October Surprise: my prediction for war

[UKBengali]

WS-15 will be incorporated into the J-20 very soon, most likely in the next year or 2022. It will have to be tested on the J-20 before receiving design certification, which the head of the Chinese Gas Turbine Institute said would occur between 2021 to 2023. As for the J-20 being retrofitted with the WS-15, most likely this is not possible considering the intake changes that must occur as the WS-15 is a low bypass ratio engine (~0.3) while the WS-10 BPR is relatively high at 0.6.

For the H-20, I too believe 2025 would be the IOC but why do you assume no more than 12 will be available? Surely the Chinese are aiming to match the B-21 production rather than the B-2?

Russia will just slot the new 5th gen engine into the SU-57 and so possible but then SU-57 just looks like a stealthier SU-27.

As for H-20 12 or so will be initially available in IOC if that was not clear.

 

[vishwambhar]

@Feng Leng ...
Taking advantage of this, China will do a few things.

1-It will declare that it has more Gold than the US. Lets say 15,000 Tons of gold. The US dollar will tumble further, and US economic crisis will become dire the likes of which the world has never seen before.

2- China will attack Taiwan, and conquer it.

3- China and Pakistan will attack India and take over the entire northern India.

4- US will be forced out of A-Stan and so forth.

I think this is what is going to happen in NOVEMBER !

 

[j20blackdragon]

How many of those bombers can be made airborne for a particular operation in one go?

All of them.

But I could ask you the same question. How many USAF/USN aircraft can be made airborne for an operation within range of Taiwan compared to THIS?

As for the jet fighters, how many Chinese aerial refueling platforms are in service in the present? only 13 (not good)

China doesn't need ANY aerial refueling tankers to reach Taiwan. So it can be zero.

KD-63 is LACM class and not suitable for attacking USN in the Pacific. Even if anti-ship capabilities are assumed, stated range will force Chinese bombers and Jet fighters to get too close to USN formations to be safe.

Why are you talking about the obsolete KD-63? I'm talking about the brand new ALCM next to the KD-63. The one with the seeker head, retractable wings, recessed intake, and folding fins. The length of the KD-63 is only relevant for you to determine the size.

 

[Figaro]

How many of those bombers can be made airborne for a particular operation in one go? It cannot be all of them.

As for the jet fighters, how many Chinese aerial refueling platforms are in service in the present? only 13 (not good)

This is a weak argument ... why would the Chinese need a bunch of aerial refuelling platforms to go against Taiwan? It's not like Taiwan is hundreds or thousands of miles away from Chinese air bases. Either way, the 13 definitely seems too low considering there are at least two Y-20U tankers, there is at least a couple dozen of tankers.

 

[j20blackdragon]

H-6K range:

https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/Research/Staff%20Report_China's%20Expanding%20Ability%20to%20Conduct%20Conventional%20Missile%20Strikes%20on%20Guam.pdf

 

[LeGenD]

This is a weak argument ... why would the Chinese need a bunch of aerial refuelling platforms to go against Taiwan? It's not like Taiwan is hundreds or thousands of miles away from Chinese air bases. Either way, the 13 definitely seems too low considering there are at least two Y-20U tankers, there is at least a couple dozen of tankers.

I was considering a CONFLICT SCENARIO spanning South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Guam based on some of the responses in this thread which I chose to address.

Air refueling is not needed in case of Taiwan - I agree.

 

[Saho]

24 more days

 

[dbc]

This is a weak argument ... why would the Chinese need a bunch of aerial refuelling platforms to go against Taiwan? It's not like Taiwan is hundreds or thousands of miles away from Chinese air bases. Either way, the 13 definitely seems too low considering there are at least two Y-20U tankers, there is at least a couple dozen of tankers.

..because you always mid-air refuel to top up your tanks before every mission even when you are flying over your own country. Why? because take off at near MTOW consumes a lot of fuel...because you need to carter to bingo fuel which accounts for emergency divert and fuel leaks..from enemy action...

and most importantly you need mid-air refueling for contingencies such as unexpected enemy action or exploiting time sensitive targets of opportunity

For US forces coordinating large forces is pretty much muscle memory,
..red flag waiving is optional..

 

[UKBengali]

I was considering a CONFLICT SCENARIO spanning South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, and Guam based on some of the responses in this thread which I chose to address.

Air refueling is not needed in case of Taiwan - I agree.

Yep we have a poster who likes to post pictures of China has X bombers with X x 6 cruise missiles and so can therefore deliver this many to Guam etc but no thought given to logistics like air refuelling etc.

 

[Get Ya Wig Split]

Good luck China lol

 

[LeGenD]

All of them.

But I could ask you the same question. How many USAF/USN aircraft can be made airborne for an operation within range of Taiwan compared to THIS?

China doesn't need ANY aerial refueling tankers to reach Taiwan. So it can be zero.



Why are you talking about the obsolete KD-63? I'm talking about the brand new ALCM next to the KD-63. The one with the seeker head, retractable wings, recessed intake, and folding fins. The length of the KD-63 is only relevant for you to determine the size.

My bad.

RIGHT = KD-63
LEFT = Unknown DH-10 variant (something new for sure)

Bombers + ALCM = solid investment. These capabilities will give even the Americans a pause. Guam is vulnerable in this context.

However, I must CAUTION that bombers have a readiness rate much like other aircraft (cannot be 100% - not even close), and secondly standoff munitions are expensive to produce and inventory won't be massive at a given time.

----

Americans can make up to 100 bombers airborne in short order in the present. These would be a mix of B-52H, B-1B Lancer, and B-2A Spirit. Let us assume a composition.

B-52H = 44 (~20 AGM-86B ALCM each; ~20 AGM-158 class each; ~12 AGM-154 JSOW Anti-ship each)
B-1B = 36 (~24 AGM-158 class each; ~12 AGM-154 JSOW Anti-ship each)
B-2A = 18 (~16 AGM-158 class each; ~16 AGM-154 JSOW Anti-ship each)

All can take off from American mainland, strike at chosen targets, and go back. No need to park elsewhere unless dispersal is a consideration which is possible.

Operational readiness numbers hinted in the following link: https://www.military.com/daily-news...hs-ahead-of-repair-schedule-general-says.html - although, I consulted additional sources to make sure that the composition assumed is realistic.

So WE are looking at following numbers: 880 + 864 + 288 = 2032 high-value targets to single out and engage with standoff munitions across Chinese mainland. Based on historic precedent - aircraft shelters, radar systems, missile launchers, C&C infrastructure related, and power stations are usual considerations. However, choices are FLEXIBLE depending upon objectives.

There is a good chance that battles will be fought in the Pacific waters instead, and JSOW munitions payload will be considered accordingly. What becomes of Guam and other important assets can be the deciding factor nevetheless.

Bombers are usually active in the opening phase of the WAR to strike at high-value targets but B-2A can be employed repeatedly due to having excellent penetration capabilities.

The emerging B-21 Raider will replace B-1B fleet in full but this is FUTURE CONSIDERATION.

----

Regarding Taiwan, my view is that China should attempt to occupy it ASAP. American Presidential Elections are drawing near, therefore, a WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY will open soon. This might be your best shot.

Take your chances now instead of waiting for new realities materialize in the region and beyond.

I am not an advocate of violence in personal capacity however; apologies to those who might feel offended by my suggestion in this matter.

If this matter can be settled peacefully then nothing better than this.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” - Sun Tzu

 

[UKBengali]

My bad.

RIGHT = KD-63
LEFT = Unknown DH-10 variant (something new for sure)

Bombers + ALCM = solid investment. These capabilities will give even the Americans a pause. Guam is vulnerable in this context.

However, I must CAUTION that bombers have a readiness rate much like other aircraft (cannot be 100% - not even close), and secondly standoff munitions are expensive to produce and inventory won't be massive at a given time.

----

Americans can make up to 100 bombers airborne in short order in the present. These would be a mix of B-52H, B-1B Lancer, and B-2A Spirit. Let us assume a composition.

B-52H = 44 (~20 AGM-86B ALCM each; ~20 AGM-158 class each; ~12 AGM-154 JSOW Anti-ship each)
B-1B = 36 (~24 AGM-158 class each; ~12 AGM-154 JSOW Anti-ship each)
B-2A = 18 (~16 AGM-158 class each; ~16 AGM-154 JSOW Anti-ship each)

All can take off from American mainland, strike at chosen targets, and go back. No need to park elsewhere unless dispersal is a consideration which is possible.

Operational readiness numbers hinted in the following link: https://www.military.com/daily-news...hs-ahead-of-repair-schedule-general-says.html - although, I consulted additional sources to make sure that the composition assumed is realistic.

So WE are looking at following numbers: 880 + 864 + 288 = 2032 high-value targets to single out and engage with standoff munitions across Chinese mainland. Based on historic precedent - aircraft shelters, radar systems, missile launchers, C&C infrastructure related, and power stations are usual considerations. However, choices are FLEXIBLE depending upon objectives.

There is a good chance that battles will be fought in the Pacific waters instead, and JSOW munitions payload will be considered accordingly. What becomes of Guam and other important assets can be the deciding factor nevetheless.

Bombers are usually active in the opening phase of the WAR to strike at high-value targets but B-2A can be employed repeatedly due to having excellent penetration capabilities.

The emerging B-21 Raider will replace B-1B fleet in full but this is FUTURE CONSIDERATION.

----

Regarding Taiwan, my view is that China should attempt to occupy it ASAP. American Presidential Elections are drawing near, therefore, a WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY will open soon. This might be your best shot.

Take your chances now instead of waiting for new realities materialize in the region and beyond.

I am not an advocate of violence in personal capacity however; apologies to those who might feel offended by my suggestion in this matter.

If this matter can be settled peacefully then nothing better than this.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” - Sun Tzu

US Presidential Elections will not stop US action if that is what the US really wants.

China is best waiting as it's military power is growing stronger relative to US every year.

 

[Deino]

In Germany we call such an argument a "Milchmädchenrechnung" (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milchmädchenrechnung) since it tries to give the feeling of supremacy based on wrong basic assumptions, which itself are the fundament of any further arguments. As such:

150 H-6K, H-6N, and H-6J can carry 900 Tomahawk-sized ALCMs.
150 * 6 = 900

These 900 Tomahawk-sized ALCMs can be used to hit Guam or carrier strike group (CSG).

1. since when has the PLAAF 150 bomber? All known numbers are much lower. Ergo ... the wole calculation of 900 ALCMs is WRONG!

We also know the Flanker centerline pylon can carry a large Tomahawk-sized ALCM. We know because India already does it.
China has HUNDREDS of Flankers that can do this too.

2. grave error! Even if the PLAAF has "hundreds" of Flankers, none can carry a large ALCM as you try to assume since none of the PLAAF Flankers is capable to carry such a non-existent weapon.

 

[mike2000 is back]

Regarding Taiwan, my view is that China should attempt to occupy it ASAP. American Presidential Elections are drawing near, therefore, a WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY will open soon. This might be your best shot.

Take your chances now instead of waiting for new realities materialize in the region and beyond.

I am not an advocate of violence in personal capacity however; apologies to those who might feel offended by my suggestion in this matter.

If this matter can be settled peacefully then nothing better than this.

“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” - Sun Tzu

The best period for China to take Taiwan was before the end of the Korean war(the US had no obligations towards Taiwan back then and they were still trying to court China to their camp.). However , unfortunately for them I'm not sure they had the capabilities back then and Mao choosing to enter the Korean war (instead of focusing on Taiwan)set the U.S /China on war part and solidified US position towards Taiwan, hence the U.S /Taiwan defence treaty which was signed in 1954 immediately after the end of the Korean war .
However today it's far more risky to make such a move. So i believe the Chinese will keep waiting until they have reached a developed/high income country status and become strong enough that the US won't dare intervene for Taiwan. The Chinese leadership don't want anything now that can derail the country's economic development and prosperity. War against Taiwan will be the worse strategic blunder they can do at this moment. They can fight a war outside their neighbourhood no problem(like in Syria with Russia), but any war in their neighbourhood will be a mistake FOR NOW. They need at least a decade or two to start think of such a thing.

 

[Deino]

....
RIGHT = KD-63
LEFT = Unknown DH-10 variant (something new for sure)
...

No, it's not "something new for sure" or an "unknown DH-10 variant" but simply the well-known KD-20: