Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

ACuriousPLAFan · Nov 13, 2022

dasCKD said:
It'll honestly be hard to turn that into a useful system for the PLA. This kind of lurking submarine works great for Europe, filled with choke points and lots of massed land-based air power and fires which force ships into narrow, predictable channels. In the expanse of the Pacific against the USN, these vessels would struggle to even remain in one place as it fights against the waves of the ocean. In the Pacific, you want systems that can move quickly like SSNs or airborne missiles/drones. USVs are much more useful for ensuring that any US submarine that wanders into the SCS gets found and sunk.

FairAndUnbiased said:
narrow, predicable channels like all the islands lining the rim of the East China Sea up to Okinawa? or the SCS? or the Straits of Malacca? or as a stealthy first strike weapon against the ECS facing ports of some certain regional powers?

I think if China are to employ USVs and UUVs in war, it would be mainly within the First Island Chain, especially to guard and pluck all the chokepoints along the chain and transforming the chain into a protective ring.

In fact, there are many key chokepoints along the First Island Chain which PLAN USVs and UUVs should take advantage of, not just in the South China Sea:

Clockwise from C1 to C7:
1. Chokepoint 1 (C1) - The Korea Strait, which spans from South Korea (mainland Asia) in the west to Japan's Kyushu in the east through Tsushima Island.
2. Chokepoint 2 (C2) - Along the Ryukyu Islands, which spans from Japan's Kyushu in the north to Taiwan in the south. The Miyako Strait is among the larger spans of open water to consider.
3. Chokepoint 3 (C3) - The Luzon Strait, which spans from Taiwan in the north to the Philippines's Luzon in the south through the Batanes Islands.
4. Chokepoint 4 (C4) - Along the Palawan Islands, which spans from the Philippines's Luzon in the north to Malaysia's North Borneo in the south.
5. Chokepoint 5 (C5) - The eastern regions of the Java Sea, which spans from Indonesia's South Borneo in the north to Indonesia's Java in the south. Arguably, this is the longest span of open water with few islands along this chokepoint.
6. Chokepoint 6 (C6) - The Sunda Strait, which spans from Indonesia's Sumatra in the west to Indonesia's Java in the east.
7. Chokepoint 7 (C7) - The Malacca Strait, which spans from Indonesia's Sumatra in the west to Peninsular Malaysia (mainland Asia) in the east).

Any ships and submarines that enter or exit the regions within the First Island Chain (i.e. East China Sea and South China Sea) MUST past through any of these 7 chokepoints.

Therefore, these 7 chokepoints are where I believe the PLA should allocate some of their USVs and UUVs at, in order to defend and intercept any attempted warship and (particularly) submarine intrusions from outside the First Island Chain.

ACuriousPLAFan · Nov 13, 2022

dasCKD said:
Don't be ridiculous. If the USN is dumb enough to push their way through those channels before the entire PLAN is at the bottom of the ocean, then they'll deserve to get sunk. It's just natural selection by that point.

Having carriers means that the USN can persecute war from well beyond the first island chain where the bulk of PLARF munitions can't quite reach and where their air power can still be effective without being unsurvivable. The USN isn't going to be sailing through the Straits of Malacca or into the SCS with their carriers in an event of a hot war with China any more than they would be sailing up the Yangtze river.

I believe submarines and submersibles (both manned and unmanned) operated by the US and her allies are indeed a greater concern WRT operating within the First Island Chain and along the Chinese coastline. Not so much for warships, as the PLAAF and PLARF can take good care of them even if without significant PLAN input.

Therefore, those checkpoints (as per mentioned in my previous post in this thread) should be plugged with PLAN USVs and UUVs to intercept any incursion attempts by submarines and submersibles of the US and her allies.

tankphobia · Nov 13, 2022

I'm just wondering what kind of endurance we are talking, those kind of jetski engine powered surface drones must not have more than a few hours of endurance, make it under water you'll probably cut it even shorter. You might be thinking of oceanographic USV and UUVs, but those moves at a snails pace and can't carry a useful payload.

Sinnavuuty · Nov 13, 2022

Bellum_Romanum said:
Is your contention that all these ASEAN countries will coalesce around the U.S. if and when the shooting war starts between the two countries? I can see the Philippines Japan, Australia participating since the the Filipinos are a quasi American satellite state and is a treaty ally by the U.S. the rest of ASEAN countries would be in a hl of a rude awakening if and when they do decide to commit a suicide Pact (which is what America is essentially forcing them to do) by participating in attacking China.

And when China does comes out on top with their war against the U.S. then what do you think will happen to those ASEAN countries?

It's not a statement. It is a provocation exercise. The provocation is to analyze if really all the countries in the region or most of them will adopt neutrality between a war between the USA and China, I can accept the optimistic version that there will be neutrality, but I do not share this optimism because I see clear intentions and directions that this may not really be true.

Biscuits · Nov 13, 2022

Sinnavuuty said:
It's not a statement. It is a provocation exercise. The provocation is to analyze if really all the countries in the region or most of them will adopt neutrality between a war between the USA and China, I can accept the optimistic version that there will be neutrality, but I do not share this optimism because I see clear intentions and directions that this may not really be true.

There's just too many guns pointed to most of those nations for them to contemplate aiding a crazy war of aggression against China.

If you stay neutral or help China tacitly, its not like US has the ability to start attacking everyone. On the flip side, China's active defense doctrine means they will hit your infrastructure with at least some drones and possibly heavier munitions too. Countries like Indonesia or Thailand have very limited air defense, navy and air force.

Even actual states that are united into USA such as SK or Japan will not necessarily help. Especially SK that faces direct bombardment and land invasion from the 38th parallel.

A realistic estimate would be that regional US puppets act similar way as Belarus has done in the Ukraine war. Optimistic estimate would be that SK or even Japan declares open neutrality.

Saying Indonesia will help an American invasion is US nationalist cope pipe dream levels of belief. Its like those Russians who think Poland will help them by invading Ukraine from the other side lmao.

AndrewS · Nov 13, 2022

Sinnavuuty said:
It's not a statement. It is a provocation exercise. The provocation is to analyze if really all the countries in the region or most of them will adopt neutrality between a war between the USA and China, I can accept the optimistic version that there will be neutrality, but I do not share this optimism because I see clear intentions and directions that this may not really be true.

The intentions and direction have become far clearer since the Ukraine war, which is clearly a case of one nation-state attacking another fully recognised nation-state which is a democracy.

Note only the West has even enacted sanctions. The rest of the Global South haven't enacted any sanctions, even though it would be almost painless to do so, as Russia is geographically distant and an economically minor player overall. Even symbolic sanctions against Russian individuals (who will never leave Russia and have no assets to freeze) haven't been enacted.

In conclusion, the Global South (comprising 7 of 8 billion people in the world and 60% of Gross World Product) has decided to be neutral.

---

Looking at ASEAN specifically, all countries in the ASEAN region do not recognise Taiwan as a country and formally accept that China-Taiwan are still in a state of unresolved civil war. Even the US is in the same situation, as it removed US troops and the US embassy from Taiwan back in 1979, and recognised China instead.

Only Singapore has enacted sanctions on Russia. And Singapore has been very clear over many decades (both in private and public) that they will be neutral in a China-US war.

So what does this tell you about the current situation? Do you see people in ASEAN clamouring to enact sanctions and join a war on Russia? India is another example as well.

Furthermore, look at the direction of Chinese military and economic capability.

In 10-15 years time, we're likely looking at a situation where China has outright military superiority up to 3000km from the Chinese mainland, even if the US military were to intervene.

And economically, we're looking at a Chinese economy approaching twice the size of the US economy. It would be very silly for countries in ASEAN to choose the US, instead of remaining neutral and playing both sides.

AndrewS · Nov 13, 2022

@Sinnavuuty

But let's play devil's advocate and say Indonesia does choose to support the US in a war with China.
And let's say that the US wins a conventional war that somehow doesn't go nuclear.

What then?

In the aftermath of WW1 and WW2, it took 5 years for countries to rebuild and get to pre-war output levels. So let's take this as a worse case. Then how long would it take to rebuild the entire Chinese military?

If we look at destroyers, China currently has about 40 modern AEGIS-type destroyers in service and has demonstrated an ability to launch 10 destroyers in a single year back in 2019 during peacetime. So China has recently demonstrated the capacity to build a replacement Destroyer fleet in as little as 4 years.

We see something similar with Chinese Frigates. I call it about 50 vessels with Frigate-level capability and missions.
In the year of 2021, 8 Type-054 Frigates were launched by a different set of shipbuilders.
So the Chinese Navy could receive a replacement Frigate fleet in as little as 6 years.

You get similar calculations for other major weapons systems.

But with missiles and drones, these are actually a lot easier, cheaper and quicker to build.
That applies especially to Shaheed-136 type drones which cost $20K and have a range of 2500km.

---

The second point is that a demilitarised China currently spends 1.7% of GDP on the military, which is only half of the 3.5% that the US spends.
In the aftermath of a war and with China rebuilding its military, we can expect the Chinese figure to easily double to match the US figure.
The implication is that the Chinese military will support a force structure which is twice the size of todays. For example, 80 AEGIS destroyers + 100 Frigates

And looking further into the future, let's say China has an economy twice the size of the US
How much larger would the Chinese military be in that case?

There are very good reasons for countries to be neutral

tygyg1111 · Nov 13, 2022

Sinnavuuty said:
It's not a statement. It is a provocation exercise. The provocation is to analyze if really all the countries in the region or most of them will adopt neutrality between a war between the USA and China, I can accept the optimistic version that there will be neutrality, but I do not share this optimism because I see clear intentions and directions that this may not really be true.

I am sure that Chinese planners have and are considering the scenarios (and worse) that you have outlined. What we think here is just a best guess, which has no effect whatsoever on actual events if and when they unfold.

Biscuits · Nov 13, 2022

AndrewS said:
@Sinnavuuty

But let's play devil's advocate and say Indonesia does choose to support the US in a war with China.
And let's say that the US wins a conventional war that somehow doesn't go nuclear.

What then?

In the aftermath of WW1 and WW2, it took 5 years for countries to rebuild and get to pre-war output levels. So let's take this as a worse case. Then how long would it take to rebuild the entire Chinese military?

If we look at destroyers, China currently has about 40 modern AEGIS-type destroyers in service and has demonstrated an ability to launch 10 destroyers in a single year back in 2019 during peacetime. So China has recently demonstrated the capacity to build a replacement Destroyer fleet in as little as 4 years.

We see something similar with Chinese Frigates. I call it about 50 vessels with Frigate-level capability and missions.
In the year of 2021, 8 Type-054 Frigates were launched by a different set of shipbuilders.
So the Chinese Navy could receive a replacement Frigate fleet in as little as 6 years.

You get similar calculations for other major weapons systems.

But with missiles and drones, these are actually a lot easier, cheaper and quicker to build.
That applies especially to Shaheed-136 type drones which cost $20K and have a range of 2500km.

---

The second point is that a demilitarised China currently spends 1.7% of GDP on the military, which is only half of the 3.5% that the US spends.
In the aftermath of a war and with China rebuilding its military, we can expect the Chinese figure to easily double to match the US figure.
The implication is that the Chinese military will support a force structure which is twice the size of todays. For example, 80 AEGIS destroyers + 100 Frigates

And looking further into the future, let's say China has an economy twice the size of the US
How much larger would the Chinese military be in that case?

There are very good reasons for countries to be neutral

Any Asian countries that are able to even moderately plan ahead from the future do absolutely not want to normalize using military force to claim territory in Asia.

Lets say US can do a Crimea style takeover of Taiwan province. What's the next step then? I guess if American invasion works, it would really mean the end of the communist party in China. At least its current form. It'd be replaced with a nationalist movement, like the one you see in Ukraine today.

Of course, they would not run the economy as well as current China. But they don't need a well run economy. They still control the no 1 economy and industry in the world, even if its stagnating under their leadership, they can just put pedal to the metal on the military.

And by that point, America itself normalized annexation in Asia. So anyone who helped USA naturally becomes target for revenge. When the National Republic of China finishes its preparation and goes to war, it will not just be over its own territory, it will expand across Eurasia, with absolutely terrible consequences for everyone in the path.

tphuang · Nov 25, 2022

this showed up on the Ukraine thread and is quite interesting.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Most importantly, in a confidential annexe to the ‘friendship without limits’ was a mutual security guarantee that Russia had sought from China for decades but hitherto been unable to obtain, said the source.

If something like this was agreed to between China and Russia, the implication is quite far reaching. At a minimum, I would imagine that Russia (and North Korea) would allow Chinese aircraft to operate out of Russian air bases in the far east. Other possibilities would be allowing DF-26 or DF-17 brigades to operate out of Siberia so they can attack air fields in Alaska. And maybe set up and share early warning radar data with the Russians. Other possibilities of being able to use military base In Russia far east is that they'd be able to station surface ships and nuclear submarines in Sea of Okhotsk and operate with Russian Far East Fleet. That would allow them to have air protection for their fleet.

Just generally speaking, they will be able to keep up attacks on Japanese air fields if they can operate out of Russian and NK air fields.

Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier

tankphobia

Senior Member

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member

Biscuits

Major

AndrewS

Brigadier

AndrewS

Brigadier

tygyg1111

Captain

Biscuits

Major

tphuang

Lieutenant General