My view is that China should focus more on offensive capabilities that deny the US use of the Western Pacific.
So China won't face large scale conventional attacks by the US in the first place.
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
My view is that China should focus more on offensive capabilities that deny the US use of the Western Pacific.
So China won't face large scale conventional attacks by the US in the first place.
This is why the US wants to develop long range hypersonic weapons. In the next decade, Chinese "conventional" naval forces and rocket forces are going to continue pushing this line of denial further east. It's currently around the 1st to 2nd island chains. Once this gets far enough beyond the 2nd island chain as to be out of range of carrier aircraft and all regional US bases, the US can only rely on long range hypersonic weapons to harass Chinese forces conducting any operation in the western pacific.
While the US only has LRHW in service at the moment. This thing is basically a modernised DF-15 equivalent. A Maneuverable re-entry vehicle boost glider. Iran has plenty of these similar weapons. It's a matter of accuracy for how effective they can be. US wants to field air launched boost gliders and HCMs too. China already has these to keep the USN out of range in case it goes kinetic. With the level of technology available to US and China, their hypersonic gliders and HCMs are going to be leagues above Iranian accuracy and obviously already demonstrated ability to hit moving naval targets.
Once US field significant enough numbers of these types of weapons, they will be able to bombard Chinese operations from well outside China's A2AD zone. The only way to counter this is to develop and field anti-hypersonic glider weapons which both sides have been working on. HQ-26 and HQ-29 need to be able to perform these roles well enough but they may want to save all high-tier interceptors for a nuclear exchange scenario. Then again, China is able to outproduce the US in offensive missiles and interceptor missiles. At least this goes for the mainstream approach. Actual war will reveal all hidden capabilities on both sides.
While the US only has LRHW in service at the moment. This thing is basically a modernised DF-15 equivalent. A Maneuverable re-entry vehicle boost glider. Iran has plenty of these similar weapons. It's a matter of accuracy for how effective they can be. US wants to field air launched boost gliders and HCMs too. China already has these to keep the USN out of range in case it goes kinetic. With the level of technology available to US and China, their hypersonic gliders and HCMs are going to be leagues above Iranian accuracy and obviously already demonstrated ability to hit moving naval targets.
Once US field significant enough numbers of these types of weapons, they will be able to bombard Chinese operations from well outside China's A2AD zone. The only way to counter this is to develop and field anti-hypersonic glider weapons which both sides have been working on. HQ-26 and HQ-29 need to be able to perform these roles well enough but they may want to save all high-tier interceptors for a nuclear exchange scenario. Then again, China is able to outproduce the US in offensive missiles and interceptor missiles. At least this goes for the mainstream approach. Actual war will reveal all hidden capabilities on both sides.
It's a whopping $41 million for a single LRHW. The US simply aren't going to be able to buy significant numbers of these. And where are they going to be launched from?
So the US isn't going to be able to "bombard" China.
---
In comparison, the USAF says China has a 20x cost advantage in equivalent hypersonic missiles in the Western Pacific.
That implies a Chinese cost of $2 million, which is presumably for a DF-17?
At this cost, DF-17 bombardments are possible.
Yeah the LRHW isn't the weapon they need to achieve this. They haven't got those yet. They would need to be boost gliders with more lift like at least DF-17 and at least MRBM booster stage rocket if they want to use their regional bases. LRHW is essentially a DF-15, at best a DF-21D equivalent in range and maneuverability. It's a double conical simple hypersonic glider on a SRBM equivalent booster.
If you read my post carefully you would notice I've already addressed everything you've said. If the US manages to develop and field long range hypersonic weapons like China's DF-17, DF-27 and the upper atmosphere weapons that can circumnavigate the earth at least once to strike any target within 2 hours, then they could potentially bombard China outside of China's increasing A2AD zone.
They will need to be able to cheaply produce tens of thousands of these weapons to do that. Even thousands of hypersonic missiles is simply not enough for an all out war. The US will run itself broke before they hit a thousand.
Can I ask what is no doubt a silly question one way or another?
Within the last couple of years the US started basing their B-2s/B-21s (I can't tell the difference from looking) in the city where I live (Brisbane, Australia). My understanding is that these bombers would form a critical component of conventional strike against the mainland in the event of westpac HIC, so I think that means my city (or at least Amberley air field base) is now on a list of PLA aim points.
My question is, does the PLARF/PLAAF have conventional strike capabilities that could hit Brisbane, and does that seem plausible for them to actually do rather than targeting other closer bases? And if they do, do we know if the strikes would be precise enough that it's not that likely civilians in other suburbs will be hit?
Within the last couple of years the US started basing their B-2s/B-21s (I can't tell the difference from looking) in the city where I live (Brisbane, Australia). My understanding is that these bombers would form a critical component of conventional strike against the mainland in the event of westpac HIC, so I think that means my city (or at least Amberley air field base) is now on a list of PLA aim points.
My question is, does the PLARF/PLAAF have conventional strike capabilities that could hit Brisbane, and does that seem plausible for them to actually do rather than targeting other closer bases? And if they do, do we know if the strikes would be precise enough that it's not that likely civilians in other suburbs will be hit?
It goes 2 ways.
Let's suppose the US does develop FOBS which can cover any point on the planet.
---
You do realise that China is likely ahead in terms of a FOBS?
1. 4 years ago, the FT reported on Chinese FOBS tests which released a hypersonic glide vehicle.
Since then, we haven't seen an equivalent test from the US.
2. The USAF also notes that China develops weapons 4x faster
3. We also have the naval 6th gen aircraft being put on hold, because the US doesn't have sufficient engineers. This is the same pool of engineers that a FOBS would draw upon.
4. In terms of annual STEM graduates, China is at 10x the US
---
So if the US can develop a FOBS, then I expect the Chinese version to be developed faster, cheaper and also to be much larger than the US version.
In such a scenario, sure, the US can launch FOBS against Mainland China.
But China can launch far more FOBS against the US Homeland.
Note that Mainland China has long accepted that its territory can be hit (by weapons systems located in the First Island Chain). In addition, China has many hardened facilities such as mountain airbases or mountain submarine pens.
In comparison, the US homeland was secure because no one could ever reach it. But with the advent of FOBS, that is no longer the case. In addition, the US doesn't have hardened facilities like China. So FOBS attacks will be far more destructive.
---
So if FOBS is feasible, this hugely advantages China.
The bigger problem is that there is nowhere to launch American hypersonic missiles. After the First Island Chain, it's literally a handful of available bases and ships.
If it isn't aimed at their silos or command centers then it is not a threat to their deterrence.
Nobody can stop them from launching if they want. They don't need any excuse or reason. They only need to understand the consequences of doing so.
Actually it is the opposite. Modern cities are highly hardened and missiles can't deliver the volume of fire needed to disable them.
WW2 is too old so lets look at the 1st "modern" war: Vietnam.
North Vietnam was subject to more strategic bombing than Nazi Germany. But the US couldn't disrupt electrical service in Hanoi fully, even with enough air control to use high volume short ranged bombs.
the US's own news from that era admits this. It is a fascinating read, almost like reading something from Starship Troopers.
In fact they couldn't even damage a single bridge without losing 11 aircraft and multiple attempts.
And that bridge was repaired in 1 year.
