If we're talking about stationing J-36 on Iwo Jima, realistically this is still a bare minimum of 7 years into the future, probably more like 10 years.
So in 2035, there could be:
a) In excess of 100 J-36
b) 6? Chinese aircraft carriers. That assumes Chinese aircraft carrier production increases to twice the American procurement rate, just like we've already seen in the other categories of naval warships
In such a scenario, I think the force balance shifts decidedly in China's favour around the Second Island Chain, so that Iwo Jima could be survivable. Then we would see Chinese naval and air forces operating in front of Iwo Jima.
I don't think you understand my comment about "stationing". I'm saying this will allow J-36 to operate for longer period in between 1IC & 2IC through refueling. Having refueling capabilities there is quite valuable, since that would allow them to target and put EW pressure on US CSGs as soon as they get close to 2IC.
Missions 6000km away are difficult, but if the US military don't have access to bases in the Second Island Chain or Australia, what else are they supposed to do?
Why would they not have access to Australia? Pretty much anywhere is closer than attacking Iwo Jima from Hawaii.
America has 1 week worth of munitions for high end conflict as per several studies.
It is 4800km from Anchorage to Heilongjiang and 5900km to Shenyang. Do you think it makes more sense to attack production facilities or J-20 bases inside China or island in the middle of Pacific Ocean?
Just give up? Or conduct those long, difficult missions from Hawaii as often as possible.
If you have US aircraft carriers at a distance of 1500km from Iwo Jima, then those tankers should be able to operate safely to a distance of 1500km. The tankers will refuel the bombers and then head back. With this operational profile, the bombers should be fine.
the carriers won't be ready until about 40 days after start of conflict. And those ships are needed to be together to actually fight a little closer to Taiwan.
B-2 availability will be very limited, yes. Hence my estimate of a maximum salvo size of 200.
Plus the bombers don't necessarily have to be B-2s. B-1s or B-52s should be workable as well, given that they will have an accompanying fighter escort and the bombers only have to reach 900km from Iwo Jima.
What accompany fighter escort? Do you think B-52s suddenly become invisible because there happens to be a couple of rhinos next to them?
So your USN contacts are saying that the USAF can't operate bombers and tankers from Hawaii, given some prep??
If so, that sounds unbelievable.
Read what I wrote about 28 missiles from Rhinos per carrier. Like seriously, it feels waste of my time to argue with you.
---
On the feasibility of Hawaii bomber missions, assuming a 900km JASSM range, the round-trip distances are about:
10600km Hawaii to Iwo Jima
14600km+ Hawaii to China and the Taiwan Straits
Theoretically, the B-2 and B-52 could do Hawaii to Iwo Jima without any tankers.
Although in practice, they would have some tanker support.
But from Hawaii to China, these missions are an additional 4000km+.
This would require daisy chains of tankers refueling tankers, which isn't really feasible.
I agree that Iwo Jima would be useful.
But only if it is defensible, which I don't see until China has enough long-range power projection capability.
As Patch himself said, he doesn't consider politics in his scenarios.
Nor how China could expand any conflict to potentially the Middle East or Europe.
These are partly political decisions.
For example, suppose there was a China-US war tomorrow and the USAF started violating Malaysian/Indonesian airspace with bomber missions from Darin and Diego Garcia, and turning those countries into warzones.
I wouldn't be surprised if people started burning American flags in the streets with the government tacitly approving...
I think it would be helpful if you read people like him more and have less of your own opinions.
At this point, it seems to me entirely unproductive to be debating you more on this, so I'm not responding to you anymore on this.
