PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Mohsin77 said:
You can't launch SDBs sitting at home.

Those SDBs require launch platforms to fly inside or near enemy airspace.

Each launch platform costs money, and needs support assets, which also cost money.

With that said, SDBs are useful, but they're not a first-wave weapon.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't expect SDBs to be a first wave weapon.

But I would expect them to form part of a second wave attack (at least in the 1st Island Chain) starting some 3 hours after the first wave.

The rationale for this is that the it takes a minimum of 3-4 hours to repair a runway and most fighter jets only have a maximum endurance of 2-3 hours. So any opposing fighter jets are either trapped on the ground or have run out of fuel in the sky.
 
ZeEa5KPul

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
tphuang said:
The flip side is that us bombers wpuld also heavily bombard shipyards in Shanghai to degrade Chinese naval industry. There is no question about that.
Click to expand...
This is a can of worms the US should not want to open. If it starts attacking soft military-industrial targets on the Chinese mainland, China can respond with intercontinental HGVs (like the one tested last year) armed with tactical nuclear warheads against similar US targets. Chinese shipyards get hit -> US shipyards get deleted.

I know that the word "nuclear" is going to trigger people and give them restless leg syndrome, and I've already litigated this issue enough so I'm not going to get into that discussion in this thread. Suffice it to say that this option is always available to China and it is a powerful deterrent.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
tphuang said:
I don't think translated well. They should buy more cruise missiles and PGMs. I was not comparing glide bombs to cruise missiles. The puzzling part is that we have not seen PLAAF really seen many photos of fighter jets carrying or testing with smaller PGMs. And we have not seen glide bombs in service. Maybe they have procured them. We don't know. From what we can see, they have been very committed in their cruise and ballistic missiles purchases, but not as much with the cheaper PGMs.
Click to expand...

They've only recently been able to achieve air superiority over areas of the 1st Island Chain.
That is a prerequisite to use shorter-ranged SDBs or JDAM equivalents.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
This is a can of worms the US should not want to open. If it starts attacking soft military-industrial targets on the Chinese mainland, China can respond with intercontinental HGVs (like the one tested last year) armed with tactical nuclear warheads against similar US targets. Chinese shipyards get hit -> US shipyards get deleted.

I know that the word "nuclear" is going to trigger people and give them restless leg syndrome, and I've already litigated this issue enough so I'm not going to get into that discussion in this thread. Suffice it to say that this option is always available to China and it is a powerful deterrent.
Click to expand...

Yes. An ICBM costs in the region of $60 Million.
But each GMD interceptor costs $75 Million and only has a 57% success rate.

I expect China to eventually end up with this capability, as it's the only practical way to inflict proportional pain on the US homeland in a war of attrition.

This will further deter the USA from getting involved in the Western Pacific.
 
clockwork

clockwork

Junior Member
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Yes. An ICBM costs in the region of $60 Million.
But each GMD interceptor costs $75 Million and only has a 57% success rate.

I expect China to eventually end up with this capability, as it's the only practical way to inflict proportional pain on the US homeland in a war of attrition.

This will further deter the USA from getting involved in the Western Pacific.
Click to expand...
GBIs are useless against HGVs. They are exoatmospheric.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
ZeEa5KPul said:
This is a can of worms the US should not want to open. If it starts attacking soft military-industrial targets on the Chinese mainland, China can respond with intercontinental HGVs (like the one tested last year) armed with tactical nuclear warheads against similar US targets. Chinese shipyards get hit -> US shipyards get deleted.

I know that the word "nuclear" is going to trigger people and give them restless leg syndrome, and I've already litigated this issue enough so I'm not going to get into that discussion in this thread. Suffice it to say that this option is always available to China and it is a powerful deterrent.
Click to expand...

What is up with people and tactical nukes? As soon as you start launch any kind of nukes, the escalation is going up a whole different notch and will result in ICBMs launched from both sides. I really hope you are not thinking that an ICBM exchange is a good thing.
 
H

Heresy

New Member
Registered Member
tphuang said:
What is up with people and tactical nukes? As soon as you start launch any kind of nukes, the escalation is going up a whole different notch and will result in ICBMs launched from both sides. I really hope you are not thinking that an ICBM exchange is a good thing.
Click to expand...

By the same token, I hope the Americans don't think that hitting the Chinese mainland, even with conventional munitions is a good thing. Because if the Chinese can not retaliate proportionally, they're going to think about escalation. Further, @ZeEa5KPul has already litigated about tac-nukes. How about you respect that and practice some basic reading comprehension?
 
solarz

solarz

Brigadier
ZeEa5KPul said:
This is a can of worms the US should not want to open. If it starts attacking soft military-industrial targets on the Chinese mainland, China can respond with intercontinental HGVs (like the one tested last year) armed with tactical nuclear warheads against similar US targets. Chinese shipyards get hit -> US shipyards get deleted.

I know that the word "nuclear" is going to trigger people and give them restless leg syndrome, and I've already litigated this issue enough so I'm not going to get into that discussion in this thread. Suffice it to say that this option is always available to China and it is a powerful deterrent.
Click to expand...

Why bother with tactical nukes? Putin has shown the world that the US is not willing to risk nuclear escalation. Just achieve nuclear parity and drop the NFU.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Heresy said:
By the same token, I hope the Americans don't think that hitting the Chinese mainland, even with conventional munitions is a good thing. Because if the Chinese can not retaliate proportionally, they're going to think about escalation. Further, @ZeEa5KPul has already litigated about tac-nukes. How about you respect that and practice some basic reading comprehension?
Click to expand...

hmm, that last part is quite rude.

The reality is that Chinese military bases on the mainland where the aircraft and ships are departing from are fair game, since China will be hitting all the American military bases in the region and most likely Hawaii and Alaska.

Similarly, not being able to retaliate proportionally doesn't mean it's a good idea to escalate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top