High cost of survival in an air war with China

The farther away you can operate from the first island chain and the PRC, the survival for air power greatly increases. The one major disadvantage is the greater range at which fighters and bombers must operate and its impact the sortie generation rate. Tac air will require tankers, which will increase the footprint at a particular base. That is not necessarily the case with bombers.

In a future conflict, a flight of B-2s/B-21s flying from the United States could fly from the Untied States to the Taiwan Strait, launch a 80 JASSMs/LRASMs, and then recover on Palau. Another flight could also conduct a similar attack and recover at another location. C-17s could bring missile reloads on rotary launchers and a new crew would fly another sortie. Additional sorties could flown until it was time to relocate to the next FARP. This time maybe Australia.

Below is an excellent study on dispersing fighters in the Pacific.
https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portal ... -Davis.pdf

You can see why the USAF wants a large fleet of New B-21 Bombers. Especially, with the shift towards the Indo-Pacific.

The F-35Bs range limits it to finite combat radius. It will be difficult to extend its range with AR if it is operating within the enemy's engagement zone. We are basically talking about the Ryukyus and Japan because I don't think the Philippines or Vietnam will allow access. It will be very difficult for the F-35Bs to project power into the Straits in an operationally significant way. It's main value will likely be the defense of Japanese territory and our bases in Okinawa.

What they will provide is a barrier to PLA airpower when the Bee are fed data from regional OTHR, VHF and AWAC. Plus they will provide BM and hype missile defense data as well as EW and regional SA plus surface targetting data. Add some external JASSM-ERs and you're off to the races. GLCM for early deeper high-value.

Even if that was all the B achieved it would still go a long way to defeating A2D2 effect.

(your link had interesting insights)

In an entirely India related post, has the F-35 been certified for jassm carriage?

... has the F-35 been certified for jassm carriage?

Do you suppose it won't be?

... has the F-35 been certified for jassm carriage?

Do you suppose it won't be?

Should be cos that's reflected in the external stores for F-35 weapons carriage. Just wondering when...India time wise.

The F-35Bs range limits it to finite combat radius. It will be difficult to extend its range with AR if it is operating within the enemy's engagement zone. We are basically talking about the Ryukyus and Japan because I don't think the Philippines or Vietnam will allow access. It will be very difficult for the F-35Bs to project power into the Straits in an operationally significant way. It's main value will likely be the defense of Japanese territory and our bases in Okinawa.

What they will provide is a barrier to PLA airpower when the Bee are fed data from regional OTHR, VHF and AWAC. Plus they will provide BM and hype missile defense data as well as EW and regional SA plus surface targetting data. Add some external JASSM-ERs and you're off to the races. GLCM for early deeper high-value.

Even if that was all the B achieved it would still go a long way to defeating A2D2 effect.

Although JASSM would be incredibly effective, looking at what's available for the B in the near-term, that does not include the JASSM for the F-35. With the British dropping storm shadow from the B integration, that means only JSOW baseline will be available for B.

"external integration is planned for the F-35B aircraft"
https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/arming_the_f-35

By FY 2023, JSOW-ER could be included on the B (since its integrated into the C) which would extend the strike range by 500+km. No issue for carriage since its a 1000lb weapon (no weight difference for ER)
https://www.janes.com/article/86249/ray ... er-missile

Japan is also buying the JSM and would be interesting to see if they are going to integrate this into their Bs.

At 300-500km munition strike range, that can take out any ship from South China Seas (around HK) up to the yellow sea. Unfortunately I am obliged to mention it can't target India because that's really too far away.

The F-35Bs range limits it to finite combat radius. It will be difficult to extend its range with AR if it is operating within the enemy's engagement zone. We are basically talking about the Ryukyus and Japan because I don't think the Philippines or Vietnam will allow access. It will be very difficult for the F-35Bs to project power into the Straits in an operationally significant way. It's main value will likely be the defense of Japanese territory and our bases in Okinawa.

What they will provide is a barrier to PLA airpower when the Bee are fed data from regional OTHR, VHF and AWAC. Plus they will provide BM and hype missile defense data as well as EW and regional SA plus surface targetting data. Add some external JASSM-ERs and you're off to the races. GLCM for early deeper high-value.

Even if that was all the B achieved it would still go a long way to defeating A2D2 effect.

Although JASSM would be incredibly effective, looking at what's available for the B in the near-term, that does not include the JASSM for the F-35. With the British dropping storm shadow from the B integration, that means only JSOW baseline will be available for B.

"external integration is planned for the F-35B aircraft"
https://www.raytheon.com/news/feature/arming_the_f-35

By FY 2023, JSOW-ER could be included on the B (since its integrated into the C) which would extend the strike range by 500+km. No issue for carriage since its a 1000lb weapon (no weight difference for ER)
https://www.janes.com/article/86249/ray ... er-missile

Japan is also buying the JSM and would be interesting to see if they are going to integrate this into their Bs.

At 300-500km munition strike range, that can take out any ship from South China Seas (around HK) up to the yellow sea. Unfortunately I am obliged to mention it can't target India because that's really too far away.

Good to know, thanks.

Can't remember if JSM fits inside the F-35B, presuming it does, it's in the 900lb to 1000lb range. Updated NSM wiki page has further NSM/JSM range claim detail:

Operational range
NSM 185 km (115 mi; 100 nmi)+ (profile dependent)
JSM 185 km (115 mi; 100 nmi)+ low-low-low profile, 555 km (345 mi; 300 nmi)+ hi-hi-low profile
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile

Yup, India's just out of range.

As I remember the first JSMs are to be delivered in 2021.

The F-35B range-ring indicator you posted one page back, I suspect this was not updated with the September 2019 LM range figures for the Bee.

Latest LM Fast Facts says: 01 Sep 2019 (1.1Mb)
https://www.f35.com/assets/uploads/docu ... 9_2019.pdf

Range (internal fuel)
F-35A >1,200 nm / 2,200 km (USAF profile)
F-35B >900 nm / 1,667 km (USMC profile)
F-35C >1,200 nm / 2,200 km (USN profile)

viewtopic.php?p=427673#p427673

When I plot that range it reaches well past Shanghai, in fact an F-35B with internal JSM would reach targets from Tangshan almost all the way to Hong Kong (and everything in between) from Amami Island alone. Move location further north, or south, within the Japanese archipelago or mainland and the F-35B with two internal JSMs could reach targets along about 95% of the entire Chinese mainland coast. It can even reach down to Cebu City in the central Philippines and northern Spratly Islands area.

2 x JSM from a Bee reaches well beyond the range of Beijing, from Kumamoto. That combination actually holds almost all of the eastern 1/4 of China's mainland at risk of VLO strike. You can clearly see why the Bee plus internal JSM was Japan's preferred direction.

Probably need a clearer look at what a Bee can really reach within the region, itself, as well as with JSM or JSOW-ER range-ring addition. This may turn out to be more advantageous tactical prospect than first appears. Plus the reach it delivers to LHDs.

The Taiwan-Philippines-'Gap' (TP-Gap?) is the obvious avenue to strike deep into the Pacific for the Chinese. Seems to me Bees with tanker support from Guam or the South could support an F-35B ISR/SA and strike presence within that GAP (in conjunction with BAMS).

The truth is always the first casualty in war... as to fake insults, I'd leave it to the experts especially those that registered on this forum just to post about fake mig-21s shoot downs of f-16s.

Facts:
Shooting down of Mi-17 was a big mistake, admits IAF chief
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 593737.ece

12 planes lost, at least 20 air force personnel killed in crashes this year so far
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/i ... 2019-09-25

Questions raised over Cheetah choppers' flight-worthiness after crash
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/q ... 2019-10-03

Expensive? Chinese planes are cheap. End result no change.

Too bad aren't facing the Indians. Don't do anything, they crash on their own. Fight them, they shoot down their own.

Chinese products are cheap and of low quality.

I tried to do some research on this and it seems that PLAAF aircraft have very low crash rates. So far no J-11 has been reported to crash yet and only 1 J-10 has.

This is far lower than Russian, Indian and even American counterparts. I'm not saying China has better quality, What I'm saying is, we need to base our assessments on something.

Some might say, if it doesn't fly, it doesn't crash.

well it does, we've seen it. Granted they may fly less than American counterparts but thats just purely my guesstimate based on nothing really.

Anyone here has stats on how much modern PLAAF planes (J-10, J-11, J-16, J20) fly?

Range rings F-35B (450nm radius) plus JSM (300nm or 555km max range) for 750nm radius circles. Center of each circle is marked by red X.



Operating from northern Luzon would be handy but no great loss.

If the Japanese extend some of the island runways to operate A, those range circles are going to be even scarier to the Chinese. Who needs carriers?

The best part is the main air forces are actually based in Japan/Korea with hardened bases. Those island runways are expeditionary whilst covered by mainland bases. The island runways can take a fair bit of punishment wasting those PLA ballistic missiles. Quick repairs with farp and distributed ops, that's going to be fairly lethal.

Then add carriers = end game. Thanos wins.

If the Japanese extend some of the island runways to operate A, those range circles are going to be even scarier to the Chinese. Who needs carriers?

The best part is the main air forces are actually based in Japan/Korea with hardened bases. Those island runways are expeditionary whilst covered by mainland bases. The island runways can take a fair bit of punishment wasting those PLA ballistic missiles. Quick repairs with farp and distributed ops, that's going to be fairly lethal.

Then add carriers = end game. Thanos wins.

Most of China's economy and export ports are under these JSM range-rings, plus most shipping and naval bases. F-35A/B is certainly going to be a serious threat if dispersed and they have the logistics close to support it. Looks like a good reason to be diplomatic and negotiate compliance with a rules based order. We're lucky to have this strong ally with F-35s right in China's face at this point.

Agree it's going to take a major effort to deny FARP attack options. We have to make sure we can get sufficient capability out of that though. as I see it you'd need a minimum of:
8 x F-35A
1 x C-17A
2 x KC-30A

And initial AAR-supported strike goes in directly with 6 x F-35A in standoff strike config, and 2 x F-35 in escort config.
As this occurs a C-17A flies out to the chosen FARP location for that day, and gets setup.
Tanker and 8 x F-35A coming off the initial strike mission fly to the selected island FARP site.
Refueling occurs just before descent to land at FARP and this first tanker orbits out to the east and waits.
F-35A have arrives at the FARP an hour after the C-17A arrived and unloaded.
External standoff strike stores are added to 6 F-35A, and any internal A2A weapons used are replenished, fuel is topped-off again in all 8 F-35A.
F-35A total time on ground is about 1 hour.
6 x F-35A takeoff configured for Strikers.
2 x F-35A takeoff configured for Escorts.
Once in the air they meet up with a fresh second KC-30A, while the first tanker stays nearby, in case of issues with the second.
The second fresh tanker flies the second strike-support mission and is escorted by 2 x F-35A throughout.
The first tanker now takes up an orbit 1/3 of the distance back to its FOB and awaits to see if it will be needed to assist further after the second strike goes in.
The C-17A immediately packs up (on the fly as work is being done) and leaves the FARP pronto and RTBs.
Total time on the ground if C-17A is ~2.5 hrs, fast return without escort to a home base (and replaced tomorrow with a fresh C-17A).
The VLO flight of 6 attacks.
Then 8 x F-35A fly back to top-up on the second KC-30A.
Then all fly back to the first orbiting KC-30A and both tankers support the 8 x F-35A back to a pre-chosen northern air base.
Doing this during daylight would be a bit predictable so night time operation may be necessary with landing and taking-off from a FARP at night, without runway or taxi-way lighting (perhaps chem-light markers are laid out), using IR and low-light camera for visual cues.

Some FARPS will be more desirable than others, in which case you need to be able to place repair machinery and resources at those in advance of them being damaged. Do that with 5 FARPs and relocate the repair equipment in advance as the focus of attacks and geography change.

LHDs and CVNs begin to arrive after 1 to 2 weeks to really get the fight rolling.

This requires more ADF commitment to point-defense SAMs, like NSM, to cover that initial period to defend northern airbases from cruise missiles. Plus some Patriot batteries (or maybe an Israeli equiv) to deal with IRBMs attacking FOBs, or else sub missile attack. IMO, such SAM defenses and their sensors at FOBs seem to be the weakest link in sustaining tactical FARP capabilities each day during the first few weeks, until the combined air power takes away OPFOR's strike opportunities and initiative. Besides that we have most of the rest of what's needed already.

If you want to do another strike that day, or else around the clock strikes from FARPs, you send out fresh pilots in a second C-17A to form-up the third strike for that day, with a third KC-30A, and keep swapping around between say 5 active FARP runways that have the runway repair machinery plus their forward engineering contingent.

The first group of F-35A pilots coming back from their second strike get taken back to their squadron's operating base in the second C-17A.

Pre-positioning is of course preferred but C-17/C-130 packages are efficient. The short field landing/take off capabilities of both are optimized in this instance.

Some thoughts on PLA counter-strategies. I won't discount the possibility that the PLA would conduct a pre-emptive landing to take control of 1 or more islands. Stationing SAM or air assets would disrupt the LOC from Japan to Taiwan and deter the use of surrounding islands, similar to island hopping strategy used in ww2. This would delay US intervention as they have to take out the island first. China has already laid legal ground work in disputing Japan's claims to Okinawa.