PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

4Tran

New Member
Registered Member
I'm not sure if it's worthwhile doing tallies of every country's aircraft inventory. The fighting isn't some abstract battlefield; it's in the Western Pacific so the aircraft that are in theater or can be flown there will matter.

First, we can get rid of Australia. Not only is it impossible for Australian planes to deploy to the Western Pacific, but there wouldn't be any basing for them, and there's no chance in hell that Australia would get themselves into a war with China. Next, we can mostly ignore Japan as well. The fight against China is far enough that it'd be very hard to get many planes into action. And of those, only the F-35s will be able to contribute meaningfully. I also can't see Japan running their Izumo class carriers into Chinese missile range - it's far too much risk and far too much gain.

I personally think that the US wouldn't get involved either as all of their procurement choices and other signals point towards noninterference. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that they decide to commit whatever they can towards the Taiwan scenario.

Conventional wisdom is that American forces won't be able to make it to Taiwan until D-Day+7, so we can separate the fighting into two phases, before and after. In the early phase, PLAAF and PLARF are going to do their best to knock out as much of the ROCAF as possible. It's likely that any planes not withdrawn from combat will be either knocked out by Chinese fighters or artillery. What can the Americans contribute to the first few days? It's probably just whatever they have based in Okinawa or Luzon. Any other bases are a little too far from the action so they will have to be moved to forward bases first. There are no F-22s or F-35s stationed in these bases, so the only fighters available will be F-16s and F-15s and whatever F/A-18s that might be stationed there. Committing these planes against the full force of the PLAAF is staight up suicide so it's a Hobson's choice or either doing just that, or letting the ROCAF get slaughtered without helping.

So when can American 5th gens get into action? Personally I don't think that there is a practical way of getting USAF F-22s and F-35s into the Western Pacific at all. The distances are just too great and there just isn't any place to base them. Given enough time, the US could build new airbases, but I doubt that either Japan or Philippines would be all that enthusiastic about it, and it'd take weeks to months to pull it off anyways. So the only 5th gens that will see action will be the ones on the American carriers. So how many carriers can the Americans move into action? I think that 5 supercarriers is a complete fantasy, but let's just say that they can get 3 supercarriers and 4 LHAs into theater. With the standard complement of 14 F-35Cs per supercarrier and a standard loadout of 6 F-35Bs per LHA, that gives us 66 F-35s total. This force is going up against at least 300+ J-20s and another 600+ 4.5 gen fighters, if the J-35 hasn't been inducted in numbers yet. Also they will be flying with vastly inferior AWACS support and the Americans will be at the end of a very long logistics train. It's just a massacre waiting to happen.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
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.

300x J-7s in 2024? What year is their data sourced from, the late-2010s?

Also, the JH-7 is a fighter-bomber, not an actual true-blooded fighter, and should not be counted.

Besides, @SinoAmericanCW already explained what the J-7 family's roles are in the PLAAF, so there's that.
 

nimitz123

New Member
Registered Member
I think Iwo Jima in the case of China is quite similar to Midway in the Pacific war (WWII). Both island are a step to reach more important goals (Guam and Hawaii). However, both islands are in the end of the logistical line and closer to US military base. Looking back into the past, I don't think it is a wise choice to invade China in the first, or even the second part of the contigency.
 

SinoAmericanCW

Junior Member
Registered Member
300x J-7s in 2024? What year is their data sourced from, the late-2010s?
The precise 11/24 IISS count is:
  • 50x J-7s
  • 119x J-7Es
  • 120x J-7Gs
  • 50x JJ-7s
  • 150x JJ-7As
They counted 6x operational ABs fielding some J-7 subtypes, as well as a further 3x training ABs. Said count is from November 2024, however, a time when 4x operational ABs still fielded J-7s (the 21st, 44th, 52nd and 132nd). A further 2x operational ABs (the 88th and 125th) had also just retired their J-7s earlier in 2024. For reference, today only the 52nd AB still fields J-7s.

As such, the IISS count is slightly dated, but no more than by a few months to a year.
 

another505

New Member
Registered Member
The precise 11/24 IISS count is:
  • 50x J-7s
  • 119x J-7Es
  • 120x J-7Gs
  • 50x JJ-7s
  • 150x JJ-7As
They counted 6x operational ABs fielding some J-7 subtypes, as well as a further 3x training ABs. Said count is from November 2024, however, a time when 4x operational ABs still fielded J-7s (the 21st, 44th, 52nd and 132nd). A further 2x operational ABs (the 88th and 125th) had also just retired their J-7s earlier in 2024. For reference, today only the 52nd AB still fields J-7s.

As such, the IISS count is slightly dated, but no more than by a few months to a year.
Crazy that J-7 are still in service but Su-30 variants are rumored to be relegated to training role....
 

SinoAmericanCW

Junior Member
Registered Member
Crazy that J-7 are still in service but Su-30 variants are rumored to be relegated to training role....
Almost all J-7s have also been relegated to training roles. Today (i.e., June '25), only the 52nd AB still uses J-7s - of the most modern 'G' variant - in a combat role.

When the 52nd switches to a new type, the J-7 will have fully transitioned to being a trainer aircraft.
 

bebops

Junior Member
Registered Member
If China can produce 200 5th gen warship(J35/J20) per year, I say that is a good milestone. It has the potential to match US in 5th gen count.

If the assembly line can quickly convert to produce 6th gen warship in the future, then China is in good shape.
 

SinoAmericanCW

Junior Member
Registered Member
IISS also underestimated J-20 procurement, PLAAF should have 400 or more by now.
Similar to the case of the J-7s, the IISS appears to be late by ~1 year.

They counted 8x operational ABs with J-20s, which at full strength would amount to 240x J-20s. There are also a few tens (?) of J-20s in some test and training units. As such, they arrive at a count of 230+ J-20s, which isn't unreasonable on the basis of their unit count.

Meanwhile, a proper count of J-20 units shows that, in November '24, there were 10x operational ABs fielding the J-20. The IISS appears to have missed the 97th AB (converted in late '23) and - unsurprisingly - the 19th AB (converted in August '24).

Today (i.e., June '25) there are 11x known operational ABs fielding the J-20, which suggests a total of up to 330x J-20s are in operational service, with a further few tens (?) in T&T units. IMO, an estimate of ~350x J-20s in PLAAF service is reasonable, whereas the total produced (but not necessarily inducted - which is what the IISS counts) is certainly above 400x.

Overall, it appears that IISS data on the PLAAF, claimed to be current as of November of a given year (in the latest case, 2024), is in fact more-or-less current as of November of the previous year (in the latest case, 2023). Which is IMO decent for an organization that tracks the fluctuating OoBs and equipment holdings of almost every military in the world without an exclusive focus on PLA watching.
 
Top