Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
tphuang said:
I think 1050 is pushing it a little bit. The 750 mm wide SRBM would have 4 times the volume as 370mm rockets. I don't think it's crazy to think it might have twice the range. Which would put both Sasebo in range of 71st GA and Okinawa in range of 72nd GA. Of course, they are so close to mainland, that PLA can launch attack at these bases from wide variety of bases and method. I'm simply discussing SRBM because that seems to be a role where PLAGF is taking over with PCL191 as DF-15s get retired. According to patch, TBMs from PCL191s all have anti-shipping variant also. He does not think it makes a lot of sense for them to hit Okinawa with PCL191s even though they probably do have the range to do so. We will see. I'm sure more photos will come out over time.
Click to expand...
What's the range of the 370mm rockets on PHL-16?

The closest points on the Chinese coastline to:
1. Okinawa - Around 670-690 kilometers of distance; and
2. Sasebo - Around 760-780 kilometers of distance.

The 750mm TBMs should have sufficient range to achieve those distances, going by Patch's comments and the previous guesstimates on the TBM having 7 times the range of the MLRS.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
What's the range of the 370mm rockets on PHL-16?

The closest points on the Chinese coastline to:
1. Okinawa - Around 670-690 kilometers of distance; and
2. Sasebo - Around 760-780 kilometers of distance.

The 750mm TBMs should have sufficient range to achieve those distances, going by Patch's comments and the previous guesstimates on the TBM having 7 times the range of the MLRS.
Click to expand...
Well, he said Okinawa. Nothing about sasebo. I think 750 km range should be doable depending on the warhead size. Anything longer than that would require really shrinking warhead.
 
C

Chilled_k6

Junior Member
Registered Member
At the Zhuhai Airshows the 750mm rocket is advertised as "Fire Dragon 480". The 480 indicates the size of the warhead, namely 480kg.

The 750mm tactical ballistic missile is broadly similar to the Russian Iskander-M shape. It is smaller in diameter as the Iskander-M is ~0.9m and similar in length. Here's what Rusi says about the Iskander's range:

The missile body can carry warheads weighing between 480 kg and 700 kg, and the warhead types include cluster munitions, unitary high explosive warheads, and tactical nuclear payloads. While likely to have a range of roughly 500 km if carrying a 700 kg warhead, the missile’s range can be doubled depending on the size of the warhead used and its trajectory – a point tacitly
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 2007 by the then-commander of the Artillery and Missile Forces of the Russian Army, Colonel General Vladimir Zaritsky. The terminal descent onto a target is conducted vertically, giving little opportunity for successful interception.
Click to expand...
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So Iskander-M could have a range of around 1000km with a 480kg warhead. If we do a simple estimation on volume comparison, both 480kg warhead and with everything else being equal, you'll get the Fire Dragon having about 2/3 that of Iskander. So hitting Kadena from somewhere along the coast south of Taizhou in Zhejiang is doable but barely. Hitting Sasebo needs a lighter warhead as you'll need to add >100km on top.
 
S

SAC

Junior Member
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Registered Member
An analysis of what the Russo-Ukraine War means to AUKUS and The QUAD in terms of a Taiwan Conflict. At the Strategic level, not Tactical. 2 main differences: 1, due to resupply issues, Taiwan will need to fight with what it starts with; and 2. other countries will join the fight:
 
F

FIDEL de Chacal

New Member
Registered Member
SAC said:
1, due to resupply issues, Taiwan will need to fight with what it starts with;
Click to expand...
Agree , These US-led alliance lack few options in the long term , Since preventing a PLA invasion or defeating the PLA outright in a Island conflict has become less and less achievable these US-led alliances in the short term have shifted their focus to a strategy that mirrors Ukraine , one now geared/targeted at slowing down and degrading PLA Forces by proxy in order to bide time for them to come up with a formulated plan of an response to turn the tide. In short , by arming the separatist terrorist groups militarily on the Island these US-led alliances are desperately hoping these terrorist groups by "proxy" can hold out long enough to inflict heavy cost onto the PLA , that they will just fold like my Russian Comrades before the calvary arrives.

Providing aid to Ukraine poses No risk onto the US-led Nato alliance in return because Russian failed so miserably in taking and cutting off Ukraine. When the PLA moves in on the Island these same US-led alliances will be faced with a huge dilemma of highier risk and greater cost with this strategy.
 
F

FIDEL de Chacal

New Member
Registered Member
Am I the only one that finds it totally odd(suspicious) that If the US-led Nato alliance isn't willing (physically) to kick out Russian Forces (now on the back foot) in Eastern Ukraine on the European continent today , I am some how to believe that a US-led alliance "Will" do a complete 180 and engage (a locked and loaded) PLA "directly militarily" in their own front yard (over an island they all recognize as being apart of the China).

This message(underlining narrative) that a US-led alliance would intervene against the PRC in a Taiwan conflict is misleading and highly doubtful should the PLA be successful in reassiminating the Island in a decisively quick manner before the US could muster a meanful "kinetic" response.

It's easy to get caught up in all the speculation , empty rhetoric and posturing going around by the US , but these US-led alliances(AssUs/Ipto) are "hollow" at their core. If you eliminate the US from the equation , these alliances are meaningless.

The US will Not cross the threshold for "direct military" confrontation , If it's Adversary (Russia 2014- or Iran 2019/20) is absolute in it's own resolve and convictions and too can inflict some type of high cost/risk onto the US in return.

The current Ukrainian conflict highlights this.

The fact that the US-led Nato own militaries have sat idle and remained on the sidelines for this entire conflict since 2014 supports(reinforces) this. The US also have gone so far ( out of their own way ) to state that they have No interest whatsoever in entering this conflict physically by "military means" and engaging the Russian Forces "directly" in Ukraine is all the more telling.

From 2014 onward the US-led Nato and its followers "viewpoint" on this conflict was that Russia was the "aggressor" a "hostile nation" that attacked it's European neighbor(Ukraine) "unprovoked" and seized territory from a sovereign state illegally and this would not stand...

But the US-led Nato response was misleading , from 2014-2022 the US-led Nato alliance sat on their hands and allowed the conflict to stagnate while buying oil and natural gas from the Russians.

Again the US-led Nato alliance , "The Great Defenders of Human Life everywhere and the Free and Open International Rules Based Order" , the "greatest military Alliance of all time" bought oil and natural gas from a county(Russia) that seized territory of another(Ukraine) "illegally" in its own neighborhood(on the European continent).

Yes the US-led Nato alliance did supply "military training" (which apparently paid off later) and supplied (token) military aid to Ukrainians during this 8 yr period. But it was Only , And Only after the Russians had botched their second free hall pass(20 22) that the US-led Nato alliance stepped in with real substantial military aid and heavy sanctions. Providing aid to Ukraine posed No risk onto the US-led Nato alliance in return. So if my Russians comrades hadn't done a complete nose dive during their special operation back in February...we wouldn't be having this conversation now 2023...

Basically the fundamental foundation of Nato alliance has been put into question. War has broken out in Europe...and the US-led alliance is a complete No Show.

This tidbit is important because the US and it's Coalition of the Mindless(Nato/Ipto/AssUs) on multiple occasions have come out and stated that should the PRC reassimilate the Island of Taiwan , it would be seen the same way "an unprovoked aggressive act by a hostile Nation" against a "self ruling democracy" (their new code word for sovereign state) and that they would be "forced to come to the defense of the Island" ... Hmm that's a Big contradiction(on top of countless others) since they All consider the Island of Taiwan as being part of China and that the PRC is the rightful government of China for starters.

Losing a "billion $" aircraft carrier (let alone two) in a simulated war game is not the same as losing one in a real life war , wars are fought not played.

The US will Only shed it's Own Blood and Treasure(go to war) if 2 out of 3 criterias are meet , 0ne attack first on US soil(9 11 stlye) , Two thinks it can win/prevail in quickly manner and Three feels/thinks it's adversary is at a overwhelming disadvantage(weak). And these criterias haven't always pan out for them in some cases...(The Taliban the most recent)

The PRC of today fits none those criterias , it has no intention on attacking "first" on home soil. There's nothing quick about a conflict involving the PRC thats is more of an neer match(militarily , economically...) then the UK , Japan and Australia combined. US policy of "Strategic Ambiguity" (that the US "might" do "XYZ") on the issue of the Island Of Taiwan has run its course ( whether or not the US would enter a conflict is longer a concern for the PRC ) , the PLA is no longer weak in the matter and very capable now of inflicting that high cost onto US forces should they choose foolishly. Again US policy is that it might do x...not that it Will do x... and "ambiguity" only works when one's Adversary is at a disadvantage and it is meant to dissuade and cause hesitation in an Adversaries calculations and War planning. If the Adversary(the PRC) no longer fears the involvement of that opponent(the US) then that opponent is left with no other option but war or a "Fait Accompli"

Of course I could be wrong but at the rate the PRC is growing(militarily and economically)...I wouldn't hold my breath.​
 
D

Deleted member 23272

Guest
Adding my two cents to the point of resupply. 8 months into the war, frankly I should or should not be surprised so many Western observers, when it comes to applying the war's lesson to a potential Taiwan war, still focus on things like the PLA's combat competency and the will of the Taiwanese people to fight. The simple reality is that the biggest lesson and perhaps the one that paints the bleakest picture of Taiwan's prospects, (Maybe that's why they ignore it) is the fact that none of the aforementioned will be for nought, if Taiwan simply runs out of things to shoot at the Mainland.

And run out of things they will, I mean its an island, in the event of a full naval blockade how the hell are Taiwan's so called "allies" going to resupply it? Nevermind the other factors such as the fact the Mainland has all the things Russia lacked to effectively attack Ukraine's supply lines. Superior precision guided missiles, an extensive satellite network, likely thorough intelligence on all of Taiwan's major ammo sites and weapons production facilities. Within the opening hours of the war China can effectively halve Taiwan's ability to wage a sustained struggle, if not destroy it entirely, and completely sap the morale of the Taiwanese army. Afterall, what good is the "will to fight" if you learn that fancy piece of American made tech you're manning will only be able to fire with the ammo already loaded, since the ammo stockpile and the factory set up to make that ammo got blown up? This is of course, all before China sends a single soldier for that Saving Private Ryan style landing everyone says an invasion will result in.

As for will to fight. Well, Russia has suffered numerous setbacks but nonetheless Putin continues to up the amount of men and materials he sends into Ukraine without significant blowback for the Russian public. This is because for Russia, Ukraine is an intangible part of their greater identity as a civilization. And this war is about that, not something like Afghanistan, a foreign expedition into a land with a completely alien culture and language for the sake of nebulous geopolitical goals. China thinks no differently about Taiwan and if the PLA turns out to be as incompetent as Western commenters hype it up to be, it will still keep coming at Taiwan until, to reiterate my point, it simply runs out of things to shoot at China, which it will.

As always, the only factor to consider here is America's willingness to actually engage in kinetic action with China. And if it hasn't been painfully clear to most armchair generals, nuclear deterrent will make NATO think twice about doing anything other than proxy warfare, so once China can get its arsenal up to 1000, the question of American or Japanese intervention will forever become a rhetorical one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Breadbox

Breadbox

Junior Member
Registered Member
FIDEL de Chacal said:
Am I the only one that finds it totally odd(suspicious) that If the US-led Nato alliance isn't willing (physically) to kick out Russian Forces (now on the back foot) in Eastern Ukraine on the European continent today , I am some how to believe that a US-led alliance "Will" do a complete 180 and engage (a locked and loaded) PLA "directly militarily" in their own front yard (over an island they all recognize as being apart of the China).

This message(underlining narrative) that a US-led alliance would intervene against the PRC in a Taiwan conflict is misleading and highly doubtful should the PLA be successful in reassiminating the Island in a decisively quick manner before the US could muster a meanful "kinetic" response.

It's easy to get caught up in all the speculation , empty rhetoric and posturing going around by the US , but these US-led alliances(AssUs/Ipto) are "hollow" at their core. If you eliminate the US from the equation , these alliances are meaningless.

The US will Not cross the threshold for "direct military" confrontation , If it's Adversary (Russia 2014- or Iran 2019/20) is absolute in it's own resolve and convictions and too can inflict some type of high cost/risk onto the US in return.

The current Ukrainian conflict highlights this.

The fact that the US-led Nato own militaries have sat idle and remained on the sidelines for this entire conflict since 2014 supports(reinforces) this. The US also have gone so far ( out of their own way ) to state that they have No interest whatsoever in entering this conflict physically by "military means" and engaging the Russian Forces "directly" in Ukraine is all the more telling.

From 2014 onward the US-led Nato and its followers "viewpoint" on this conflict was that Russia was the "aggressor" a "hostile nation" that attacked it's European neighbor(Ukraine) "unprovoked" and seized territory from a sovereign state illegally and this would not stand...

But the US-led Nato response was misleading , from 2014-2022 the US-led Nato alliance sat on their hands and allowed the conflict to stagnate while buying oil and natural gas from the Russians.

Again the US-led Nato alliance , "The Great Defenders of Human Life everywhere and the Free and Open International Rules Based Order" , the "greatest military Alliance of all time" bought oil and natural gas from a county(Russia) that seized territory of another(Ukraine) "illegally" in its own neighborhood(on the European continent).

Yes the US-led Nato alliance did supply "military training" (which apparently paid off later) and supplied (token) military aid to Ukrainians during this 8 yr period. But it was Only , And Only after the Russians had botched their second free hall pass(20 22) that the US-led Nato alliance stepped in with real substantial military aid and heavy sanctions. Providing aid to Ukraine posed No risk onto the US-led Nato alliance in return. So if my Russians comrades hadn't done a complete nose dive during their special operation back in February...we wouldn't be having this conversation now 2023...

Basically the fundamental foundation of Nato alliance has been put into question. War has broken out in Europe...and the US-led alliance is a complete No Show.

This tidbit is important because the US and it's Coalition of the Mindless(Nato/Ipto/AssUs) on multiple occasions have come out and stated that should the PRC reassimilate the Island of Taiwan , it would be seen the same way "an unprovoked aggressive act by a hostile Nation" against a "self ruling democracy" (their new code word for sovereign state) and that they would be "forced to come to the defense of the Island" ... Hmm that's a Big contradiction(on top of countless others) since they All consider the Island of Taiwan as being part of China and that the PRC is the rightful government of China for starters.

Losing a "billion $" aircraft carrier (let alone two) in a simulated war game is not the same as losing one in a real life war , wars are fought not played.

The US will Only shed it's Own Blood and Treasure(go to war) if 2 out of 3 criterias are meet , 0ne attack first on US soil(9 11 stlye) , Two thinks it can win/prevail in quickly manner and Three feels/thinks it's adversary is at a overwhelming disadvantage(weak). And these criterias haven't always pan out for them in some cases...(The Taliban the most recent)

The PRC of today fits none those criterias , it has no intention on attacking "first" on home soil. There's nothing quick about a conflict involving the PRC thats is more of an neer match(militarily , economically...) then the UK , Japan and Australia combined. US policy of "Strategic Ambiguity" (that the US "might" do "XYZ") on the issue of the Island Of Taiwan has run its course ( whether or not the US would enter a conflict is longer a concern for the PRC ) , the PLA is no longer weak in the matter and very capable now of inflicting that high cost onto US forces should they choose foolishly. Again US policy is that it might do x...not that it Will do x... and "ambiguity" only works when one's Adversary is at a disadvantage and it is meant to dissuade and cause hesitation in an Adversaries calculations and War planning. If the Adversary(the PRC) no longer fears the involvement of that opponent(the US) then that opponent is left with no other option but war or a "Fait Accompli"

Of course I could be wrong but at the rate the PRC is growing(militarily and economically)...I wouldn't hold my breath.​
Click to expand...
The anglo act in such a matter because the Soviet Union is a spook who can end all of them at the drop of a hat with thousands of nuclear warhead. While China does some weak cr*p like "Minimum deterrence" and "No first use", unironically trying to be use cost-benefit analysis in a purely fear based deterrence contest against those who are institutionally schizophrenic and habitually stupid and irrational.

The anglos will happily throw themselves in stupid war based on make-believe media propaganda spam, regret it after 6 minutes because their grand humanitarian delusion are only real/viable in their fantasy and then repeat the exact same sequence of events every 10-20 years.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top