Thread: x-47b

Alot of Asia's trade and Japans oil from the ME sails through the Straits so you can figure on Japans cooperation as well. And many fishermen make their living in the Straits.

If we look at it in a sensible way, Taiwan poses no threat to Mainland China, yes it would make an invasion a costly one but you cannot force people to want to become part of the mainland if thats their will. They want democracy not a communist type of system.

The 1979 Taiwan Relations Act proclaimed American support for the peaceful reunification of Taiwan and the mainland, and commited the United States to help Taiwan defend itself in case of Chinese aggression.

There has been many "rebuffs" between China and the US over Taiwan.

Originally Posted by paintgun

@Dreadnought, yes sir, glad you made your point in this case

@Zraver, sir Z, By the high risk and complex nature of such invasion itself, i believe that the day this happens (probably never will) PLA will ensure that they can meet their objectives. A small fleet of UCAVs will IMHO be one small element of the larger battlefield. Or in other words, limited response will not stop PLA from taking Taiwan.

Its not the US' job to stop the invasion, just set the stage for the RoC to do so.

Unless the USN fully commits the carrier(s) and other(USAF) assets

Why?

Or, the UCAVs come with the whole package i prescribed before, the complete swarm of NGB escorted by UCAVs and aided by ISR assets, delivering the payload of 2-3 CVNs worth of Hornets sorties with the penetration capabilities of B2s, pounding PLA into submission.

Don't need to pound the PLA into submission, just sink the phibs.

PLA has been living under the threat of B-2s and Tomahawks, they understand this. And they have been watching US unleash such capability from time to time. And they understand that the real knock down punch will come from the carriers. Hence their strategy of keeping the carriers away further and further away from Taiwan. We can almost say their strategy is solely focused on that.
That one shot might never come at all. And it must come at the right and the right place.

A lot of nations have tried to figure out how to neutralize the advantage of sea power from the shore.... its never been done.

PLAN numerous diesel subs will pose a high threat to USN assets regardless of the overall situation, the USN must hunt them, block by block, or take risk and clean up on the way.

The DE boats are a mix of junk and OK kit and some of them have decent range and weapons. But they cannot run as fast or as far as quietly as nukes can.

Tomahawks will not as effective towards opponents with sophisticated layered air defenses, lets say compare Russia/China with Iraq/Kosovo/Libya. Airfields and other important bases will be defended by multitudes of short range AAAs/SAMs.

Take a real good look at a globe... do you see just how big China's coast is? Protecting the Chinese coast from a hostile ingress is likely as hard as protecting Russia's western boarders from such, except tomahawks ain't Cessnas.

PLAAF fighters will operate from inland bases under the umbrella of IADS, giving the enemy fighters/strikers a twofold risk.

Great the US/RoC want them to operate from inland bases- cuts their time over the straits and Taiwan giving the RoCAF the fuel and thus energy advantage.

What the PLAAF cant do, ballistic missiles will take care of. Even if the PLAAF is rendered impotent, the missiles will still rain down on Taiwan and get the job done.

Not even close but a surprisingly common myth on the net. Lets say China has 5000 missiles aimed at Taiwan. That is about double current estimates. lets see each one has a 1000kg warhead. That makes the entire Chinese missile force the equivalent of just 625 super hornet sorties.... well the hornets have a CEP measure in inches not meters... Now do you think just 625 missions can cripple a modern nation? I don't, they can terrorize but not destroy.

PLAN surface ships are increasingly capable, and is being built in large numbers. Though not a match for USN ships pound for pound, they remains a challenge to be dealt with in conjunction with other PLA elements.

How? if its an honest to goodness war the US will be on the backside of Taiwan, not sailing through the middle. So unless you think the PLAN is going to sortie into open waters I ask again how?

Amphib invasion is a difficult complex operation and hard to defend from attackers at sea. As a result, PLA is working not on how to defeat USN in such scenario, but to remove USN altogether from it strategically. Either by risk or by reach. ie anti access/denial

The problem however is the USN is working on the same problem from a different perspective. Plus the Chinese problem is magnitudes larger. Any Chinese invasion will have to stage from known ports and air fields, there will be pre-attack intel all sorts of stuff so the area the US needs to deny to the PLA/PLAAF/PLAN is fairly small and well known. Chia on the other hand needs to be able to move to deny US access anywhere the USN decides to set up shop. South of Taiwan, North of Taiwan, East of Taiwan... that is a lot of ocean to cover.... The Soviets tried to cover just a single city in the 80's and had a US carrier launch a nuclear mirror strike on Vladivostok with no warning for their troubles. The Soviet's sheepishly embarrassed decided to launch a mock attack of their own- silly chest thumpers... That strike ran into another US carrier's fighters.... Oops Ivan...

I'm not trying to chest thump for the US. But at least for now the US has the cards to win the game if we choose too. China knows this, for the most part their talk is tough and they might harass a boat or plane or two, but they know a real shooting war ends with a Chinese loss and thus a real risk of the death of the PRC.

The USN/USAF also understand this move, hence the recent coined AirSeaBattle concept. It is trying to remove risk (carriers, crew, pilots) and extend reach, payload and penetration capability at the same time.

Now it's China's turn to present a counter move.[/QUOTE]

Here is a recent David Axe article from The Diplomat about how the PLAN submarine threat has not materialized to the extent that many were expecting. China

In his article he links to another, longer article from Owen Cote of MIT who very convincingly (at least to me) explains the advantages held by the US underwater and how unlikely it is that this will change in the foreseeable future. Its great reading for those of you who have the time.

The notional Carrier launch and recovery Configuration [UCAV-1] is a carrier takeoff and landing concept in which launch and recovery are accomplished by way of catapult and arresting hook. The propulsion systems investigated during Joint Strike Fighter and predecessor programs (JAST, ASTOVL) typify the technologies that are applicable to UCAV-1. Operations on various types of air-capable surface ships are also to be explored, including cruisers, small-deck amphibious ships and carriers. A high-low-low-high mission profile for attacking high-value fixed targets or for suppressing enemy air defenses (SEAD) with a goal of 600 nmi radius.

Apparently the X-47B will have a 1,500+ combat radius and 4,500 lb (2,045 kg) Internal payload capacity.

The F/A 18 C/D had a 13,700 payload and with the E/F two additional wing store stations were added for 17,750. But the Hornets are limited to range, without refueling, to only 400nm.

Combat radius specification:

Interdiction with four 1,000 lb bombs, two Sidewinders,
and two 1,818 liter (480 U.S. gallon: 400 Imp gallon) external tanks,
navigation FLIR and targeting FLIR: Forward Looking Infra-Red
hi-lo-lo-hi

390 nm

So the X-47 would be a nice addition, the combination of range, and limited payload capacity, would make it primarily for SEAD operations in highly hostile air space. But it would only have 1/4th of the payload of a super hornet or 1/3 depending on the configuration.

Yet, it's not really fare to compare to the B-2.

This platform is based off of a naval platform, and not land based, which has it's benefits and drawbacks. This provides the USN with it's own long-range, remotely-piloted, stealthy, SEAD suppression asset. Without risking Hornets, and depleting cruise missiles stocks and complementing the JSF.

However, space is limited, and I am not sure how these platforms will fair on the flight deck and elevator area. You would need three of these platforms to equal one Hornet of payload, yet three of these platforms would equal the payload (lb's of explosive) of 4 Tomahawk each. So I am not sure how many are planned to be on a carrier, and what the strike package would look like.

But if you got 8 of these platforms, on a carrier, comprising of a strike package that is essentially each carrier having a B-2. Minus the 12,000 miles of flight from Whitman, or how ever far from Diego Garcia, and coordinating with the USAF and without all the in-flight refueling. Yet it would never replace the B-2 and the B-2 would be needed in any conflict with it's 50,000lb of payload. This would just augment the USN. And give it a nice little capability of loiter time, and able to track down and hit those mobile SAM's and radars that evade targeting means by shutting off there radar. Plus you have much more flexibility, a strike package of 8 of these platforms can target 8 different areas simultaneously. Also factor in, at say 500nm away from the battle or coast, IE. Chinese coast near Taiwan, how many times those platforms can drop there payload return and drop there payload again compared to a platform from Diego Garcia.

A route over international waters and friendly NATO airspace -



a direct route -



B-2 cruising speed @ 560 mph / rounded of 9,000 miles = about 16 hours each way and 32 hours round-trip and & +1 hour for reloading,fresh crew = 49 hours until the launched, refitted, and launched again and bombs dropped. A direct route would probably be preferred, and given the situation would probably be likely. I doubt there would be much car for the airspace of Indonesia in a US/Chinese/Taiwanese conflict. So 560mph / rounded off to 4,000 miles = 7 hours each way - 14 hours round trip & +1 hour for reloading.fresh crew = 22 hours until another target is bombed with the same platform.

In any conflict, regarding the Straits, do you guys see Guam being more preferable? What's the likelihood of B-2's being positioned? Diego Garcia has only been the other base outside of the United States.

Anyways, if there are 2 Carrier groups, each with 8 of these platforms, within say 700-1,000 nm of the area of conflict or straits how much ordinance could be dropped? FAS states "High subsonic" but the tests so far has only reached about 200 mph. Maybe I don't have a link to the latest test. Lets just estimate to fly 700nm or 800 miles it would take about 1.5 hours. Return 3.0 hours. And with relaunch and point of impact of another strike = 5.5 hours. 8 platforms (36,000lbs payload) within a 15 hour period could drop 108,000 lb's of bombs. That's the capacity of 2 B-2's. So 16 of these platforms could drop the capacity of about 4 B-2's in a 15 hour window. Around the clock, and remoteness, you get the idea. Cruise Missile have different warheads "BLU-97/B Combined Effects Bomb" then the JDAM's 1,000 "MK-83's" and the 2,000 "Mk-84". But the X-47b is to carry two JDAMS 2,000lb class. So in 15 hours, a strike package of 8 platforms could hit 48 different sites and targets or 16 of these could hit as much as 96 cruise missiles.


As for the JSF, in a SEAD, stealthy configuration, it would have the same payload as the X-47B. Internally, the F-35C can still carry the 2,000lb JDAM's correct?


Edit - Just found out the wings can be folded. Wingspan 60 ft and folded 30ft. Anyway 10 of these could be put on a Carrier?

During the X-47B's 39-minute second flight on March 1, the aircraft flew to an altitude of 7,500 feet at speeds up to 200 knots. During its 41-minute third flight on March 4, the aircraft reached an altitude of 7,500 feet and a top speed of 180 knots. By comparison, the X-47B flew only to 5,000 feet at a top speed of 180 knots during its first flight Feb 4.

According to Phil Saunders, chief engineer for Northrop Grumman's Navy UCAS program, envelope expansion is designed to fully characterize the aircraft's flying qualities and prove that they match the system's performance requirements and the test team's predictions.

"Over the next few flights, we'll continue to expand the envelope in terms of air speed, altitude and operating weight range," he said.

"By gradually ramping up the complexity of requirements, we will systematically prove that this air system can safely take off, fly and land in all anticipated flight environments."

Northrop Grumman and the Navy expect to complete the planned 49-flight envelope expansion program at Edwards Air Force Base before moving the first X-47B to Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., later this year, he added.

Originally Posted by paintgun

with all respect sir Z, American waters is an increasingly hard term to apply to Taiwan strait and more so into the future
i was about to write a long reply but i think maybe you know already of all that and even more than i do

How can the Chinese contend with the USN now and into the future?

They lack true stand-off capability, and they severely lack ISR. Without any ISR, there is no possibility they can counter a US carrier task force and hence secure the straits from interdiction of your AMPHIBIOUS and other Naval assets. Factor in that you don't have the ability to even conduct Air denial operations within your own territory sufficiently to prevent land-based, carrier-based, and other assets from striking your command & control, runways, and other installations.

How is China prepared to fight the Taiwanese effectively with the elimination of air bases, installations, and AMPHIB assets? Especially in a very extreme hostile environment? I can tell you, the USN has the ability to make that Taiwan Strait the most hostile body of water in the world. Every square inch of that 100 miles of one side to the other under constant threat. I cannot see the Chinese operating in that area, and deploying assets, where they have to contend with 3 Carrier task force groups and dozens and dozens of SSBN's and SSN's.

What strategy is the PLAN planing or what strategy do they have in place to eliminate a carrier task force and her carrier based platforms (these would be F/A Hornets) so that they can not conduct SEAD, and CAP and threatened your land based air force and Naval assets? Further more, what strategy is the PLAN developing to counter the large SSGN's and SSN's and other surface vessels that have hundreds of Tomahawks that threaten your surface fleet and prevent any sort of successful cross strait crossing? After that, what is the PLAN strategy to effectively retake the country of Taiwan in the so called anti-succession law with the above conditions prevailing? Is the PLA going to drop a half million men in the countryside without any means of supply?

I will tell you one thing though, in which the Chinese have the capability to do, is to make it very bloody in the Korean peninsula. If some how they got the North Korea to start a conflict in South Korea, and the Chinese were to get involved, there would be no way to stop China/North Korea without US boots on the ground and a very bloody conflict if Seoul were threatened.

Originally Posted by zraver

I'm not trying to chest thump for the US. But at least for now the US has the cards to win the game if we choose too. China knows this, for the most part their talk is tough and they might harass a boat or plane or two, but they know a real shooting war ends with a Chinese loss and thus a real risk of the death of the PRC.

What if it was a land conflict, though? And not just the straits, and that was just a precursor? Does the US have the ability to go from Seol all the way to Beijing? Or essentially, starve China into submission and hold the the 43th & 44th (North Korean Border) parallel?



The Northeast Area (Shenyang Military Region): The total strength was approximately 310,000 persons, organized into 5 army groups as of 1998.
The Capital Area (Beijing Military Region): The total strength amounted to about 410,000 persons, organized into 6 army groups as of 1998.
The Strategic Reserve (Jinan Military Region): The total manpower was some 240,000 persons, consisting of 4 army groups as of 1998.

In 1998, the northeast region and Beijing had 11 army groups with another 4 army groups in reserve.


Currently, I supposed Beijing has 3 army groups - the 27th Army, 38th Army, and the 65th Army. Shenyang three group armies, and two armoured, one mechanised, four motorised, and one artillery division. The 54th group army and 20th group army is also close by. Nanjing also has another three group armies.

That's about six group armies within 100-200nm? And 11 group armies within about 700-1,000 or from San Diego to Dallas, Texas. I don't think it would be much logistically to create a hell hole on the Korean peninsula. And if the United States doctrine is tactical nuclear weapons, I am sure they can field tactical nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula also. If it were to escalate, and involved civilian centers, which I don't think the Chinese would escalate as they maintain conventional ground superiority, then they couldn't reach us but they could reach Japan. Which would be devastating. Any scenario with China isn't good. Just hope any pissing contest doesn't blow open a can of worms on the Korean peninsula.