PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
tphuang said:
I would disagree with this. America is definitely not hesitating or folding. It just never made sense for America to adopt China's missile strategy. America is ahead of China in so many areas militarily. I don't see why it ever made sense for them to try to beat China in hypersonic missiles (or missiles trikes in general) when geography clearly favors China in this area.

I think if the Pacific commanders have the choice, they'd like more PAC/THAAD launchers. More runways that can be used. That's what they mean by more resilient. Although in practice, I don't know how survivable the secondary air strips/military bases are.
Click to expand...

Geography and politics means that there simply aren't many suitable base locations for the US in the Pacific.

And going with more THAAD defences is a losing proposition against DF-26s or other ballistic missiles.

Let's say an additional salvo of 72 DF-26s costs about $1.5 billion. But a THAAD battery with only 48 interceptors costs $3 billion, which is twice as much.

So the US can buy as many THAADs as they want, but the Chinese military can keep buying as many DF-26s as required to overwhelm those THAADs.
 
Mohsin77

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
tphuang said:
It just never made sense for America to adopt China's missile strategy. America is ahead of China in so many areas militarily. I don't see why it ever made sense for them to try to beat China in hypersonic missiles (or missiles trikes in general) when geography clearly favors China in this area.

I think if the Pacific commanders have the choice, they'd like more PAC/THAAD launchers. More runways that can be used. That's what they mean by more resilient. Although in practice, I don't know how survivable the secondary air strips/military bases are.
Click to expand...

.... ?

You do realize what those runways would've been used for, right? The jets taking off from them would be loaded with Missiles.

There's no getting away from using missiles. They are the primary offensive option (in every domain, air+sea+land). One way or another, the first shots in this theater (for whichever side launches first) is gonna be missile strikes, en masse.


tphuang said:
If you see any hesitancy, that would be due to the typical political process that has to play out in budgeting and such.
Click to expand...

So you think the US has acted decisively in this theater and made the right moves?
 
Last edited:
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
AndrewS said:
Geography and politics means that there simply aren't many suitable base locations for the US in the Pacific.

And going with more THAAD defences is a losing proposition against DF-26s or other ballistic missiles.

Let's say an additional salvo of 72 DF-26s costs about $1.5 billion. But a THAAD battery with only 48 interceptors costs $3 billion, which is twice as much.

So the US can buy as many THAADs as they want, but the Chinese military can keep buying as many DF-26s as required to overwhelm those THAADs.
Click to expand...

I think you should stop obsessing with how much these systems cost. It's fair to say that offensive platforms generally cost less than defensive platforms. I remember 15 years ago reading a report where China believed costs favored attacking platform 9 to 1. As such, you always want to attack when possible, especially when it comes to something that's hard to intercept like ballistic missiles. And China has shown it can mass produce missiles very cheaply. American side has acknowedged this. There is no chance 1 DF-26 costs $22 million. Consider, that they've done well over 300 hypersonic missiles tests. It's unlikely they spent $7 billion on test launches. My guess is that each DF-26/27 probably cost $3 million.
Mohsin77 said:
.... ?

You do realize what those runways would've been used for, right? The jets taking off from them would be loaded with Missiles.

There's no getting away from using missiles. They are the primary offensive option (in every domain, air+sea+land). One way or another, the first shots in this theater (for whichever side launches first) is gonna be missile strikes, en masse.

So you think the US has acted decisively in this theater and made the right moves?
Click to expand...
Yes, you can organize a mass attack with aircraft. However, then we have to consider how many aircraft are available at any given time that can be utilized. If you have 3 carrier groups 1500 km from China's shores with 48 F-35/super hornets each, PLAN will naturally be on alert and have WZ-7/8s nearby and KJ-500/elint aircraft further away. They will have ships with anti-ship missiles ready for all the carriers and burkes in those 3 CSGs. There is just not that much of a surprise element in that. Any large gathering of USN carriers will activate large number of PLAAF fighter jet in the region that will intercept aircraft if they get too close. And if they spot each super hornets carrying 4 stand off missiles. That will naturally raise alarm level in China. It takes time each carrier to launch like 30 sorties. During that time, China will catch on that something is happening.. It would take super hornets an hour to fly 1000 km to get close enough to launch stand off missiles. So while 3 carrier groups can probably generate 100 sorties over 30 minutes with half of them carrying stand off missiles for attacking and the rest are escorts. They will also face interception from surface combatants and fighter jets along the way. It's not the same as stand alone barrage of hypersonic missiles we were talking about. Also, it would be a question of whether they should attack land target or ships. I don't know what their strategy would be.

I think right now, America has a lot of responsibility around the world. They are permanently moving more ships and aircraft to Europe. I think it is unrealistic to think America will want to pre position all of its resources to east Asia ahead of a conflict. It has responsibility all across the world. Keep in mind that America made defensive commitment everywhere. It can't just drop them because it's main focus is in east Asia now.
 
M

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
tphuang said:
I think you should stop obsessing with how much these systems cost. It's fair to say that offensive platforms generally cost less than defensive platforms. I remember 15 years ago reading a report where China believed costs favored attacking platform 9 to 1. As such, you always want to attack when possible, especially when it comes to something that's hard to intercept like ballistic missiles. And China has shown it can mass produce missiles very cheaply. American side has acknowedged this. There is no chance 1 DF-26 costs $22 million. Consider, that they've done well over 300 hypersonic missiles tests. It's unlikely they spent $7 billion on test launches. My guess is that each DF-26/27 probably cost $3 million.
Click to expand...
The DF-17 is apparantly got reduced to like 1-2 million for one (recent Guanqi podcast), but the DF-21/DF-26 is like about ~10 times the DF-17 (and the DF-41 ~10 times that of the DF-26).

They apparantly did a lot to reduce the DF-17 to that level of cost (a major part was a way cheaper and better way of filling the rocket with solid fuel propellant, although not really possible for missiles that are bigger like DF-26), and spent a lot on building the factory to make that possible.

Edit: It's Guanqi 256 around 51:55 to 67:20, they basically reference the DF-17 to cost the same as an american missile around ~2 million a piece.
 
Last edited:
Mohsin77

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
tphuang said:
It's not the same as stand alone barrage of hypersonic missiles we were talking about.
Click to expand...

.... ?!

Who was talking about this??

I don't remember anyone proposing "stand alone barrage of hypersonic missiles".

Hypersonics will always be a minority of the total barrage (for the foreseeable future.)


tphuang said:
Yes, you can organize a mass attack with aircraft. However, then we have to consider how many aircraft are available at any given time that can be utilized. If you have 3 carrier groups 1500 km from China's shores with 48 F-35/super hornets each, PLAN will naturally be on alert and have WZ-7/8s nearby and KJ-500/elint aircraft further away. They will have ships with anti-ship missiles ready for all the carriers and burkes in those 3 CSGs. There is just not that much of a surprise element in that. Any large gathering of USN carriers will activate large number of PLAAF fighter jet in the region that will intercept aircraft if they get too close. And if they spot each super hornets carrying 4 stand off missiles. That will naturally raise alarm level in China. It takes time each carrier to launch like 30 sorties. During that time, China will catch on that something is happening.. It would take super hornets an hour to fly 1000 km to get close enough to launch stand off missiles. So while 3 carrier groups can probably generate 100 sorties over 30 minutes with half of them carrying stand off missiles for attacking and the rest are escorts. They will also face interception from surface combatants and fighter jets along the way. It's not the same as stand alone barrage of hypersonic missiles we were talking about. Also, it would be a question of whether they should attack land target or ships. I don't know what their strategy would be.

I think right now, America has a lot of responsibility around the world. They are permanently moving more ships and aircraft to Europe. I think it is unrealistic to think America will want to pre position all of its resources to east Asia ahead of a conflict. It has responsibility all across the world. Keep in mind that America made defensive commitment everywhere. It can't just drop them because it's main focus is in east Asia now.
Click to expand...

.. I don't know even what your position is at this point.

In your last post you said a "missile strategy doesn't make sense" for the US, and that the US wanted "more runways" instead. When I reminded you that runways are used to launch aircraft with missiles, you've now started talking about carrier groups....?? But carrier groups are also gonna launch aircraft with missiles. Whichever platform the US uses (land, air, sea) they're all gonna launch missiles. So that's a "missile strategy."
 
Last edited:
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Mohsin77 said:
.... ?!

Who was talking about this??

I don't remember anyone proposing "stand alone barrage of hypersonic missiles".

Hypersonics will always be a minority of the total barrage (for the foreseeable future.)




.. I don't know even what your position is at this point.

In your last post you said a "missile strategy doesn't make sense" for the US, and that the US wanted "more runways" instead. When I reminded you that runways are used to launch aircraft with missiles, you've now started talking about carrier groups....?? But carrier groups are also gonna launch aircraft with missiles. Whichever platform the US uses (land, air, sea) they're all gonna launch missiles. So that's a "missile strategy."
Click to expand...
The same thought would apply to land based aircraft. How many USAF squadrons are stationed within striking distance of china's east command area? How many are stealth aircraft? Let me give you an hint. Recently, a usaf commander in Pacific asked to have it's first f35 squadron west of day change line. Even if you bring 2 squadrons of stealth aircraft over to Japan and they have the range to escort f15s, it would be hard to surprise plaaf during period of heightened tension and an alert pla defense would be able to dispose most of that attacking team. I mean usaf has been probing Chinese adiz for a while now and see how quickly china respond to intruding aircraft. Kj500 is always around and usaf might have a e3c to help. Big difference in use and c2. It's really not that easy to surprise Chinese defense with aircraft that take off from nearby air bases.
 
Mohsin77

Mohsin77

Senior Member
Registered Member
tphuang said:
The same thought would apply to land based aircraft.
Click to expand...

But that was your proposal dude!! lolz

Let me remind you:

>> You started by saying that a "missile strategy doesn't make sense for the US" and they'd want "more runways" instead

>> I told you that runways are also used to send missiles via aircraft

>> Then you started talking about Carriers

>> I said Carrier aircraft will also be used to send missiles

>> Now you're arguing against land based runways (which was your original proposal in the first place !!!)

.... like, what in the actual f--k is happening here?! lolz


tphuang said:
Let me give you an hint.
Click to expand...

No, let me give you a hint: Take a break and think about what you're actually saying.

There is no alternative to a "missile strategy" in this theater, in one form or another. Period.

p.s. who proposed "stand alone barrage of hypersonic missiles" like you claimed??
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Mohsin77 said:
But that was your proposal dude!! lolz

Let me remind you:

>> You started by saying that a "missile strategy doesn't make sense for the US" and they'd want "more runways" instead

>> I told you that runways are also used to send missiles via aircraft

>> Then you started talking about Carriers

>> I said Carrier aircraft will also be used to send missiles

>> Now you're arguing against land based runways (which was your original proposal in the first place !!!)

.... like, what in the actual f--k is happening here?! lolz




No, let me give you a hint: Take a break and think about what you're actually saying.

There is no alternative to a "missile strategy" in this theater, in one form or another. Period.

p.s. who proposed "stand alone barrage of hypersonic missiles" like you claimed??
Click to expand...

I think what he means by "missile strategy" is "surface launched long range missile strategy".

Fighters operating from airbases carrying missiles would be "land based aviation with stand off weapons/missiles strategy".

E.g. there is a difference between a strategy heavily weighted on land based LRHWs and GLCMs versus one around strike fighters carrying JASSMs.

Yes, LRHW+GLCM are missiles, and JASSM are missiles, but they are still very different weapons in practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top