PLA bomber/strike doctrine force+composition discussion (non H-20)

Viktor Jav said:

Actually I will say it matters even more in a long war. Modern skilled pilots are much more harder to train compared to earlier periods like WW2, in a long conflict, and it takes much longer to train one than building a bomber. You only get so many people who are capable of flying military aircraft that has to be further divy up for transportation, fighter and bomber duties. If you can get one pilot to do a job that requires at least 2, that is already a multiplication of force.
Costs of munitions and construction of weapons becomes increasingly negligible in a long war in comparison to available manpower which is something that takes a fixed time to replace no matter what one does, Germany near the end of WW2 was dead broke but it still churn out weapons like crazy but they lack the people to use them.

Click to expand...

What you've written doesn't pass muster.

Think about it.

Since the cost of pilots is so much lower than the cost of the aircraft, you always size your pilot force to ensure planes can be fully utilised.

It costs in the ballpack of $1M to train a pilot, but a stealth fighter costs $100M+
A stealth bomber has 2 pilots, but costs in excess of $550M+

This is a simplified analysis, but it make the point that aircraft are far more expensive than the pilots.
So if you actually expect a long-duration high-intensity war, it always makes sense to train up enough pilots beforehand.

I recall a ratio of 1.3 pilots per fighter jet in the USAF some while back.

Your WW2 Germany example is not relevant to this analysis.

Viktor Jav said:

They are have to start from a predictable starting point which is the Chinese mainland, plus in comparison to manned bombers. Once launched, cruise missiles are entirely dependent on their own onboard programming which is susceptible to electronic warfare and the likes, plus bombers can be easily rediverted for other missions if necessary whereas missiles once launched are gone forever.

Click to expand...

What you've written is again not relevant to China's operational needs.

Why does it matter where a Chinese land-attack cruise missile is initially launched?
Mainland China is secure, and trucks are inherently more survivable than large non-stealthy bombers.

Missiles can be launched immediately if mounted on trucks, whilst expensive bombers need hours to prepare for a sortie.
For land-based targets in the 1st Island Chain, China doesn't need the flexibility of a bomber.

A Tomahawk cruise missile costs in the region of $1.5M
Compare that to the cost of a bomber. A B-1 is supposed to be $400M in today's money.

Anyway, back on topic.

Deino said:

Guys ... can we stick on the H-20 and not on any random bomber-related discussion?!

Click to expand...

Well, we'd like to have a "random" bomber-related discussion. Where might we do that?

AndrewS said:

What you've written doesn't pass muster.

Think about it.

Since the cost of pilots is so much lower than the cost of the aircraft, you always size your pilot force to ensure planes can be fully utilised.

It costs in the ballpack of $1M to train a pilot, but a stealth fighter costs $100M+
A stealth bomber has 2 pilots, but costs in excess of $550M+

This is a simplified analysis, but it make the point that aircraft are far more expensive than the pilots.
So if you actually expect a long-duration high-intensity war, it always makes sense to train up enough pilots beforehand.

I recall a ratio of 1.3 pilots per fighter jet in the USAF some while back.

Your WW2 Germany example is not relevant to this analysis.

Click to expand...

Way off track, the cost of a bomber decreases with wartime production while the cost of pilots increase dramatically as demand for missions go up and supply gets depleted... way to use peace time prices and logic...

Also your thing about making more pilots than aircraft... you do realize that a machine can run 24/7 while a person needs to sleep and rest right... you need multiple crews on a rotating basis to continuously operate a bomber, that's even taking into consideration machine maintenance requirements. You can repair a plane but a pilot with a wounded hand, blinded, deaf, or otherwise maimed/wounded or even depressed is just out of commission

There's a reason why American and western pilots bail out of air-crafts at such low threshold.. Chinese pilots used to be taught to try to save state property but new training focuses of pilot survival as top priority.

AndrewS said:

What you've written is again not relevant to China's operational needs.

Why does it matter where a Chinese land-attack cruise missile is initially launched?
Mainland China is secure, and trucks are inherently more survivable than large non-stealthy bombers.

Missiles can be launched immediately if mounted on trucks, whilst expensive bombers need hours to prepare for a sortie.
For land-based targets in the 1st Island Chain, China doesn't need the flexibility of a bomber.

A Tomahawk cruise missile costs in the region of $1.5M
Compare that to the cost of a bomber. A B-1 is supposed to be $400M in today's money.

Click to expand...

Simply illustrating that if China is west of Taiwan your land launched missiles can only come from the west, where as a bomber can come from North, South, or even East............ Therefore there's less predictability and its harder to defend against......

There's something really twisted around here

PikeCowboy said:

Way off track, the cost of a bomber decreases with wartime production while the cost of pilots increase dramatically as demand for missions go up and supply gets depleted... way to use peace time prices and logic...

Click to expand...

I agree with what you've said above, but you've missed the point.

Viktor Jav argues that China needs a bigger subsonic bomber (say a B-52 class instead of H-6 class) in order to maximise the ratio of pilots to munitions. His argument is that pilots are really rare/expensive/valuable.

My argument is that given the cost of training a pilot versus the cost of a plane, you should always have a surplus of pilots.
That ensures that there are always enough pilots for the planes AND would provide extra pilot capacity if you acquire a lot of new planes.

And let's say the cost of the planes with wartime production drops by half.
So a stealth fighter is $50M and a stealth bomber is $275M.
It still makes sense to have say 2 or even 3 pilots per plane, if that was what it took to keep those planes operating continuously.

Also your thing about making more pilots than aircraft... you do realize that a machine can run 24/7 while a person needs to sleep and rest right... you need multiple crews on a rotating basis to continuously operate a bomber, that's even taking into consideration machine maintenance requirements. You can repair a plane but a pilot with a wounded hand, blinded, deaf, or otherwise maimed/wounded or even depressed is just out of commission

There's a reason why American and western pilots bail out of air-crafts at such low threshold.. Chinese pilots used to be taught to try to save state property but new training focuses of pilot survival as top priority.

Click to expand...

I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
I previously said a plane should always have more than enough pilots to maximise usage of a plane.
That is not the same as saying a pilot should risk his life to save a plane in peacetime.

Simply illustrating that if China is west of Taiwan your land launched missiles can only come from the west, where as a bomber can come from North, South, or even East............ Therefore there's less predictability and its harder to defend against......

There's something really twisted around here

Click to expand...

This statement is completely wrong and I expect an apology for calling my analysis twisted.
Taiwan is only 200km from mainland China.
A cruise missile like a land-attack Tomahawk has a range of 1500-2500km.
Cruise missiles launched from the Chinese mainland can approach Taiwan from any direction that they choose.
There is absolutely no point in the added expense of having an air-launched cruise missile against fixed land targets in the 1st Island Chain.

1) Having a bigger bomber means you'll have relatively more bomber pilots available per mission load delivered. You were talking about pilots being cheaper than bombers so I interpreted that to mean youre advocating for cheaper H6's at the cost of pilot survivability.

2) You might not have the range for cruise missiles to make independent maneuvers if your target was Japan, SEA/SCS targets, or a fleet at sea. Furthermore we dont even known if cruise missiles such as the CJ are capable of independently navigating a loop around to TW eastern coast and turning back to hit eastern coast targets.

My point is that PLAN needs a b1/tu160 equivalent to go with its stealthy H20

Neither pilot nor machine can operate 24 hours nonstop

AndrewS said:

What you've written doesn't pass muster.

Think about it.

Since the cost of pilots is so much lower than the cost of the aircraft, you always size your pilot force to ensure planes can be fully utilised.

It costs in the ballpack of $1M to train a pilot, but a stealth fighter costs $100M+
A stealth bomber has 2 pilots, but costs in excess of $550M+

This is a simplified analysis, but it make the point that aircraft are far more expensive than the pilots.
So if you actually expect a long-duration high-intensity war, it always makes sense to train up enough pilots beforehand.

I recall a ratio of 1.3 pilots per fighter jet in the USAF some while back.

Your WW2 Germany example is not relevant to this analysis.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point here, it's not about how expensive the pilot cost to be trained, but rather how big is your available pool of people capable of being pilots is. No matter how one cuts in, in any nations there is only a certain amount of people who are qualified to be pilots, and you can't increase that number by any artificial means. No amount of money thrown will solve that matter. You can try and train as many as you like, but war attrition will see that those numbers get depleted fast.
And I don't see how my ww2 example is irrelevant, in the long term, price tags are always relegated to the sidelines in terms of man power.
Put it this way, the only limitations to a bomber is what kind of materials and effort you are willing to put into it. For a pilot, it is whether the guy is qualified in the first place and how many of those are born and are in the appropriate age bracket for you to recruit. And it is still an open question as to whether the guy would even be a good one.

AndrewS said:

What you've written is again not relevant to China's operational needs.

Why does it matter where a Chinese land-attack cruise missile is initially launched?
Mainland China is secure, and trucks are inherently more survivable than large non-stealthy bombers.

Missiles can be launched immediately if mounted on trucks, whilst expensive bombers need hours to prepare for a sortie.
For land-based targets in the 1st Island Chain, China doesn't need the flexibility of a bomber.

A Tomahawk cruise missile costs in the region of $1.5M
Compare that to the cost of a bomber. A B-1 is supposed to be $400M in today's money.

Anyway, back on topic.

Click to expand...

Again, missing the point. It matters not that Mainland china is secure, but rather that they are forced to be launched from a predictable starting point with preloaded instructions that hampers their flexibility and effectiveness. also land based missiles will still need to be transported to an optimal launching site in order to maximize their range anyway.
Though I agree that this discussion is straying away from the topic at hand.