the software Tempest and I built with genuinely awesome folks from 6th Intelligence Squadron (and which we're - as part of that super secret big project - are going to be tidying up and releasing as a public tool/"game"),
I'd actually buy that "game", unlike that Command "sim."
Thanks for the detailed breakdown. I was surprised that notching is still a thing for the SAM vs CMs scenario (but then again, of course it is, I just never considered it in this context.)
Net conclusion being: Under good conditions, subsonic CMs can run circles around any SAM system and remain a potent threat. But there are conditions in which the ratio flips, and SAMs can achieve a high interception rate, but it all depends on the many parameters and variables of the specific engagement.
This of course, is agnostic of the saturation problem. But for that, case in point:
Perfect. I love being wrong when it helps me lolz
So for the US to amass CMs on these sites is currently very problematic. That's good news. Now, it's going to be up to the US to decide how they wanna deal with this. If this real-estate is turning into a liability, i.e. it is unable to "meaningfully contribute", then it seems like withdrawal from the theater is the rational option. There's not much functional use in keeping token forces in a logistically unsustainable environment where they will just soak up valuable resources and will likely be unsurvivable if the missiles start flying.
The other option would be to double-down and massively re-invest (economically and geopolitically) in this theater, expand operations at all these sites, including Philippines, Okinawa etc. and turn them into a potent forward arsenal which can actually contribute to offensive fires. But that may have an associated cost that is simply unfeasible at this point.
It seems like the US is strategically confused. It doesn't want to withdraw from the theater, but isn't willing to commit to it either (so basically, business as usual for the US.)
That is interesting.
I've long thought that a DF-26 IRBM could dispense a very large number of tungsten/DU ball bearing submunitions at a target like an airfield.
Enough that you could expect a single DF-26 to theoretically blanket somewhere like Andersen Airbase and ensure every large aircraft (eg. Bomber/Tanker/AEW) left on the ground would be hit at least once.
Last edited:
The other point is that if Korea, Japan or Taiwan can launch standoff naval mines and ground-launched VLO cruise missiles at those distances, what is to stop China from doing something similar? Korea, Japan and Taiwan are geographically small island(s) which are critically reliant on seaborne trade, whereas China is a continental-sized nation that can be largely self-sufficient and also has a lot of land borders for trade to flow.
Currently I don't see China having enough missiles and other long-range systems to keep Guam (and other distant bases) non-operational for a extended war, say lasting over 3 months. Afterwards, that would allow US forces the time and opportunity to concentrate long-range fires on specific targets. So conceivably the US could "win" in a years-long campaign.
But then what? Afterwards you could end up with a situation similar to how Imperial Germany sought vengeance after WW1 and transformed Nazi Germany. In this case, the US had an economy many times larger than Nazi Germany. In comparison, China is already 30% larger than the US overall and conceivably could grow to 3x larger.
@Patchwork_Chimera Thanks for joining this forum and providing your thought.
in wondering what you thought about my comments here #386 where I believe that if PLA significantly degrades Guam and then disable Tinian/Wake Island, it would be very hard for USN/USAF to sustain an operation in westpac?
Aside from that, in your opinion, how many missiles are needed to degrade a major base like Anderson or Okinawa to the point where they can't launch aircraft, supply/repair naval ships and adequately defend itself against intruding aircraft for 12 hours? I think the premise of our discussion in this thread has been trying to figure out how many missiles pla would try to launch in the initial barrage. Similarly, if you were usn and we're coming with submarine/b52 and carrier air wing, what would you try to target and disable first?
The way I look at is that china has too many targets in it's navy and mainland itself. It's unclear to me what would give us military the best bang for the buck.
in wondering what you thought about my comments here #386 where I believe that if PLA significantly degrades Guam and then disable Tinian/Wake Island, it would be very hard for USN/USAF to sustain an operation in westpac?
Aside from that, in your opinion, how many missiles are needed to degrade a major base like Anderson or Okinawa to the point where they can't launch aircraft, supply/repair naval ships and adequately defend itself against intruding aircraft for 12 hours? I think the premise of our discussion in this thread has been trying to figure out how many missiles pla would try to launch in the initial barrage. Similarly, if you were usn and we're coming with submarine/b52 and carrier air wing, what would you try to target and disable first?
The way I look at is that china has too many targets in it's navy and mainland itself. It's unclear to me what would give us military the best bang for the buck.