Waging an air war in North Asia – 2025 Scenario

Getting away from the mindless J-XX v F-XX debates, I thought it might be interesting to actually see how one would wage an air war in North Asia.

[u]The scenario – Taiwanese declaration of indepdendence[/u]

The only real reason for a more general war between USA and PRC would be if Taiwan declared independence. Such a declaration pretty much automatically instigates a Chinese military response (i.e. invasion).

And a Chinese military response near automatically invites a US military response.

The Combatants:
China

v

USA – with Taiwan,Japan, Australia, and the Philippines* in tow.

Russians, Indians, SE Asian, Vietnamese stay quiet – this is not their fight. There’s no major European contribution either.

South Korea is put on high alert against potential North Korean action and thus does not participate directly.

Chinese primary goals
– Take over Taiwan.

Chinese Secondary goals
– Neutralise RoCAF and RoCN quickly to enable invasion and then redeploy air and naval assets to deter US alliance.
– Neutralise US assets in region – this may involve strikes on Japanese bases.

US Coalition primary goals
– Restore Taiwan’s independence.

US Coalition Secondary goals

– Neutralise Chinese force projection capability
– Protection of Japan and Philippines from Japanese aggression.
– Contain China’s forces within Chinese coastal seas.

Key Force changes 2015-2025 – China
– Service entry of second carrier – assumes both carriers are operative at commencement of hostilities.
– Continued modernisation of all forces.
– Minor expansions of tankers, maritime patrol and long range amphibious capabilities.
– Fighter fleet bolstered by 5-6 regiments each of J-20 and J-21 (so 200+ 5th generation).

Key Force changes 2015-2025 – USA+Co
– Maintenance of USN carrier fleet at 11 ships.
– Continued modernisation of all forces.
– F-35 has entered servcice and is available in reasonable numbers for USAF and USMC. USN is still reliant on F/A-18 series (F-35 IOC only expected about 2019).
– Other forces have modernised but only limited as per current plans.
– Service entry of P-8 Poseidon as well as continued expansion of long range UAV fleets.

Some considerations for Chinese
– Do they launch a massive missile strike on Japan to destroy C3, AWACS and Maritime Patrol assets? Obviously this brings Japan into conflict but it damages key Coalition forces ability to coordinate an initial response considerably.

I doubt ABM systems would be able to stop even a tiny percentage of large missile strikes. No defence is perfect and in most cases offensive action is the best action.

– Neutralising Japanese based MPAs and naval bases also means PLAN would find it easier to redeploy submarines to Pacific whereby they could threaten US supply lines.

– What roles do the two carrier groups play? Do you deploy them in the seas surrounding China or try to break out into Pacific (this sounds suicidal).

– Does China risk using undefended Filipino air space to launch long range attacks (e.g. H-6) on Japan or US naval formations? This brings Philippines into conflict, the main problem being this would allow US to base offensive equipment there, thus opening a new front against the Chinese.

– China needs to keep SEA countries as well as India out of conflict to allow concentration of force in Northern theatre.

Some considerations for USA

– What roles do the carrier groups play? Do you risk them in seas around China where they could be at risk from submarine, naval and air action (including long range AShM barrages).

– Do you risk loading up Japanese and Philippines bases with offensive assets in order to be able launch a pre-emptive strike as soon as Taiwan declares independence?

Not only could this backfire and turn conflict nuclear or have political ramifications (US as aggressor), but the first strike would still not destoy all of China’s capabilities and you’d still risk losing a large percentage of your assets in any strikes on Japan.

– Do you risk strikes on continental China?

– The key importance of shutting down PLAN submarines in Pacific as quickly as possible. Roving submarines pose risk to commercial shipping and modern ones have long ranges. This means diluting naval forces to create hunter-killer groups.

Role of tactical aviation
– PLAAF/PLAN tactical assets would of course be useful against RoCAF/RoCN assets.

– However distances are large which would limit more shorter range aircraft ala F-16/-18/-35 or J-10 etc.

– Air refuellers are at high risk – either from Cruise Missile/Ballistic Missile strikes (no hardened shelters big enough for a KC-135 or Il-78) as well as marauding longer range stealth assets (F-22 and J-20).

– Tactical fighters would of course be useful for attempting to stop longer range strike assets (i.e. traditional defence roles).

– Bases close to action risk being destroyed in missiles and long range combat strikes.