Sinking 300 Chinese ships in 72 hours?!

More specifically, last October Flournoy said one of the issues the Pentagon needs to weigh going forward is “what capabilities would US naval and air forces need to credibly threaten to sink 300 military vessels, submarines, and merchant ships within 72 hours? Such a capability would certainly pose a fundamental dilemma for any great power contemplating aggression.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/11/dep ... -vs-china/

Im assuming that the Majority of the sinking will be done nt allied air power.
If this is the plan versus China:
A. its extremely ambitious.
B. We could see in the future the mother of all naval battles!
C. Losing 300 ships could force the Chinese into using tactical weapons. The loss of life alone would be catastrophic!
D. This shows that we are leaning heavily towards mass efficiency, with 1 bomb 1 missile kill 1 ship opposed to mass swarms of cruise missiles..you cant kill that many ships with mass attacks.

Just some very very arbitrary calculations with the assumption that there is adequate procurement and production existing or near term anti-ship munitions in the next few years, and that there is a robust C4ISR architecture present (JADC2). Seems plausible.

B-1B bomber fleet
Launching 8 maritime strike sorties every 24 hours for 72 hours with the remainder utilized to conduct strikes on land targets. Each maritime strike B-1B loaded with 24 LRASMs. 6 LRASMs allocated per target to ensure defense penetration: (8 x 3 x 24) / 6 = 96 enemy major surface combatants hit (mission kill).

USN CG/DDG fleet
50 allocated to PACFLEET currently, assuming 50% (25) surged forward due to rising hostilities. Each striking 3 enemy major surface combatants with multiple Maritime Strike Tomahawks and SM-6s in the 72 hour period. Remainder VLS tubes utilized for area air defense, land attack Tomahawks and Vertical Launched ASROCs: 25 x 3 = 75 enemy major surface combatants hit (mission kill).

SSN fleet: 30 assigned to PACLEET currently, assuming 50% (15) surged forward due to rising hostilities. Each striking 3 enemy major surface combatants with MK-48 ADCAP torpedoes, Harpoons or Maritime Strike Tomahawks within the 72 hour period. 15 x 3 = 45 enemy major surface combatants hit (mission kill).

Carrier-based aviation:
3 CAW present at commencement of hostilities, surging at 150 sorties per carrier per 24 hours. 20% of sorties are maritime strike sorties. Each maritime strike sortie aircraft loaded with two LRASMs or Harpoons or SLAM-ERs or JSOW-C1. 6 missiles per target to ensure defense penetration. (0.2 x 150 x 3 x 2) / 6 = 30 enemy major surface combatants hit (mission kill).

96 + 75 + 45 + 30 = 246 enemy major surface combatants hit (mission kill)
Lower end PLAN combatants, which makes up majority of their fleet, are significantly easier to kill and will not need six missiles per target to ensure a hit.

Other weapons available:
- LCS with 8 x NSM
- HIMARs with Cross-domain ATACMs
- USMC land-based Hornets with 2x Harpoons/SLAM-ERs/JSOWs
- USN P-8A Poseidons with 4 x Harpoons

As you can see, LRASMs, Maritime Strike Tomahawks and SM-6s are crucial and current production rates are lacking.
Number of ships that can be struck in 72 hours will improve further as US Army acquires their anti-ship PrSMs and land-based launchers for MSTs and SM-6s.
The entire JADC2 architecture needs to be beefed up significantly.

Probably wise to account for taking out the 300,000 boats of the South China Sea within that 72 hours, too.

You cannot afford to leave the sea lane open to any traffic.

Just some very very arbitrary calculations with the assumption that there is adequate procurement and production existing or near term anti-ship munitions in the next few years, and that there is a robust C4ISR architecture present (JADC2). Seems plausible.

B-1B bomber fleet
Launching 8 maritime strike sorties every 24 hours for 72 hours with the remainder utilized to conduct strikes on land targets. Each maritime strike B-1B loaded with 24 LRASMs. 6 LRASMs allocated per target to ensure defense penetration: (8 x 3 x 24) / 6 = 96 enemy major surface combatants hit (mission kill).

USN CG/DDG fleet
50 allocated to PACFLEET currently, assuming 50% (25) surged forward due to rising hostilities. Each striking 3 enemy major surface combatants with multiple Maritime Strike Tomahawks and SM-6s in the 72 hour period. Remainder VLS tubes utilized for area air defense, land attack Tomahawks and Vertical Launched ASROCs: 25 x 3 = 75 enemy major surface combatants hit (mission kill).

SSN fleet: 30 assigned to PACLEET currently, assuming 50% (15) surged forward due to rising hostilities. Each striking 3 enemy major surface combatants with MK-48 ADCAP torpedoes, Harpoons or Maritime Strike Tomahawks within the 72 hour period. 15 x 3 = 45 enemy major surface combatants hit (mission kill).

Carrier-based aviation:
3 CAW present at commencement of hostilities, surging at 150 sorties per carrier per 24 hours. 20% of sorties are maritime strike sorties. Each maritime strike sortie aircraft loaded with two LRASMs or Harpoons or SLAM-ERs or JSOW-C1. 6 missiles per target to ensure defense penetration. (0.2 x 150 x 3 x 2) / 6 = 30 enemy major surface combatants hit (mission kill).

96 + 75 + 45 + 30 = 246 enemy major surface combatants hit (mission kill)
Lower end PLAN combatants, which makes up majority of their fleet, are significantly easier to kill and will not need six missiles per target to ensure a hit.

Other weapons available:
- LCS with 8 x NSM
- HIMARs with Cross-domain ATACMs
- USMC land-based Hornets with 2x Harpoons/SLAM-ERs/JSOWs
- USN P-8A Poseidons with 4 x Harpoons

As you can see, LRASMs, Maritime Strike Tomahawks and SM-6s are crucial and current production rates are lacking.
Number of ships that can be struck in 72 hours will improve further as US Army acquires their anti-ship PrSMs and land-based launchers for MSTs and SM-6s.
The entire JADC2 architecture needs to be beefed up significantly.

If you add in some B-2s and B-52s which can carry 16 and 20 LRASMs respectively, as well as Harpoons in the B-52s case, that increases the number of surface combatants, that can be hit.

Per the SAR and the FY2021 budget, they are adding a weapons data link to JASSM*
(presumably XR but also possibly ER) so the LRASM inventory could be saved for those surface ships
that are imprecisely located and have to be tracked by emissions.

* which was the original proposal for JASSM Maritime Interdiction