If I recall the bugle has been re-introduced to the modern PLA, but in a day-to-day/ceremonial capacity
Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
- Status
One thing I learned from Ukraine conflict is that China should put hard-kill active protection system (APS) on everything, every helicopter, MBT, APC, dog, cat, and panda.
US will for sure 100% supply Javelins, Man pads, ATGMs galore to Taiwan. It's best to have hard-kill APS on everything. Going into the city combat without APS is suicidal.
US will for sure 100% supply Javelins, Man pads, ATGMs galore to Taiwan. It's best to have hard-kill APS on everything. Going into the city combat without APS is suicidal.
And PGM, a fuck ton of PGM, PGM on everything
Going into city combat without infantry support is also suicidal. I am sure that the PLA is not as stupid as Russia on this.
I actually was thinking about this, hard-kills APS are expensive and potentially just as dangerous to everyone around the vehicle but what if your APS only has to handle atgms?
atgms are like 1/6 of the speed of apfsds projectiles and arent made of tungsten or depleted uranium, maybe an aps based on only countering those can be put on every vehicles.
That is an old way of thinking. Like I said many times, the warfare of future is NOT going to be the same "mechanized army penetrating and occupying cities and territories" type of scenarios. If you think informationaization of the warfare is simply an digital/information capability add-on to traditional mobile mechanized armies, you are still stuck in the industrial era (工业化时代). The warfare of the future is informationized (信息化时代).
In informationized era, discovery equals kill(发现既摧毁). If all you can think about to counter 1970/80s tech single-solider/squad level heavy weaponry (anti-armor/anti-air) distributed tactics in urban setting are "adding hard-kill APS to tanks", then you are ONLY imagining the PLA as a rich-man version of the Russian army.
NO, PLA and Russian army are totally two different beast. Russians look at equipment as equipment: a aircraft is a tool to kill. PLA look at equipment as “platforms”. “Platforms” are vessels in which complex informationized system-of-systems are held, and the killing is done by this system-of-systems (this platform is only a piece of the puzzle).
Russian style of think will equip the Su30MKI with flashy and fancy canard, 2-d TVC engine, and that's it. Chinese style of thinking does NOT prioritize those, but rather the sensor-fusion with the greater system-of-systems, and how this piece of "platform" fit into that bigger picture of a complex system-of-systems.
This is why you have Russian equipment that claims to fly marginally better and for longer duration than Chinese equipment, but don't even have enough PGMs to fight even a limited-intensity war in Ukraine. China has one multi-role main flanker class (J-16), and this platform does EVERYTHING, and does things in the more advanced informationized way in a system-of-systems manner, and subordinate to that system-of-systems.
i am not sure this lack of PGM theory is correct. Based on US reports. Russia has launched well over 1000 long range missiles from outside Ukranian airspace in three weeks. they are combination of Klibr/Kh101/Istanker BMs. all the heavy warhead type.
Each Ka-52 has one wing rockets and another wing guided missiles. The rest of fight is with low altitude Su-25 mostly.
Okay, you are right.
Add comprehensive sensor fusion so tanks can bait ATGMs fire to identify location of hidden enemy, and direct drones or PGM assets can eliminate the threat as a follow-up. But still also add hard-kill APS so tanks survives. China can afford to do both
What you have listed are pretty much "penetration of enemy defense system" weapons/munitions(突防弹药). What Russian really lack is the low-cost/large-volume precision guided bombs/munitions that provides a sustained air-borne delivery of munitions/bombings/attacks firepower. This can only be sustainably and cost-effectively done by precision guided bombs that's often vaguely generalized as "PGM".
If the sustained delivery of these can be done just by ballistic missiles and cruise missiles, there won't be a need for air force and thus no need for air superiority. Missiles are important to shock and awe and incapacitate important enemy nodes that is necessary for them to organize and put up an effective coordinated defense, but if you can't sustain the attack and delivery of airborne firepower upon these nodes and other nodes of enemy, they will quicky recover from the state of incapacity and resume coordinated defense and even conduct counter-offensives.
@Bltizo will be able to explain this to you in a much more clearly manner.
That’s great and all but hard-kill APS would reduce casualties and would also help the information/propaganda warfare. Also the initial PLA wave on Taiwan may not be reinforced for a while so the longer its strength lasts, the better.
- Status