PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Gloire_bb

Gloire_bb

Captain
Registered Member
Blitzo said:
The difference between a Z-20 and a V-280 type aircraft for most of the PLA's missions (whether Taiwan or westpac as a whole) is not that decisive. Helicopter air assaults aren't that worthwhile and too high risk (same for paratrooper drops as well), for the strategic priorities China has.

If anything, the most useful of a V-280 type aircraft would be if it could be converted to an ASW helicopter, rather than as a transport aircraft.
Click to expand...
China begins with a whole network of remote island outposts, and, in case of a wider pacific conflict, is almost bound to do some sort of that Japanese did back in 1941. It's forced by geography.

In this sense, longer-ranged, faster (turboprop-level-fast), efficiently cruising rotorcraft is essential, and not having one(when opponent has one) by itself is a major, strategic disadvantage.

Furthermore, much like with longer-legged&fast amphibious craft - tiltrotors not just stretch defenders' reaction times, they expose much more of the actual Taiwan coastline to the risk of assault. Helicopter-proofing western coast is one thing. Helicopter-proofing eastern coast at the same time is a horror.
 
tphuang

tphuang

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
luosifen said:
Some Indians would disagree with you Patch.

Staying on topic though, what happens to overseas PLA assets during hostilities? I'm not sure the Djibouti base would survive if things went hot.
Click to expand...
lol, there is reason PLA doesn't have any other oversea bases. It has no ability to defend them.

At this point. it's best bet is to find forward operating bases in Myanmar and Cambodia to allow it to support actions closer to Australia and Indian Ocean. Those would be places within their defendable sphere.
 
T

theforgotten0007

New Member
Registered Member
tphuang said:
lol, there is reason PLA doesn't have any other oversea bases. It has no ability to defend them.
Click to expand...
Fking lmaoo you got it arse backwards.

China doesn't have overseas bases because it doesn't need them, hence no security plan for them. They've never displayed any interest in cosplaying as world police, which is resource draining and pointless. China's only interest lies in its growth through trade with friendly nations which is what the BRI initiative is for.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Gloire_bb said:
China begins with a whole network of remote island outposts, and, in case of a wider pacific conflict, is almost bound to do some sort of that Japanese did back in 1941. It's forced by geography.

In this sense, longer-ranged, faster (turboprop-level-fast), efficiently cruising rotorcraft is essential, and not having one(when opponent has one) by itself is a major, strategic disadvantage.

Furthermore, much like with longer-legged&fast amphibious craft - tiltrotors not just stretch defenders' reaction times, they expose much more of the actual Taiwan coastline to the risk of assault. Helicopter-proofing western coast is one thing. Helicopter-proofing eastern coast at the same time is a horror.
Click to expand...

Yes, but none of this actually addresses my point which is that such an aircraft is not particularly high in priority in the scope of the PLAs larger pressing concerns (whether in a Taiwan scope or a Westpac conflict scope).

In both scenarios, to exploit the capability you described requires one to have the ability to achieve air control and sea control first, which by itself is a significant challenge.
In the Taiwan scenario, the very idea of doing high risk air assaults is gratuitous without having laughable overmatch in ISR and on call prompt fires.
 
C

caudaceus

Senior Member
Registered Member
5unrise said:
I am really glad that CSIS 'experts' and 'analysts' are using Youtube video as a source for the capabilities of naval forces of the principal combatants. Are these guys really being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars (big bucks) to sit and watch youtube? Expertise on display right here!

View attachment 104946
Click to expand...
What the fuck?! If I wrote my academic paper using random YouTube video I'd be bitchslapped by my professor.


Addendum. Heard that CSIS assumption is that US Air Force kill ratio is 10:1. I think that's a horrible assumption. Maybe it's for face saving? Idk
 
Last edited:
BoraTas

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
Patchwork_Chimera said:
Nah as far as I know, even though the study was laughable, the 10:1 thing wasn't actually true and was just made up by someone.
Click to expand...
Didn't they mention the vast majority of losses were on the ground?

I want to ask something. China, by the end of 2026, should have around at least 400 J-20s and ~480 J-16s. Is there even enough basing capacity in Japan to counter such a force?
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
BoraTas said:
Didn't they mention the vast majority of losses were on the ground?

I want to ask something. China, by the end of 2026, should have around at least 400 J-20s and ~480 J-16s. Is there even enough basing capacity in Japan to counter such a force?
Click to expand...
I think factors such as SAM systems and AAM missile trucks (B1-B, for instance) should be taken into consideration as well, not just merely the number of fighters - especially when conducting operations around or above the Ryukyu Islands (and possibly Kyushu, for instance).

Significant portion of Russian Air Force losses in Ukraine are caused by SAM systems (both large ones like the S-300, and small ones like MANPADS), for instance.
 
BoraTas

BoraTas

Captain
Registered Member
ACuriousPLAFan said:
I think factors such as SAM systems and AAM missile trucks (B1-B, for instance) should be taken into consideration as well, not just merely the number of fighters - especially when conducting operations around or above the Ryukyu Islands (and possibly Kyushu, for instance).

Significant portion of Russian Air Force losses in Ukraine are caused by SAM systems (both large ones like the S-300, and small ones like MANPADS), for instance.
Click to expand...
I don't think an AAM missile truck is a viable concept at all. Missile effective range is dependent on aircraft performance. Bad kinematics mean a higher enemy AAM effective range and also a lower effective range for the missiles you launch. A B-1B or, worse, B-52 AAM missile truck is just fighter food. A fighter would just go to Mach 2 and kill it from really far away.

And this is if we don't consider the sorry state of the B-1B fleet. It is literally a zombie. Their use at CAS in Afghanistan ruined them.

H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

The main issue with the B-1 is they used them in low altitude missions in Afghanistan and decreased the airframe lifetime more than they should have as a result. I think it is a big mistake to put them out of service. The B-21 was supposed to be a cheaper bomber platform, but it looks like the...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
 
A

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
BoraTas said:
I don't think an AAM missile truck is a viable concept at all. Missile effective range is dependent on aircraft performance. Bad kinematics mean a higher enemy AAM effective range and also a lower effective range for the missiles you launch. A B-1B or, worse, B-52 AAM missile truck is just fighter food. A fighter would just go to Mach 2 and kill it from really far away.

And this is if we don't consider the sorry state of the B-1B fleet. It is literally a zombie. Their use at CAS in Afghanistan ruined them.

H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)

The main issue with the B-1 is they used them in low altitude missions in Afghanistan and decreased the airframe lifetime more than they should have as a result. I think it is a big mistake to put them out of service. The B-21 was supposed to be a cheaper bomber platform, but it looks like the...
www.sinodefenceforum.com
Click to expand...
Agree. Then the concerns for the PLAAF (other than JASDF fighters) would be Japan's SAM systems, which Japan do have a highly capable and competent system and network to speak of.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top