Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
kwaigonegin said:
China can't win a conventional war with US at this point. I know this is an unpopular opinion here but that's the truth.
A significant portion of PLAN's surface fleet would be decimated by mostly SSNs if they venture out past the 1st IC.
I believe that PLAN's current ASW capabilities will have a very hard time detecting and sinking the Virginia class boats. The fear of being sunk alone will keep most of PLAN assets very close to shore thereby nullifying a significant portion of the naval capabilities.
Click to expand...
US intelligence would disagree with you here, lol

kwaigonegin said:
CV17 and 18 will be a non issue for similar reasons.
JMSDF assets are nothing to laugh at either. Presumably in an all out war, JMSDF and ROK would be actively engaged together with NATO forces and will keep the northern fleet busy.
Click to expand...
JMSDF will mostly be destroyed in the first wave of attack. Most of them will still be in their port when sunk?

Who are these NATO forces?
Why do you think ROK will get involved when nobody thinks they will?

kwaigonegin said:
PLAAF can only effectively fight out to the first IC. With airbases taken out, their combat effectiveness would be significantly reduced.
Click to expand...
How are PLAAF bases going to be taken out?

kwaigonegin said:
They also lack a robust AWACS and ELINT coverage during wartime compared to US and NATO forces.
Click to expand...
maybe you should look up on how many such aircraft they have? What NATO? it's just US
kwaigonegin said:
To be fair, I do see devastation of naval and air facilities in Japan, ROK, Phillipines, likely Guam and if everything goes right for Chinese planners, perhaps even Pearl Harbor may be hit hard.
Click to expand...
If everything goes right? What's going to stop US & japanese bases within 2IC from getting destroyed in the first round of attacks?
And then every country in the region will be subject to a Chinese blockade

kwaigonegin said:
However mainland US will be relatively unscathed while the Chinese mainland will be hit hard. Certainly any military targets and factories etc. will be taken out together with civilian infrastructure like power grids.
Click to expand...
How??? where are these aircraft flying from? How do you attack Chengdu if the closest air base you have after 2 days is in Alaska?

kwaigonegin said:
In a wartime economy I believe the US can significantly churned out F35s and B21s at a decent rate.
US factories will also not faced destruction unlike Chinese factories. Even 80 yrs later, the contiguos US is still relatively safe from harm thanks to the Pacific ocean in this case.
Geography significantly favors the US. That is a cold hard fact. China is also surrounded by less than friendly neighbors. Two of which have a decently powerful navy and air force.
Click to expand...
Actually, geography significantly favors China. You may want to look into the number of bases China has within theater vs US & Japanese
 
birdlikefood

birdlikefood

Junior Member
Registered Member
kwaigonegin said:
In an all out war with the US, Asians of all different nationalities; Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos. Taiwanese etc.... will suffer horrendous casualty rate.
Click to expand...
At least for now it is exactly what you say it is.
kwaigonegin said:
For China to win against the US in a conventional war given the current known constraints such as unfavorable geography, lack of FOBs etc.. it has to significantly improve on things like ASW, including many dozens of new gen SSNs that can at least match current US subs, massive mid air refueling capacity, at least 8 CSGs, numerically more 5th gen fighters and an order of magnitude more super long range hypersonic missiles or AShm capabilities.
Click to expand...
Regardless, enhancements to these weapon systems are essential.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
kwaigonegin said:
China can't win a conventional war with US at this point. I know this is an unpopular opinion here but that's the truth.
A significant portion of PLAN's surface fleet would be decimated by mostly SSNs if they venture out past the 1st IC.
I believe that PLAN's current ASW capabilities will have a very hard time detecting and sinking the Virginia class boats. The fear of being sunk alone will keep most of PLAN assets very close to shore thereby nullifying a significant portion of the naval capabilities.
CV17 and 18 will be a non issue for similar reasons.
JMSDF assets are nothing to laugh at either. Presumably in an all out war, JMSDF and ROK would be actively engaged together with NATO forces and will keep the northern fleet busy.
PLAAF can only effectively fight out to the first IC. With airbases taken out, their combat effectiveness would be significantly reduced.
They also lack a robust AWACS and ELINT coverage during wartime compared to US and NATO forces.
To be fair, I do see devastation of naval and air facilities in Japan, ROK, Phillipines, likely Guam and if everything goes right for Chinese planners, perhaps even Pearl Harbor may be hit hard.
However mainland US will be relatively unscathed while the Chinese mainland will be hit hard. Certainly any military targets and factories etc. will be taken out together with civilian infrastructure like power grids.
In a wartime economy I believe the US can significantly churned out F35s and B21s at a decent rate.
US factories will also not faced destruction unlike Chinese factories. Even 80 yrs later, the contiguos US is still relatively safe from harm thanks to the Pacific ocean in this case.
Geography significantly favors the US. That is a cold hard fact. China is also surrounded by less than friendly neighbors. Two of which have a decently powerful navy and air force.
These two immutable factors alone makes it highly unlikely that it can win an all out toe 2 toe fight.
One thing is certain however.
In an all out war with the US, Asians of all different nationalities; Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos. Taiwanese etc.... will suffer horrendous casualty rate.
For China to win against the US in a conventional war given the current known constraints such as unfavorable geography, lack of FOBs etc.. it has to significantly improve on things like ASW, including many dozens of new gen SSNs that can at least match current US subs, massive mid air refueling capacity, at least 8 CSGs, numerically more 5th gen fighters and an order of magnitude more super long range hypersonic missiles or AShm capabilities.
Click to expand...
Soviets couldn't threaten the Nazi Germany homeland until 1945 while Germany was still killing and looting inside the Soviet Union until 1944. Who won?

By the time Germany itself was threatened, Germany had 100% lost because distance without an army in between doesn't mean much.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Total area of search is merely 90k square km. Ignore these and see what happens.

Each of those are 5x battery SAM sites so 5 missiles each. The best way Russia has of taking out Ukrainian SAMs is with very stealthy (far stealthier than any possible jet powered missile), short ranged, TV guided drones. Won't be an option against China due to range.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Even 90% rejection rate by human QC means 1000 missiles for SAM sites in Guangdong alone.

China has 160 airbases.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Math just doesn't work out even if there was no resistance other than SAMs.

Lots of "believes" and "thinks" in your post. I don't do that, I just give the hard numbers with citations.
 
birdlikefood

birdlikefood

Junior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
Lots of "believes" and "thinks" in your post. I don't do that, I just give the hard numbers with citations.
Click to expand...

This kind of discussion lacking data and full of personal subjective feelings and conjectures is meaningless. The discussion of this issue is somewhat off this thread.

Much of what was discussed has been discussed more concretely and logically in the following threads:

PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

If those 480 SSN-G missiles were not so important to greatly increase the likelihood of successfully knocking out Guam and enabling sustained strikes in the 2nd island chain, then sure, why not use those submarines for striking other targets beyond? But I don't think the PLA can afford that...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
 
birdlikefood

birdlikefood

Junior Member
Registered Member
FairAndUnbiased said:
Soviets couldn't threaten the Nazi Germany homeland until 1945 while Germany was still killing and looting inside the Soviet Union until 1944. Who won?

By the time Germany itself was threatened, Germany had 100% lost because distance without an army in between doesn't mean much.
Click to expand...

However, there is a huge gap between the CN-US game based on "sea, air and nuclear" and the Soviet-German game based on "ground". This gap is not only reflected in geography, weaponry level, timing of war and war potential . So this analogy is also inappropriate.
 
FairAndUnbiased

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
birdlikefood said:
However, there is a huge gap between the CN-US game based on "sea, air and nuclear" and the Soviet-German game based on "ground". This gap is not only reflected in geography, weaponry level, timing of war and war potential . So this analogy is also inappropriate.
Click to expand...
correct. its much worse for the aggressor than in the case of Germany invading Soviet Union.
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
FairAndUnbiased said:
Soviets couldn't threaten the Nazi Germany homeland until 1945 while Germany was still killing and looting inside the Soviet Union until 1944. Who won?

By the time Germany itself was threatened, Germany had 100% lost because distance without an army in between doesn't mean much.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Total area of search is merely 90k square km. Ignore these and see what happens.

Each of those are 5x battery SAM sites so 5 missiles each. The best way Russia has of taking out Ukrainian SAMs is with very stealthy (far stealthier than any possible jet powered missile), short ranged, TV guided drones. Won't be an option against China due to range.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Even 90% rejection rate by human QC means 1000 missiles for SAM sites in Guangdong alone.

China has 160 airbases.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Math just doesn't work out even if there was no resistance other than SAMs.

Lots of "believes" and "thinks" in your post. I don't do that, I just give the hard numbers with citations.
Click to expand...
Yes, I used words like think because
FairAndUnbiased said:
Soviets couldn't threaten the Nazi Germany homeland until 1945 while Germany was still killing and looting inside the Soviet Union until 1944. Who won?

By the time Germany itself was threatened, Germany had 100% lost because distance without an army in between doesn't mean much.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Total area of search is merely 90k square km. Ignore these and see what happens.

Each of those are 5x battery SAM sites so 5 missiles each. The best way Russia has of taking out Ukrainian SAMs is with very stealthy (far stealthier than any possible jet powered missile), short ranged, TV guided drones. Won't be an option against China due to range.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Even 90% rejection rate by human QC means 1000 missiles for SAM sites in Guangdong alone.

China has 160 airbases.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Math just doesn't work out even if there was no resistance other than SAMs.

Lots of "believes" and "thinks" in your post. I don't do that, I just give the hard numbers with citations.
Click to expand...
Yes, unlike you and most here I use words like think because it's both arrogant and hubris to think that a topic as complicated as war and geopolitics can elicit such definitive and absolute answers. Especially one that pits the forces of 2 powerful armed forces against each other.
Sadly over the course of the last few years, SDF has negatively evolved into an echo chamber where any opposing discussions and viewpoints are quickly muted and anything short of proclaiming china is the absolute best of everything and absolutely can't lose in any potential fight is quickly dismissed as hearsay and silly talk.
Any posts that even hints of the potential of significant challenges PLA may faced is quickly rebuked and rebuffed as if the PLA has Star Trek weaponry fighting the US which is equipped with sticks and stones.
It is because of this arrogance and overconfidence type if talk that stymie meaningful discussions.
As I've said in the post there are 2 immutable facts that won't change anytime soon..
1. Geography does not favor China in a potential all out far
2. China is surrounded by less than friendly neighbors.

Can PLA forces overcome these constraints?
Yes it can with both qualitative and quatitative advantages however it is not there yet. It has to be in an order of magnitude more.
 
luosifen

luosifen

Senior Member
Registered Member
kwaigonegin said:
Yes, I used words like think because

Yes, unlike you and most here I use words like think because it's both arrogant and hubris to think that a topic as complicated as war and geopolitics can elicit such definitive and absolute answers. Especially one that pits the forces of 2 powerful armed forces against each other.
Sadly over the course of the last few years, SDF has negatively evolved into an echo chamber where any opposing discussions and viewpoints are quickly muted and anything short of proclaiming china is the absolute best of everything and absolutely can't lose in any potential fight is quickly dismissed as hearsay and silly talk.
Any posts that even hints of the potential of significant challenges PLA may faced is quickly rebuked and rebuffed as if the PLA has Star Trek weaponry fighting the US which is equipped with sticks and stones.
It is because of this arrogance and overconfidence type if talk that stymie meaningful discussions.
As I've said in the post there are 2 immutable facts that won't change anytime soon..
1. Geography does not favor China in a potential all out far
2. China is surrounded by less than friendly neighbors.

Can PLA forces overcome these constraints?
Yes it can with both qualitative and quatitative advantages however it is not there yet. It has to be in an order of magnitude more.
Click to expand...
The problem is that all your claims you are confidently arguing as fact are actually wildly incorrect, as if you've been in deep sleep for about 10 years and just woke up thinking nothing much as changed. We've had hundreds of pages of back and forth discussion here INCLUDING with someone working in US Dept. of Def planning that you seem to not have paid attention to that led us to come to the conclusions you think we're wrong about.
 
Sinnavuuty

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
kwaigonegin said:
Yes, I used words like think because

Yes, unlike you and most here I use words like think because it's both arrogant and hubris to think that a topic as complicated as war and geopolitics can elicit such definitive and absolute answers. Especially one that pits the forces of 2 powerful armed forces against each other.
Sadly over the course of the last few years, SDF has negatively evolved into an echo chamber where any opposing discussions and viewpoints are quickly muted and anything short of proclaiming china is the absolute best of everything and absolutely can't lose in any potential fight is quickly dismissed as hearsay and silly talk.
Any posts that even hints of the potential of significant challenges PLA may faced is quickly rebuked and rebuffed as if the PLA has Star Trek weaponry fighting the US which is equipped with sticks and stones.
It is because of this arrogance and overconfidence type if talk that stymie meaningful discussions.
As I've said in the post there are 2 immutable facts that won't change anytime soon..
1. Geography does not favor China in a potential all out far
2. China is surrounded by less than friendly neighbors.

Can PLA forces overcome these constraints?
Yes it can with both qualitative and quatitative advantages however it is not there yet. It has to be in an order of magnitude more.
Click to expand...
I agree with you even though I'm not an older member like you.

I have to agree with the majority who disagree with you when you talk about the US operational restriction because of the logistics that would need to be created, maintained and supplied in theater, still being safe from the employment of fire by various distributed systems of the PLA, but I agree with you regarding this invulnerability that the members here try to portray as if the PLA were an invincible force, because that is the clear impression that most of them try to affirm.

In a heated conversation with members, one gave the understanding that regional actors would not intervene if there was a conflict between China and the US, what we are seeing is just the opposite, with the US hosting bases in the Philippines (claiming to be for defense) but during joint exercises between both countries employed PGMs to simulate ground targets and it would not be a surprise to which direction.

Another member assured me that the PLA would be very successful in the operational realm of conflict, this same army that has had no experience in conflict for decades, not even experience in low-intensity conflict.

This is precisely why I no longer question anything about the PLA. I keep learning (about the PLA) from other members who are really pragmatic about it and I do my own validations of what I analyzed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top