D
Deleted member 24525
Guest
I don't think they mean literal self replicating drones
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
It was a joke
I have been thinking a lot about how these replicators can be used in a west pac conflict. China has their own suicide loitering munitions. Do they have have one with at least 300km + data link connected range and can be naval launched? If they do then these are really cheap ways of utterly saturating and overwhelming the US SM 6 SM 2 systems etc.
I don’t think the airports can hold that many even if you convert all the civilian airports in Japan and SK to dual purpose airports.
I've done counts for Japanese airports and bases many times before and there is indeed a LOT of apron space, shelters and runways/taxiways in Japan.
Just the five big international airports can park 580 airliner sized planes. If one would want to cram in more fighter sized jets in their place, one could do it, while risking greater destruction of course.
Chitose and Fukuoka large airports add another 110 airliner spaces.
Other airports are usually smaller and could house 20 to 25 fighter jets each. But there are 22 such so called second class airports.
Then there are some 50 to 55 third class airports, with small aprons but still most have full length, 2 km runways. Those could still house
6-10 fighters without any expansions.
Expansions of apron would be very easy to do and could be done quickly, for any airport.
There are further 320 (520 with jet trainers) Japanese military jets in japan, using separate runways and aprons,
so there's evidently enough space for those.
And US bases in Japan are actually oversized for the current number of US planes deployed. US bases in Japan have 450 dedicated hangars/shelters/parking slots. With easily room for another 400 fighters on various aprons.
Overall, I'd say there's easily space for 2700 comfortably parked fighter jets. Then depending on high tightly one wants to pack more, that could be expanded to over 5000. Naturally, there'd be other planes used as well, not just fighter jets, but the argument was for overall parking space.
That's not counting possible new runways and aprons to be created. Nor highways and other roads to be used for makeshift bases.
And that's not counting South Korea, as all the numbers above address Japan only.
I know both the statement I am replying to and this post are off topic really, so I don't wish to continue the discussion further in this inappropriate thread.
I've moved these two posts here because they are worth addressing.
The rate limiting steps for the number of aircraft that the US (and other outside parties) can bring to say, Japan, is not airfield space and apron size, but rather it is the other things that military aircraft need -- both the refuelling aircraft to enable them to transit into the theater and also the cargo aircraft that is needed to bring all of the logistics, armament, and other sustainment capabilities to enable your aircraft to operate from what would essentially be expeditionary bases.