Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Sardaukar20 said:

The F-35 production run is much further down the road than the J-20. Plus, there is that big international order book for Lockheed Martin to fulfil. The J-20 production run is not there yet, but China has massive capacity for ramping it up. China can buy the J-20 cheaper than the US can buy F-35s. Because Chengdu Aerospace Corporation is state-owned, while Lockheed Martin is a private corporation that co-owns the US government.

Click to expand...

Same thoughts.

Besides, if the PLAAF wants a one-to-one 5th-gen replacement for the roles which the J-10s is playing right now, the CTOL version of the J-35/31 is a good choice. Moreover, combining the production capacity of the J-20 and CTOL J-35/31 is also an effective way for China to rapidly surpass the US in terms of production rate of 5th-gen fighters.

However, as it has been repeated multiple times in the forum, thus far we have not seen the PLAAF showing any indication of inducting CTOL J-35/31s into service in the coming years, so this option is just pure speculation.

Brainsuker said:

I think the reason why F-35 production can outpace J-20 is because F-35 is the only new Jet Fighter production for the United States. They focus their budget entirely to ramp up F-35 production. You shouldn't only look at their Jet Fighter production. But also their navy etc. Because at the moment, USA doesn't produce anything massive beside F-35 and some missiles. They may produce several Gerald N Ford class Carrier, but the production seems relaxed.

While China don't focus their procurement budget entirely to procure J-20. Their budget is basically split into J-16, warships, etc. That's why their J-20 looks slower than the United States.

Click to expand...

That is a really huge - yet wrong - take. China isn't the only one that is building everything right now.

As a matter of fact, other than the F-35 series and Gerald R Ford CVNs, the US is also:
1. Building Flight 3 Arleigh Burke DDGs;
2. Building Constellation FFGs;
3. Building America LHAs;
4. Building San Antonio LPDs;
5. Building Block 5 Virginia SSNs;
6. Building Columbia SSBNs;
7. Finishing the remaining orders for the Independence LCSs;
8. Starting to build B-21s;
9. Building F-15EXs;
10. Building C-130Js;
11. Building E-7s;
etc etc.

There is also the consideration where the US has to build all three variants of the F-35, i.e. CTOL's F-35A, S/VTOL's F-35B and CATOBAR's F-35C. These three variants shared just around 25% of their parts, which is far below the anticipated commonality of 70%. Essentially, you are looking at three (almost) completely distinct models and types of fighters that are sharing the same designation.

Meanwhile, speaking of the air force - For now, China only has to focus on:
1. One variant of the J-20, i.e. J-20A; and
2. Two variants of the J-16, i.e. J-16 and J-16D.
The production of the J-10 series and J-11 series have effectively stopped since 2021 and the late-2010s, respectively.

In the future, there will be:
1. The J-20B variant superseeding the J-20A;
2. One additional variant for the J-20, i.e. J-20S; and
3. Two variants of the J-35/31, i.e. CATOBAR and CTOL (the later variant for PLAAF/export/both).

Frankly speaking, other than the J-35/31's differing CATOBAR and CTOL variants, the J-20s and J-16s share broadly similar technicalities, specifications and performances across their own respective variants. This is as streamlined as anyone can get.

In fact, once the production of the J-20 series and J-35/31 series enter high gear, J-16 production would gradually/swiftly be phased out.

tankphobia said:

Interestingly the Qinghai-tibet railway use all American manufactured rolling stock of Diesel electric rail cars.

Click to expand...

Inaccurate.

Only the passenger trains on the Qinghai-Tibet railway employ NJ2 locomotives, which are manufactured by General Electric in Pennsylavania. The passenger carriages employed are mainly the indigenous 25T model and the BSP model built through joint-venture between CRRC and Bombardier.

The locomotives for cargo trains on the Qinghai-Tibet railway are indigenous DF7G and DF8s by CRRC subsidiary companies. The same goes for the cargo carriages.

Lime said:

97% of antibiotic in US comes from China. Now some idiot congressman said they want a war with China.

Click to expand...

Just use nanosilver, Alex Jones sells them on prisonplanet.com lol

tankphobia said:

Another point is that the US government has never cared about public opinion when going to war, not in Korea, not in Vietnam and not in the Middle East, why would you think the public will have any sway when the hegemony is at risk?

Click to expand...

Just a minor point. While I do agree that public opinion wasn't the driver for whether these wars were started or not. Public opinion did have major impact on the continuation and conduct of these wars.

There's a reason why Biden ordered a total withdrawal and abandonment of Afghanistan. If public opinion really didn't matter, a military presence could've been maintained in some form at a minimal cost.

Here's a good article about the US insistent of instigating tensions with China. Dr. Robert Buzzanko is a History professor that I knew for a long time. There are parts that I don't agree with but the bottom line of the article is that China is NOT a major threat as the current and previous US administration and media made it to be.

Serb said:

Comparing Vietnam, the Middle East, and Korea to today's China which has around the 2-3 times relative GDP of the USSR is a kindergarten-level argument. US attacking China would be like attacking USSR, but the one-two times stronger and on steroids.

Americans can't even point Afghanistan and Iraq on the map, but a war with China would bring hyperinflation of a couple of hundred points on a monthly basis, empty shelves since 80% of their GDP is the consumption of mostly Chinese-made goods, or goods with Chinese parts.

It would bring massive casualties as China is near-peer overall competitor fighting 100km from their shores, etc.

And it would happen in 2023 when 70% of voters of both parties consider the voters of the other party not to be good people and hate them. When government approval ratings are constantly 20-30%.

In 2 months maybe the maximum after the US launch such a war, I expect a civil war inside if they don't stop, not just civil unrest. The whole country burned down for 1 black man recently, I think for such hyperinflation and depression the whole country would collapse on its head.

Click to expand...

What is your opinion of Chinese nuclear warhead which is much much less than the USSR had ... probably that's why the USA dare to keep demonising China without fear of retaliation ... maybe. Do you think Chinese nuclear posture is so weak? do you think China should massively increase the number of warheads?

Russia is already claiming that START needs to be renegotiated considering French and UK nuclear weapons as part of US deterrent. So I would not be surprised if Russia increased their nuclear warhead count as well in the future.

HighGround said:

While I do agree that public opinion wasn't the driver for whether these wars were started or not. Public opinion did have major impact on the continuation and conduct of these wars.

There's a reason why Biden ordered a total withdrawal and abandonment of Afghanistan. If public opinion really didn't matter, a military presence could've been maintained in some form at a minimal cost.

Click to expand...

Nah, the US media purposefully hid the truth from the American people for many years in Afghanistan. The pullout happened because the US military felt that American resources were being bogged down in an unwinnable war when China is rising. If the media had been truthful to the public, it's possible that the pullout would have happened 10 years earlier.

"Public opinion" is often just what the media allows the public to think. Look at the demonisation of China as an example. Why did public favorability of China in key Western countries fall off a cliff in recent years? Has China's behaviour fundamentally changed? No, it's just that the Western MSM has ramped up propaganda and most people are sheep who blindly follow the signals. In other words, Western elites know that public perception is easily manipulated. And their geopolitical moves are more about their own assessments of what is prudent and not. Media narratives often shift due to these reasons and the public inevitably follows.

antiterror13 said:

What is your opinion of Chinese nuclear warhead which is much much less than the USSR had ... probably that's why the USA dare to keep demonising China without fear of retaliation ... maybe. Do you think Chinese nuclear posture is so weak? do you think China should massively increase the number of warheads?

Click to expand...

Yes, and definitely.

For a country with:
1. The world's largest (or second largest) population;
2. The world's biggest PPP economy; and
3. The world's greatest industrial and R&D capabilities -
China wouldn't befit the title of the rejuvenated global superpower as long as she doesn't have a formidable nuclear deterrence capability. Therefore, having only hundreds of nuclear warheads is woefully insufficient.

This is especially considering that the primary arch rival/enemy of China across the global pond has 15 times the size of nuclear arsenal of China (or 4.3 times the size of deployed nuclear warheads of China). In the present era of forced deglobalization and warming confrontation, Beijing's policy of "minimal deterrence" is just as good as a streetside coffeehouse folklore.

However, China should not follow the footsteps of the Cold War, i.e. immense nuclear arms race and buildup into the 20 - 30 thousands.

To put it simply, the leadership in Beijing needs to make sure that every single population center above 100 thousand people in the US and US-allied countries in the Indo-Pacific that agree to host US nukes and/or US strategic nuclear delivery vehicles (i.e. strategic bombers and SSBNs) can be targetted with at least one city-buster nukes, alongside sufficient numbers for critical countervalue strikes (e.g. against present & backup command centers and nuclear weapon storage facilities) and retaliatory + secondary strikes.

gelgoog said:

Russia is already claiming that START needs to be renegotiated considering French and UK nuclear weapons as part of US deterrent. So I would not be surprised if Russia increased their nuclear warhead count as well in the future.

Click to expand...

The US will also demand that China must be included as a participating member for any attempts at negotiating for a new nuclear arms treaty, including a new START treaty.

Therefore, unless there is a massive change of minds in Beijing, I believe China would never agree to any participation in any forms of new nuclear arms control treaty - Meaning that any calls for a new nuclear arms treaty isn't likely to work post-21st Feb 2023.

And frankly speaking, I don't think China should join any nuclear arms treaty until China has an equivalent cumulative strategic nuclear deterrence capability as the US.

antiterror13 said:

What is your opinion of Chinese nuclear warhead which is much much less than the USSR had ... probably that's why the USA dare to keep demonising China without fear of retaliation ... maybe. Do you think Chinese nuclear posture is so weak? do you think China should massively increase the number of warheads?

Click to expand...

The number of warheads are classified, how did you manage to find a state secret? So that sounds like an absurdist statement.

China's nukes are much more modern than USSR or US cold war legacy nukes. A lot if not the majority of it is in DF41 and DF5, which are MIRV with global range and launch on warning.

America has declared around 6000 warheads, but out of those, only 1500
are on readiness, and that is enough to ensure MAD with both China and Russia. The rest is because they built a ton of aircraft dropped during the cold war since there was no good early warning systems back then. Same applies to Russia, which has even less nukes that are on readiness.

China does (likely) not have a legacy stockpile because it built up during an era where launch on warning was available. Having low thousands of nukes all in MIRV and therefore quick launch readiness, FOBS, hypersonic missiles that can fit tactical missiles, is more formidable than having 10 000 nukes but most of them in "dead man's hand" systems and air dropped dumb bombs.

What is your point that US doesn't dare to antagonize Russia/USSR? US literally stole massive swathes territory from USSR, engineered a coup and is now openly speaking of regime change in Russia. And were the ground situation more favorable, NATO would no doubt do a PVA style intervention in Ukraine.

US was already scared of invading China in the past. Why else did the other Taiwan strait crisises happen, and why did US not invade when China was militarily weaker in the early 2000s?

Nuclear blackmail was probably the major factor, but that only works for so long. US is truly desperate and so unless China loudly indicates that it will tactical nuke every invading US formation (which China won't do if they have confidence in victory), US will still try because they need to get territory/win a war to keep themselves relevant in the cold war.

No matter how you look at it, with it being the only major developer of advanced ballistic missiles in the 2010s and most of the 2020s, China is already starting with one of the strongest nuclear hands when it comes to counter force at least. If they want to make it stronger, building more is only of marginal use because USA can ensure MAD with SSBN. To expand its nuclear strength, the only route is to build more HGV FOBS (for rapid strike) and missile defense.