PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

GZDRefugee · Jul 26, 2023

Minm said:
One country, two systems is the offer if there's peaceful reunification. The deal would probably be significantly sweeter than what Hong Kong got since Taiwan has much more leverage. Of course, with every passing year they lose a little bit of leverage. I don't think the CPC even needs to impose any laws on Taiwan, they can continue with their current mockery of democracy as long as there are some PLA bases on the island and they give up the idea of independence.

If there's a war, it depends on how radicalised Taiwanese youth become. There's probably a significant minority of them who are a lost cause. They should be encouraged to emigrate so they don't cause trouble and everyone who does want to fight should be reeducated. However, I wouldn't reeducate people on Taiwan, send them somewhere to rural China so they can mingle with their compatriots and are less likely to rebel on the island.

Even if a war is required for liberation of Taiwan, Hong Kong style 1C2S with NSL is probably still best. You'd want to minimise the shock for civilians. If they feel that nothing much has changed and they can live their lives as before, people will accept it and not rebel

1C2S was Deng Xiaoping's (and Jiang Zeming's) biggest mistake in regards to Hong Kong. Look where that autonomy got them: courts where judges are foreigners, an education system that shits on the mainland, foreign "NGO" presence out the ass.

No, 1C2S was basically an acceptance of the UK taking HK by right of conquest. Why should a thief ever get a vote? Likewise as the losers of the civil war, the Taiwanese would be in no position to demand concessions from the victors.

How you really pacify a population is by improving their quality of life so that they risk destroying their gains if they rebel.

supersnoop · Jul 26, 2023

GZDRefugee said:
1C2S was Deng Xiaoping's (and Jiang Zeming's) biggest mistake in regards to Hong Kong. Look where that autonomy got them: courts where judges are foreigners, an education system that shits on the mainland, foreign "NGO" presence out the ass.

No, 1C2S was basically an acceptance of the UK taking HK by right of conquest. Why should a thief ever get a vote? Likewise as the losers of the civil war, the Taiwanese would be in no position to demand concessions from the victors.

How you really pacify a population is by improving their quality of life so that they risk destroying their gains if they rebel.

These are not faults of 1C2S, it is easy to blame it, but I don't think it is the case.

Case in point, Macau suffers basically none of these ills that HK does (of course there are always some).
PLA was deployed to aid with Typhoon clean up and it was not an issue and in fact welcomed. Unlike in the HK riot cleanup, this was an "operational" tasking in uniform.

Even one of the much derided "foreign judges" in fact confirmed the legality of the NSL in the case of Fernando Cheung.

1C2S was just the smoothest way to transition HK (and Macau) back to Chinese rule. If it was so simple to blame 1C2S, it would have been ended yesterday.

A few things to consider...

- Housing/wealth gap crisis. The HK government has not done a good job with dealing with this, allowing an undercurrent of discontent to brew. Furthermore, this is driven a large part by mainland money which primarily benefitted the already wealthy (property sector, banking/finance) which exacerbated anti-mainland sentiment.

- Failure of intelligence services. NSL made new stipulations to give central government additional powers in stationing intelligence officials and sharing information. Clearly they realized a gap had developed. This is probably how so many NGOs, nurses and teachers were all corrupted.

- Having HK try to solve the problem itself when it was clear that the so-called "pro-democracy legislators" (aka US plants) were disrupting the normal course of government (the worst case scenario of this is Ukraine)

aqh · Jul 27, 2023

What is the longest range US munition in sufficient that can be released from the air/navy? I just want to know how close US forces will be to the Chinese cost during AR?

ACuriousPLAFan · Jul 27, 2023

FairAndUnbiased said:
Based on their range, a Shahed-Lancet combo with SATCOM + optical camera could be launched to patrol the area before the strike happens, and if any signs of aggression present, be ordered to eliminate the threat at low cost. Even 5-10 kg payload is sufficient to remove unarmored TELs, especially if the missiles cook off.

CASC Rainbow is said to be working on a turbojet/turbofan-powered, super long-range (~1000-2000 kilometers), subsonic and highly-modular loitering munition right now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Then, there're all sorts of HALE and MALE UCAVs readily available for the PLA to choose from right now. CH-4, CH-5, CH-6, WZ-7, WZ-10, WL-1, WL-2, WL-3, WJ-700, TB-001 - You name it!

Apart from launching these loitering munitions directly from the launchers, these loitering munitions can be fitted on those MALE and HALE UCAVs, and have them conduct patrol and surveillance missions around the warzone round-the-clock, 24/7. In case an area of interest pops up, these UCAVs will release these loitering munitions (manually through human operator command, automatically through machine command, or both), and they will head towards the designated area.

Then, about these loitering munitions - The onboard combat module can also be swapped with various other types of modules, such that these munitions can:
1. Conduct deeper reconnaissance to scout for enemy targets using camera, radar, lidar and infrared;
2. Conduct ELINT and SIGINT to hunt for enemy electronic and electromagnetic emissions;
3. Conduct node-with-node and node-with-hub communication relays between loitering munitions, UCAVs, manned aerial/ground/naval units and command bases;
4. Conduct EW, ECM and jamming against enemy sensor and radar units;
5. Act as a mini command unit to direct nearby loitering drones to patrol, travel and attack in formations;
and more.

In addition, if there are no enemy targets found within given duration, these loitering munitions can either self-destruct, or return to friendly base/staging point for recollection and future reuse as well.

The possibilities are endless.

Of course, the above functionalities and methods of deployment isn't limited to that particular loitering munition under development by CASC. Any loitering munition with broadly similar functionalities can be considered too.

aqh · Jul 27, 2023

If the H20 can carry cm and bm with 1k+ miles of range can't they just stay within the Chinese coast under the safety of the SAM umbrella making the 1IC a denied environment for the US?

AndrewS · Jul 27, 2023

aqh said:
If the H20 can carry cm and bm with 1k+ miles of range can't they just stay within the Chinese coast under the safety of the SAM umbrella making the 1IC a denied environment for the US?

If an aircraft is going to launch missiles over mainland China, why use an expensive H-20 stealth bomber?

You could use an H-6 or a land-based missile, which costs far less.

The whole point of a stealth bomber is to cross contested airspace.

FairAndUnbiased · Jul 27, 2023

ACuriousPLAFan said:
CASC Rainbow is said to be working on a turbojet/turbofan-powered, super long-range (~1000-2000 kilometers), subsonic and highly-modular loitering munition right now.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Then, there're all sorts of HALE and MALE UCAVs readily available for the PLA to choose from right now. CH-4, CH-5, CH-6, WZ-7, WZ-10, WL-1, WL-2, WL-3, WJ-700, TB-001 - You name it!

Apart from launching these loitering munitions directly from the launchers, these loitering munitions can be fitted on those MALE and HALE UCAVs, and have them conduct patrol and surveillance missions around the warzone round-the-clock, 24/7. In case an area of interest pops up, these UCAVs will release these loitering munitions (manually through human operator command, automatically through machine command, or both), and they will head towards the designated area.

Then, about these loitering munitions - The onboard combat module can also be swapped with various other types of modules, such that these munitions can:
1. Conduct deeper reconnaissance to scout for enemy targets using camera, radar, lidar and infrared;
2. Conduct ELINT and SIGINT to hunt for enemy electronic and electromagnetic emissions;
3. Conduct node-with-node and node-with-hub communication relays between loitering munitions, UCAVs, manned aerial/ground/naval units and command bases;
4. Conduct EW, ECM and jamming against enemy sensor and radar units;
5. Act as a mini command unit to direct nearby loitering drones to patrol, travel and attack in formations;
and more.

In addition, if there are no enemy targets found within given duration, these loitering munitions can either self-destruct, or return to friendly base/staging point for recollection and future reuse as well.

The possibilities are endless.

Of course, the above functionalities and methods of deployment isn't limited to that particular loitering munition under development by CASC. Any loitering munition with broadly similar functionalities can be considered too.

the only problem is that turbojets are expensive though I guess a shit turbojet that only has to last 10 hours isn't too bad. I think a piston engine loitering munition is the way to go for high volume.

ACuriousPLAFan · Jul 27, 2023

bebops said:
The way to win these kind of war is whomever has the biggest stockpile of guided and precision missiles. If U.S announced that they are planning to build X amounts of Y missile. Make sure you have 3x or more the amount. Whoever runs out of missile or has a slow missile production, then that country loses. Fighter jets and ships are nothing but a carrier of missiles.

I'd raise that to at least 5x-10x the amount - Simply because China is expected to face-off against large number of considerably-capable enemies (US + UK + Japan + Australia + South Korea + Philippines) in case of a wider confrontation in the WestPac. Oh, and add India too, should that scope is enlarged to IndoPac.

bebops said:
If China has a long range MLRS that can reach Japan's range, then it is game over for them.

Before continuing on this, I recall one post by @tphuang in the now-closed Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine Conflict regarding the MLRS (link here).

The widely-quoted range for PHL-16's 750mm TBM is ~500-600 kilometers. However, the actual range of said TBM could be as far as 910 kilometers (or slightly more), judging by what that PLAGF soldier said and brain-storming in tphuang's post:

Station those PHL-16s with 750mm TBMs in Shanghai, and key bases on South Korea, southern Japan and the Ryukyu Islands are within striking range, such as Osan Air Base (Yellow), Kunsan Air Base (Orange), Busan Naval Base (Purple), Sasebo Naval Base (Red), Kadena Air Base (Green) and Futenma Air Base (Blue).

However, this information has not been officially confirmed to be true, so take it with a pinch of salt.

In the meantime, in order to create a MLRS that could fire TBMs with ranges that can hit targets all across Japan, you can either:
#1 - Develop a longer MLRS based on the PHL-16, which could carry and launch longer TBMs in order to achieve the required range. Or, develop a MLRS based on a semi-truck chassis, i.e. the tractor unit towing the TBM launchers located on the trailer unit.
#2 - Otherwise, use this instead:

The DF-10A, which is an improved variant of the CJ-10, already has a strike range of 1500-2000 kilometers. Using DF-10A means that the entirety of South Korea and Japan can be effectively targetted, with the launcher stationed in the relative safety of China's northeastern region.

ACuriousPLAFan · Jul 27, 2023

FairAndUnbiased said:
the only problem is that turbojets are expensive though I guess a shit turbojet that only has to last 10 hours isn't too bad. I think a piston engine loitering munition is the way to go for high volume.

Yeah.

Though, the main factor influencing the choice of turbojet (or turbofan) engines for the new CH loitering munition instead of piston or turboprop engines mainly comes down to speed.

Unlike Ukraine, the WestPac is a massive, massive place. Moving from one island to another could easily incur tens or hundreds of kilometers of travelling distance, which isn't exactly ideal - Especially when dealing with targets that are time-sensitive (e.g. small missile launcher vehicles that can be hidden in large bushes/forests or hidden inside buildings, and only driven out into the open right before launching the missile(s) before retreating to cover or discarded).

Then, there're the islands of Taiwan, mainland Japan (mainly Kyushu, Shikoku and Honshu) and the Philippines (mainly Leyte, Mindoro and Palawan). Unlike the Ryukyu Islands and ROC-held islands in the Taiwan Strait, these islands are:
1. Actually absolutely massive,
2. Pretty hilly & mountainous,
3. Have dense forest covers, and/or
4. Have large, densely-packed urban areas -
Which are absolutely perfect environments for the aforementioned time-sensitive targets to hide within and move about.

Therefore, quick reflex and sharp response is crucial, if the PLA wants to destroy those launcher vehicles and their command modules as soon as their presence is detected and logged, before they could react and move away/launch.

tankphobia · Jul 27, 2023

ACuriousPLAFan said:
Yeah.

Though, the main factor influencing the choice of turbojet (or turbofan) engines for the new CH loitering munition instead of piston or turboprop engines mainly comes down to speed.

Unlike Ukraine, the WestPac is a massive, massive place. Moving from one island to another could easily incur tens or hundreds of kilometers of travelling distance, which isn't exactly ideal - Especially when dealing with targets that are time-sensitive (e.g. small missile launcher vehicles that can be hidden in large bushes/forests or hidden inside buildings, and only driven out into the open right before launching the missile(s) before retreating to cover or discarded).

Then, there're the islands of Taiwan, mainland Japan (mainly Kyushu, Shikoku and Honshu) and the Philippines (mainly Leyte, Mindoro and Palawan). Unlike the Ryukyu Islands and ROC-held islands in the Taiwan Strait, these islands are:
1. Actually absolutely massive,
2. Pretty hilly & mountainous,
3. Have dense forest covers, and/or
4. Have large, densely-packed urban areas -
Which are absolutely perfect environments for the aforementioned time-sensitive targets to hide within and move about.

Therefore, quick reflex and sharp response is crucial, if the PLA wants to destroy those launcher vehicles and their command modules as soon as their presence is detected and logged, before they could react and move away/launch.

Speed may not be super important if PLA implants MLRS delivered loitering munition as discussed in the UAV thread, if China does embrace AI controlled UAVs they could just autonomously hunt and kill equipment once deployed over target areas. I doubt any serious defense can just be lifted up and moved far outside range of loitering munitions in a hurry.

It doesn't actually seem all that far fetched and within current technological limitations.

PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

GZDRefugee

Junior Member

supersnoop

Major

aqh

Junior Member

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier

aqh

Junior Member

AndrewS

Brigadier

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier

tankphobia

Senior Member