Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

kwaigonegin

Colonel
US intelligence would disagree with you here, lol


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?


How are PLAAF bases going to be taken out?


maybe you should look up on how many such aircraft they have? What NATO? it's just US

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


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?


Actually, geography significantly favors China. You may want to look into the number of bases China has within theater vs US & Japanese
Everything else being equal, bases from both sides including up to 2nd IC would be equally destroyed. But that leaves bases in the US still fully operational. B2s and B21s
I think many here significantly overestimates PLAN's ASW capabilities while underestimates USN's subsurface forces. They will play a significant role in any conflict. I believe in an all out war SLCMs will play a crucial part in neutralizing hard targets on the mainland especially after reduction in air or sea assets.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
Everything else being equal, bases from both sides including up to 2nd IC would be equally destroyed. But that leaves bases in the US still fully operational. B2s and B21s
I think many here significantly overestimates PLAN's ASW capabilities while underestimates USN's subsurface forces. They will play a significant role in any conflict. I believe in an all out war SLCMs will play a crucial part in neutralizing hard targets on the mainland especially after reduction in air or sea assets.
Firstly, American don't have fire parity within the First Island Chain. There is no way for your bombers to take out Chinese bases using conventional weapons and keep bombing them to prevent repairs, but Chinese can take out American bases continuously, with just guided glide bombs.

Secondly, if most of American and its vassals' bases are destroyed up to the Second Island Chain, that means PLAAF has air dominance at least up to the First Island Chain. If your precious Virginia subs launched SLCMs, KQ-200 will hunt them down.

Please read up the relevant threads on the PLAAF, PLAN and PLARF order of battle.
 

FriedButter

Colonel
Registered Member
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.

Then explain how the US is going to knock out more than a hundred of airfields for the duration of the war. The Syrians are still repairing their single airfield after the US hit it… oh wait a minute it took less then half a day to become operational again. Your side act like China airforce is made up of biplanes, logistics is horse drawn carts, and air defence is made up of maxim machine guns from Ukraine.
 

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
Then explain how the US is going to knock out more than a hundred of airfields for the duration of the war. The Syrians are still repairing their single airfield after the US hit it… oh wait a minute it took less then half a day to become operational again. Your side act like China airforce is made up of biplanes, logistics is horse drawn carts, and air defence is made up of maxim machine guns from Ukraine.
I think you better go back and read my comment again or your case is the need for classes on text interpretation.
 

FriedButter

Colonel
Registered Member
I think you better go back and read my comment again or your case is the need for classes on text interpretation.

Then say what exactly you are agreeing with because his comment goes back over several replies because as far as I am concerned. You agree with everything he says. If we want to go with a direct interpretation.

1. Geography does not favor China in a potential all out far

US think tanks and congress does not agree with this. What is your rebuke.
 

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
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.
Geography favor China if US attacks them.

We aren't talking about both sides clashing in neutral or US ground here.

We are talking about what China will do in the event of an American invasion, and there's plenty of evidence why America invading China is a disastrously poor move.

Everything else being equal, bases from both sides including up to 2nd IC would be equally destroyed. But that leaves bases in the US still fully operational. B2s and B21s
I think many here significantly overestimates PLAN's ASW capabilities while underestimates USN's subsurface forces. They will play a significant role in any conflict. I believe in an all out war SLCMs will play a crucial part in neutralizing hard targets on the mainland especially after reduction in air or sea assets.
If you're flying from the continental US, you might as well surrender already. How do you protect the Ryukyu occupation, Japan, SK (if SK doesn't sit out due to not wanting NK's mutual defense treaty being triggered against them) and Philippines with planes flying out of continental US?

SLCMs are TLAM. You can't hunt sense air defense networks with TLAM. How much did Russia firing naval Kalibers into Ukraine do?

China is not going to win an offensive war against US, but US can't win an offensive war either. Let's face it, the situation was far better for US in the past, yet US never attempted an invasion, because even when China had worse defenses, the country's favorable geography, ability to run over the Korean peninsula, nuclear arsenal, as well as ability to enter war production has deterred American invasion.

US only threatens about Taiwan nowadays because they're running out of time, and US politicians are becoming more and more insane. Insane is not an exaggeration, a lot of current gen US civilian officials lack common education and common sense. Many of their remarks aren't just ultra nationalistic, they're also flat out factually wrong and/or insane.

Repeating their civilian official cope which even their military leaders don't buy just makes you look as insane as they are.

While Russia had a reason to wait until 2022 because they were insulating their economy, US had no real reasons to wait, in fact, if they attack sooner, China might still be more vulnerable economically. No, US waited because even their own military knows it has marginal chances of success.
 

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
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.
There is no problem with members that have opposing views. Anyone who steps out of line in response will be reported and dealt with by the mods.

However, if someone expressed his/her uninformed opinions (he doesn’t even know the existence of KJ-200/KJ-500/KQ-200 nor their in service numbers, or considers Virginia-class SSN being invincible without providing the rationale for that thinking), then it is perfectly valid for other members to challenge his/her opinions.
 
Last edited:

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
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.
"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"

I stopped reading right there. The US would have a hard time taking out 10-15 facilities in multiple weeks out of thousands. Of course it is different if you think US carrier groups can teleport.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
"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"

I stopped reading right there. The US would have a hard time taking out 10-15 facilities in multiple weeks out of thousands. Of course it is different if you think US carrier groups can teleport.

Great article by Tom Newdick & 1 other;)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

kwaigonegin

Colonel
Firstly, American don't have fire parity within the First Island Chain. There is no way for your bombers to take out Chinese bases using conventional weapons and keep bombing them to prevent repairs, but Chinese can take out American bases continuously, with just guided glide bombs.

Secondly, if most of American and its vassals' bases are destroyed up to the Second Island Chain, that means PLAAF has air dominance at least up to the First Island Chain. If your precious Virginia subs launched SLCMs, KQ-200 will hunt them down.

Please read up the relevant threads on the PLAAF, PLAN and PLARF order of battle.
I agree it does not have equal parity within 1st IC.. We are talking maybe 20% of US naval power and maybe 10% airpower vs 90+% of both PLAN PLAAF etc..
However the original question posited a total conventional war between the two nations which means everything is at play sans nukes.
Of course I agree that within the scope of a limited conflict such as within the 1st IC or even the Taiwan issue, the US forces would face enormous challenges fighting PLAN on thier own backyard!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top