Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Michaelsinodef · Apr 21, 2022

FairAndUnbiased said:
Yet in WW2 Luftwaffe flew until their airfields got conquered.

The thing I have a problem with is that PLA can't wait for a few weeks of leisurely bombing like Desert Storm to suppress Taiwanese air to 0 sorties.

Right now Russia has 20x the sorties per day (~200) of Ukraine (~10). They've finished off most Ukrainian fixed wings. Yet they still take occasional losses. They only have air superiority, not air supremacy.

PLAAF is more capable than RAF but ROCAF is also more capable than UAF. Expectations need to be adjusted.

I'd say suppressing ROCAF to <10% PLAAF sorties within 3 days, <5% within 7 days, <1% within 10 days would be a good benchmark.

But in conjunction with the air suppression campaign should be a naval surface/subsurface campaign to achieve naval goals such as mining harbors, cutting undersea cables and pipelines, etc. instead of waiting.

Before the aerial campaign we should significant attack by land based missiles.

If the PCL-181 (or whatever designation it has) really has a range of its stated 300 km (likely to be the case), it should conformtably be able to hit millitary targets west to the mountains on Taiwan (that's what? 80% of the island?).
And I would not be surprised if the number of these missile trucks are in the 100+, so a lot of damage can be done (there's also DF-17 for say patriots and other critical air/missile defense).

And the above should be able to be done in the first few opening hours, before the skies get swarmed with drones and jets.

All in all, I would say it's very safe to say that the PLA can get air superiority in like possibly less than 48 hours.

FairAndUnbiased · Apr 21, 2022

Michaelsinodef said:
Before the aerial campaign we should significant attack by land based missiles.

If the PCL-181 (or whatever designation it has) really has a range of its stated 300 km (likely to be the case), it should conformtably be able to hit millitary targets west to the mountains on Taiwan (that's what? 80% of the island?).
And I would not be surprised if the number of these missile trucks are in the 100+, so a lot of damage can be done (there's also DF-17 for say patriots and other critical air/missile defense).

And the above should be able to be done in the first few opening hours, before the skies get swarmed with drones and jets.

All in all, I would say it's very safe to say that the PLA can get air superiority in like possibly less than 48 hours.

Air superiority (advantage in the air and suppressing enemy air to ground) will be the easy part. Total air supremacy will be harder, even with a rocket and missile first strike.

I believe the very first strike should be by terrain hugging subsonic cruise missiles launched at odd angles (maybe from aircraft, maybe from missile boats on "routine patrol") for taking out their early warning capabilities. Speed is not too important for first strike, stealth is.

Then follow up with fast flying rockets and ballistic missiles to quickly destroy time sensitive targets like planes on the ground before they take off or missile batteries in the process of dispersing.

Then follow up with fixed wings to take out smaller, concealed targets, mobiles, etc.

Then finally, drones for mopup.

Simultaneously though, the non air defense elements of the PLAN need to be moving to achieve sea dominance and striking, not waiting.

Mohsin77 · Apr 21, 2022

FairAndUnbiased said:
Yet in WW2 Luftwaffe flew until their airfields got conquered.

Before the invasion of Normandy, Eisenhower famously told his troops not to worry if they see planes overhead, since they would be under his command. He gave this as a guarantee before launching the invasion. The Luftwaffe was functionally kaput by April 1944. Operation Overlord was launched in June.

FairAndUnbiased said:
The thing I have a problem with is that PLA can't wait for a few weeks of leisurely bombing like Desert Storm to suppress Taiwanese air to 0 sorties.

First of all, "Air Supremacy" does not equal "0 sorties." Air supremacy = "That degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference"

Secondly, there is no reason why China would necessarily need "weeks" to achieve Air Supremacy versus Taiwan. It depends on its capabilities and war planning. But even if it does take that long, so be it. Blockade the island, and get it done. And if it can't do any of the above, then simply wait and don't launch the invasion.

Basically, do anything except this:

FairAndUnbiased said:
PLAAF is more capable than RAF but ROCAF is also more capable than UAF. Expectations need to be adjusted.

Incorrect. Very incorrect!

You don't drop expectations. You increase your capabilities and make a better plan.

And don't get pulled into launching an invasion until your ready.

FairAndUnbiased · Apr 21, 2022

Mohsin77 said:
Before the invasion of Normandy, Eisenhower famously told his troops not to worry if they see planes overhead, since they would be under his command. He gave this as a guarantee before launching the invasion. The Luftwaffe was functionally kaput by April 1944. Operation Overlord was launched in June.

First of all, "Air Supremacy" does not equal "0 sorties." Air supremacy = "That degree of air superiority wherein the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference"

Secondly, there is no reason why China would necessarily need "weeks" to achieve Air Supremacy versus Taiwan. It depends on its capabilities and war planning. But even if it does take that long, so be it. Blockade the island, and get it done. And if it can't do any of the above, then simply wait and don't launch the invasion.

Basically, do anything except this:

Incorrect. Very incorrect!

You don't drop expectations. You increase your capabilities and make a better plan.

And don't get pulled into launching an invasion until your ready.

Sometimes situations are forced on you. Say that tomorrow Taiwan tests a low yield WW2 style nuke. Give up? Let them get second strike?

Mohsin77 · Apr 21, 2022

FairAndUnbiased said:
Sometimes situations are forced on you.

You're never obligated to launch an invasion, that is always your decision.

FairAndUnbiased said:
Say that tomorrow Taiwan tests a low yield WW2 style nuke. Give up? Let them get second strike?

If that actually happened, and China had no idea that Taiwan was going nuclear until the day before, then China has much bigger problems and they definitely shouldn't be launching any invasion lolz. That would be a massive intelligence failure and who knows what else they missed and what they'd be walking in to.

I'll say again, you should never launch invasions as a reflexive response to external events before you're ready. If you do, that's a strategic failure, regardless of the operational outcome. Russia made this mistake. And I'm fairly certain China won't repeat Russia's mistakes.

FairAndUnbiased · Apr 21, 2022

Mohsin77 said:
You're never obligated to launch an invasion, that is always your decision.

If that actually happened, and China had no idea that Taiwan was going nuclear until the day before, then China has much bigger problems and they definitely shouldn't be launching any invasion lolz. That would be a massive intelligence failure and who knows what else they missed and what they'd be walking in to.

I'll say again, you should never launch invasions as a reflexive response to external events before you're ready. If you do, that's a strategic failure, regardless of the operational outcome. Russia made this mistake. And I'm fairly certain China won't repeat Russia's mistakes.

historically that's not what happens though. Korea, Sino-Indian War, etc. all occurred because the situation was forced on China. China had to take the tactical offensive because strategically China was being pushed to the wall.

We don't know what Russia actually knows, but

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. Ukraine has a highly credible delivery system, as their Yuzhnoye Design Bureau builds the Zenit and Dneper rockets, and built Soviet ICBMs like the R-36. Russian sources also claimed Ukraine had military biolabs, which is factually true. Whose to say Russia did not detect an imminent Ukrainian threat and acted to strike first to disrupt it?

OK, let's say that PLA detects an imminent Taiwanese threat of some sort. Maybe a nuclear test is being prepped. Maybe an IRBM program got started. Maybe US is preparing to ship warheads. Something that forces the situation.

Current PLA capability suggests that Taiwan will likely lose 90% of their sortie capability within a few days. But as we see from Russia's situation in Ukraine, even the other side losing 95% of sortie capability can still result in a few air to ground potshots and without sufficient air to ground capability, it still doesn't mean your forces will have sufficient air support, it only means enemy troops are denied air support.

gelgoog · Apr 21, 2022

Zelensky himself went to a European security conference in Munich and said his country was going to get nukes. To reporters.
And yes Ukrainian politicians, members of government, members of parliament, had been saying that for years.
And it is not even that they just had those design bureaus and factories for the liquid ICBMs. They had Tochka missiles in service and still do. The Tochka was designed to optionally carry a tactical nuclear warhead. They were also designing the Grom with 500km range. Enough to hit all the Russian major cities from their territory basically. So... they had the delivery devices and enough industrial base to make even ICBMs if they wanted to.

Then you could say, sure, what about the nukes themselves? Ukraine has some of the largest uranium deposits in Europe, actively mined, one of the largest civilian nuclear power industries, they have nuclear research reactors, researchers, and they have a program to make and process their own nuclear fuel rods with the US. Just think about that.

I still think the war is wrong. But the US has went to war on much flimsier excuses.

Mohsin77 · Apr 21, 2022

FairAndUnbiased said:
historically that's not what happens though. Korea, Sino-Indian War, etc. all occurred because the situation was forced on China. China had to take the tactical offensive because strategically China was being pushed to the wall.

We don't know what Russia actually knows, but
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Ukraine has a highly credible delivery system, as their Yuzhnoye Design Bureau builds the Zenit and Dneper rockets, and built Soviet ICBMs like the R-36. Russian sources also claimed Ukraine had military biolabs, which is factually true. Whose to say Russia did not detect an imminent Ukrainian threat and acted to strike first to disrupt it?

OK, let's say that PLA detects an imminent Taiwanese threat of some sort. Maybe a nuclear test is being prepped. Maybe an IRBM program got started. Maybe US is preparing to ship warheads. Something that forces the situation.

Current PLA capability suggests that Taiwan will likely lose 90% of their sortie capability within a few days. But as we see from Russia's situation in Ukraine, even the other side losing 95% of sortie capability can still result in a few air to ground potshots and without sufficient air to ground capability, it still doesn't mean your forces will have sufficient air support, it only means enemy troops are denied air support.

Face Palm Jwrc Sticker by FIA World Rally Championship for iOS & Android | GIPHY

.... I don't think you're getting the core concept here lolz

The whole point of strategy is to not get "pushed into the wall." For the Nth time: If you get cornered in a dark alley and have to fight your way out, that's a failure of your situational awareness, even if you manage to win the fight. All you're saying (over and over again) is that we should be prepared to fight in a bad situation. Well, frekkin obviously, but that's completely irrelevant to my point.

But whatever. Good luck with your war planning and launching invasions without prioritizing air supremacy etc. I'm done.

FairAndUnbiased · Apr 22, 2022

Mohsin77 said:
.... I don't think you're getting the core concept here lolz

The whole point of strategy is to not get "pushed into the wall." For the Nth time: If you get cornered in a dark alley and have to fight your way out, that's a failure of your situational awareness, even if you manage to win the fight. All you're saying (over and over again) is that we should be prepared to fight in a bad situation. Well, frekkin obviously, but that's completely irrelevant to my point.

But whatever. Good luck with your war planning and launching invasions without prioritizing air supremacy etc. I'm done.

I don't need luck. This scenario happens all the time in the real world. Notice how I talk metrics like sortie rates while you only know binary air supremacy yes or no. Clearly one of us thinks through the actual challenges in meeting this requirement and mitigation if it can't be met.

Mohsin77 · Apr 22, 2022

FairAndUnbiased said:
I don't need luck. This scenario happens all the time in the real world. Notice how I talk metrics like sortie rates while you only know binary air supremacy yes or no. Clearly one of us thinks through the actual challenges in meeting this requirement and mitigation if it can't be met.

Oh really? A few posts ago you didn't even know what "air supremacy" meant. You thought it meant enforcing "0 sorties" lolz. You were also using "real world" examples which were contradicting your entire premise, like the WWII European theater.

And when you got exposed, you abandoned the above and quickly flipped your entire argument to Taiwan getting nukes randomly, as if that would save you. However, when one fundamentally misunderstands the principle involved, then "metrics" don't matter. Nothing you have said touches the core argument.

All you're doing is pushing for China to deprioritize air supremacy in planning for the Taiwan scenario. It's a ridiculous suggestion, not unlike others I've seen from you before, like your advocacy of war crimes. This is the problem with Hitler-wannabes. They think they know what they're doing, but they only end up losing wars.

Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

Mohsin77

Senior Member

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

Mohsin77

Senior Member

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

gelgoog

Brigadier

Mohsin77

Senior Member

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

Mohsin77

Senior Member