PLA (strategic) news, pics, and videos

manqiangrexue · 2025-02-02T23:09:17-0500

You answered everyone but "forgot" about me. If you want to go anywhere in life, you need to face your fears.

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

Yeah? Can the command centers, buildings, garages, aircraft hangers and aircraft all be repaired in a few hours? And China can absolutely fire long range missiles every few hours.

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

LRASM has a range of 370km. They'd get shot down, as someone else mentioned. And if they hit the mainland, we hit the US mainland/Hawaii back.

tonyget said:
That's not a task cheap drones could do

It's a task Chinese drones and missiles are made to do.

tonyget said:
B-1B can carry 24 LRASM，5 B-1B can carry 120 LRASM

0 B1B can carry 0 LRASM, because that's how many can get into launch range. Also, LRASM is a subsonic joke.

tonyget said:
There is still question of blockade. Even if China takes TW，the US can still block the sea route which is vital to China's trade. That's is the fundmental limitation of countries don't have many oversea bases such as China. If you want to project power，you need oversea base. At the moment I don't see China building oversea bases（which I think is very important）. Even Chinese Djibouti base only host navy but no air force，the US Djibouti base has air force by contrast.
The US can block China from entering Indian ocean

Blockade with what? We have ASBMs. We can blast US ships right in the ocean from thousands of km away. If they move back, we move forward.

tonyget said:
Doesn't change the calculus

The calculus is that the US just said that a unipolar world is unnatural and it's just a matter of time before Taiwan will return to China.

tonyget said:
I don't think the US cares too much

You could have cut it short with the first 3 words.

tonyget said:
，TSMC already producing in the US，and they will build more fabs in the US from now on. They may even happy to see all these productions in Asia got destroyed，so that manufacturing can finally back to the US

LOLOL The US environment is not conducive to production. The people are lazy, clumsy and stupid. Give them semiconductor tech, and it will stagnate and they will be surpassed when Chinese innovation makes the tech obsolete. Then what? TSMC won't be making any more steps forward.

tonyget said:
If I were the US，the last thing I want to see is allies refuse to help me which force me to fight alone.

You are currently seeing Canada, Mexico, Colombia, and Denmark become hostile to the US. EU coming up.

tonyget said:
If there are tons of countries in Asia somehow all decide to fight China，That is a huge win for me.

But it won't be enough to sway the balance.

tonyget said:
And I don't think China want to fight all these countries at once either.

LOL We are gearing up to fight the US. Who cares about these free side-dishes?

tonyget said:
So if China starts to bomb these countries，the US would be laughing

Because it's funny seeing its dogs get killed, leaving it to fight alone?

tonyget said:
The US is waiting China to make the first move

That's because they have no intelligent moves to make so they can only watch where all the action and progress is.

PiSigma · 2025-02-02T23:15:38-0500

Iron Man said:
What do you mean by "most"? Diego Garcia is within range of a few Chinese missiles, but certainly not most. DF-26, DF-31, DF-41, and DF-5. That's it. And by total numbers of ballistic/cruise missiles these types are a VERY small minority of available munitions.

J36 got 3000 km combat radius last I heard... Then there will also be h20. They can spam a missiles too.

Biscuits · 2025-02-03T00:08:55-0500

tonyget said:
Doesn't change the calculus

That's idiocy. Of course your logistics impact the outcome on every level in a war.

tonyget said:
I don't think the US cares too much，TSMC already producing in the US，and they will build more fabs in the US from now on. They may even happy to see all these productions in Asia got destroyed，so that manufacturing can finally back to the US

With what expertise?

Manufacturing won't finally go back to US, there's no one who can make things efficiently there. It will just not exist.

tonyget said:
If I were the US，the last thing I want to see is allies refuse to help me which force me to fight alone. If there are tons of countries in Asia somehow all decide to fight China

That's far from certain.

That is a huge win for me. And I don't think China want to fight all these countries at once either.

They absolutely can and will in order to protect themselves.

tonyget said:
So if China starts to bomb these countries，the US would be laughing

Sorta like how imperial Japan was laughing as US started to bomb guadacanal?

The push doesn't stop until/if US can overwhelm China's draft + war production. That also means full draft + mobilisation for US.

tonyget said:
The US is waiting China to make the first move

Nope, why would they do that? With every passing year, the calculus gets dramatically worse for them. China is waiting for US to make the first move, but US assesses that it can't because the favorable conditions for an attack doesn't exist. Not even under Obama. Hell, not even under Bush. Let alone today.

Neurosmith · 2025-02-03T01:21:54-0500

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

In any Taiwan scenario, any landing or crossing attempt would be preceded by a coordinated and large-scale bombing and missile strike campaign against any and all military assets that the PLA and its air/sea/space-based sensors could get their eyes on. That, in addition to the networked warfighting capabilities of PLAN surface vessels that would be sailing in strike groups, would make an attack on any particular PLAN asset very difficult.

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

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

I suspect that the Type 09IIIB submarines, especially if they are armed with VLS, would serve as one of China's only military platforms that could launch strikes on CONUS without requiring a forward operating base. Perhaps that is why the Chinese are building so many.

siegecrossbow said:
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.

A Taiwan contingency sans US involvement would not necessitate the use of a carrier group in the first place. The Chinese would probably redeploy its CVs to the far north of the country or to a remote African base before commencing any AR attempt.

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

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).

I somehow doubt the 1 million figure. That would require a level of industrial prowess that I doubt even China has at the moment.

Neurosmith · 2025-02-03T01:32:45-0500

Overall, the biggest risks for China in any hypothetical conflict against a peer adversary would be, IMHO (ranked in descending order of importance & impact):

Energy embargo: China is a net energy importer while the US is a net energy exporter. While China may build up fuel reserves and mitigate its dependence on overseas oil suppliers by turning to closer neighbors (such as Russia), this is not a long-term solution. China has not developed her renewable energy infrastructure to the point that fossil fuels are no longer a concern. This vulnerability also places China at the mercy of chokepoints such as the Strait of Malacca.
Trade/shipping blockade: the US has the theoretical capability to impose a shipping blockade on China through the use of its CBGs and submarines. While China may be able to sustain her industries during a conflict, this is only a temporary measure and any long-term blockade of China's shipping lanes would be detrimental to her economic outlook.
Economic sactions: we all saw what this did to Russia's non-military economy. While China is much more intertwined with other major powers than Russia was, this is still a risk and should not be viewed much differently when it comes to risk assessment.
Military strikes on Chinese mainland targets: while China may gain a nascent ability to retaliate against the homelands of faraway adversaries, this would be disproportionate in favor of the US & her allies. Any Chinese strike on CONUS (or other countries in that vicinity) would be mostly symbolic while the latter's strikes on China would do real damage.
Attacks on Chinese shipping & naval vessels: this ties in with the blockade scenarios above, but this is still a very real possibility, even when dealing with "easy" opponents.

PLA (strategic) news, pics, and videos

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

PiSigma

"the engineer"

Biscuits

Colonel

Neurosmith

Junior Member

Neurosmith

Junior Member