PLA (strategic) news, pics, and videos

Now both China and the United States have the ability to launch missiles to saturate surface ships at a long distance, and the future development direction is also more and more out-of-area attacks. So the survivability of surface ships will become worse and worse in the future

The problem is that the United States does not need to let the fleet enter the combat zone, and the United States can let the fleet hide far away. But China cannot let the fleet hide far away. If it wants to land in Taiwan, the fleet must enter the combat zone. This is a very difficult problem to solve

Another problem is that if China and the United States fire missiles at each other, China will suffer more. Because the United States can hit important coastal cities in China, while China can only hit American islands in the Pacific. These small islands are basically military bases and have little economic value. So the degree of loss on both sides is different

So even if the equipment level of China and the United States is the same, the United States still has an asymmetric advantage

tonyget said:

Now both China and the United States have the ability to launch missiles to saturate surface ships at a long distance, and the future development direction is also more and more out-of-area attacks. So the survivability of surface ships will become worse and worse in the future

The problem is that the United States does not need to let the fleet enter the combat zone, and the United States can let the fleet hide far away. But China cannot let the fleet hide far away. If it wants to land in Taiwan, the fleet must enter the combat zone. This is a very difficult problem to solve

Another problem is that if China and the United States fire missiles at each other, China will suffer more. Because the United States can hit important coastal cities in China, while China can only hit American islands in the Pacific. These small islands are basically military bases and have little economic value. So the degree of loss on both sides is different

So even if the equipment level of China and the United States is the same, the United States still has an asymmetric advantage

Click to expand...

Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics

Where can the American base their launch platforms? Japan? South Korea? Philippines? Guam? Those places will be bombed back to stone ages.

How many missiles do Americans have? What are their launch platforms? If American bases in the First Island Chain are taken out, the missiles have to be launched from ships and planes. How many missiles can a salvo contain?

According to Otter the PLAN will use the carrier group as disposable assets in event of AR if worst comes to worst. That’s how determined they are about making sure that boots land on the ground.

tonyget said:

Now both China and the United States have the ability to launch missiles to saturate surface ships at a long distance, and the future development direction is also more and more out-of-area attacks. So the survivability of surface ships will become worse and worse in the future

Click to expand...

Doesn't America mostly use subsonic crap while China uses supersonic and high supersonic missiles? Survivability is not all the same vs different missiles.

tonyget said:

The problem is that the United States does not need to let the fleet enter the combat zone, and the United States can let the fleet hide far away. But China cannot let the fleet hide far away. If it wants to land in Taiwan, the fleet must enter the combat zone. This is a very difficult problem to solve

Click to expand...

American ships can be found at sea by satellites, attacked by ASBMs. They'll be in range of our land-based missiles long before we are withing range of their sea-based missiles. Chinese ships may need to be in the combat zone but our defenses are also concentrated there whereas America's cannot be concentrated on their scattered yet unstealthy ships.

tonyget said:

Another problem is that if China and the United States fire missiles at each other, China will suffer more. Because the United States can hit important coastal cities in China, while China can only hit American islands in the Pacific. These small islands are basically military bases and have little economic value. So the degree of loss on both sides is different

Click to expand...

In addition to the logistics issue where China can target the few US launch origins, China does not need to allow the US to confine the conflict to Taiwan. If they hit Mainland China, especially places with high economic value, we can hit the US, any part of it even if it has nothing to do with the conflict. Nothing is safe from New York to LA. War over Taiwan is not something they can try and just back off if it doesn't go well; war over Taiwan is either a clean Chinese victory to our satisfaction or WWIII.

tonyget said:

So even if the equipment level of China and the United States is the same, the United States still has an asymmetric advantage

Click to expand...

Chinese euipment is better, particularly of the missile variety. The "advantage" of the US being far is taken away by Chinese commitment to all out war with superior missiles. China's logistics advantage from being right next to Taiwan and being able to put much more power into the conflict zone is an assymetric advantage that the US cannot counter.

vincent said:

Amateurs talk strategy, professionals talk logistics

Where can the American base their launch platforms? Japan? South Korea? Philippines? Guam? Those places will be bombed back to stone ages.

How many missiles do Americans have? What are their launch platforms? If American bases in the First Island Chain are taken out, the missiles have to be launched from ships and planes. How many missiles can a salvo contain?

Click to expand...

Firstly，airstrip can be repaired within hours. You'd need to fire long range missiles at every US base evey few hours to keep disable it

Secondly，the US can fly bombers from Hawaii or Wake Island or Australia，or even from the US mainland with aerial refueling. Then launch hundreds of LRASM from 1000km away

tonyget said:

Firstly，airstrip can be repaired within hours. You'd need to fire long range missiles at every US base evey few hours to keep disable it

Click to expand...

Sure, that’s why PLA ordered a million drones for that purpose.

tonyget said:

Secondly，the US can fly bombers from Hawaii or Wake Island or Australia，or even from the US mainland with aerial refueling. Then launch hundreds of LRASM from 1000km away

Click to expand...

Hundreds? How many B-52/B2 are needed for that? Keep in mind they will be flying at their maximum ranges with minimal tanker support (since all infrastructure on the First Island Chain will be destroyed).

vincent said:

Sure, that’s why PLA ordered a million drones for that purpose.

Click to expand...

That's not a task cheap drones could do

vincent said:

Hundreds? How many B-52/B2 are needed for that? Keep in mind they will be flying at their maximum ranges with minimal tanker support (since all infrastructure on the First Island Chain will be destroyed).

Click to expand...

B-1B can carry 24 LRASM，5 B-1B can carry 120 LRASM