 |
| The current issue of the USNI Proceedings (1) reports that China has reached a deal to license-produce Tu-22M Backfire bombers. The arrangement will initially result in 36 bombers which is regimental strength from the old Soviet days and was believed to be the amount needed to defeat a US Navy carrier group...via Navy Matters Blog |
36 Backfire Bombers.
Old word tech updated with modern weapons.
The Chinese are launching a MAX EFFORT strike to take out one of our carriers. We've seen a couple of Regiments of SU-27 (family) Strike Fighters...we've seen Fast Attack Missile boats...we've seen subs...and we've seen the J-20's.
But if there is any airplane that should chill the blood of the Commander of a Carrier Battle Group, it should be a Backfire Bomber loaded with the latest anti-ship missiles produced by the Russian military.
That's exactly what's headed toward our mythical fleet in the Pacific. They've been shrugging off body blows all day. They've seen almost half their escorts taken down by those irritating J-20's that seemed to be going after them(!) instead of the carrier...and now we have the march of the mega predator of sea strike.
F-22's have been scrambled and the Air Force has instructed the pilots to shake the planes apart if they have to but to get to the scene as soon as possible. Same goes for the train of Tankers that will be needed to refuel them. The carrier has put up every airplane it has and is trying to work out a refueling schedule. Full missile loadouts are being carried by the F-18's so while they have an impressive load out of 12 AIM-120D's apiece they don't have any extra space for spare gas....F-35's are also roaring to the area to do their part and a couple of America Class LHA's are making rooster tails in the water trying to get to the location.
But its too late.
The Backfire Bombers launch at distance.
The remaining escorts knock down half the incoming missiles.
The airwing along with the early arriving F-22's knock down another quarter
Only 5 missiles hit. But they hit at the waterline and between the blasts from the missiles, the secondary explosion from munitions carried onboard and the lack of training in damage control, its obvious in 5 minutes that all is lost.
Our carrier sailed into dangerous waters. It poked the dragon and the dragon bit back.
4000 Sailors are missing and presumed dead.
The pride of a nation sits at the bottom of the Pacific.
The President's popularity rating plumments, the Secretary of Defense resigns, as does the Secretary of State.
The war has just begun but we're already behind the 8-ball.
NOTE:
The point of all this (as I've said before) is to illustrate what I see as the composition of the Carrier Battle Group being outdated. Tommorrow I will post how this battle should have gone with a robust Air-Sea and LAND battle integrated into planning...how a LHA acting as a Sea Control Ship could have made a difference, why we should disperse F-22 basing and why the USN should get fully onboard stealth and electronic attack. Oh and finally why the LCS should be terminated post haste and replaced with an anti-air frigate.
Good "what if" exercise but kind of assumes we have been at a standstill in weapons and tactics development in that 5-20 years. No LRS? No Conventional Prompt Global Strike? No awesome power projection via LCS (OK, threw that one in to be silly)?
ReplyDeleteRead James Kraska "How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015" (if you have not already) at http://www.fpri.org/orbis/5401/kraska.navalwar2015.pdf for a more holistic scenario that requires far less then 4 blog entries worth of fire power.
No matter what, this kind of stuff stirs good debate! Thanks for the Blog and Keep it coming!
i hadn't read that ... but i will.
DeleteNice fan fiction, but there have been rumors about the ChiComms getting the Tu-22M since the early 90s, and until we see the PLAAF or PLAN take deliveey of a Backfire this is a rumor. But overall good "what if" series.
ReplyDeleteare we really to believe that a nation that has embarked on building stealth airplanes will be satisfied flying 1950's era bombers? are we to believe that they won't be updating those airplanes poste haste...especially with the US turning toward the Pacific? are we to believe that the US and our allies will be the only ones to make modifications to plans and equipment purchases to match this new reality?
Deletewhether its backfires or another long range strike airplane we can bet body parts that the Chinese will improve its forces. its a given.
I'm not saying the ChiComms aren't modernizing their forces, I just don't believe that they are going to get a regiment of Backfires. Personally, I think that the Tu-95/Tu-142 would serve their purposes better.
DeleteI agree China is going to improve it's forces but it's up to Russia if they want to sell them Backfires and I'm not sure they've agreed to do it yet. It's not really a question if they're satisfied flying the Tu-16 but rather anyone will sell them something better or they can develop it on their own which is doubtful unless Russia will sell them NK-25 class engines.
ReplyDeleteThe Tu-22M is a great aircraft and the NK-25's a great achievement in the late 1960's. It is interesting however to compare to the FB-111 which weighed less than half but carried about 2/3rds the load about as far and faster and all this with the problematic TF-30's.
While the Tu-22M would certainly be an additional threat it's worth remembering it's a 1960's redesign of the 1950's Tu-22. Since the Tu-22M we've designed and put into service the B-1 and B-2 and are working on a new bomber. China isn't capable of creating engines like the NK-25 and according to most reports the deal is they'd buy them from Russia. They're working hard on their aerospace industry but they're still pretty far behind in many areas.
If China really does achieve this level of threat I'd suggest the F/A-XX (NGAD) be given a higher priority and that the USN take a long hard look at the range requirements and consider a significant increase. It's also worth considering 36 Chinese Backfires targeted with a Tomahawk each requires 3 SSN's. We don't have to wait for them to take off.
I think an issue you are not considering that really reduces China's strength is what the overall strategy would be. Why do the carriers need to sail straight into the strongest parts of China's defenses? In this scenario I see them being kept outside the first island chain to command the antisubmarine effort and protect convoys resupplying our allies. This way the carriers are fighting from a defensive position supported by P-8's, F-22's, AWACS and tankers.
ReplyDeleteWhile the carriers are keeping the sea lanes open, the PLAN and PLAAF can be worn down by air and submarine launched cruise missiles and mining of their harbors. In the ~2030 of you scenario it is possible that the US will have both the Next Generation Bomber and the Virginia class SSGN's which would both make substantial contributions to this effort.
I actually see more use for LCS in this scenario than a AAW frigate. We already have 80 top of the line AEGIS warships and a frigate probably couldn't carry either the radar needed to detect stealth aircraft or the quantity of SAM's required to stay in the fight. LCS on the other hand is a relatively cheap way to get two helicopters and a towed array to sea. Even if its ASW capabilities prove insufficient, it can be put to use interdicting Chinese merchant vessels in safer areas.
Taking a step back, I would say that the our military scenarios focus too much on weaponry and tactics rather than on strategy.
ReplyDeleteThe Chinese have shown a willingness to mess with other countries trade. Look at the way they have been messing with Filipino agricultural imports which got the Philippine gov't to back off the fishing row in the Spratlys.
Considering the level of infiltration in our computers via Chinese microchips, cyber espionage and the Chinese favoring asymmetric tactics, we'd have to consider wide-spread havoc of our economy.
Grocery stores unable to order food shipments
trucking companies unable to find destinations
oil refineries shut down
electrical grid experiencing rolling black outs or brown outs
health insurance companies having their customers records erased, etc.
hospital records frozen
banks and brokerage houses transferring trillions to offshore accounts
military bases unable to take inventory or having items routed to wrong locations.
Yes, we could shutdown the Chinese economy the old fashioned way with subs shutting down shipping lanes and cruise missiles blowing up pipelines in Western China, but they could shut ours down with viruses similar to Stuxnet.
I know this scenario isn't as fun to speculate about as carrier groups and cruise missile barrages, but this spectrum of warfare is absolutely going to be in play if we go to war.
People decry China's mercantilism, but until we develop a trade policy that doesn't require China to manufacture everything we used to in this country, we're vulnerable. Heck, where would we get our tennis shoes and televisions if the Chinese declare war on us. Walmart would be toast.