Chinese weapons and tactics

Discuss air warfare, doctrine, air forces, historic campaigns, etc.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

jessmo112

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post16 Nov 2021, 09:40

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/inv ... on-report/

So are proposing a boost in funding for tankers.
This is an area in which the U.S. still has a big lead.
Offline

jessmo112

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post17 Nov 2021, 01:02

The Chinese are working hard to get Uv chip tech.
I'm not sure if they will achieve their goal.

https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/th ... -concerns/
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Nov 2021, 02:52

Delayed reply ...

Personally, I think the nonsense one page back about nuclear weapons is about as relevant as saying intervention over a Chinese attack on Taiwan would lead to PLA using chemical weapons. That whole nuclear weapons use thing fell apart in 1962. No nuclear superpower is ever going to be interested in launching that fight, nor even to use tactical weapons.

The US warhead numbers fell from 1967 primarily because in Nov 1962 it became obvious to all that they can't and won't be be used in a hot war, and are only useful as a deterrent against others using them. And from 1963 to 1967 it became clear the US had much poorer than necessary conventional capabilities, and ill prepared forces to fight in Vietnam, because the useless nukes ate their budgets for the past 20 years. Plus development of conventional weapons (precision ones especially, and recon/targeting) had lagged as a result. The worst result of the whole nuclear arsenal waste of time and money, was that the war stocks and production of conventional ammunitions was hopelessly inadequate (as in 3 days worth of ammunition! ... thus we must use nukes thereafter ... :doh: ) because all US services were so focused on using nuclear weapons and not allocating enough to a 700,000 man ground fight in Asia or in Europe. Korea was being treated as the end of that approach.

Russians and their water-carriers ALWAYS trot out the nuclear weapon first-use BS, every time it becomes completely obvious how weak they are, in both quality level, in numbers, in readiness and in conventional munitions capabilities and integration. But they seem to forget that Khrushchev wanted nothing to do with nuclear war with the USA, and his successor Leonid Brezhnev also wanted nothing to do with it, and pushed on with SALT 1 (Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty) in 1967, and SALT 2 in 1972, leading to the START 1 and 2 treaties thereafter.

The only idiots still talking about nuclear first-use as a viable or credible warfare option are the pathetic Putin troll-factory muppets who put the concept around again the past decade, as a fig-leaf to the hopeless Russian nakedness in the conventional forces,and precision weapons departments, compared to what they have starkly faced since the feeble hobbling Soviet Union decided it was completely irrelevant to the future of humanity, and ended it all.

Which was a good call!

Nevertheless, the Slavic cohort can't help but keep trotting out that ludicrous nuclear rot every opportunity despite the evidence it does not work at deterring nor ending a conventional attack, or a conventional war. If it did Tehran would not be openly sending weapons to proxies to existentially attack the capital of Israel, as Tehran would have been glassed by now.

I think we can safely discard and discount any of that sort of feeble nuclear escalation bullcrap as put forward on the prior page, within this discussion of Chinese weapons and tactics, because the modern world and modern wars, just don't work that way. Conventional war is the war we will be in, so we'd better remain focused on that, and it's needs and costs and its forces and their readiness, and especially to having a vast quantity of cheap PGM ammunition, to fight China with long term if needed, and possibly Russia at the same time.

Personally I think the Russians will stay out, as much as possible, because Putin will want the Chinese forces smashed, and the US alliance attrited and war-tired, so both fight to a stand-still and both become conventionally relatively much weaker, which makes Russia relative much stronger (and their obsolescence issues not as relatively extreme and appalling).

So I don't buy the idea that Russia would want its forces and strategic infrastructure to be involved, nor formally "Allied" to China in any way, shape, or form in a CCP/PLA fight to try to take Taiwan, which is actually a separate Sovereign country, like it or not, and not vitally important to Moscow, for any clear reason.

And god help the Russian far-east if they got so involved, because all that energy and mineral infrastructure and export cash-flow will be going bye-byes for Moscow, real fast, if they want in on that conflict.

So I'd say the Russian OTHR buy-in blah-blah is also just nonsense.
Last edited by element1loop on 17 Nov 2021, 05:32, edited 1 time in total.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2697
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post17 Nov 2021, 04:56

The russians don't need to intervene militarily. But if Russia permits one way overflights thru Primorsky Krai from China's North East, that's a knife in the soft underbelly of Japan bases.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Nov 2021, 05:08

jessmo112 wrote:https://breakingdefense.com/2021/11/invest-billions-in-aerial-refueling-or-lose-the-china-fight-hudson-report/

So are proposing a boost in funding for tankers.
This is an area in which the U.S. still has a big lead.


And a lead it won't even need.

Eliminate the teen fighters ASAP and replace with F-35 and pressing US tanker replacement issues will disappear with the crappy teen airframe fuel verses range performance. The reality of 5th-gen fighter and new strike weapon reach is what is being ignored.

For example

We know F-35A flew at least 5.6 hours cross country without refuel. So let’s presume the ‘economical’ long-range speed is 425 kt, for the sake of argument …

425 kt * 5.6 hr = 2,380 nm ... about the longest cruise range achievable, unrefueled, currently.

Thus ultimate Bk3f potential unrefueled maximum strike radius track-distance would be …

2,380 / 2 = 1,190 nm to max strike launch radius

JASSM-ER = 500 nm range
F-35A strike range = 500 nm + 1,190 nm = 1,690 nm maximum strike reach

JASSM-XR = 1,000 nm range
F-35A strike range = 1,000 nm + 1,190 nm = 2,190 nm maximum strike reach

So now presume a BK4 with EFT (2 x 426 US Gal) = 5,580 lb Jet-A, @ ISA.

Let’s conservatively presume 1/3 of the EFT fuel addition, is then lost to added EFT drag, therefore …

5,580 lb EFT / 0.66 = 3,682 lb added range effect from EFT

F-35A has 18,250 lb usable, over 5.6 hours, therefore …

18,250 / 5.6 = 3,259 lb per hour @ 425 kt, as the rough working average consumption for the 5.6 hours.

In other words, the EFT will add just over 1 hour of extra range, or roughly 450 nm to range

SO … F-35A Bk4 potential unrefueled strike radius track-distance is …

(2,380 + 450) / 2 = 1,415 nm strike launch radius of BK4 + EFT

(NOTE that this also ignores any BK4 upgrade for the F135 engine........................)


In which case, the strike reach increases with the EFT goes up to …

JASSM-ER = 500 nm range
F-35A + EFT strike range = 500 nm + 1,415 nm =
1,915 nm maximum strike reach

JASSM-XR = 1,000 nm range
F-35A strike range = 1,000 nm + 1,415 nm =
2,415 nm maximum strike reach

Summary: unrefueled cruise @ 425 kt:
(a) F-35A (Bk3f) = 1,190 nm unrefueled operating radius (2,304 km)
(b) F-35A (Bk3f) + JASSM-ER = 1,690 nm unrefueled strike radius (3,130 km)
(c) F-35A (Bk3f) + JASSM-XR = 2,190 nm unrefueled strike radius (4,056 km)
(d) F-35A (Bk4 EFT) + JASSM-ER = 1,915 nm unrefueled strike radius (3,547 km)
(e) F-35A (Bk4 EFT) + JASSM-XR = 2,415 nm unrefueled strike radius (4,473 km)

Range rings displayed from these locations:
Kadena Okinawa
Basa AB Philippines
Tindal AB Australia

Image

Image

With an engine upgrades for specific consumption improvement, not even included here, the strike-range of BK4 will be even higher than shown. In short, almost all of China will be reachable from the "first Island chain" geography, from about 2027.

F-15X ... phft! The only reason tankers might be 'necessary' here is to give the 'legacy' teen fighters as sense of belonging in a modern air force when they're already obsolete, and just eating up resources from here.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Nov 2021, 05:14

weasel1962 wrote:The russians don't need to intervene militarily. But if Russia permits one way overflights thru Primorsky Krai from China's North East, that's a knife in the soft underbelly of Japan bases.


I think they should be worried about Sakhalin if that was their doings.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2697
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post17 Nov 2021, 08:18

Wouldn't be surprised if Sakhalin is conveniently "unintentionally" struck even if Russia does nothing. Rezonans-Ns, S300V4/S400 units etc would provide useful data to the chinese if left unchecked.

Japan does keep track of what's happening in Russia's far east.
https://www.mod.go.jp/en/d_act/sec_env/ ... 210421.pdf

Incidentally, preparations for Vostok 2022 has started. Wonder how the Chinese will participate this time.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1850
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post17 Nov 2021, 12:57

weasel1962 wrote:Wouldn't be surprised if Sakhalin is conveniently "unintentionally" struck even if Russia does nothing. Rezonans-Ns, S300V4/S400 units etc would provide useful data to the chinese if left unchecked.

Japan does keep track of what's happening in Russia's far east.
https://www.mod.go.jp/en/d_act/sec_env/ ... 210421.pdf

Incidentally, preparations for Vostok 2022 has started. Wonder how the Chinese will participate this time.


Yes, interesting twist, and kind of asking for it given the way they have them deployed. Call it an accidental drone strike.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

jessmo112

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post17 Nov 2021, 15:47

angry-mad.gif
@ element. I wonder how the Chinese would respond to a decapitation strike with Xi and the highest ranking party bosses taken out? The next day a new party boss is elected and that guy gets a switch blade drone from a stealthy UAV. Would they fight out with no leader in Beijing?
Offline

jessmo112

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 16 Mar 2020, 02:09

Unread post08 Jan 2022, 00:16

The Chinese are pushing to have 4 carrier's before 2022 ends.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboo ... ear-199091

My biggest question is where are they going to get the airframe to fit these ships?

I noticed that as of 2019 the Chinese had 50 J-15s in service. 4 carriers is 30 airframe each.
I see no evidence that the Chinese have ramped up J-15 production. In fact all evidence seems to point to a loss of confidence in the J-15. Has production of the J-15 ramped up? Even if they use the J-31 they need to rush into trials testing and lrip. With all of the talk of the scs being a no man's land for U.S. carriers. It's ironic that China would invest in carrier battle groups, with questionable defenses versus hypersonic weapons.
It's ironic that they would build so many carrier's without a tactical fighter design they trust.

Once U.S. hypersonic weapons show up in theater and can be fired from VLS and B-52s this venture becomes obsolete.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2697
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Jan 2022, 12:26

It was only 30 J-15s up to end 2020 (new 2 digit serials 01-24, then 30-35).

Last year (2021), J-15 serials from 60-87 were spotted which suggested that the Chinese shifted Flanker production in Shenyang to J-15s. This ties in with the commissioning of the 2nd carrier.

Following this, the Chinese won't need new planes for 003 which is soon to launch soon until ~1-2 years later for commissioning. 1-2 production catobar J-15Ts are already spotted. The Chinese have a clear sequence and some predictabity to their induction. Building ~20-30 J-15s a year seems to be the current capability.
Offline

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 92
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post08 Jan 2022, 16:12

What's the long terms future for the STOBAR carriers really? The end game is clearly emulating the carrier fleet of USN and with the build rate it won't take all that long, the skijump can support a payload at best for local air superiority, that's a big underutilization for what's essentially a multirole fighter. ASW Helo and UAV with less runway requirement?
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2697
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post08 Jan 2022, 19:13

The kutznetsov carriers have 3 launch spots. No 3 spot is a longer launch allowing mtow. Only the front 2 spot is limited which is logically used for rapid alert5 intercepts against incoming aggressors. The limitation of stobar is not a payload issue but a lower sortie rate for the j-15s carried because only 1 spot allows for max payloads. Also the other limitation is the lack of heavier support planes eg AWACS mitigated by the use of aew helos (z-18).

That constraint is now eliminated by pairing stobar CVs with the new catobar CV which can launch the new fixed wing AEWs besides all 3 launch spots now able to launch J-15s at mtow. The larger size also likely means a bigger aircraft complement.

The kutznetsovs reflect Soviet carrier doctrine which uses carriers for fleet defense, not the way US uses its CVBGs. The Soviet idea was to create a breach allowing for SSNs and SSBNs to breach the arctic containment screens and to utilize the striking power of its long ranged missile surface ships. Stobar is merely the design reflecting the period when the CV was designed and the different doctrine. In China's use, that's not different as the stobar can also be used in the same manner protecting the amphibious landing ships to Taiwan or the SCS. Note that the Chinese haven't really deployed it's stobars beyond the first island chain. 003 changes this doctrine towards a potentially US doctrine but 1 or 2 wont be enough to contest the USN. It might however be intimidating enough for everyone else.
Offline

mmm

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 92
  • Joined: 30 Jul 2013, 10:58

Unread post10 Jan 2022, 17:33

Really? Navalized Flanker can take off with a 200m roll without choosing between a useful A-G load or full tank of internal fuel, on a routine operational basis not a one off demonstration of sort with a ton of caveats? If so I must have underestimated how much the ramp helps, or misunderstood how it really works. Is it not basically using the vertical component of engine thrust to compensate for insufficient lift? Think of it F-22 with TVC is a reasonable approximation, and that's where it doesn't make sense to me. Where does it find the help to shave the takeoff distance by more than half? As far as I understand it gets up to 30kt at full flank speed help from moving carrier, locked in place until ramped to full power, some altitude to drop before going underwater, and I dunno, I read about in passing some afterburner override. That's enough? Or I misunderstood something important?

Anyhow my thinking was whether it's operational limitation or sortie generation, if it is not efficient to operate something this expensive from STOBAR it might as well not. For many scenarios it might as well operate from land base, and retool the 2 of a kind for something else.
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2697
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post11 Jan 2022, 02:39

Depends on what is a "useful" A2G load. 2 YJ-83s is 1.2 tons. To have a trade off on fuel, that's assuming that the Su-33 can't take off at 29.1 tons TOW (assuming 18.4 ton empty weight, 9.5 tons fuel load). The J-15 is claimed to be ~1 ton lighter due to composites which brings it down to 28.1 tons. 9.5 tons of fuel is 20900 lbs. Taking off 2600 lbs of fuel (1.2 tons) is merely a function of range.
PreviousNext

Return to Air Power

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 43 guests