PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

Mohsin77 said:

These scenarios have already been discussed back and forth on this thread already.

Your point was the following:



How do you know that CMs can be "effectively" engaged by "low-cost CIWS" and "short-range SAMs" ?

How many CMs have been intercepted by these solutions to date? How many got through? What's the ratio?

Click to expand...

Naval ships face the exact same problem with regards to incoming subsonic cruise missiles.
Tomahawks and JASSMs have both land-attack and anti-ship variants.

We do see Gun CIWS systems, short-range SAMs and medium-range SAMs mounted on Frigates.
And there are enough public statements on the effectiveness of these air defences against both stealthy cruise missiles and non-stealthy cruise missiles.

My guess is that a medium-range SAM system (like the HQ-16 or ESSM) has a pk of 70-90% against a slow subsonic cruise missile. And if you can detect it at the radar horizon, you get at least 3 shots at the cruise missile.

For shorter-range SAMs, effectiveness should be even higher because of the shorter-range. The effectiveness of Gun CIWS is likely lower, but because the cost per engagement is so low, the Gun CIWS shots are essentially free.

America is a relatively open country. You can see what gets ordered every year. There are some classified programs we don't know about. But as a whole, the number of LRASM, tomahawk missiles and other missiles available are public knowledge. We also know that US military generally likes to launch them from its naval VLS or air launched from multi-role aircraft. We also know that hypersonic missiles haven't been developed yet. And if they do get developed and procured, they will be low in numbers per year and be very expensive. Up to this point, there has been no evidence that US military has deviated from its strategy of just stationing larger naval fleet in Asia as part of its efforts to deterring China. It has openly talked about ACE as a way to increase its resilience of its air bases and it is spending a lot of money doing so. We should also assume that Japan will very quickly become part of the war effort. At the very least, Japanese military bases along Ryuku islands will be used by US military and possibly a lot more.

It's quite unreasonable to think that the current Phillipines government would allow US military to use its bases to attack China. Do I think China should prepare for that possibility? Sure. But I think you work with Filipino government diplomatically to reduce any level of threats. I certainly don't think Philipines will be hosting ballistic missiles or hypersonic missiles. That would be quite extreme.

Mainland intelligence into Taiwan should know the number and capabilities of Taiwanese missiles really well. I don't know why that is even a concern if we think mainland can degrade Taiwan in a couple of days. It's one thing to think that Chinese intelligence would not know when US military would launch a surprise attack. It's quite a different thing to think that mainland would not catch onto Taiwan launching a surprise attack.

I think it would be more useful here if we look at what US military in Westpac has been doing to make itself more agile and survivable and how it plans to supply 5 CSGs if we believe that's a possible number USN would pre-position in westpac. That's why I was looking at the ramifications of hitting Wake Island and North Marianas. How well can US military keep its CSGs replenished in the event those islands get struck hard? And how can PLAAF/PLARF attack those places effectively?

AndrewS said:

there are enough public statements on the effectiveness of these air defences ......My guess is that a medium-range SAM system (like the HQ-16 or ESSM) has a pk of 70-90% against a slow subsonic cruise missile.

Click to expand...

There is an actual SME on this thread who specializes in subsonic-CMs. You can ask @Patchwork_Chimera how accurate your guess is. My suspicion is that the advertised ratio is way too optimistic, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. I just wanna know what the actual ratio is, because this a very important parameter which will have massive consequences at the operational (and perhaps even strategic) level.

Blitzo said:

the only reasonable position to take is to consider a prospect where the US has successfully frontloaded the western pacific with long range strike weapons, and to consider what types of systems and capabilities the PLA would require to achieve their geopolitical goals in that context.

Click to expand...

100%

This is really all it is. Leave bravado at the door when planning. Give your enemy extra advantages and then prepare accordingly. The irony is, there are people on both sides of the Pacific who are trying to convince their own side to take the enemy seriously lolz. Military History is replete with cases where serving officers in high commands made this error, to catastrophic consequences.

Mohsin77 said:

There is an actual SME on this thread who specializes in subsonic-CMs. You can ask @Patchwork_Chimera how accurate your guess is. My suspicion is that the advertised ratio is way too optimistic, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. I just wanna know what the actual ratio is, because this a very important parameter which will have massive consequences at the operational (and perhaps even strategic) level.



100%

This is really all it is. Leave bravado at the door when planning. Give your enemy extra advantages and then prepare accordingly. The irony is, there are people on both sides of the Pacific who are trying to convince their own side to take the enemy seriously lolz. Military History is replete with cases where serving officers in high commands made this error, to catastrophic consequences.

Click to expand...

Taking things seriously is one thing, but you are making the argument that US military will use China's strategy against China. Which is to install a bunch of ground launched cruise/ballistic missiles around first chain island, when they have made no indication that is their strategy. That does not make sense.

If you were to argue that USN has a lot of really quiet and capable SSNs that can launch hundreds of cruise missiles into China because they can get within 1500 km of mainland and launch those missiles and get away. I would absolutely agree with that. That's entirely logical. If you were to argue that USAF B-52s + USN super hornets will try to carry a bunch of LRASM and launch them against Chinese bases/ships from well over 500 km out. That again is a very real threat. That's what US military has been doing all along. If you were to argue they will make their first/second island chain bases more resilient to Chinese missile attacks, so they can keep up USAF sorties, that would make sense also. But your arguments have been that they will hide CM/BM around in bases around first island chain. That runs counter to what we've seen them do.

Given that PLA should be 100% pre-positioned to westpac and have massive geographical advantages, it is far more relevant to see how well PLA itself is prepared to strike or counter strike.

I think it's a problem that we have not seen a large arsenal of VLS launched subsonic LACMs with PLAN. It's a problem that we have not seen compact 250KG or 100kg PGMs with PLAAF. It's a problem that we have not seen more stealthy subsonic stand off missiles developed for PLAAF. It seems like PLARF is far better equipped than PLAAF/PLAN is. Those are all factors that would make the current PLA unfit to fight a high intensity conflict. Since you need many years of production to stockpile enough of these missiles/munitions to sustain the level of damage against first/second island chain + opposing navies.

If PLA has to prepare for an all out war against US + Japan in the westpac + keeping Taiwan unable to help, they simply don't have the fire power to do so in the next few years. I'd be far more concerned about how PLA can massively increase their own weapon supply vs how many missiles US could hide in the first island chain.

tphuang said:

Taking things seriously is one thing, but you are making the argument that US military will use China's strategy against China. Which is to install a bunch of ground launched cruise/ballistic missiles around first chain island, when they have made no indication that is their strategy. That does not make sense.

If you were to argue that USN has a lot of really quiet and capable SSNs that can launch hundreds of cruise missiles into China because they can get within 1500 km of mainland and launch those missiles and get away. I would absolutely agree with that. That's entirely logical. If you were to argue that USAF B-52s + USN super hornets will try to carry a bunch of LRASM and launch them against Chinese bases/ships from well over 500 km out. That again is a very real threat. That's what US military has been doing all along. If you were to argue they will make their first/second island chain bases more resilient to Chinese missile attacks, so they can keep up USAF sorties, that would make sense also. But your arguments have been that they will hide CM/BM around in bases around first island chain. That runs counter to what we've seen them do.

Given that PLA should be 100% pre-positioned to westpac and have massive geographical advantages, it is far more relevant to see how well PLA itself is prepared to strike or counter strike.

I think it's a problem that we have not seen a large arsenal of VLS launched subsonic LACMs with PLAN. It's a problem that we have not seen compact 250KG or 100kg PGMs with PLAAF. It's a problem that we have not seen more stealthy subsonic stand off missiles developed for PLAAF. It seems like PLARF is far better equipped than PLAAF/PLAN is. Those are all factors that would make the current PLA unfit to fight a high intensity conflict. Since you need many years of production to stockpile enough of these missiles/munitions to sustain the level of damage against first/second island chain + opposing navies.

If PLA has to prepare for an all out war against US + Japan in the westpac + keeping Taiwan unable to help, they simply don't have the fire power to do so in the next few years. I'd be far more concerned about how PLA can massively increase their own weapon supply vs how many missiles US could hide in the first island chain.

Click to expand...

I think you're overestimating the time required to amass 250kg and 100kg PGMs.

Plus I suspect it would be cheaper to just use commercial Mugin-5 type drones which cost $10K each, and have a payload of 25kg and a range of over 700km.

tphuang said:

Taking things seriously is one thing, but you are making the argument that US military will use China's strategy against China. Which is to install a bunch of ground launched cruise/ballistic missiles around first chain island, when they have made no indication that is their strategy. That does not make sense.

Click to expand...

We've already had this conversation previously on this same thread.

To me, your plan doesn't make sense because your relying on your enemy to tell you what he's gonna do.

AndrewS said:

I think you're overestimating the time required to amass 250kg and 100kg PGMs.

Plus I suspect it would be cheaper to just use commercial Mugin-5 type drones which cost $10K each, and have a payload of 25kg and a range of over 700km.

Click to expand...

I do wonder why we have not seen them with more PGMs even though it's such an obvious need. Shilao/Yankee have said that they have more than what we've seen. That China has between US and Russia level of PGM stockpile. Even so, it takes training to achieve high level of precision strike capability across the air force. I'm not sure where they are on this front. I suspect long range drones will play a large role in the future, but suicide/penetration drones will not only need endurance and payload, but also some level of speed. There is a big difference in probably of intercept between high subsonic missile vs a drone that's going 100 to 200 km/h. Any competent short range air defense or anti-drone system will chew up the latter.

tphuang said:

I do wonder why we have not seen them with more PGMs even though it's such an obvious need. Shilao/Yankee have said that they have more than what we've seen. That China has between US and Russia level of PGM stockpile. Even so, it takes training to achieve high level of precision strike capability across the air force. I'm not sure where they are on this front.

Click to expand...

Shilao/Yankee said PLA OPSEC doesn't allow footage of PLAAF training with precision weapons to be shown.

Mohsin77 said:

We've already had this conversation previously on this same thread.

To me, your plan doesn't make sense because your relying on your enemy to tell you what he's gonna do.

Click to expand...

Let me ask you this. If PLA sends out naval picket forces and have 24/7 KJ-500 coverage on all potential attack vectors, how much damages can all the American subsonic munitions do?

The only real threats in the future from the US are the hypersonic missiles.

vincent said:

Let me ask you this. If PLA sends out naval picket forces and have 24/7 KJ-500 coverage on all potential attack vectors, how much damages can all the American subsonic munitions do?

Click to expand...

Someone already asked this question to Blitzo many pages ago. You can check his answer for details, but if I remember correctly, 24/7 coverage of all potential attack vectors is unrealistic. The surface area in this theater is massive.

Plus there are a whole host of other important variables involved... ECM, Decoys etc. Not only do you have to detect all the salvos, you have to have enough interceptors positioned within a crunched time limit. And even then, there's a possibility of saturation.