PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

FairAndUnbiased said:

These are all major assumptions and it doesn't take 30-40 years to build 8 CATOBAR CVs either.

US built 4x Forrestal and 4x Kitty Hawk class in 15 years during the Cold War with far lower share of global shipbuilding.

First Forrestal class launched 1952, followed by 3x more by 1958.

First Kitty Hawk class launched in 1961, followed by 3x more by 1967.

Neither were these disposable or temporary. Each of them lasted 40 years and the last Kitty Hawk class was only decommissioned in 2009.

If 003 proves successful in sea trials then we'll likely see 5x more 003s by 2035 if built 1 at a time (begin construction 2024, launches in 2026, 2028, 2030, 2032, 2034) and by 2030 if built 2 at a time (2x construction in 2024, launches in 2026-2027, 2x construction 2026, launches 2028-2029, 1x construction 2028, launches 2030).

Construction will likely be faster due to modular fabrication and less costly due to economies of scale with civilian shipping.

Again note how I used historical facts to support my argument rather than just toss out numbers.

Click to expand...

Historical comparisons and examples are useful if correct assumptions are applied.
If questionable assumptions are applied, then historical comparisons and examples are dubious at best, and misleading at worst.

In this case, if the question is one of "how long will it take for the PLAN to have 8 CATOBAR carriers" -- well I certainly agree it probably won't take the PLAN 30-40 years to build that many carriers.

However, that doesn't mean we will necessarily see 5x more 003s by 2035 even if the first unit is successful, even if we use US construction schedules for Forrestal and Kitty Hawk class as examples.

Let's look at the assumptions:
1. Will the PLAN seek to build that many more 003s by 2035 even if the sea trials of the first unit are successful? Well, frankly at the moment we do not know what the PLAN's intentions for 003 are. At this stage, we know that they are pursuing nuclear powered super carriers as the "final form" of the carrier that they desire, and the nuclear carrier at the moment isn't expected to begin construction after the mid 2020s, if at that. So the question is would the PLAN buy more 003s after the first unit? Or will they consider that the nuclear powered carrier will end up being more capable and have more longevity and be willing to wait some years for their second CATOBAR carrier to be their first nuclear carrier instead, with no additional 003 hulls. At the moment the rumours are in flux.
2. The Forrestal and Kitty Hawk classes were built between two shipyards -- of course, it is reasonable to believe that both JN and DL will eventually be involved in carrier production at the same time, but the year in which both shipyards would start that is unknown.


Personally, I think there is a possibility of the PLAN having 8 CATOBAR carriers by 2035, but I don't think the likelihood is very high, unless we get clearer indications that the PLAN are intent on actually procuring additional 003 hulls.

However, I do think there is a very high possibility of having 8 CATOBAR carriers by the late 2030s (allowing for the PLAN pursuing additional 003 hulls, or the PLAN simply waiting for the nuclear carrier as the first mass produced CATOBAR carrier type), with the possibility of even having 10 CATOBAR carriers by the late 2030s being present.


Putting it another way, I can see the PLAN taking 20 oddd years to build 8-10 CATOBAR carriers in a reasonable manner.

luosifen said:

I'm not sure how Blitzo arrives at a conclusion that the USA wins a conventional war of attrition when even the US war planners in multiple supercomputer simulations indicate them losing badly in all realistic scenarios and the one simulation where they gave themselves futuretech and stacked the odds in their favour the result was the PLA still taking half of Taiwan.

Click to expand...

I'm aware of US simulations and the reporting that has gone on for them.

Those simulations tend to be different from the assumptions I make for a US war of attrition against China, namely:
1. US resolve is high and intact (i.e.: US resolve isn't simply melted away by the PLA sinking a couple of carriers and striking US airbases like Guam -- instead, I assume that US resolve massively hardens against China, and a rally around the flag effect occurs because China dared to have the audacity to sink US carriers and strike Guam, resulting in massive and enduring population hatred of China, from the grassroots level to the presidential level).
2. During the course of a multi-year war against China, the US is capable of shifting virtually all of its major military capabilities to the China theater (though not at the same time of course), by virtue of enlisting its major allies (mostly in Europe) to take up certain deterrence missions in Europe and the Middle East, and/or by simply accepting that the loss of military capability in certain regions is an acceptable loss for the westpac conflict against China.

My belief is that the only safe and reasonable manner in which future procurement planning should be conducted, is to assume that is the sort of threat/situation that the PLA would face, and to prepare accordingly.
If the balloon does one day go up and the US does not have that much resolve or that geopolitical ability to redeploy its global forces to the western pacific, then sure, the PLA will be able to roflstomp the conflict.
But if the balloon goes up and the US does indeed have that much resolve and the geopolitical ability to redeploy its global forces to westpac, then you'd be counting your lucky stars that you had the foresight to prepare for it.

Bltizo said:

My assumptions are that:
1. US resolve is high and intact (i.e.: US resolve isn't simply melted away by China sinking a couple of carriers and striking US airbases like Guam -- instead, I assume that US resolve massively hardens against China and a rally around the flag effect occurs, for China daring to have the audacity to sink US carriers and strike Guam, resulting in massive and enduring population hatred of China, from the grassroots level to the presidential level).
2. During the course of a multi-year war against China, the US is capable of shifting virtually all of its major military capabilities to the China theater (though not at the same time of course), by virtue of enlisting its major allies (mostly in Europe) to take up certain deterrence missions in Europe and the Middle East, and/or by simply accepting that the loss of military capability in certain regions is an acceptable loss for the westpac conflict against China.

Indeed, after such a conflict perhaps the entire world (including the US) will fall into a centuries long economic and technological dark ages.

But hoping that the opposing force will see common sense and choose to relent or that they will face some sort of economical limitation in the way they conduct their war is hoping the other side will make an unforced error.

Click to expand...

Your assumptions still doesn't really address the money side of things nor the current fact that the USA is currently in a massive crisis where an increasing number of the population are currently live on the street in tents, a number that is increasing day by day. Yeah the US resolve if a few carriers and US air bases gets bombed might increase but consider just how much of a lose if the USA loses those bases and carriers, it would be massive for one and also to note is that China would only ever do such a thing if the USA strikes first. China isn't going to strike first in any scenario because of the simply logic that China isn't stupid and money to pay for the troops and equipment doesn't grow on trees.
Think about why the USA is trying to get other nations to get the ball rolling in regards to Russia, its for the simple fact that the USA cannot fight either Russia or China by themselves. If China is to sink those carriers, it will be when the USA strikes first or crosses a red line, to which the entire populous of China will be behind them while the USA, while they will be hardened against China, well if the grand majority of the nation is in a state of extreme poverty and supplies are all down (because in the event of a war, China isn't going to be trading anything to the USA not to mention that China will simply dump all treasuries and completely crash the US stock market which I believe is something that the US doesn't want happening at all cost), they won't have the time to even care about this war that the USA have started once again
In a completely mechanical world, maybe your analysis might have weight, but in the real world, nothing is for certain an. Should the US economy and supply chains break down completely, the chances of this so called multi year war is simply not in the cards when the majority of the populous of the USA will be struggle to find food or supplies and the government will be hard pressed by the people to solve the issue that is ripping the nation right at the moment, not some country across the ocean that is not close enough to matter for most Americans.

If there is a full war of attrition, it is going to be people's war for sure. Which people on two sides of the Pacific have the motivation, cohesiveness and ability to bear difficulties or pains that matter, and not whose missiles or aircrafts that are slightly more advance would matter.
If it is China doing the defending in its vicinity, then US will be at big disadvantage and most likely lose badly.

Fair enough, but even taking worse case scenario planning into account:

-China has more manpower that can be used for war production and bolstering PLA ranks
-They have demonstrated a clear ability to repair battle damage in very short time (an entire 8-lane bridge was famously timelapse recorded being taken down and replaced in 44 hours)
-war critical industries (missiles and other munitions, air defence systems, aircraft etc.) can easily be shifted into parts of China USAF cannot easily target with its vast transport networks, there are entire underground complexes that were designed to house heavy industry and survive even a nuclear exchange

Of course, this will require the CPC to switch to wartime funding mode from its currently peacetime allocations, but I still believe a China with full wartime production will still win this battle of numbers with the US.

I doubt China would build more than two conventional CATOBAR carriers of the 003 class total.
Once the nuclear powerplant is available I expect them to switch to 004 production and do it in two shipyards simultaneously. Two ships at a time.

gelgoog said:

I doubt China would build more than two conventional CATOBAR carriers of the 003 class total.
Once the nuclear powerplant is available I expect them to switch to 004 production and do it in two shipyards simultaneously. Two ships at a time.

Click to expand...

It's a bad idea to wait for the perfect solution. Time is of the essence. I assume that the reason 003 is taking so long (5+ years) is because this is a mass production model or at least upgradable to what should be mass produced.

US didn't even take this long to move to first postwar jet fighters + CATOBARs (steam catapults were only invented in 1950, Forrestal class launched in 1952).

You think 5 years is too long for a new type of ship with all new technologies?
Anyway they only started moving the blocks into the dry dock in 2020.
I think this is pretty fast.

gelgoog said:

You think 5 years is too long for a new type of ship with all new technologies?
Anyway they only started moving the blocks into the dry dock in 2020.
I think this is pretty fast.

Click to expand...

yes, US went from propeller planes to jet planes from CATOBARs within 2 years using 1950's technology.

Even first CVN in all of history only took 3 years to build with 1950's technology.

emblem21 said:

Your assumptions still doesn't really address the money side of things nor the current fact that the USA is currently in a massive crisis where an increasing number of the population are currently live on the street in tents, a number that is increasing day by day. Yeah the US resolve if a few carriers and US air bases gets bombed might increase but consider just how much of a lose if the USA loses those bases and carriers, it would be massive for one and also to note is that China would only ever do such a thing if the USA strikes first. China isn't going to strike first in any scenario because of the simply logic that China isn't stupid and money to pay for the troops and equipment doesn't grow on trees.
Think about why the USA is trying to get other nations to get the ball rolling in regards to Russia, its for the simple fact that the USA cannot fight either Russia or China by themselves. If China is to sink those carriers, it will be when the USA strikes first or crosses a red line, to which the entire populous of China will be behind them while the USA, while they will be hardened against China, well if the grand majority of the nation is in a state of extreme poverty and supplies are all down (because in the event of a war, China isn't going to be trading anything to the USA not to mention that China will simply dump all treasuries and completely crash the US stock market which I believe is something that the US doesn't want happening at all cost), they won't have the time to even care about this war that the USA have started once again
In a completely mechanical world, maybe your analysis might have weight, but in the real world, nothing is for certain an. Should the US economy and supply chains break down completely, the chances of this so called multi year war is simply not in the cards when the majority of the populous of the USA will be struggle to find food or supplies and the government will be hard pressed by the people to solve the issue that is ripping the nation right at the moment, not some country across the ocean that is not close enough to matter for most Americans.

Click to expand...

Are we sufficiently confident in such a prospect that a conflict would result in such poor economic performance in the US to allow China to come out top in a war by causing the US to focus on domestic issues?

Is the degree of confidence sufficient to deem a requirement to have a military capable of defeating the entire US global military over the course of a multi-year war with high US resolve... unnecessary?

If so, then I can only say I disagree. I do not think we know what the world's financial systems and geo-economic alliances will look like during the event of a true high intensity conflict between China and the US and we definitely do not know how the US populace and US government would react in event to China being able to say, deal the US military a few defeats (such as sinking a couple of carriers and devastating Guam).


Banking on such a prospect causing the US to back inwards and focus on its own domestic issues or hoping that such a conflict would expose various flaws in the US economy and making it unable to sustain a war, is massively dangerous to me.
Or rather, banking and hoping for those prospects is fine, but that doesn't mean the PLA will be free from the requirement to plan and procure for a conflict whereby they are required to robustly defeat the US material capability to project power in the western pacific.

Bltizo said:

Are we sufficiently confident in such a prospect that a conflict would result in such poor economic performance in the US to allow China to come out top in a war by causing the US to focus on domestic issues?

Click to expand...

1.8 Million* people are employed in the US as a result of exports to China

Probably far more employed profiting off cheap Chinese goods, If trade was to suddenly stop between China and the USA then every company that sold products made in China or based on components made in China would no longer have products to sell. Add to this the fact Taiwan would not be shipping Semi conductors.

Companies like Apple would basically cease to exist and retailers like Walmart would have most of their shelves empty. Some companies like Intel are diversified but they would still loose a sizeable percentage of their production.

Direct job looses would be massive, a strong decline in consumers with money would cause greater secondary job looses and the economy would spiral downward. The majority of these freshly unemployed would be of little value to a modern war effect.

Trade would also stop between China and all members of any alliance formed, adversely affecting their economies and therefore their demand for US products.

China would probably effectively loose it's US treasury bonds as it would have no one willing to buy them from them. They would however stop buying more thus depriving the US of a major financier of the US government debt.

War with China would be M.A.D. in the form of financial Armageddon

It's debatable whether China would fair any better considering it would lose it's access to markets across the western aligned world, however one could argue a managed economy has more chances of surviving such a massive down turn.

*reference for the 1.8million jobs