Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Eh. Russia has the most advanced nuclear weapons and platforms available right now. Most of their mobile launchers were upgraded to the Yars with MIRV warheads. They have put the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle into service. And the Russian strategic nuclear submarine fleet is more modern than the one the US has. For example the Borei-A submarine has pumpjet propulsion and the US Ohio class still uses conventional screws. Some US Ohio submarine hulls are even older than some Delta IV submarines the Russians have in service. And that is even before other systems like Sarmat with Avangard and Poseidon nuclear torpedo enter service.

When you consider tactical nukes, the Russians have the Iskander and the Kinzhal. They recently put the Zircon into service. These are much more advanced than anything the US has in service. For example US ATACMS lacks the penetration aids and non-ballistic trajectory of the Iskander, the US also has no air launched weapon similar to the Kinzhal yet, and are in no way close to putting something like the Zircon into service.
 
Last edited:

Brainsuker

Junior Member
Registered Member
Eh. Russia has the most advanced nuclear weapons and platforms available right now. Most of their mobile launchers were upgraded to the Yars with MIRV warheads. They have put the Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle into service. And the Russian strategic nuclear submarine fleet is more modern than the one the US has. For example the Borei-A submarine has pumpjet propulsion and the US Ohio class still uses conventional screws. Some US Ohio submarine hulls are even older than some Delta IV submarines the Russians have in service. And that is even before other systems like Sarmat with Avangard and Poseidon nuclear torpedo enter service.

When you consider tactical nukes, the Russians have the Iskander and the Kinzhal. They recently put the Zircon into service. These are much more advanced than anything the US has in service. For example US ATACMS lacks the penetration aids and non-ballistic trajectory of the Iskander, the US also has no air launched weapon similar to the Kinzhal yet, and are in no way close to putting something like the Zircon into service.
This is a very interesting information, because previously, most of US fans claim that their submarines are the best in the world.
 

bebops

Junior Member
Registered Member
if you cannot build good submarine, you better have the best underwater detector in the world. vice versa.

submarine is more deadly than warship. you can sink warship easily but not submarine.

most anti-submarine weapons are very short range. while a submarine can launch an underwater missile from hundreds of mile away.
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
That's why for China having a large fleet of nuclear attack submarines is more important than having multiple carrier groups can ever be. If the enemy does not know where your submarines are they will need to expend disporportionally large amount of resources on ASW assets and escorts, it's like the ballistic missile defense problem of the Sea, offense is always going to be cheaper than defence.
 

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
This is a very interesting information, because previously, most of US fans claim that their submarines are the best in the world.
USN subs are the best in the world. Anyone who tells you otherwise do not know what they are talking about.

Russian boomers get trailed by USN subs as soon as they leave their port. That includes Borei class
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
USN subs are the best in the world. Anyone who tells you otherwise do not know what they are talking about.

Russian boomers get trailed by USN subs as soon as they leave their port. That includes Borei class
Nuclear subs at least. Since most other countries that weren't Russia stopped trying seriously, except China now of course, but that is a recent policy change.
 

tabu

Junior Member
Registered Member
The West is giving mostly ancient weapons to Ukraine you say? Do you consider Javelin, NLAW, Stinger, HIMARS, Leopard II, Challenger II, M777, M109, etc as ancient? They don't look that ancient to me.

Well the Europeans seem to consider the Russia-Ukraine war as an existential crisis for Europe, akin to WW3 itself. The Europeans in general, don't seem to mind America blowing up the Nord Stream. They don't mind their industries closing down, moving to the US and elsewhere. Many have even volunteered to fight and die in Ukraine. As far as I can tell from the Europeans, they are doubling down on defeating Russia in Ukraine. It's looks to be quite personal for a lot of them.


The West, as far as I'm concerned, cannot mobilize into a proper war economy like in WWII. Their general populace could not accept any further hardship. Especially if they're government-mandated. Just look at how they behaved with Covid. Even today, there are Europeans on the streets, protesting their economic hardships. Europe today, is miles away from implenting a war economy. Imagine a war with China, where the world's supply chain as we know it is essentially FUBARed. There will be scarcity in all sorts of stuff that the average Westerner takes for granted. Can the average Americans and Western Europeans today go back to WW2-era rationing?


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.

The US appears to be pretty much in a war economy already. What little heavy industrial capacity in the US is now focused heavily into its MIC. The US does not produce railcars like before, but can produce new military vehicles. The US shipyards don't build large commercial vessels anymore. But it can build aircraft carriers. There is not much more potential for the US to ramp up military production. Not like the potential that China has.

The US struggled to ramp up production for even 155mm artillery ammunition. The Pentagon wants to ramp up production, but it needs to give more money to the MIC. Because the defence corporations won't invest their own money into building up their own capacity. Why not just lobby the US government for that money instead. In addition, the defence corporations have, and will massively markup their products, because they love big fat profits. The US defence spending will go through the roof. This is not the FDR era. The American economy is extremely unhealthy. Its capacity for massive deficit spending is not the same as in WW2.

China can easily outproduce the US when it transitions into a war economy. The way China mobilized so rapidly during the early days of Covid gives us a hint as to how readily it could transition in times of war.

China's war doctrine is not about power projection into the far seas, but to the near seas. They don't need to outproduce the US in SSNs, bombers, and CVNs. They can focus on the cheaper stuff, like missiles, drones, fighters, SSKs, etc.

Yes the US forces near China can attack the Chinese shipyards. That is why China extended its A2AD coverage relatively far away from its coasts. Extending into the SCS, ECS, and Taiwan. The US and its allies will have to go through the island bases, PLAN, PLAAF, PLARF, and PLA shore defences just to get to the Chinese shipyards. That's gonna cost a lot of missiles, drones, aircrafts, ships, and skilled personnel. And even if the Chinese shipyards are struck, its not gonna take too long for China in wartime mode to rebuild and repair them. China's production sites for munitions, SSK, fighter and land systems are located much deeper inland. Those are even harder to reach. China is a vast, continental country that also happens to have a modern military. The US is gonna exhaust it's long-ranged precision munitions in the Pacific theater much quicker than it thinks.


It doesn't matter that the US can strike China's shipyards, while China cannot do the same to US shipyards. China's warplan is primarily defensive. Its main objective is to defeat the enemy's threat of power projection near its territory and to keep China safe. Preferably at greater cost to the enemy. That is the priority. China can think about striking US shipyards later, when it is able do so.
China also has its own set of problems. Firstly, dependence on resources, including foodstuffs, which are mainly supplied by sea through a limited number of straits. Secondly, they are critically dependent on certain Western technologies; thirdly, they have enemies in their neighbourhood who themselves have significant military capabilities. Fourth, their economy is indebted and unbalanced. If Xi is a madman like Putin, he can take the risk, but he most likely understands everything.
 

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
China also has its own set of problems. Firstly, dependence on resources, including foodstuffs, which are mainly supplied by sea through a limited number of straits. Secondly, they are critically dependent on certain Western technologies; thirdly, they have enemies in their neighbourhood who themselves have significant military capabilities. Fourth, their economy is indebted and unbalanced. If Xi is a madman like Putin, he can take the risk, but he most likely understands everything.
1. China is not dependent on food imports, at least not for feeding and sustaining its populace (a lot of food imports are for feedstock for pigs, so Chinese people would have to make do with less pig meat if no imports, not a big problem).
A lot of other resources can also be gotten from land routes (Russia, Mongolia, Central Asia), not to mention China produces quite a lot of resources itself (which it then exports after processing them).
In general import blockade (or at least of sea imports), isn't that 'lethal'.

2. Yes, but if those technologies were cutoff it still wouldn't be anything 'lethal', although it would slow industries which is still problematic, but overcomeable and something that can be endured if it comes to war with US.

3. Yea (Japan and Korea I assume you mean), but likewise, China can decimate them if they decide to act against China.

4. No, or well, not more than how western countries such as US is also likewise indebted, so if it's a problem for China, it will also be as big or possibly even bigger problem for US and its allies.
Oh, and China has more production, not US and its allies, so China will do better than US and its allies.
 

Serb

Junior Member
Registered Member
China also has its own set of problems. Firstly, dependence on resources, including foodstuffs, which are mainly supplied by sea through a limited number of straits. Secondly, they are critically dependent on certain Western technologies; thirdly, they have enemies in their neighbourhood who themselves have significant military capabilities. Fourth, their economy is indebted and unbalanced. If Xi is a madman like Putin, he can take the risk, but he most likely understands everything.

You are a legend dude, haha...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top