PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

AndrewS said:

I thought I addressed them?

Click to expand...

bustead said:

Is it possible to launch a paratrooper assault against Kadena air base on Okinawa after the initial missile bombardment? It'd have to be supported by drones and ground attack aircraft, but I think denying the use of Kadena AB will be a great blow to American forces in the region, not to mention the American aircraft trapped on the ramp after the initial missile strikes can be captured or destroyed.

Allow me to present my idea for taking Kadena airbase.

1. The initial missile strike. As discussed, it will most certainly overwhelm existing defenses and cripple the airbases and long range air defenses in the area.
2. J-20s and J-16s establish a CAP zone over/near Okinawa to secure air superiority. Deny the Americans from reinforcing the island. I'd imagine China can mobilize around 100 J-20s for this job.
3. JH-7s/Su-30s continue to suppress enemy forces by bombing runs. Maybe another 60 airframes divided into waves of 12, with a 10 minute gap between waves.
4. Around 40 Y-8/Y-9 deliver up to 4000 troops (roughly a brigade, minus artillery) to the Kadena airbase. The paratroopers are supported by IFVs dropped by Il-76s or Y-20s. They are also supported by drones.
5. Once the runway is taken, additional troops can land and take the rest of the airbase.
Depending on how well the operation goes, additional troops can be deployed to assist in securing the airbase. I don't think it is too realistic to take Okinawa with only paratroopers, even if reinforcements are flown in. However, they can hold the airbase and deny it to the Americans. If the mission is going south, then the paratroopers can be extracted via ships or flown out if possible.

Click to expand...

ismellcopium said:

Why do you need to land paratroopers to "deny use" when all the rest of that is already done?

Click to expand...

bustead said:

1. Runways can be repaired if left unchecked. The paratroopers can prevent this by destroying/capturing machinery or engineers needed for the operation.
2. The paratroopers can kill/capture enemy ground crews and pilots to deprive the US of trained manpower.
3. If the airbase is captured, the PLA can repair it for its own use.

Click to expand...

bustead said:

Is it possible to launch a paratrooper assault against Kadena air base on Okinawa after the initial missile bombardment? It'd have to be supported by drones and ground attack aircraft, but I think denying the use of Kadena AB will be a great blow to American forces in the region, not to mention the American aircraft trapped on the ramp after the initial missile strikes can be captured or destroyed.

Allow me to present my idea for taking Kadena airbase.

1. The initial missile strike. As discussed, it will most certainly overwhelm existing defenses and cripple the airbases and long range air defenses in the area.
2. J-20s and J-16s establish a CAP zone over/near Okinawa to secure air superiority. Deny the Americans from reinforcing the island. I'd imagine China can mobilize around 100 J-20s for this job.
3. JH-7s/Su-30s continue to suppress enemy forces by bombing runs. Maybe another 60 airframes divided into waves of 12, with a 10 minute gap between waves.
4. Around 40 Y-8/Y-9 deliver up to 4000 troops (roughly a brigade, minus artillery) to the Kadena airbase. The paratroopers are supported by IFVs dropped by Il-76s or Y-20s. They are also supported by drones.
5. Once the runway is taken, additional troops can land and take the rest of the airbase.
Depending on how well the operation goes, additional troops can be deployed to assist in securing the airbase. I don't think it is too realistic to take Okinawa with only paratroopers, even if reinforcements are flown in. However, they can hold the airbase and deny it to the Americans. If the mission is going south, then the paratroopers can be extracted via ships or flown out if possible.

Click to expand...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

I don't think so.

---

Speaking of which, and cross-posting from the US Military News thread:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

If the following subsequent testing and verification goes through and the TRAM proves itself to be a viable method of reloading missiles at sea, then it is certain that the USN would aim to replicate that across their fleets operating in the IndoPac theater.

Hence, given that China is aiming to expand her presence and power project into the "true blue" Pacific in the coming years and decades - Similar capabilities should be prime for pursue by the PLAN as well.

This is true even for operations within the 1IC, as SAMs can and do get exhausted pretty rapidly like what we've seen in West Asia in the past year. And in order to maintain presence and protection of certain regions/areas of operation and locations of interests/importance for extended durations, capabilities akin to TRAM should be seriously considered by the PLAN.

Click to expand...

AndrewS said:

Regarding Chinese operations within the 1IC

1. In the East China Sea, you're literally talking about Chinese ships needing at most, 10 hours for a one-way trip to a port on the Chinese mainland.

2. In the South China Sea, we're talkking about 20 hours at the very most, and usually less

There is no need for replenishment ships in such scenarios. Reloading and resupplying at a port is far safer, quicker, cheaper and more comprehensive than resupplying at sea.

---

For operations to the 2IC, we're looking at 4-6 days in term of travel time for a round trip journey back to a Chinese port.

So we've got a SAG or fleet sortie to Guam, using up all its munitions, and then needing to be resupplied. In such scenario, you need air cover and therefore the carriers would be accompanied by their own replenishment ships which would also resupply everyone else. Plus you have the spare replenishment ships which aren't conducting distant operations in the Middle East anymore. That should be sufficient.

---

In comparison, US naval ships are looking at a 2week round-trip from Hawaii to the Western Pacific.
Then consider that Arleigh Burke Destroyers and carriers only carry enough fuel for 1-2? weeks of operations.

Click to expand...

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Our views are contradictory.

Your view is "Those warships can always go back to their bases to replenish, they aren't that far away", whereas mine is "Have at least some of those replenishments come to those warships, so that those warships can maintain presence and combat capability under high intensity operational environment for extended durations".

But let's just agree to disagree.

Click to expand...

Michaelsinodef said:

Eh, gotta agree with Andrews on this.

Especially because he responded to your post about TRAM (reloading missiles at sea).

In which case, the 10 to 20 hour voyage back to base is much more likely to be preferred in 9 out of 10 situations (maybe even 10 out of 10).

On the other hand.
When voyage back to base is in the multiple days, then yes, it definitely would be a capability, that likely would be good to have.

And yes, PLAN might meet such situations, so it should be a capability, that they should evaluate and look into (although I wouldn't put it to be a very pressing or high in priority order).

Click to expand...