If you are going to use IISS numbers for China then don't forget to mention that China's 2400 combat aircraft also includes 300 J-7, 50 J-8 and 200+ JH-7, all older 3rd gen planes. All of US and ally fleet is 4th gen or higher.
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
Well, per the IISS, the U.S. combat aircraft total includes:
- 2x AT-6Es
- 43x AV-8Bs/TAV-8Bs
- 211x A-10Cs
- 30x AC-130Js
- 51x F-5Fs/F-5Ns
Note that almost all of China's residual J-7 fleet now serves 2nd line functions, mostly within operational training brigades. As such, they aren't functionally that different from the USAF's large fleet of F-16s in operational training units.
I respectfully disagree.
This is where you and I agree to disagree.
100% agree
China is building warplanes and warships at twice the rate as the Americans.
Therefore it is to China's advantage to wait till its military firepower is equal to or better than the US before taking action.
Actually the ideal scenario is for China to become so powerful that the US voluntarily surrenders the title of "World Superpower" without shooting a single bullet or bomb. However I don't think that's going to happen.
Unfortunately that's not going to happen. If we look at history (yes even American history books admit this) whenever a nation gets too powerful or gets in the way somehow someway the Americans find a way to get involved. If history is a guide then WW3 will happen in Europe. The US will get involved, and then drag China unwillingly into this mess. This will happen within this decade.
Hopefully I am wrong.
There is absolutely nothing, no scenario in Europe that will force China to get involved. They have no interest there. Even if US takes over all of Europe and invades Russia, China will not be fighting there. Cause they have no interest.
The scenarios that can lead to War where China is involved is all in East Asia. Taiwan is obviously the most likely scenario but it could also be SCS. It could also be Japan trying to get nukes and China bombing to stop it. Another border war with India might happen.
But it's all in Asia.
It's not just the carriers, but the bombers, which should be able to reach Iwo Jima from Hawaii.
Just a single bomber squadron could launch 200 JASSMs from 900km out.
Then you have to figure on some surface vessels launching Tomahawks
Plus say 2 carriers, with the aircraft mainly focused on air-to-air, DEAD and escorting the bombers/missiles, although some aircraft may do air-to-ground.
I don't see them targeting the runways. It makes more sense to hit aircraft on the ground (such as large tankers and AWACs) which take some time to launch and infrastructure such as the fuel tanks.
At most, I see a few days for a combined bomber and aircraft carrier force to level the facilities on Iwo Jima.
Of course, Iwo Jima needs to be worth the effort, which it will be if it starts hosting significant numbers of aircraft.
So the scenarios are:
1. Iwo Jima hosts only a few Chinese aircraft, and is therefore not worth the effort for the US military to attack. But then how useful is Iwo Jima for the Chinese?
2. Iwo Jima hosts a lot of Chinese aircraft. In which case, it makes sense for the US military to concentrate enough forces to break through, then destroy everything at the base.
Hence my view that Iwo Jima is of limited use, at least until China can field a sufficient large air battle network.
That means more J-36 and carrier aircraft, in addition to the aircraft based at Iwo Jima
On warship production, China is not quite at 2x.
There's still the categories of SSNs and aircraft carriers remaining.
But I think we'll see confirmation of 2x in the next 1-2 years.
---
On warplane production, it's more like China matching the US production rate (~150) in a few (2-3??) years.
But I don't see Chinese production reaching anywhere near 2x.
Just with production parity, I think the Chinese military should be able to obtain air superiority in the First Island Chain anyway, primarily because all the opposing airbases will be non-operational.
This is due to heavy, sustained attacks from missiles launched from trucks on mainland China.
Plus China maintaining an effective blockade of the First Island Chain.
Much of US fighter production is for export whereas almost all Chinese production is for PLA.
I don't think we will see an actual US-China war because:
1. The risks of nuclear escalation are very real
2. Plus if China sees that the US is determined to provoke a US-China war, then it makes sense for China to initiate or threaten a proxy war against Israel
---
China could supply large amounts of short-range weaponry (which isn't of use in a Pacific contingency) for use against the Israeli military.
Such a move would be very popular globally because of:
1. arguably a "Genocide" in Gaza
2. the decades of Jewish colonial occupation and expansion in the West Bank, against the existing Palestinian inhabitants
Of course, the US will support Israel.
So we'll see the US Navy and SAM units being diverted to Israel.
And US missile stocks rapidly running out.
Just exactly which air field is setup for bombers in Hawaii? And also Hawaii is 4000 miles away from Iwo Jima. I mean Alaska seems like a more reasonable suggestion.
What is the typical mission availability of bombers like B-2? What % of available B-2s can be available for attack missions on any given day?
Any time you add in tankers (+ enough tankers to support say 10 B-2s). You'd need probably 1 tanker per B-2 at least.You don't have a fighter jet that can escort it that far, so you are now vulnerable to long range AAMs from whatever is stationed at Iwo Jima like J-20A for example.
For each carrier, a full sortie of 14 rhinos (rest are used for other purposes) can launch 28 LRASMs per deployment. And these would be rather long missions.
We've seen US military fly over and bomb Houthis. We've also seen Indian lob missiles at Pakistan. Both facing much weaker air defense. How well do you think those attacks went in terms of taking out large tankers and AWACS?
Transport won't stay there. It flies stuff in and then turn around and fly away (we've seen them do this with y-20 already when they flew in HQ-12 into Serbia). They can fly in construction equipment, CIWS, repairing tools, radar systems, SAMs, construction material.
Tankers won't stay there until they setup some level of protection.
Y-20 series should have no issue flying 18 hours a day for a few days.
doing full blockade of East Asia so they can completely sever East Asian supply chain from America and cause US industrial production grind to halt and same with its allies in Europe.
Have some number of longer ranged aircraft say J-20A and UCAVs that can help provide protection for carrier groups, so that they can enforce a blockade of America from the industrial center of the globe.
It takes 40 days to work up 3 carrier groups for a Westpac showdown. Let's say China takes Iwo Jima in the first week and then enforce 30 days of full blockade of America from Asian trading routes. What do you think that looks like?
I remember a few years ago, Patch mentioned that at the beginning of a conflict (assuming the 1IC targets and Guam are disseminated in initial strike) that US military options will be down to bombing from Darwin & Diego Garcia. So, I would think those are realistic options for bombers and that attacking targets 6400km away from Alaska or Hawaii are not realistic options.