Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
China has agreed to a Russian intervention in Ukraine to test Western reactions to the prospect of Taiwan joining the Chinese mainland militarily.

It is therefore worth assessing the outcome of Xi's visit to Moscow, but We should distinguish between China's goals as a country and those of President Xi. The former have the broadest planning horizon, but the latter are limited in time to a maximum of 10-12 years. They are limited by the longevity and ambitions of Chairman Xi. A man who is extremely ambitious and wants to go down in Chinese history as a historical figure equal at least to Mao, Deng Xiaoping or the Chinese emperors who reunified China.
It is from this perspective that one should look at Xi's visit to Russia.
Undoubtedly, it was Xi who was interested in the shortest possible blitzkrieg, blowing up the entire world security system and enabling Beijing to resolve the Taiwan problem quickly. But a protracted war was not in China's plans. Too many additional unknowns and players were appearing in the game. Xi was well aware that against a united West in the event of a protracted war, the Russian Federation could not withstand it. Moreover, in this case its plans for the conquest of Taiwan could be put off to a distant drawer, due to the West's cohesive and consolidated response and absence of the element of surprise.

Russia's defeat in the present means China's defeat in the future. Accordingly, Beijing, represented by Xi, will not provide some kind of military assistance to a country suffering a military defeat. We can say without hesitation that the Russian troops in Ukraine have suffered and are suffering a total military defeat today. It is on this basis that China will not supply a single item of military goods, but will continue to siphon as much as possible of all possible resources from Russia at the lowest possible prices. But that is at the first stage. At the second stage Beijing will be most interested in weakening and political isolation of Moscow. Chairman Xi's goal is extremely simple: if it has failed to bring Taiwan back to its harbor, it will increase Siberia.
Moscow has nothing to offer in exchange to Beijing in the hope of some mythical support in the first place, as a buyer of Russia's natural resources. For political support it will have to pay with political steps. But here again the time factor is important. That is why China is interested in ending the war, but in a way that will allow it to achieve its goals, while getting as much warmth as possible from the war. I do not think that Beijing does not know where Pakistan is supplying ammunition.
The main conclusion is that the Russian Federation will not receive military assistance from China.

Or am I wrong?
LOL Yesss, you are extremely wrong everywhere from separating Xi's goals from China's goals to mentioning Siberia or thinking that China wants Russia to be weakened. Also, that Russia, currently occupying Ukrainian territory and gaining more, is being defeated. It's so wrong, it's hard to be more wrong or to start a point-to-point.
It seemed equally logical
Equally logical to what you wrote would be extremely illogical. It's funny how you like to phrase things in a sophisticated way but managed to get absolutely nothing intelligent to materialize LOL
to me that it would be impossible for Russia to attack with the forces it had on hand.
So who knows what goes on in the minds of the overlords of the universe........
We've presumably began touching on your cult beliefs, I suppose?
Putin acted as a touchstone of discord.
But based on the results of the Xi toss, I realized that the West did not disperse, but united. What is the conclusion?
They won't see Taiwan at all. Because China's going to get whacked... And with gusto.
Whacked by what? The NATO was too scared of Russian nukes to fight against Russia; it only gives weapons to those stupid enough to do so. Over Taiwan, they can barely ship any weapons to a place much smaller than Ukraine and a people with no military tradition. There is no equivalence.
But the people need something to bring in the form of booty.
It remains to wait for Russia to weaken more and nibble away the pieces.......
Here we go.....
No, we will go to the real world and real news where Xi and Putin pledged to bring tremendous change to the world order benefitting both countries through cooperation. You go to get institutionalized LOL
 
Last edited:

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Chairman Xi's goal is extremely simple: if it has failed to bring Taiwan back to its harbor, it will increase Siberia.
Undoubtedly, it was Xi who was interested in the shortest possible blitzkrieg, blowing up the entire world security system and enabling Beijing to resolve the Taiwan problem quickly.
Stop trolling. Although this thread is not that hard moderated, there are still some standards for the content of the posts. Yours' undoubtedly fails at the majority, if not all, of them
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
In my opinion yes, they are useless, but to be fair to Russia, those vehicles do share parts with their common vehicle park. BMP turrets and engines form the core of various BMD machines. So I don't think you need to get rid of these highly specialized vehicles entirely, but it would make a lot of sense to start re-equipping existing VDV formations on the ground in Ukraine today with the latest high-end Russian kit.

There is really no reason for why the VDV should still be using the BMD-4M instead of a BMP-3M on the Kremennina front for example. And in general, I think this war demonstrates the highly specialized role of airborne forces. Having an entirely separate branch makes little sense to me. Kinda reminds me of the US Marine Corps before the recent re-organization.

I'm not sure what China can learn from this to be honest. If anything, a dedicated airborne branch makes a lot more sense for China than Russia lol.
I don't think PLA airborne will be too important in AR, anything that airborne troopers can do short of VIP extraction, Land based long ranged fires can do and more, there's no strict need to land troops until major infrastructure, military and political objectives have been neutralized. They might however, be utilized in himalayan border disputes since they have mobility that land based assets can't match.

TBH I think the biggest takeaway from APCs in general in Ukraine is that APS has become not just an option, but essential part of the vehicle. There's literally hundreds of vehicles knocked out by infantry portable AT alone, PLA should take heed and seriously considering retrofitting it's APCs and IFVs with APS since ERAs alone don't seem to be enough.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
I don't think PLA airborne will be too important in AR, anything that airborne troopers can do short of VIP extraction, Land based long ranged fires can do and more, there's no strict need to land troops until major infrastructure, military and political objectives have been neutralized. They might however, be utilized in himalayan border disputes since they have mobility that land based assets can't match.

TBH I think the biggest takeaway from APCs in general in Ukraine is that APS has become not just an option, but essential part of the vehicle. There's literally hundreds of vehicles knocked out by infantry portable AT alone, PLA should take heed and seriously considering retrofitting it's APCs and IFVs with APS since ERAs alone don't seem to be enough.
Have there been studies or observations on how effective ERAs have been in the Ukrainian war?
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Taiwan maybe small but its also highly urbanized one side, so lots of dense urban jungles to hide these missiles and also a huge mountain range which are basically woodlands, again highly suitable for concealment.

Also, no matter how good the training of Chinese Air Force is, this does not solve the fundamental problem of dense Air Defense Networks. Missiles are super fast and much faster than planes and its much easier to hit something with a missile than it is to evade. So, Taiwan could manage to have HUNDREDS to Thousands of Patriot missile systems, which can be easily donated by the US, So Taiwan will not have to pay for it.

So, how would a PLA Air Force with Just 2000 combat planes of which maybe 5-600 maybe used in a Taiwan Scenario to keep a good reserve for other contingencies, deal with a dense network of Air Defense Systems? Good Training is simply not a good enough answer to this challenge. There has to be some kind of fundamental strategy that can comprehensively defeat this scenario.

Is there any technology that can comprehensively defeat a dense network of Air Defense Missiles? Even Stealth can be detected by Low Frequency Radars.

So far, it seems there is no easy answer for this for China. They have to take huge losses in planes in order to beat these air defense missiles using SEAD, assuming they are very good at SEAD also, but still they will take losses due to the fact that missiles are faster than planes and sensors are very good these days in missiles.

Does China have the numbers to beat an Air Defense Network with 1000+ patriots? I don't think so with Just 2000 planes. They need to increase their number of planes to 6000+ maybe. Or they have to do what Russia did which is to give up on Air Superiority and simply rely on missiles to do strikes.

Moreover, relying on the Army for Taiwan war is a complete non-starter. If China is not able to destroy the Anti-Ship Missiles or Intercept them, then the Army cannot even land on Taiwan without getting sunk by those missiles. China needs to have a huge fleet of Air Defense to intercept these missiles while transporting the invasion force. Again, it becomes a numbers game if Taiwan gets Supersonic or Hypersonic Missiles. China will lose many ships unless they find a good technology to intercept these missiles.

So far, it seems no one has been able to provide a convincing strategy to beat the Porcupine Strategy. Just some wishful thinking that Taiwan is too small or PLA too good in training.
So how does the US beat China's longer ranged porcupine strategy that they called A2AD?
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
Have there been studies or observations on how effective ERAs have been in the Ukrainian war?
We can't even get accurate casualty figures, why would information regarding effectiveness of armor be released? It was just based on observation that many videoed losses of such vehicles are either from artillery (top down), UAV dropped munition (top down) and Western AT weapons (Top down), we also get some footage of ATGMS such as stugna-P, which will probably go through APC/IFV mounted ERA anyways.
 

tamsen_ikard

Junior Member
Registered Member
So how does the US beat China's longer ranged porcupine strategy that they called A2AD?
Even if US does not intervene directly, that doesn't solve China's problem of Taiwan becoming a porcupine and becoming too costly to takeover. If Taiwanese become radicalized and start believing the anti-China zeal, they can make huge sacrifices and come up with a Israel like conscript army. What is China's strategy to beat that with acceptable cost?
Patriot batteries are $1B each and missiles are $4M each. So no, it's not easy for the US to donate a thousand of them PLUS the US does not do that; they only hit Taiwan with the highest prices on the market. So the ROC will not be able to field many batteries at all.

Also, Patriots achieved only a 40% interception rate against Scuds in Israel. Against advanced Chinese fighters with AWACS and drones pursuing active electronic suppression and jamming, they would fair much worse.

Lastly, the batteries' search radars give out signals that can be tracked and anti-radiation missiles can be used to take them out. The range for the Patriot missile is quite low, about 70km so they can be tracked to the origin way before they can escape.

Scuds are ballistic missiles with hypersonic speeds. Even 40% interception rate is very good against Scuds. Chinese fighters will significantly slower and thus easier to beat.

Ukraine war has shown search Radars can be turned off and a networked missile network can rely on each other to get targets. They can even rely on AWACS from US for example, which is exactly what Ukraine is doing. If US just flies AWACS in international waters without directly intervening in the war, China will not shoot it down. Taiwan is so small that Even from the Sea US AWACS planes can provide targets to Taiwanese SAMs and cover the whole island.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Even if US does not intervene directly, that doesn't solve China's problem of Taiwan becoming a porcupine and becoming too costly to takeover. If Taiwanese become radicalized and start believing the anti-China zeal, they can make huge sacrifices and come up with a Israel like conscript army. What is China's strategy to beat that with acceptable cost?
Firstly, China's acceptable cost for taking the ROC is incredibly high because it is an integral issue to China. A porcupine does not survive one shooting arrows at it as the PLA rocket force was created to do. And right now, Taiwanese military morale is waning, so while it would be bad if they radicalized in the other direction and forced the PLA to use more force causing more deaths, that's a distant bridge and we seem not to be walking that way.
Scuds are ballistic missiles with hypersonic speeds. Even 40% interception rate is very good against Scuds. Chinese fighters will significantly slower and thus easier to beat.
Scuds are old and only have speed. The electronic suppression and counterwarfare technologies of modern fighters and their complements are so much more. Jets can also outmaneuver missiles because at lower speed, their turns cannot be replicated by a missile with much higher speed and very very limited fuel. If you out-turn a missile while tricking it with chaff+flare and suppressing it with electronic measures, it does not have the fuel to turn around to locate you again. They will fare much worse against a modern airforce than a Scud. On top of these things, PLA artillery has every major military installation under cover; the initial strike wave will incapacitate not only the ROC military but also major civilian functions like power stations. Whatever survives in hiding is very few being hunted by the very many. It doesn't have to be totally without loss to the PLA; they just have to overwhelm the ROC.
Ukraine war has shown search Radars can be turned off and a networked missile network can rely on each other to get targets.
That entire network is under constant bombardment and being hunted by drones and satellites. Doesn't have to be a perfect 100% kill, just that very few survive, the ones that did are constantly trying to avoid being killed rather than doing anything useful and those that do manage a kill against the PLA are so few that the numbers don't matter.
They can even rely on AWACS from US for example, which is exactly what Ukraine is doing. If US just flies AWACS in international waters without directly intervening in the war, China will not shoot it down.
We can go up to harrass it and intercept/jam its signals. Put it on the backfoot instead of allowing it to just operate calmly.
Taiwan is so small that Even from the Sea US AWACS planes can provide targets to Taiwanese SAMs and cover the whole island.
Taiwan is so small that you just need some general location and you can cover the area with artillery. Drones covering the island from a high altitute can literally capture the location of missile launch without even the need to find the signal electronically and send that to a PLARF unit to immediately return fire onto the location. It's not any advantage to be small at all.
 
Last edited:

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Even if US does not intervene directly, that doesn't solve China's problem of Taiwan becoming a porcupine and becoming too costly to takeover. If Taiwanese become radicalized and start believing the anti-China zeal, they can make huge sacrifices and come up with a Israel like conscript army. What is China's strategy to beat that with acceptable cost?


Scuds are ballistic missiles with hypersonic speeds. Even 40% interception rate is very good against Scuds. Chinese fighters will significantly slower and thus easier to beat.

Ukraine war has shown search Radars can be turned off and a networked missile network can rely on each other to get targets. They can even rely on AWACS from US for example, which is exactly what Ukraine is doing. If US just flies AWACS in international waters without directly intervening in the war, China will not shoot it down. Taiwan is so small that Even from the Sea US AWACS planes can provide targets to Taiwanese SAMs and cover the whole island.

All of your technical points are valid but your social political analysis is off the mark.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Even if US does not intervene directly, that doesn't solve China's problem of Taiwan becoming a porcupine and becoming too costly to takeover. If Taiwanese become radicalized and start believing the anti-China zeal, they can make huge sacrifices and come up with a Israel like conscript army. What is China's strategy to beat that with acceptable cost?
Even if US does intervene directly, that doesn't solve US problem of China becoming a porcupine and the intervention being too costly because they'll be getting carriers sunk by ballistic and hypersonic missiles and their strike planes getting shot down by hidden SAMs that outrange them.
Scuds are ballistic missiles with hypersonic speeds. Even 40% interception rate is very good against Scuds. Chinese fighters will significantly slower and thus easier to beat.
HIMARS are ballistic missiles with hypersonic speeds. Even 40% interception rate is very good against HIMARS. US fighters and cruise missiles will significantly slower and thus easier to beat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top