Japan, Koreas, China and Taiwan regional issues

[Musashi_kenshin]

They will be destroyed by J-20 and J-35.

Assuming we're talking about a conflict in the next couple of years, the PLAAF will still mostly be made up of older aircraft. Not every mission could be flown by its newest planes, and it probably wouldn't want to risk all of its most advanced inventory in the opening stages of a conflict.

As for further in the future when China can risk losing significant numbers of 5th generation aircraft, the US and Japan may have 6th generation planes like NGAD and GCAP.

 

[TayJG]

Assuming we're talking about a conflict in the next couple of years, the PLAAF will still mostly be made up of older aircraft. Not every mission could be flown by its newest planes, and it probably wouldn't want to risk all of its most advanced inventory in the opening stages of a conflict.

As for further in the future when China can risk losing significant numbers of 5th generation aircraft, the US and Japan may have 6th generation planes like NGAD and GCAP.

If I were a defense minister of a country facing a permanent threat for the rest of my country's existence, I would not be making plans on 4th and 5th generation aircraft to survive only in the next couple of years.

China too is already quite advanced into its 6th gen fighter program as well. They have created the first ever twin seated stealth fighter, presumably for the rear operator to be sending UCAV's into battle. US fighter development doesn't sit still and neither does China's.

Counting 100% on the US....I don't think that's a great idea. China has made enormous strides in both quality and quantity in the PLAAF and PLAN. It will reach a point where China has local superiority over the US Navy - even the combined fleet of all 11/12 carrier battlegroups.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

They will be destroyed by J-20 and J-35.

Do you have any reliable references/sources for this claim?
The J-20 and J-35 are undoubtly china's most advanced fighters, but we don't know much about them, and they never met an F-16V or any other F-16 in real combat.

 

[ngatimozart]

If I were a defense minister of a country facing a permanent threat for the rest of my country's existence, I would not be making plans on 4th and 5th generation aircraft to survive only in the next couple of years.

China too is already quite advanced into its 6th gen fighter program as well. They have created the first ever twin seated stealth fighter, presumably for the rear operator to be sending UCAV's into battle. US fighter development doesn't sit still and neither does China's.

Counting 100% on the US....I don't think that's a great idea. China has made enormous strides in both quality and quantity in the PLAAF and PLAN. It will reach a point where China has local superiority over the US Navy - even the combined fleet of all 11/12 carrier battlegroups.

The PLAN has a lot of ships but is still learning to be a blue water navy. It can now sail two CBG (Carrier Battle Group), however carrier ops isn't something you learn from reading a book and watching videos. Learning how to sail and fight a CBG is altogether another learning curve and that only comes with time and experience measured in decades. The RN and USN are the worlds two most experienced CV operators, with both being doing it for 100 years. They are still learning each time they put to sea and unlike the PLAN they have battle experience against near peer enemies. However the PLA aren't slow in learning but it still takes a lot of time and experience to be able to competently operate a CBG.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

The PLAN has a lot of ships but is still learning to be a blue water navy. It can now sail two CBG (Carrier Battle Group), however carrier ops isn't something you learn from reading a book and watching videos. Learning how to sail and fight a CBG is altogether another learning curve and that only comes with time and experience measured in decades. The RN and USN are the worlds two most experienced CV operators, with both being doing it for 100 years. They are still learning each time they put to sea and unlike the PLAN they have battle experience against near peer enemies. However the PLA aren't slow in learning but it still takes a lot of time and experience to be able to competently operate a CBG.

China is the World Leading Master of copying and imitating, after reading Tom Clancy 's books and watching Top Gun and (specially!) Hot Shots, they will instantly and totally be on RN and US Navy level of CBG-operations!

But seriously, i think you are right.

 

[ngatimozart]

China is the World Leading Master of copying and imitating, after reading Tom Clancy 's books and watching Top Gun and (specially!) Hot Shots, they will instantly and totally be on RN and US Navy level of CBG-operations!

But seriously, i think you are right.

We know some things about the PLAN but nowhere near as much as we would like too. The CV Fujian is being fitted out at the moment and sea trials are supposed to be this year during the northern summer or thereabouts. A couple of videos from Sub Brief about the PLAN CVs.

The first on their CV Fleet.

This second on their December 22 training and exercising deployment out past the First Island Chain into the Philippine Sea.

UPDATE: The PRC / PLAN have placed two acoustic sensors in the Pacific Ocean allowing them to monitor and determine vectors of surface and subsurface vessels operating out of Guam and Yap. The circles are about a 500nm radius.


Source:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/955663460246974464

Original South Chin Morning Post article from 2018.

Surveillance under the sea: how China is listening in near Guam

Surveillance under the sea: how China is listening in near Guam

www.scmp.com

A War Zone article from 2019 on it.

China Reveals It Has Two Underwater Listening Devices Within Range of Guam

The sensors are officially for scientific purposes, but they could just as easily monitor submarine movements and gather other intelligence.

www.thedrive.com

This is quite serious and I wouldn't be surprised that there are others elsewhere in the Indo Pacific. I would suspect off major naval and sub bases within the region.

 

[Vivendi]

Unclassified wargame of hypothetical invasion of Taiwan published yesterday: The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan | Center for Strategic and International Studies (csis.org)

As part of the launch, the report was discussed by a panel of 3: Report Launch―The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan - YouTube

24 runs, using different assumptions. All scenarios assume invasion starts in 2026. Unclassified information about systems were used.

Main conclusions:

1. China would fail in invading Taiwan provided 4 key assumptions were met (see below)
2. All parties (China, Taiwan, US, Japan) would suffer horrible losses and take a long time to recover, in all scenarios. In that sense "nobody wins" and definitely not China.

Key assumption to defeat China:

1. Taiwanese forces must hold the line -- some invaders are bound to make it to the island, these need to be contained. And Taiwan must do their part in stopping invading forces
2. Taiwan must be supplied before invasion starts -- "Ukraine model" cannot work due to Chinese blockade
3. The US must be able to use Japanese bases
4. The US must strike quite soon after the invasion, using massive amounts of long-range cruise missiles

As you would expect, survivability of surface vessels and fixed installations are quite low. In most scenarios 90% of aircraft losses happened on the ground - this makes the report conclude (erroneously in my mind) that a large number of somewhat cheaper 4. gen aircraft may be beneficial to 5. gen, since a/c are lost on the ground not in the air. In any cases dispersion and building fortified hangars should be key.

There are several weaknesses of this wargame course -- one obvious is that it ends after 3 to 4 weeks, whereas "in reality" if an invasion were to happen, it would most likely last for a long time. So perhaps one way of looking at it is that if the 4 assumptions listed above are met, it will become clear after 3-4 weeks that China will not succeed in invading Taiwan.

One should never underestimate the opponent, however, Russia's botched invasion of Ukraine shows that it's certainly not difficult to overestimate the enemy. I may be wrong, but my "gut feeling" is that this wargame is overestimating the capabilities of China, and perhaps underestimating the capabilities of the US and Japan. And it's clear that Taiwan definitely need to pull their act together and start building a much stronger, asymmetric defence.

Don't miss out on the discussion linked to above -- interesting points from several of the panelists.

 

[ngatimozart]

@Vivendi I think that comparing the PLA to the Russian military isn't going to be all that valid. The PLA have modernised and gone well away from the Soviet / Russian model. The PLA-GF is now structured similarly to the US Army and unlike the Russian military, has a NCO cadre based on the western model. However they still have political officers and a political officer of equal rank to a line officer has higher seniority. So if you have a Lt Col line officer and a Lt Col political officer, both with the same date of promotion, the political officer is the senior of the two. This is unlike the Soviet model where the political officer (zampolit) could only advise a line officer of equal rank and seniority. Of course an adverse report made to the political department by the zampolit would be a career killer and possibly an invitation to meet with the KGB. Within the PLA the current structure may create problems that an enemy combatant could take advantage of, especially if the political officer doesn't have a thorough military education and doesn't understand a situation.

Like I said that PLA has modernised and it isn't a third rate force. It has new equipment, capabilities, funding and those who think that the Chinese are just copycats unable to produce original ideas, are sorely mistaken. First rule of warfare - never underestimate your enemy. You do so at your own peril and that's why the British lost Malaya and Singapore, and the Americans were thrown out of the Philippines by the Japanese in early 1942. You also ignore the current problems of the US military, a dearth of modern equipment, not enough aircraft, armour, and ships. The US industrial base is not like it was in 1941 because a lot of American (and other western nations) industrial and manufacturing capability was off shored, with a significant amount relocated to the PRC. That's not something that can be replaced easily or quickly.

WRT your comment about 4th gen aircraft, quantity is far more urgent at the moment than quality. A knife isn't as technically advanced as a firearm, but a knife can still kill you just as sure as any projectile from a firearm. It's how you use what you have between your ears that differentiates the adults from the children, and Putin and Shoigu weren't at school the day the teacher taught that lesson. The CCP and PLA saw what happened in Gulf Wars 1 and 2; the shock and awe, and that is why the PLA was modernised and reformed. They understood the lessons; the Russian political leadership and military didn't.

 

[Vivendi]

Excellent points you are raising. I did not mean to compare PLA to the Russian military in any way, I just used the situation in Ukraine as an example in which many analysts completely missed in their assessment of the capabilities of the invader, in spite of being "experts" on Russian military and having studied the Russian military for years. Assessing China must be extremely hard since they have not fought a war in a very long time. They do have a corruption issue, but some people claim it's less of an issue than in Russia. However you are of course right one should be careful in underestimating a potential foe, and I don't think the US is doing that in the case of China.

Regarding 4th gen a/c -- the thing is that the only 4th gen that might be slightly cheaper to buy than the F-35 would be the F-16 which is much less capable and also has shorter legs. The still in-production F-15 EX is more expensive (but in many ways also less capable) than the F-35. I think it would make sense to try to keep the existing 4. gen fighters available a bit longer and not retire them until new-built F-35 are available in much larger numbers, but IMO it would not make sense for the US to purchase new 4. gen since the cost is roughly the same (or even more than) the F-35, and you get less capability. Sustainment costs for F-35 are still a bit higher than the F-16, but they keep dropping I believe, and as the F-35 numbers grow the sustainment costs should drop further.

If the US was to start mass-producing 4.gen again then that would reduce the price somewhat however there would still be the question of having sufficient pilots... Avoiding empty cockpits: Addressing the Air Force’s pilot shortage problem - Breaking Defense

 

[ngatimozart]

I just believe that something like the F-15EX / F-16V are quicker and easier to build than the F-35. That means numbers are available sooner. Yes the pilot shortage is a problem. The airlines will be poaching more pilots now.

 

[Vivendi]

I just believe that something like the F-15EX / F-16V are quicker and easier to build than the F-35. That means numbers are available sooner.

Actually I am not sure if this the case. There are three assembly lines for the F-35, the main one in the US, one in Italy that is used for Italian but also other European F-35s, and the line in Japan. In 2020 it was said that they expected peak build rate to be 180 F-35 per year Lockheed Martin sees F-35 production rising to 180 units per year, despite high flying costs | News | Flight Global however this was later reduced to 156 per year, presumably due to less peak demand from USAF F-35 Production Set at 156 Per Year Until Completion | Air & Space Forces Magazine (airandspaceforces.com)

If USAF and USN decided to prioritize ordering more F-35, I am quite sure LM and partners can significantly scale up production across on least two of the three assembly lines to meet the increased demand.

To my knowledge there is just one small F-16V assembly line, and one small for the F-15EX, both in the US.
Air Force opens new F-16 production line for foreign military sales > Air Force > Article Display (af.mil)
Boeing is prepping to build more Air Force F-15s at plant near St. Louis – Chicago Tribune

As for the F-15EX costs: Air Force's math on the F-15EX and F-35 doesn't add up - Breaking Defense

The “Gross Weapons Systems” cost includes the “flyaway cost” and the per-jet share of the cost of unique equipment, simulators, and standing-up depots needed to support the aircraft. The gross weapons system cost of an F-35A adds up to $98.2 million in FY22.

The defense department calculates the F-15EX at $110 million. But that does NOT include the cost for simulators, EPAWSS, or the targeting and IRST pods required for combat. Adding in those costs brings the gross weapons systems cost for the F-15EX to $136.7 million — $38.5 million or 39 percent more than a fully loaded F-35A.

An unclassified CAPE report shows the cost to fly an F-15E for a full year is $7.7 million, compared to only $7 million for an F-35A. With the additional requirement to maintain EPAWSS and the IRST pod, the F-15EX will very likely cost more.

 

[John Fedup]

Well this is hardly a surprise.

South Korea Now Openly Discussing Arming Itself With Nuclear Weapons

With confidence in the U.S. nuclear umbrella shaken, Seoul is increasingly eyeing a direct counter to the North’s nuclear weapons program.

www.thedrive.com

Likely Japan is thinking about this as well but has the good sense to keep it on the down low. Like Russia, Chinese actions are a real driver for defence acquisitions. NK just enhances the potential for nuclear weapons acquisition by both SKorea and Japan

 

[swerve]

It seems to be generally accepted that Japan has what they call a "breakout capability", in that Japan has all the technology, plus materials, to make both nuclear weapons & delivery systems for them very quickly. It could adapt existing rockets to make ballistic missiles up to ICBMs, for example.

Talking about it openly is taboo for Japanese politicians, though.

 

[John Fedup]

It seems to be generally accepted that Japan has what they call a "breakout capability", in that Japan has all the technology, plus materials, to make both nuclear weapons & delivery systems for them very quickly. It could adapt existing rockets to make ballistic missiles up to ICBMs, for example.

Talking about it openly is taboo for Japanese politicians, though.

Should be for SKorean pollies as well:

 

[seaspear]

Actually I am not sure if this the case. There are three assembly lines for the F-35, the main one in the US, one in Italy that is used for Italian but also other European F-35s, and the line in Japan. In 2020 it was said that they expected peak build rate to be 180 F-35 per year Lockheed Martin sees F-35 production rising to 180 units per year, despite high flying costs | News | Flight Global however this was later reduced to 156 per year, presumably due to less peak demand from USAF F-35 Production Set at 156 Per Year Until Completion | Air & Space Forces Magazine (airandspaceforces.com)

If USAF and USN decided to prioritize ordering more F-35, I am quite sure LM and partners can significantly scale up production across on least two of the three assembly lines to meet the increased demand.

To my knowledge there is just one small F-16V assembly line, and one small for the F-15EX, both in the US.
Air Force opens new F-16 production line for foreign military sales > Air Force > Article Display (af.mil)
Boeing is prepping to build more Air Force F-15s at plant near St. Louis – Chicago Tribune

As for the F-15EX costs: Air Force's math on the F-15EX and F-35 doesn't add up - Breaking Defense

The “Gross Weapons Systems” cost includes the “flyaway cost” and the per-jet share of the cost of unique equipment, simulators, and standing-up depots needed to support the aircraft. The gross weapons system cost of an F-35A adds up to $98.2 million in FY22.

The defense department calculates the F-15EX at $110 million. But that does NOT include the cost for simulators, EPAWSS, or the targeting and IRST pods required for combat. Adding in those costs brings the gross weapons systems cost for the F-15EX to $136.7 million — $38.5 million or 39 percent more than a fully loaded F-35A.

An unclassified CAPE report shows the cost to fly an F-15E for a full year is $7.7 million, compared to only $7 million for an F-35A. With the additional requirement to maintain EPAWSS and the IRST pod, the F-15EX will very likely cost more.

Re the comparison between f-35 and f-15ex seems like comparing apples and oranges in capability what the f-15ex has an ability to carry thirty thousand pounds of ordinance under its wigs compared the six internally of the f-35 and can transport ordinance for other aircraft to use as per article
The Air Force's F-15E 'bomb truck' can now carry 15 JDAMS - Sandboxx
F-15EX: The U.S. Air Force Now Has a Real ‘Missile Truck’ (msn.com)

 

[Vivendi]

Re the comparison between f-35 and f-15ex seems like comparing apples and oranges in capability what the f-15ex has an ability to carry thirty thousand pounds of ordinance under its wigs compared the six internally of the f-35 and can transport ordinance for other aircraft to use as per article
The Air Force's F-15E 'bomb truck' can now carry 15 JDAMS - Sandboxx
F-15EX: The U.S. Air Force Now Has a Real ‘Missile Truck’ (msn.com)

It's true that F-15 has some unique capabilities. The F-35 also has some "bomb truck" capabilities that although not in the same class as F-15 is still above and beyond e.g., the F-16. In addition to the internal hardpoints the F-35 also has external hard points, and can carry 22,000 pounds of ordnance when using both internal and external hardpoints -- less than the 30,000 pounds of the F-15ec but still not too shabby. RAAF Flies F-35As in 'Beast Mode' for the First Time (lockheedmartin.com). The F-35A and C also have a long range on internal fuel only, reducing the need to use hardpoints for drop tanks.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

So according to this article the US supports Japan with the plan to become the third most powerful country in the world. With increasing the defence budget for 100% Japan wants to achieve that in just 5 years!

I wonder how they want to achieve that without WMD.

Biden steunt Japans plan om op twee na sterkste leger ter wereld te vormen

Het is de eerste keer dat de Japanse premier Washington bezoekt. Het bezoek moet symbool staan voor een versteviging van de militaire en economische samenwerking tussen de twee landen.

nos.nl

 

[John Fedup]

Perhaps Japan will have WMD, it just won’t be acknowledged (except maybe to America).

 

[koxinga]

It seems to be generally accepted that Japan has what they call a "breakout capability", in that Japan has all the technology, plus materials, to make both nuclear weapons & delivery systems for them very quickly. It could adapt existing rockets to make ballistic missiles up to ICBMs, for example.

Talking about it openly is taboo for Japanese politicians, though.

JAXA's existing Epilson class rockets are in terms of dimensions, broadly similar to an LGM-118 Peacekeeper and similar ICBMs. Not that they actually need it, since their primay focus is China, North Korea, which would fall into an IRBM range.

JAXA | Epsilon Launch Vehicle

Get information on the Epsilon Launch Vehicle. The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) performs various activities related to aerospace as an organization, from basic research in the aerospace field to development and utilization.

global.jaxa.jp

As for nuclear warheads, while they have the key pieces like fuel, I think their breakout capability is overstated. I am not implying they can't put a simple implosion device together, but a proper capability, minituraized warheads would take time and extensive modelling (without actually denotating a device, like the six tests of the North Koreans). But then again, a nuclear capability is a geopolitical statement as much as a real military capability.

 

[swerve]

They should be able to build an IRBM almost as quickly as re-tasking the Epsilon, by using fewer engine stages. Epsilon has three.