PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

caohailiang said:

1，the 12 USAF gen5 squd i counted are non-training/evaluation/testing/europe/ng/reserve units

2, when push come to shove, i think JP government will comply to the use of civilian airports for USAF. or at least i think PLA planner ought to assume that rather than opposite

3, like i said, these new arrival fighter units will be speading out across dozens of civilian airports, there are over 100 runway or taxiway, there is simply no way to kept them closed with BM.

4, i assume the point of ACE (agile combat engagement) is to take care of gen5 logistics within a C17, no?

5, on top of that, ACE enables a F35 to stay on the ground only for minutes instead of hours before taking off again, which makes it much more difficult for PLARF to hit, no? and i think with decoys on the ground, it will be extremely difficult to tell and PLARF could end up wasting a lot of BM before running out on ammo

5, not in anyway over estimate gen5 fighters, just assuming they have a 3-to-1 kill ratio to gen4

Click to expand...

Look, I don't want to come off as mean, but you should probably do some more reading on how airpower works as a system before you start making speculation like this. I'd like to respond to your points with some primer questions that'll hopefully get you thinking about the right things, and to do some more research on them:

1 - Which Sqns are these (name them)? how many PMAI aircraft do they host? What missions do they typically train for, and what kind of supporting facilities do they have to support them?

2/3 - What is it about a military airfield/airbase that is better for flight ops than a civilian airfield? Once an aircraft shows up somewhere, what does it need so as to contribute to the system of airpower? How do aircraft get to an airfield this far away?

4 - What ***exactly*** do you put in those C-17s, where do you land them, how do you get them close enough *to* land them, who unloads them and transfers those supplies to active aircraft, what facilities support those aircraft, etc.?

5 - Lol I'm not even gonna grace this one with a response. This one is just a simple "no, please stop saying stupid things"

Patchwork_Chimera said:

Look, I don't want to come off as mean, but you should probably do some more reading on how airpower works as a system before you start making speculation like this. I'd like to respond to your points with some primer questions that'll hopefully get you thinking about the right things, and to do some more research on them:

1 - Which Sqns are these (name them)? how many PMAI aircraft do they host? What missions do they typically train for, and what kind of supporting facilities do they have to support them?

2/3 - What is it about a military airfield/airbase that is better for flight ops than a civilian airfield? Once an aircraft shows up somewhere, what does it need so as to contribute to the system of airpower? How do aircraft get to an airfield this far away?

4 - What ***exactly*** do you put in those C-17s, where do you land them, how do you get them close enough *to* land them, who unloads them and transfers those supplies to active aircraft, what facilities support those aircraft, etc.?

5 - Lol I'm not even gonna grace this one with a response. This one is just a simple "no, please stop saying stupid things"

Click to expand...

Oh come on be nice man.

siegecrossbow said:

Oh come on be nice man.

Click to expand...

Responding to all of the positions he took would have taken many hours and tens of thousands of words. I think it's more useful to him, and less wasteful of my time to ask him questions that he can go research and learn about. The last response is important to make absolutely clear that no, F-35s cannot simply land, get hot refueled, and head back up to conduct ops in a matter of minutes in real combat environments; and that he shouldn't even entertain it as a concept.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

Responding to all of the positions he took would have taken many hours and tens of thousands of words. I think it's more useful to him, and less wasteful of my time to ask him questions that he can go research and learn about. The last response is important to make absolutely clear that no, F-35s cannot simply land, get hot refueled, and head back up to conduct ops in a matter of minutes in real combat environments; and that he shouldn't even entertain it as a concept.

Click to expand...

Yes. People treat military operations like video games.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

Responding to all of the positions he took would have taken many hours and tens of thousands of words. I think it's more useful to him, and less wasteful of my time to ask him questions that he can go research and learn about. The last response is important to make absolutely clear that no, F-35s cannot simply land, get hot refueled, and head back up to conduct ops in a matter of minutes in real combat environments; and that he shouldn't even entertain it as a concept.

Click to expand...

You mean you don't just press '~' and type
setcheats 1
F35.addmunitions
F35.addfuel
?

Probably played too much Ace Combat games where every single fighter in the game can carry 100+ missiles and no G-force restrictions...

To be fair to @caohailiang, he probably got some of the ideas from some writings similar to the following article:


The USAF routinely conducts independent training operations in the FAS, as demonstrated in 2020 when Guam-based F-22s received hot-pit refueling from a Yokota C-130J at an airfield in Palau.

Coincidentally, a plethora of island chains give the FAS an expansive geographic footprint replete with austere locations ideal for establishing new airfields and housing USAF assets with minimal degradation to operational readiness.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

Look, I don't want to come off as mean, but you should probably do some more reading on how airpower works as a system before you start making speculation like this. I'd like to respond to your points with some primer questions that'll hopefully get you thinking about the right things, and to do some more research on them:

Click to expand...

you do come off as very mean...but i still immensely appreciate how enlightening you have been with your recent posts

in all honesty, i know what i said is probably not true, and as an amateur, it is a pity i lack the energy to go through all the literature like you suggested

Patchwork_Chimera said:

1 - Which Sqns are these (name them)? how many PMAI aircraft do they host? What missions do they typically train for, and what kind of supporting facilities do they have to support them?

Click to expand...

i only have a little excel which i extracted from scramble last year, the ones i counted are: F35A: 355/356/4/34/421, F22A: 90/525/19/43/95/27/94. Maybe not accurate? appreciate if you care to correct me.
but nevertheless i think in terms of gen5 total inventory, US/JP still have around 5:1 ratio compare to PLAAF. I know both sides only have a portion to be combat coded and for each side that portion is different, what does it mean for the final PMAI comparison, maybe 3:1?

then it comes to a question for which i think some of the professionals on this forum cannot agree on: how many squadrons can/will USAF commit to westpac theater once there is a major war?

i dont really buy the argument which says "USAF has other global commitment so only a small portion to westpac", i think once there is a major war with China, US will throw everything they have, even if it means temporary vacuum in other theater. i think the only bottleneck is basing

Patchwork_Chimera said:

2/3 - What is it about a military airfield/airbase that is better for flight ops than a civilian airfield? Once an aircraft shows up somewhere, what does it need so as to contribute to the system of airpower? How do aircraft get to an airfield this far away?

4 - What ***exactly*** do you put in those C-17s, where do you land them, how do you get them close enough *to* land them, who unloads them and transfers those supplies to active aircraft, what facilities support those aircraft, etc.?

5 - Lol I'm not even gonna grace this one with a response. This one is just a simple "no, please stop saying stupid things"

Click to expand...

well, i do know it must be a complex procedure to actually get a fighter plane into combat, i guess at least some of the maintenance tool/spare parts/personnel/fuel/ammo can be carried in C17 plane, but i dont know which of them cannot be, hence impairing the fighter plane to operate continuously

My real question is not about ACE though, it is about how well can PLARF hamper USAF operation in Japan main islands?
there are obviously many factors to consider, the list i can think of includes: lower efficiency of civilian airports, ACE, missile defense, decoys on the ground, SAR jamming from the ground, how quick/accurate can PLARF do damage assessment, limited PLARF missile inventory, but i dont have the ability to put them all together for an answer

caohailiang said:

My real question is not about ACE though, it is about how well can PLARF hamper USAF operation in Japan main islands?
there are obviously many factors to consider, the list i can think of includes: lower efficiency of civilian airports, ACE, missile defense, decoys on the ground, SAR jamming from the ground, how quick/accurate can PLARF do damage assessment, limited PLARF missile inventory, but i dont have the ability to put them all together for an answer

Click to expand...

If Japan allows the Americans to use their civilian airports, that will simply invite attacks on all civilian aviation fuel depots from the PLARF

Something our friend @Patchwork_Chimera posted today. I'm seriously amazed at his stamina in writing thesepposts.

Imo, he has pointed out how much effort is required to launch one major antishipping sortie against a us naval carrier group. In the past, he has also discussed how much difficulty is required for 3 csg air wing to generate strike missions against fixed target in mainland.

Anyway, I would love to hear him share some thoughts about what would be needed to coordinate subsonic anti shipping attacks from j16s and hypersonic attacks from df17s or 055s in at around the same time. I have heard a lot of talks about needing to give defense different looks in a saturation attack. So it would make sense to me that they might want to try air launched yh83k as well hypersonic missiles in the same package.