Chinese UCAV/CCA/flying wing drones (ISR, A2A, A2G)

tamsen_ikard said:

You lack imagination. If China is fighting the US, it is fighting the US in the whole world and US will also use all its bases in the whole world on this fight. Which means US bases in Diego Garcia to the Middle-East to Europe, any of them can launch Bombers and Missiles against China. And China will also not let those bases intact either. It needs to destroy them to prevent not only US ability to airlift supplies but also prevent those long distance tanker supported attacks.

Click to expand...

tamsen_ikard said:

And for H20, the entire CONUS should be its target. Entire US ability to wage war including air bases, training centers to factories should be targets for H20.

So, No, there is no lack of targets and 100 Bombers are an awefully low number. And I haven't even brought all the allies of US yet, if they support US military, they are also legitimate targets.

Click to expand...

My point is that the economics rapidly disadvantages bombers because airborne refuelling requirements grow exponentially past a certain point.

My guesstimate is that for targets beyond the 3IC, the cost-capability equation highly favours aircraft carrier strike groups over bombers. So the bulk of spending and capability should go towards the Navy for these target sets.

---

Also note that I've previously written (many times) that China should build a blue water Navy significantly larger than the US Navy.

This will be able to control the high seas and protect China's global trade.

But if required, such a Navy would also allow China to isolate the US with a blockade and also attack targets in CONUS.

tamsen_ikard said:

You lack imagination. If China is fighting the US, it is fighting the US in the whole world and US will also use all its bases in the whole world on this fight. Which means US bases in Diego Garcia to the Middle-East to Europe, any of them can launch Bombers and Missiles against China. And China will also not let those bases intact either. It needs to destroy them to prevent not only US ability to airlift supplies but also prevent those long distance tanker supported attacks.

And for H20, the entire CONUS should be its target. Entire US ability to wage war including air bases, training centers to factories should be targets for H20.

So, No, there is no lack of targets and 100 Bombers are an awefully low number. And I haven't even brought all the allies of US yet, if they support US military, they are also legitimate targets.

Click to expand...

Like what someone else said, "I think you're extending this scope way too much."
I believe the ultimate fate of China is to create a military whose global reach will be "respected" everywhere.
However let's take things one step at a time here....it's not 2050 yet.

China can fight and win against any foe only within the 1st island chain right now.
The next step is to extend this power to the 2nd chain then the 3rd....

AndrewS said:

In comparison, let's work with the assumption that for the Chinese:

1. the GJ-X is primarily for the 2IC
2. the H-20 is for the 3IC and beyond

It just seems to me that even 100 of each type is overkill in terms of direct attack mission requirements.
After all, it is only a handful of isolated airbases, naval bases and aircraft carriers.

Click to expand...

Such assumptions are faulty.

1. Who says that the GJ-X can only be primarily used for 2IC scenarios?
2. Who says that the H-20 is only for the 3IC and beyond?

Next, speaking of number of targets - There are actually tonnes of viable targets lined along and around the vicinity of the 1IC. There are also a lot of targets along and around the 2IC, in addition to the region within the 1IC-2IC belt.

In addition, what about the Xizang frontier? There's a whole subcontinental mass of enemy targets to deal with.

And we haven't reached some other wartime factors and considerations that are equally important on determining how much munitions would be truly required.

(As a matter of fact, I do have a firm feeling that some people here in this forum have serious underestimations on how massive and immense things can actually get when dealing with a continental/oceanic-scale conflict.)

So, no - Even with the PLARF, PLAN (and in some intances, the PLAGF) in the mix, China does need a sizeable fleet of airborne strike platforms from the PLAAF. In this regard, both the GJ-X and H-20 are very much useful and valuable for missions close to home, as they are for missions far away.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

Such assumptions are faulty.

1. Who says that the GJ-X can only be primarily used for 2IC scenarios?
2. Who says that the H-20 is only for the 3IC and beyond?

Next, speaking of number of targets - There are actually tonnes of viable targets lined along and around the vicinity of the 1IC. There are also a lot of targets along and around the 2IC, in addition to the region within the 1IC-2IC belt.

In addition, what about the Xizang frontier? There's a whole subcontinental mass of enemy targets to deal with.

And we haven't reached some other wartime factors and considerations that are equally important on determining how much munitions would be truly required.

(As a matter of fact, I do have a firm feeling that some people here in this forum have serious underestimations on how massive and immense things can actually get when dealing with a continental/oceanic-scale conflict.)

So, no - Even with the PLARF, PLAN (and in some intances, the PLAGF) in the mix, China does need a sizeable fleet of airborne strike platforms from the PLAAF. In this regard, both the GJ-X and H-20 are very much useful and valuable for missions close to home, as they are for missions far away.

Click to expand...

Of course, longer-ranged platforms can be used on closer targets, or higher performance platforms used against easy targets.
This will inevitably happen.

But it would be an inefficient allocation of resources, if you have platforms designed for a certain range/mission, being used elsewhere.

1. Within the 1IC, China can aim for air superiority and all the targets are near the coast.
Using lots of long-range stealth bombers for strike would be inefficient, considering that there already exist a lot of 4th-gen non-stealthy heavyweight strike fighters and also ground-attack UCAVs available, which would have enough range.

2. For the 2IC, I don't actually see many targets. It's only a handful of runways and seaports. If those are out of commission, then the forces on there are ineffective and can be dealt with at leisure.

3. My view (for 3 years now), is that very large numbers of low-cost Shaheed-type piston-engine munitions (with a range of 2000-3000km) should be the default for ground attack for soft, fixed targets.

Let's say a bomber costs $500 Mn and a Shaheed costs $25K. You could buy 20K shaheeds for the cost of a single stealth bomber.

---

As for India, I think you're overestimating the problem.

Most of India is within 1000km of the Chinese border. That is 1IC distance.
In 2030, China will have ~1000 stealth fighters in service. Just 100 should be enough to wipe out the Indian Air Force and allow deep strikes. That will allow large numbers of Shaheed.

But what is the end goal? It's not realistic for China to conquer and occupy India, and aerial bombing won't force them to surrender.

So there has to be a political settlement anyway.