PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[Overbom]

This is all a physics problem.

US is trying to fight a (imo) peer opponent at a battlefield which is very close to the opponent's center of gravity while its own center of gravity is like half a world away.

That would be ok if the US was trying to bully a third rate opponent, but when fighting against a superpower right at their backyard, it's plain suicidal thinking

I keep rolling my eyes when I see childish number comparisons of platforms and weaponry when no thought is given to actual logistic challenges

Patch's posts should be a mandatory read before polluting the thread with all sort of nonsense

 

[Sinnavuuty]

Analysis of the U.S. military's equipment procurement in 2025, especially in terms of air defense and ammunition. Despite rising military spending, the number of purchases of critical ammunition is declining. For example, the number of Patriot missile purchases has been decreasing year by year, and development funding is expected to continue to support the Pacific deterrence program in 2025. In addition, the number of purchases of guided bombs such as Jetdam has also dropped significantly. Although the US military plans to produce a certain amount of ammunition, most of it has been consumed by Ukraine and Israel. The production of long-range standoff strike weapons such as solutions is also much lower than that of China and Russia, which means that the U.S. military may be insufficient in long-range strike capabilities. At the same time, the video also details the purchase quantity and cost of a variety of missiles, including the Sidewinder 9X, AM120, Javelin, Rasmus, Trident, Standard Six, A116 and New Tomahawk. Among them, the purchase price of the new Tomahawk has soared from 68 and 34 in 2023 to 22 in 2025, and the unit price has soared to a shocking $35 million.

Do you have a source for this? I doubt a single Tomahawk unit costs $35 million.

 

[Sinnavuuty]

Repost here for reference:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The 3,400 nautical mile round trip from Guam to Taiwan would limit the U.S. Air Force to about 740 fighter sorties and 33 bomber sorties daily, even after reinforcements. The total number of fighter and bomber sorties the U.S. and allied air forces could muster from the second island chain, including Guam, would be roughly 26 percent of what China's PLAAF can generate. If the decision were made to move U.S. fighters to forward basing in the first island chain—Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines—the USAF could almost double its sortie rate to roughly 1,850 sorties a day, but that is still less than half what the PLAAF could generate.

Based on this statement, I counted 3,557 PLAAF sorties. In other words, even after the Americans and allies used the FIC as a forward base against China, they would still have half the PLAAF's sorties.

This difference appears likely to only increase over time.

 

[vincent]

Based on this statement, I counted 3,557 PLAAF sorties. In other words, even after the Americans and allies used the FIC as a forward base against China, they would still have half the PLAAF's sorties.

This difference appears likely to only increase over time.

Higher. The article’s statement is “less than half”

 

[Heresy]

1. You are assuming the US wouldn’t be able to pre-position forces in the event of armed reunification, unless it was disguised as a routine drill turned into a surprise attack, the US would certainly be able to tell and pre position forces and the US 7th fleet can send ships in a matter of hours since it’s stationed in Japan already and they can send bombers from US mainland in a day to Guam and than into the theater.

2. Yes, that’s true but China would face the same, if not greater risk trying to move supplies 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait during war and also under fire, this isn’t something the US would only face, and this isn’t ww2, logistic lines are dispersed they aren’t exactly easy to cripple.

3. Okinawa is the closest major base, but the US also has other major bases within the Indo-Pacific and range alone doesn’t decide combat effectiveness but how the forces are positioned, what matters isnt the distance but Guam, Philippines and Japan are all important factors in any war that involves the US.

4. To actually hamper any US base you would need muptile volleys, AD isn’t perfect some will get through but you need more than a few to destroy an base and do you think Chinas can handle US missiles? What matters is can they still project force if not how long can they project force again?

5. Show me where the DoD agrees with your statement, and opinions are opinions even if you disagree and there is absolutely no reason for you to resort to Ad hominem, if you can’t debate without that then you shouldn’t be debating and shows more about your position than it does mine. It’s fine that you disagree but there was no reason for Ad hominem.

And to answer the rest of the responses. First the number of ships don’t matter in war what matters is the type of ships. And I’m not just counting weapons I’m counting the amount the US can bring to the table and their capabilities and Allie’s, these are all imporant things to consider they’re not irrelevant. And while the US is falling behind in hardened airbase shelters they are starting to build them and do have same to say they have none is not true and US bases are guarded with the PAC-3 and Aegis destroyers.

I was tempted to post a point-by-point refutation of this, but seeing as many other members have already chimed in on this, I feel this is no longer necessary. Just looking at his post, a few summarizing points come to mind:
a.) This guy feels that the U.S. can simply mass forces in a Peer Rival's backyard completely unmolested or unnoticed.
b.) This guy has no conception of distance and no appreciation for logistics.
c.) He has no idea how missile strikes slot into defensive and offensive operations.

Mod: Remove personal attack portion.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China learns from the Kinmen Model to adapt its strategy for a naval campaign against Taiwan
After a year of patrols around Kinmen, China has integrated elements of the Kinmen Model to redesign its plans for a military campaign against Taiwan and include a greater role for the Chinese Coast Guard.

 

[TheWanderWit]

Im done here, you won’t listen to anyone that doesn’t agree with you and you always resort to insults like you have in every conversation with me, you are an grown adult for crying out loud, insults don’t make you look cool, I said my points what btw you didn’t rebute other than saying but missiles, the US has thousands of missiles btw and missiles can damage Chinese bases too but you don’t want to hear that, and btw I’m not contuining because it’s a waste of my time not because I can’t continue, and one more thing just because people agree with you doesn’t make me wrong or you right.

Im done here it’s a waste of my time, I hope you have a good day and along with everyone else and for those who didn’t resort to insults, i appreciate it. We can agree to disagree on stuff and that’s ok. I have my opinion on this matter and so do you guys

They don't. Vast majority of the US' munition inventory is just glide bombs and subsonic cruise missiles. It's very "one-dimensional" compared to someone like China. Glide bombs are useless here so you're just left with subsonic munitions, which are very easy to shoot down with modern AD, and would likely only come from submarines and air. Even before you get to any land-based AD or shipborne AD, those would have to get past AEW aircraft and hundreds of fighters with AAMs. US has no realistic ability to damage China's bases or mainland. It's just unrealistic and they don't have large salvo capabilities. China has like 200+ airbases scattered across their country, not even counting civilian ones that can be used.

 

[manqiangrexue]

They don't. Vast majority of the US' munition inventory is just glide bombs and subsonic cruise missiles. It's very "one-dimensional" compared to someone like China. Glide bombs are useless here so you're just left with subsonic munitions, which are very easy to shoot down with modern AD, and would likely only come from submarines and air. Even before you get to any land-based AD or shipborne AD, those would have to get past AEW aircraft and hundreds of fighters with AAMs. US has no realistic ability to damage China's bases or mainland. It's just unrealistic and they don't have large salvo capabilities. China has like 200+ airbases scattered across their country, not even counting civilian ones that can be used.

We've already told him that shit 50 times. His answer is, "You're underestimating the US. Subsonic missiles are deadly and can harm bases if they connect, right? So that means America can win!" LMFAO A dude with a hatchet is deadly and can hack everyone to death one at a time if they don't defend themselves, so he can win against any nation, right?

 

[PLAwatcher12]

I was tempted to post a point-by-point refutation of this, but seeing as many other members have already chimed in on this, I feel this is no longer necessary. Just looking at his post, a few summarizing points come to mind:
a.) This guy feels that the U.S. can simply mass forces in a Peer Rival's backyard completely unmolested or unnoticed.
b.) This guy has no conception of distance and no appreciation for logistics.
c.) He has no idea how missile strikes slot into defensive and offensive operations.

And given this guy's absolutely awful grammar, I'm questioning whether this individual is actually an American college student. I was having real difficulty parsing his posts. The fact that some of his posts were made during hours after midnight in the U.S., I really do wonder if he was drunk-posting some of these.

First off my points were logistics aren’t impossible for the US during wars and missiles alone don’t win wars, and I did say if the US knew war was coming they could but anyways there is absolutely zero need for insults especially personal ones, this is supposed to be a professional forum not where you get to throw personal insults because they disagree with you.

Mod: Removed references to deleted post.

Again there is absolutely zero need for personal insults just because someone disagrees with you. This is supposed to be a professional forum and personal attacks really shouldn’t belong here.

Also to everyone laughing at my grammar I have dyslexia. Personal attacks shouldn’t belong here

 

[tokenanalyst]

one more thing just because people agree with you doesn’t make me wrong or you right.

You are wrong.