PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
View attachment 134047





View attachment 134046
Hongmen association on both sides of the strait denounced Taiwan independence movement and vows to eliminate those hanjian.

Chinese Triads have historically been a revolutionary force in Chinese history. They’ve successfully ousted the corrupt Manchurian so maybe they’ll have similar success here.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
china needs to shift their strategy to 2x building more fighter jets and submarine. U.S seems to be very focused on sinking China's warship.

Fighter jets are better imo. They provide air superiority and less dangerous compared to a warship. Warship requires hundreds of crewmen to operate which is risky. Fighter jet only one guy. It can shoot all of their ammo and return back to base easier than a navy ship.

Your logic is flawed. Firstly, as if the US isn't also focusing on finding ways to shoot down Chinese fighters and hunting down Chinese submarines lmao.

Then, there is this fundamental fact where no equipment and platform works alone anymore. Pretty much all of them are parts and components of integrated systems of systems of warfare today and into the future.

Moreover, without (more than) sufficient number of capable surface warships - Who's going to escort amphibious assault forces to their destination landing beaches during Operation AR? Who's going to blockade certain islands to prevent enemy reinforcements to resupply and relieve enemy forces trapped on those islands? And who's going to guard the operational area against foreign/enemy military intervention on the high seas?

Furthermore, unlike the (CON)US which boasted three island chains spanning the entire Pacific, China has none to speak of. This means many of the major Chinese population, economic and industrial centers situated along and near her coastlines are exposed to enemy action coming from the WestPac, especially considering that many hundreds of millions of the Chinese populace do live within 1000 kilometers of the Chinese coastline. Without (more than) sufficient number of capable surface warships to fill the 1IC and 2IC, how is China going to be able to extend her shield outwards into the sea in order to defend her most populous and performing regions from enemy warplane and missile attacks during war, before those warplanes and missiles enters Chinese territorial airspace?

Last but not least - A submarine can house officers and crew in the many tens (for SSKs) if not more than 100 (for SSNs and SSBNs). If anything, while at least some number of officers and crew of a surface warship can escape on lifeboats when the warship goes down - More often than not, a submarine gets sunk with all hands lost.
 
Last edited:

bebops

Junior Member
Registered Member
Your logic is flawed. Firstly, as if the US isn't also focusing on finding ways to shoot down Chinese fighters and hunting down Chinese submarines lmao.

Then, there is this fundamental fact where no equipment and platform works alone anymore. Pretty much all of them are parts and components of integrated systems of systems of warfare today and into the future.

Moreover, without (more than) sufficient number of capable surface warships - Who's going to escort amphibious assault forces to their destination landing beaches during Operation AR? Who's going to blockade certain islands to prevent enemy reinforcements to resupply and relieve enemy forces trapped on those islands? And who's going to guard the operational area against foreign/enemy military intervention on the high seas?

Furthermore, unlike the (CON)US which boasted three island chains spanning the entire Pacific, China has none to speak of. This means many of the major Chinese population, economic and industrial centers situated along and near her coastlines are exposed to enemy action coming from the WestPac, especially considering that many hundreds of millions of the Chinese populace do live within 1000 kilometers of the Chinese coastline. Without (more than) sufficient number of capable surface warships to fill the 1IC and 2IC, how is China going to be able to extend her shield outwards into the sea in order to defend her most populous and performing regions from enemy warplane and missile attacks during war, before those warplanes and missiles enters Chinese territorial airspace?

Last but not least - A submarine can house officers and crew in the many tens (for SSKs) if not more than 100 (for SSNs and SSBNs). If anything, while at least some number of officers and crew of a surface warship can escape on lifeboats when the warship goes down - More often than not, a submarine gets sunk with all hands lost.


the US isn't also focusing on finding ways to shoot down Chinese fighters and hunting down Chinese submarines lmao.

did I say this? Please reread it. Jet fighters and submarine are least vulnerable platforms. It should be 2x building.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
the US isn't also focusing on finding ways to shoot down Chinese fighters and hunting down Chinese submarines lmao.

did I say this? Please reread it.

That's what you seem to have been implying in your post when calling on China to double the rates of fighter jets and submarine production and giving procurement preferences to these two platforms over warships, based on the simple-ish assumptions that "the US seems to be very focused on sinking China's warship", "(fighter jets are) less dangerous compared to a warship" and " Warship requires hundreds of crewmen to operate which is risky".

Jet fighters and submarine are least vulnerable platforms. It should be 2x building.

No, not really.

In reality, things are definitely not as simple as that. They can be just as vulnerable (and prone to damage/destruction/lost) as any other military equipment and platforms, especially in an all-out peer-vs-peer conflict.
 
Last edited:

RobertC

Junior Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
We saw this coming in June CCG Order #3

Here's what I believe comes next Law Enforcement Short of a Blockade
The key is to incrementally elevate the scope and effect of the stop-and-board actions. At some point the CCG will be stopping and boarding all commercial shipping into and out of Taiwanese ports. Papers will be examined; equipment will be inspected; container contents will be verified; etc etc. And there will always be some sort of infraction. With law enforcement there always is. And these actions will always be under the umbrella of safety-at-sea.

As the commercial shippers face longer inspection queues their annoyance will increase especially if they are carrying perishables or other-time sensitive products. Perhaps raising costs for Taiwanese-related operations. Perhaps declining shipments leaving lower-quality shippers to carry Taiwan's products at greater risk, including promised pickup and delivery times.
 
Last edited:

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Why stop there? Canberra should actually proceed with breaking off diplomatic relations with Beijing and establish one with Taipei. Let's see what their steel and coal industries would throw at their faces.

But then, we all know that the former penal colony of the expired British Empire a.k.a. Airfield #2 isn't even a sovereign country anyway.

Australian Senate passes motion supporting Taiwan's sovereignty

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Top