Miscellaneous News

ChongqingHotPot92

Junior Member
Registered Member
Carriers and large warships programs serve their own purpose and there is a reason why the PLAN is getting them. For example, in a blockade on Taiwan, they would help on enforcing the blockade and extending the monitor capabilities of the PLAN

Same with the Large Warship programs who will be in heavy demand by the theater commands during wartime

We shouldnt forget that weapons, ships and aircrafts, are intended to be a part of a bigger system which exist for serving strategic, tactical objectives. And China has a multitude of such objectives/requirements in every war domain and for development interests
On this aspect, I will have to respectfully disagree. Large warships like the 055 and 003 are expensive and take forever (like 3 years at least) to build. What China needs are more expandable platforms that carry punches, such as the 056 and 054A. In fact, one great option for China would be to build something like Russia's Project 11661K Dagestan (tiny ships with significant land attack and anti-ship capabilities), but hundreds of them in a short span of time (and yes, China has industrial capacities to do that). If the PLAN could have hundreds of 1,500-2,000 tons light frigates (each with 16-32 VLS for various weapons, as well as have AESA radars), that would really allow the PLAN forces to hit the QUAD forces from various angles and positions, while strangling Taiwan. Or maybe just work extra hard to build more type 054A (say commission 10 ships per year instead of 3), while develop a new type of standoff land attack missile that would be small enough to be fitted inside the 054A's VLS.

055s and 052Cs are necessary, but these big expensive ships take forever to build. It also takes just one well-placed tomahawk or LRASM to sink a 055, which would then be lost without an available replacement. This is why I think big surface ships should wait.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
China would be fighting a two-front war because India will surely take advantage of the crisis and try to take back Aksa Chin and provoke insurgencies in Tibet. This means a significant portion of the PLAAF would have to be reserved for usage on the Western Front.

Solely talking about India: they don't have the capability. They might have the will, but here's 3 reasons why India will fail to open up an effective second front:

1. They will need to take the offensive into the Himalayas which already host radars that can see deep into India, making surprise impossible. The mountains also make air accidents extremely deadly and mapping difficult. It will be an existential war for them but just a minor border conflict for China.

2. There are no roads from India to Tibet at all. There is a single mountain road to Nepal which can be closed at any time. A few well dug in defenders with ATGM, demolition charges and supported by IRBMs hitting convoys on narrow mountain roads would stop them dead in their tracks. There are no tow trucks for tanks in the Himalayas.

3. Once they get into Tibet, without roads they have 500+ km to go in frozen tundra before they get anywhere near the first settlement. It will be 200x worse for them than it was for the Wehrmacht invading Russia. At least the Wehrmacht had oxygen and a substantial logistics train captured from the Russian railways while Tibet has nothing, not even enough oxygen for them.

Modi will suffer the same fate as Hitler if he tries to replicate the Wehrmacht.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Well I did participate in mandatory university/college run military instructions required for most college students, so that was why I got myself quite familiar with the Type-81-1 folding stock rifle and made some friends in the PAP. As with my experience though, I will say that I am a defensive realist when it comes to perspective for my country's foreign policy. Why, because I believe Mr. Hare should avoid any military conflicts until the PLA can achieve certain numerical and qualitative edge over its adversaries, namely the QUAD. In the meantime, since China is already surrounded by highly predatory and opportunistic adversaries (Mr. Chicken/crane, Mr. Bald-Head, Mr. Elephant, and Mr. Monkey all backed by Mr. Bald Eagle), it should avoid making new ones (such as encroaching into Mr. Hairy Bear's traditional sphere of influence in the short term).

In short, if the PLA could defeat the combined forces of Taiwan and the QUAD in a Waterloo-like battle (but much bigger scale), then my people could just sit back and enjoy Pax-Sinica. As tempting as such thoughts are for many Chinese citizens, there are many risks that could derail such wet dream.
Firstly, there is simply no guarantee that the QUAD would not use nuclear weapons if they face a conventional defeat, so it is vital for the PLA to reach nuclear parity with the US before pulling anything on Taiwan. This will take at least until 2025-2027, if not after 2030, when new plutonium facilities would be completed in Jiuquan. Secondly, as the U.S. military begin to field hypersonic intermediate range weapons starting in 2023, the Chinese military industrial complex would have to work hard to sustain the PLA's numerical advantage in this field, while keeping the associated costs down. That would require more smart defense spending that would bolster the PLA's advantages, but not waste money on systems that the PLA does not yet have an advantage (for example, the carrier and large warship programs may have to be delayed in favour of more hypersonic missiles, submarines, and J-20s). Thirdly, should there be a Taiwan contingency, China would be fighting a two-front war because India will surely take advantage of the crisis and try to take back Aksa Chin and provoke insurgencies in Tibet. This means a significant portion of the PLAAF would have to be reserved for usage on the Western Front. Finally, China does not have any reliable treaty allies right now. Therefore, it is time for China to try to use its economic influence to woo Pakistan and North Korea with hope of upgrading relations with these two countries into alliances where the two could lend support to China should Beijing enter into a fight with QUAD.
In general, I just think China is not yet prepared to take up such fight over Taiwan, which would mean the life or death to the People's Republic. However, time is still on Beijing's side, and it needs start mobilizing for it militarily, diplomatically, and economically. And don't start a war unless you are prepared.
Thanks for a well thought out reply and more than diplomatic response to my somewhat impolite questioning. My ignorance of the mandatory service versus the actual participation or application to the PLA really showed in the way I preface my question to you, so my sincerest apologies.
 

Sleepyjam

Junior Member
Registered Member
On this aspect, I will have to respectfully disagree. Large warships like the 055 and 003 are expensive and take forever (like 3 years at least) to build. What China needs are more expandable platforms that carry punches, such as the 056 and 054A. In fact, one great option for China would be to build something like Russia's Project 11661K Dagestan (tiny ships with significant land attack and anti-ship capabilities), but hundreds of them in a short span of time (and yes, China has industrial capacities to do that). If the PLAN could have hundreds of 1,500-2,000 tons light frigates (each with 16-32 VLS for various weapons, as well as have AESA radars), that would really allow the PLAN forces to hit the QUAD forces from various angles and positions, while strangling Taiwan. Or maybe just work extra hard to build more type 054A (say commission 10 ships per year instead of 3), while develop a new type of standoff land attack missile that would be small enough to be fitted inside the 054A's VLS.

055s and 052Cs are necessary, but these big expensive ships take forever to build. It also takes just one well-placed tomahawk or LRASM to sink a 055, which would then be lost without an available replacement. This is why I think big surface ships should wait.
Strongly disagree. Carriers are the eyes of the fleet without them the fleet is half blind and is no blue water navy. Also less powerful radars(especially considering the proliferation of stealth aircraft) on less seaworthy ships isnt such a good idea either, it would only make these ships much more vulnerable. China has such a massive advantage in shipbuilding over the US that the criticism of ”expensive ships that take forever to build” is much more suited for the US.
 
Last edited:

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
More bad advice from @voyager1 / @Kaine, the CIA lover. The US (and of course the CIA) would love to make China follow your "advice", which is poisonous as usual, so they can paint the Middle Kingdom as a totally uncooperative country. I disagree with your recommendations. Time is on China's side, so all she has to do is play defense.
I am upvoting your opinion because I mostly agree with it's overall thrust but why do you keep insinuating that @Overbom is @Vogager1 etc. When the former has already addressed this matter with you stating as a matter of fact that's the banned member is not him. But still you insist lol...besides, even if by some sliver of chance that @Overbom is a sock puppet for the CIA his opinions on this board are frankly wasted since this site isn't exactly the resource materiale for the PLA leadership or the CPC.

We should be able to agree to disagree with our fellow posters on this forum without taking things too personal. Besides Pres.Xi and the CPC cadres aren't exactly in short of supplies of more than competent advisors.
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Biden slashes spending in half, but says $1.75tn plan can beat China
A framework for $1.75 trillion for 10 years, which is not even approved by Congress. Nikkei and Biden will make China and the American people believe on IOUs?

I dont think that China is afraid of an extra $175 bilion per year for the US budget, which mind you, hasn't even passed Congress yet..
 

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
+++ This.
I just don't understand what the point of this is.
It doesn't change anything diplomatically. It certainly doesn't improve your position with regards to China/Independence. The only thing it does is invite PRC aggression. So you are basically one step away from starting a war, majority of the population does not want a war, so why is she throwing rocks at a lion? I guess she really enjoys the adulation of green camp's keyboard brigadiers and white/banana Americans.
I offer a simple explanation that I have already seen appearing from both China and Taiwan: she's been forced to say it on CNN by the Americans.

Have you noticed that US would like other people to start trouble with China before they jump in? Ie Philippines and the SCS dispute. Ever since Australia got the economic bitch slap from China countries have become weary of doing that for the US. The only outlier I can think of this year was Lithuania and they got bitch slapped too for it.

Taiwan is supposed to be a card for the US yet up to know Tsai has been letting Americans to do all the work while she famously said "遇到压力不屈服,得到支持不冒进“. If she doesn't want to advanced after receiving support from the US what good is she to the Americans? In this case they are forcing her to come out to the forefront and do something to bait China into making a move. Since you know you're been baited you also know you shouldn't take the bait.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
I'm not going to name names, but the proportion of headcases on this forum is really something. Trolls spreading disinformation, victims of American psychological warfare, severe victims of American psychological warfare (to the point where it would be reasonable to diagnose them with PTSD from it), blabbermouths in love with their own e-voice, and obsessive weirdos with dozens of alt accounts.
 

Arnies

Junior Member
Registered Member
Solely talking about India: they don't have the capability. They might have the will, but here's 3 reasons why India will fail to open up an effective second front:

1. They will need to take the offensive into the Himalayas which already host radars that can see deep into India, making surprise impossible. The mountains also make air accidents extremely deadly and mapping difficult. It will be an existential war for them but just a minor border conflict for China.

2. There are no roads from India to Tibet at all. There is a single mountain road to Nepal which can be closed at any time. A few well dug in defenders with ATGM, demolition charges and supported by IRBMs hitting convoys on narrow mountain roads would stop them dead in their tracks. There are no tow trucks for tanks in the Himalayas.

3. Once they get into Tibet, without roads they have 500+ km to go in frozen tundra before they get anywhere near the first settlement. It will be 200x worse for them than it was for the Wehrmacht invading Russia. At least the Wehrmacht had oxygen and a substantial logistics train captured from the Russian railways while Tibet has nothing, not even enough oxygen for them.

Modi will suffer the same fate as Hitler if he tries to replicate the Wehrmacht.

China has the capacity to fight two front wars but the better decision will be to leave Taiwan for another time and solely keep the pressure on India and perhaps elevate India to first target. Once India is cleared it frees China up for the Taiwan strait.

The goal should be Pakistan, China, North Korea and Central Asia marching into India and that is when the economy falls completely which is not far away just few decades 2-3 decades. We will enter a stage where everyone has nothing to lose at that stage which will make the world enter conflicts to avoid collapsing from the inside at this point India should be on the list before even Taiwan if Taiwan has not fallen just at that time but India has to be slaughtered quick and swiftly China will have major allies to do the job and China could use these allies post the conquest of India to open the eastern front wasting minimum manpower in these both campaigns
 
Top