PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[Gloire_bb]

Yes, I think the optimal assets to deal with these types of "guerilla" missile launch units is a combination of space-based surveillance & long endurance stealth drones (GJ-X comes to mind, if we can make a large number of them cheaply). Space based surveillance to see where such units are sailing to, & a stealthy “察打一体" type of long-range UCAV to strike ships with YJ-19 (or some comparable air-launched variant thereof) ideally before they land to minimize munitions expenditures.

Space reconnaissance and heavy stealth drones lobbing heavy supersonic ASCMs(aka ones unable of advanced AI search patterns and with rather limited radar only seeker) deep into contested area?

This doesn't add up. The only thing such effector is good at is time-sensitive prosecution of larger, more obvious asset; it isn't even a weapon against LSMs (much less smaller distributed assets), it's a weapon to hit LHAs.

But LHAs aren't directly in consideration. And contrary to, no, LSMs aren't front line movers. Not even ships in accessible bluefor backline are of operations. Look for smaller and far more obscure, low individual cost targets, operating short sprints in space ISR windows - either natural or created.

 

[plawolf]

In theory, although tomahawks, NSMs, etc. are technologically outdated, they're not more "outdated" than any tech that's used in UCAVs such as Iran's Shahed. In sufficient numbers & when used properly (e.g. with sufficient volume of fire), they are still a threat that can't be ignored. This situation is roughly analogous to Iranian Shaheds or Russian Gerans, just because you can easily shoot them down, doesn't mean you can just ignore them, especially in large volumes.

However, in the present context, one of the flaws I see with the US approach is that they trying to essentially fight an "island-hopping guerilla war" in the Pacific, where they quickly insert into some lightly defended or undefended island, fire off a few missiles, then retreat before the PLA's own "counter-battery fire" hits them. The problem here then is that the US will have a trade off between speed & volume of fire. The larger the salvo, the bigger the footprint, the slower it is in the setup-shoot-scoot process. Also, the bigger the salvo, the most space constrained they become, & the fewer choices they have for islands selection. Too large of a salvo is vulnerable & might be preempted by PLA hypersonic assets even before they fire off their missiles. Too small of a salvo & it either won't have enough volume of fire to overwhelm PLA IADS, or is too small to deal meaningful damage.

Worse than that, the US approach fundamentally underestimates Chinese long range drone (air, surface and sub sea) and manned second line asset volumes and capabilities. And that’s not even considering the civilian element.

I think it’s frankly bonkers to expect to be able to sneak ground forces onto islands in opfor’s geographic front yard to set up missile batteries, do a co-ordinated strike with other such batteries, pack up and exfil in this day and age.

At best this is a long arse way to do a suicide attack, but most likely your forces are going to get detected and obliterated between landing and set up, never mind fire and disengage.

Compare and contrast this to China’s container ship arsenal ship and the difference in the level of thinking at the conceptual level is frankly insane. And the PLA has a demonstrated real life capability whereas the America dream is basically still in PowerPoint stage.

To be frank, it would be a quantum leap if the Americas just dropped their island hoping nonsense and just copied the Chinese container ship idea.

 

[latenlazy]

Space reconnaissance and heavy stealth drones lobbing heavy supersonic ASCMs(aka ones unable of advanced AI search patterns and with rather limited radar only seeker) deep into contested area?

This doesn't add up. The only thing such effector is good at is time-sensitive prosecution of larger, more obvious asset; it isn't even a weapon against LSMs (much less smaller distributed assets), it's a weapon to hit LHAs.

But LHAs aren't directly in consideration. And contrary to, no, LSMs aren't front line movers. Not even ships in accessible bluefor backline are of operations. Look for smaller and far more obscure, low individual cost targets, operating short sprints in space ISR windows - either natural or created.

Your logistics tail to do a rapid deployment shoot and scoot for some tiny islands don’t just appear out of thin air and the thing about islands is that they’re fixed positions which make them easy to monitor.

 

[mister unknown]

Your logistics tail to do a rapid deployment shoot and scoot for some tiny islands don’t just appear out of thin air and the thing about islands is that they’re fixed positions which make them easy to monitor.

Agreed. I find the US idea of converting transport aircraft into makeshift missile trucks (rapid dragon?) far more operationally feasible (relatively speaking) than the idea of small scale amphibious landings on islands with missile launchers.

Not being confined to a limited number of small islands & being able to release missiles from anywhere within range allows for far greater operational flexibility & speed.

Of course, the trade off is that the transports are tied to traditional air strips, & they're non-stealthy, so they have to launch missiles with very long range in order to survive. Of course, the longer the range, the fewer they can carry.

 

[ForcedTrend]

with the US deploying everything to middle east isn't it an oppurtunity for china if they start a war with iran?

 

[solarz]

Yes, I think the optimal assets to deal with these types of "guerilla" missile launch units is a combination of space-based surveillance & long endurance stealth drones (GJ-X comes to mind, if we can make a large number of them cheaply). Space based surveillance to see where such units are sailing to, & a stealthy “察打一体" type of long-range UCAV to strike ships with YJ-19 (or some comparable air-launched variant thereof) ideally before they land to minimize munitions expenditures.

No, the optimal solution is to destroy any nearby US and Japanese bases. Those ground forces then becomes completely isolated and helpless.

The thing that many seem to be missing here: the moment the US enters the conflict, the PLA strategy must and will change from retaking Taiwan to defeating the entire US forces in the Pacific area, as well as any reinforcements and vassal forces. When that happens, island hopping marines become irrelevant.

 

[leonzzzz]

The Tomahawk is just one component part of the anti-access system they're creating in the Pacific. You don't always have to interpret things literally. The debate was about the use of Tomahawks and which targets would be appropriate.

I reiterate that the US has decided to diversify its anti-ship capabilities:
Ship-launched:
Harpoon
NSM
SM-6
Tomahawk MST
–
Submarine-launched:
Harpoon
Tomahawk MST
Mk-48
–
Air-launched:
Harpoon
SLAM-ER
LRASM/LRASM-ER
JSOW-C1
Storm Breaker
Quicksink
JSM
–
Land-launched:
NSM
Tomahawk MST
SM-6
–
Anti-ship weapons in advanced stage of development:
SM-6 Block IB
PrSM/S2
SiAW

Their objective is clear: to avoid being exposed, avoiding employing their naval assets within a Task Force in the weapons engagement zone, as they did in the Pacific theater of World War II. They will bypass the Chinese anti-access bubble and create their own anti-access zone against the PLA. Of course, it will be difficult to determine the survivability of the connector ships, because they will be fundamental to the logistics of this concept.

I don't disagree about the "systems" argument in all of this (after you getting warned by Blitzo). But you are diverting from the original point on the usefulness of MLRs. Do you notice how futile the land-launched aspect is and how logistically cumbersome it is to deploy MLRs to middle of nowheres compared to fires readily available by USN ships and air squadrons?

Also, there is no need to list them all in a 报菜名 fashion to make them sound scary. They are not.

Tomahawks and air-launched LRASMs might be the only options that don't put the launch platforms at serious risks of PLAN anti-ship fires. And even those ranges are being (or already have been) closed in by PLAN fast, plus Tomahawk being a nonLO subsonic target. All the other options are so laughable and futile in a Taiwan contingency (Quicksink, Harpoon and SM6? Are you kidding LMFAO?). You even had to repeat SM6 3 times, Tomahawk 3 times, Harpoon 3 times and NSM 2 times to make up the big scary list. Please stop and get help.

 

[mister unknown]

No, the optimal solution is to destroy any nearby US and Japanese bases. Those ground forces then becomes completely isolated and helpless.

The thing that many seem to be missing here: the moment the US enters the conflict, the PLA strategy must and will change from retaking Taiwan to defeating the entire US forces in the Pacific area, as well as any reinforcements and vassal forces. When that happens, island hopping marines become irrelevant.

Destroying US bases is a given in any conflict scenario. The whole reason the US is coming up with this rhetoric about so-called "distributed lethality" is precisely because they don't expect their bases to remain operational beyond the first few hours of a war.

 

[tamsen_ikard]

with the US deploying everything to middle east isn't it an oppurtunity for china if they start a war with iran?

I think its a great opportunity for China to have a massive exercise around Taiwan, Japan and SCS. Put pressure on US allies and show that US is powerless to do anything.

In the SCS, China can use this opportunity to seize some islets from PH control. Do some major ramming action, Maybe even do some Galwan valley style Hand to hand combat.

 

[supersnoop]

Their objective is clear: to avoid being exposed, avoiding employing their naval assets within a Task Force in the weapons engagement zone, as they did in the Pacific theater of World War II. They will bypass the Chinese anti-access bubble and create their own anti-access zone against the PLA. Of course, it will be difficult to determine the survivability of the connector ships, because they will be fundamental to the logistics of this concept.

This seems laughable.
You expect to fight what is potentially the biggest war in decades and not lose any naval assets? Simply not realistic. If American war plans are basically fantasy, then Taiwan's government better unban 5-star flags.