Posted on 12/30/2007 5:02:56 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Fuel needs limit China's combat ability
HONG KONG, China, Dec. 28
ANDREI CHANG
Column: Military Might
By calculating the amount of fuel oil required by the Chinese navy and air force in a large-scale attack across the Taiwan Strait under high-tech conditions, it becomes apparent that such an assault could not be sustained for an extended period.
For an attack on Taiwan, China would likely mobilize 10 fighter divisions of the PLA Air Force. In fact, only one to two regiments under each division are armed with third generation fighter aircraft. According to reliable sources, the total number of Su-27, J-11A and Su-30 fighters now stands at 281.
Each Su fighter can carry up to 9.4 tons of fuel, with a maximum combat radius of 1,500 kilometers. Since the Su series are mostly deployed at second-front airports, it can be roughly estimated that each sortie would consume about 9.4 tons of oil. As a result, sorties by the full third-generation fighter fleet would consume 2,641.4 tons of fuel. In a high-intensity confrontation, if China launched two rounds of large-scale air raids, fuel consumption by the Su aircraft alone would likely double to 5,282 tons.
As for the 117 Tu-16 (H-6) serial bombers, one H-6 is usually loaded with 45,450 liters of fuel, each liter equivalent to 0.86 kilograms of gasoline so that the total capacity is approximately 39 tons to meet the combat needs of its maximum 6,000-kilometer flight range. If three H-6 divisions undertook large-scale transfer operations, the required round-trip flight to the opponent's targets would be around 2,000 kilometers. Each H-6 sortie would consume over 13 tons of fuel and the whole H-6 fleet would consume 1,524 tons.
The number of J-10s in the PLA air force fleet may reach 100 in 2008. These planes have a fuel capacity equivalent to that of the F-16 fighters, approximately 3.24 tons, and a combat radius of 925 kilometers. Photos of the J-10 published in official Chinese media show that it has external oil tanks. The J-10As are mainly deployed at second-front airports; thus it can be calculated that the J-10 fleet would consume 324 tons of fuel in its sorties.
Launching a large-scale assault operation would also involve the transport of a large number of troops. The Il-76 airlifter's internal fuel capacity is 70 tons, which can sustain approximately six hours in the air. If half of the fuel capacity were consumed in each sortie, the existing 20 Il-76s would need 700 tons of fuel for each operation. At least three to four strategic air transport operations would be required each day, requiring a daily maximum fuel consumption of 2,800 tons.
The JH-7A fighter-bomber's internal fuel capacity is approximately 9 tons, calculated with reference to similar Su-24 fighter-bombers. Suppose each sortie involved two regiments, or 48 JH-7A, the total fuel consumption would be 432 tons. Two rounds of air raids each day would bring overall consumption to 864 tons. These calculations are based on the minimum standard and do not take into consideration the fuel capacity of external fuel tanks fitted on these aircraft.
Regarding fuel consumption by the navy's fleets there are no exact figures. As the tonnage standard of the PLA Navy fleets is comparatively small, it can be calculated that the daily average fuel consumption of the fully mobilized South Sea Fleet, East Sea Fleet and North Sea Fleet would be roughly equivalent to the daily minimum consumption of the U.S. Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier battle group, or approximately 400 tons for each fleet.
Based on these calculations, should high-intensity warfare break out across the Taiwan Strait, the daily fuel consumption of the PLA Air Force would be a minimum of 10,794 tons, taking into consideration only the third-generation fighters and H-6 bombers, JH-7A fighter-bombers and attackers. Actual consumption would be far greater if the large number of J-7E and J-8F serial fighters and Q-5 attackers currently in service are figured in.
The three major fleets of the PLA Navy would have a daily fuel consumption of 1,200 tons. As a result, the navy and air force would consume a total of 11,994 tons of fuel each day on average.
An initial large-scale landing operation against Taiwan would likely involve 20 divisions or brigades of amphibious, light and heavy mechanized troops. If each mechanized division or brigade needed fuel reserves for 500 kilometers, and one division or brigade consumed an average of 200 tons of fuel each day, the daily total of the 20 divisions and brigades would be 4,000 tons. Here, helicopters deployed by the ever-growing Army Aviation Forces have not been included.
The combined fuel needs of all combat forces engaged in an assault on Taiwan would amount to a minimum of 15,994 tons each day, not including the Second Artillery Forces and logistic support troops. These calculations alone indicate that the PLA forces would need a total of 240,000 tons of fuel to sustain 15 days of assault operations against Taiwan.
What is the total annual fuel consumption of the Chinese armed forces? A report published by the PLA General Logistics Department in 2007 says that the PLA forces saved 55,000 tons of oil in 2006, approximately 5.1 percent of their total consumption. Based on this figure, the total would be over 1 million tons, about 2,954 tons on average per day. It can be concluded that fuel consumption in a 15-day large-scale assault operation would surpass 20 percent of the annual total consumption of the Chinese military.
The hard fact is that China has only 7 million tons of oil reserves available for a period of conflict. The country has set its 30-day oil reserves at 10 million tons for civilian consumption, an average of 330,000 tons per day. During a 15-day assault, the country would require 4.96 million tons. The conclusion is that China's current oil reserves could sustain a high-intensity assault operation against Taiwan for no more than 15 days.
--
(Andrei Chang is editor-in-chief of Kanwa Defense Review Monthly, registered in Toronto Canada.)
History suggests this would be a bad idea. 'Rat regimes dither and appear indecisive, because they are, and thus encourage aggressors who expect the propitiation you predict. But internal politics and plain reality impel them to respond with force. Roosevelt did it in WW II, Truman did it in Korea, Kennedy did it in VietNam. If it came to pass, Clinton would do it in the Straits of Taiwan.
Too true. People seem to have forgotten that the lack of oil was a reason why Japan began WW2.
One of my son’s roommates at VMI is from Taiwan and will head back after graduation to serve in the Taiwanese army. He’s here visiting with us now and we were just talking about this the other night. I’ll print it out and give it to him. Thanks!
Would China necessarily need to invade Taiwan to drive it’s point home??????The current situation more or less,is not too bad for China afterall.
Most people think China would act only if Taiwan provokes it i.e. push/declare independence.No major country recognises Taiwan & all China would need to do in theory,is to weaken the Taiwanese military-an invasion is not the only means to do that.
Who would deploy those mines in Chinese ports???
Iran has likely dedicated its national export oil production to China's use in exchange for nukes,via North Korea.
Just set a few satellite passes dedicated to ground penetrating radar scans looking for enoromous storage tanks and there you will find the answer.
The Chinese are too meticulous to let oil supply slow them down. They have all they need to invade Taiwan.
This assumes much about mainland tactics. Logistics is the awareness of obstacles and the planning to operationally overcome those obstacles.
In this scenario, perhaps the execution would be an unconventional attack. To have enough forces in the major cities to make them impossible to remove, by the US, without destroying those cities.
In such circumstances, long before hostilities, they would infiltrate an extraordinary number of fifth columnists, using commercial travel. Such people would be tasked with becoming part of the civilian infrastructure of Taiwan. This could take years.
Perhaps a military invasion would be designed to be stealthy, tasking as little as a brigade for each major city. Most likely by using cargo ships instead of military transports. Their purpose would mostly be “insurance”, if the fifth column needed support.
The idea would be to have “an invasion without invading”, perhaps with the complicity of a Taiwanese political party and several large corporations.
The only real obstacle would be the command of the Taiwanese military. Optimally, the military would be ordered to stand down by the civilian leadership.
From that point, the two things the “new” government would need to insure was that as far as the public was concerned, it was business as usual, like Hong Kong; and that there was going to be no “real” invasion, with mainland troops destroying things.
They might even sweeten the deal with a whole slew of “aid” coming from the mainland. Essentially trade and travel deals to open the doors wide to a friendly reunion. No threats of punishment to anyone, as well.
It would also need a major diplomatic initiative around the world, to let everyone know that the “peaceful reintegration” of China had taken place, and any foreign actions would be seen as “unprovoked, aggressive war” against China.
Another reason for us to be drilling in ANWAR, the Caribbean, the Gulf, and off the Coast of California. Also, build a lot more refineries.
I hope you are right, but the last democrat to "do it" was Kennedy and he failed to press on to victory. As the current crop of (D) presidential hopefuls shows, that sort of democrat is near extinction. A rat prez like The Beast, put in power by the radical Left, I think will fold in the face of aggression in the tradition of Saint Jimmy Good.
Er, that is rather Saint Jimmy The Good. (proof thrice, enter once).
Like those of Japaneese heritage during WWII, most would be loyal to the U.S.
We usually have several hundred thousand folks visiting China at any one time also.
Wouldn’t count on them as fighters either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.