PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[bsdnf]

Correct!!!

The new doctrine developed for the USMC, which mandates these LSMs, focuses on deploying independent units of the force in support of the US Navy (secondarily, the USAF) in an attempt to contain or degrade Chinese naval capabilities in the Pacific in case of conflict.

To summarize quite simply, anyone knows that China has built an entire navy and an anti-access and area denial system off its coast to prevent entry. The US wants to have the capability to build an anti-access and area denial system so that the Chinese navy does not go far from its coast in case of conflict. Containment… The LSMs are merely a means of transport and support.

In other words, the Marines will no longer be the force that performs a forced amphibious entry into contested environments; they will bypass these contested territories and land on remote islands to deploy anti-ship systems, creating an anti-access zone for the PLAN.

Amphibious Assault
Operational Maneuver From The Sea: OMFTS
Expeditionary Advanced Base Operations: EABO

Amphibious Assault: This is the classic scenario, where the USMC would be employed as a force aiming for a massive and concentrated attack to capture a beachhead, opening space for a larger force: the US Army. This is where the large support assets they have in the Ready Reserve Force would come in, for example… The USMC's objective is not to "hold the ground."

OMFTS: A rapid and massive operation with large units (like the brigade below), where the USMC maneuvers by kicking down the door, conquering different objectives, which can be both on the beach and inland. Hence the great focus on aircraft, for example.

EABO: Dispersed operations with a large number of small units that can support the US Navy and USAF and degrade or even contain the movements and advance of Chinese forces in the Pacific.

The USMC doesn't want to carry out what they call a "forced entry" into the Pacific. Why? Because more than anyone, they understand the risks. That's where the EABO came from. The LSM is merely a means of transport and support for this doctrine.

The objective is not to take a beach defended by Chinese troops with these means. They will land on a beach and disembark a unit equipped with systems and weapons to harass Chinese forces. Primarily those that could be used to take that particular beach. In other words: the one who would have to carry out a forced entry, operating against A2/AD systems, would be China!

View attachment 169907
View attachment 169908

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

LOA: Littoral Operations Area.

Aka, the Japanese island garrison and 鼠輸送 during WWII. We all know what happened.

I'm getting increasingly annoyed by the meaningless slang used by the US military.

 

[latenlazy]

sorry but im not chinese or citizen of any big superpower nation to have a habit of underestimate the "rally under scared war" effect in a freaking ww3 situation like confict around taiwan

anyway your prediction sound just like many german and japanese before they attack soviet union and US =))

Sorry but your blind moralisms aren’t coupled to any material analysis. The Soviets and the US were the superior producers against Germany and Japan. Guess who that is in a US China war?

 

[tokenanalyst]

Yes but their theory of the case is that if you can set up and launch fast enough you call pull off a “surprise MFer!” followed by “GO GO GO”. Is this actually a sane idea in practice? I personally think it might be funny to see them try *shrug*.

There are many limitations, like deadly saturation attacks like with fragmentation munitions or fuel air explosive weapons, difficulty to hide from drone attacks, the possibility of being cut off with no way to retreat, supply issues and stockpile limitations.

 

[plawolf]

their plan is turn all small island connect taiwan to okinawa into small missile base pack with ready to launch mobile tomahawk , naval strike missile launcher
those mobile launcher and small missile base on tiny island not aim to last in case of being attack

the goal is to give china a dilemma :
1/ fire the first shot , launch a preemptive strike , easily destroy those missile kill US marines/japanese marines stations there....give US/japan the invalueable gift called " rally people under the The Sacred War flag" similar as operation barbarossa and pearl habor attack

2/ leave those island alone to avoid being the one trigger real ww3 and gave those tiny missile island benefit of "first shot advantage"

when that happen by the time china launch counter attack , those missile island already finish their job , launcher already empty , all the missile already head toward targets

Or the PLA can choose option 3. Park some LD3000s opposite the US missiles while also permanently having some CH/WL UCAVs stationed over those islands 24/7 loaded for bear.

US troops do missile launch prep and they get instant drone-struck with ultra HD footage to prove that China’s strike is pre-emotive self defence. Any missiles they do manage to get of will be immediately within CIWS range and will have zero chance of getting even across the water.

 

[Tomboy]

Or the PLA can choose option 3. Park some LD3000s opposite the US missiles while also permanently having some CH/WL UCAVs stationed over those islands 24/7 loaded for bear.

US troops do missile launch prep and they get instant drone-struck with ultra HD footage to prove that China’s strike is pre-emotive self defence. Any missiles they do manage to get of will be immediately within CIWS range and will have zero chance of getting even across the water.

Sounds good but where exactly are you going to put all those things? No Chinese controlled land are within that close of a range to these isles.

 

[mshrief303]

This concept shouldn't be underestimated, and it can be - and should be - used by China against US and it's allies.

We shouldn't only care about getting a big advantage of this concept alone, but look at how it'll benefits us if we did it repeatedly in a long war of attrition.

Also it can be used to:
- improve the capability of your ships at sea by supporting their firepower against enemies vessals, firing missiles, aerial & naval drones.
- providing air defence using long range air defence systems that you can network with your vessals, or use them as s forward air defence nodes to defend against your enemy's salvos, and that will make you detect and intercept your enemies salvos faster and way further than what you can if you use air defence from your land, and it can also help you to use short-range air defence and save your stocks of expensive & complex missiles.

 

[plawolf]

Sounds good but where exactly are you going to put all those things? No Chinese controlled land are within that close of a range to these isles.

LD3000s are only needed if they want to park missiles on the islands literally within visual range of the mainland.

For islands further out, you don’t even need CIWS since you will have plenty of time to organise interceptions with more conventional means given the slow speed of tomahawks.

 

[solarz]

If the US parks missiles on islands under Taiwan jurisdiction, then the PLA will destroy them in the opening salvo.

If they park it on Japanese controlled islands and fire on PLA forces, then China will destroy Tokyo and Guam in retaliation.

End of calculus.

 

[GulfLander]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/2024097646802055473

 

[leonzzzz]

their plan is turn all small island connect taiwan to okinawa into small missile base pack with ready to launch mobile tomahawk , naval strike missile launcher

For the love of god please, it's 2026. Can we stop pretending that Tomahawk/NSM are viable options against China please?

Primarily those that could be used to take that particular beach. In other words: the one who would have to carry out a forced entry, operating against A2/AD systems, would be China!

Using Tomahawk against A2/AD network in China is cute, as if Chinese AD is nonexistent along the Taiwan corridor. Not to mention how obsolete Tomahawks are. Also, how about the A2/AD fires coming from the mailand rear, or even Xinjiang? You plan on using anymore of those Tomahawk version 1.36 to reach that? Don't get me started on LRHW until it reaches 10 batteries deployment.