PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
These were short-range unguided rockets launched by a single-use platform. Which was perfectly acceptable for the time, but this is not 1944 anymore. PLAN already
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
from their Zubr LCACs.

Think out left field a bit.

What's an easy way to get '000s of drones into the area of ops given that none of the tactical drones being mentioned can get across the straits on their own steam.

That's a crap ton of lancet analogs in that form factor there. Easier/Cheaper than using AHs with actual NLOS missiles
 

Wrought

Junior Member
Registered Member
Think out left field a bit.

What's an easy way to get '000s of drones into the area of ops given that none of the tactical drones being mentioned can get across the straits on their own steam.

That's a crap ton of lancet analogs in that form factor there. Easier/Cheaper than using AHs with actual NLOS missiles

Pack them in a shipping container and load them onto a regular old cargo ship.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
Pack them in a shipping container and load them onto a regular old cargo ship.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yup. Or the 48-can one China demo-ed not too long ago, deck mounted instead. But you get the point ...

Point being (my original post about specials and funnies) - highly single purpose platform ("specialised") as opposed to multi-role. A drone "arsenal ship". Another trigger word ;)
 

Wrought

Junior Member
Registered Member
Yup. Or the 48-can one China demo-ed not too long ago, deck mounted instead. But you get the point ...

Point being (my original post about specials and funnies) - highly single purpose platform ("specialised") as opposed to multi-role. A drone "arsenal ship". Another trigger word ;)

The whole point of putting them in a shipping container is so that regular old cargo ships can be used with little to no modification. Why would you waste resources developing a specialised platform instead of repurposing a cheap and plentiful existing one.
 

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
The whole point of putting them in a shipping container is so that regular old cargo ships can be used with little to no modification. Why would you waste resources developing a specialised platform instead of repurposing a cheap and plentiful existing one.

Could do that. Not saying that it has to be a special developed ship.
There's also a lot of old LSTs that could be repurposed. You could also drop a few of these containers on the cargo deck. Same effect. (except the containers you linked to are a German system? I just subbed in the closest China equiv off the top of my head)
Just a small issue of deconflicting civilian crew and military crew on actual shooting platforms

Point is, like the 'ol D-Day stable of specials and funnies. Highly specialised role, single-purpose, even single use platforms ... the scope of a Taiwan AR will be big enough to entertain the idea of such special role platforms for exact purposes.

Something like the bobbin carrier is actually now not "special" anymore, I know my little backyard uses that as di rigueur.

That particular Rocket Ship, Landing certainly may not make a return as a fire support platform but in similar vein, as a drone swarm launcher? Cos all these peeps talking about swarming Taiwan with tactical drones don't seem to have considered how to get it there, deploy, employ and deconflict. But whatever. Too many arguments hung up on specifics and binary solutions, must be this or nothing else. #exit
 
Last edited:

Temstar

Brigadier
Registered Member
China has developed specialized shore bombardment ships before:
516 Jiujiang, modified 053H:
053-516.jpg
053h-516-rocket8.jpg
053h-516-rocket9.jpg

Two twin 100mm main guns, five (count 'em) 50 tube 122mm rocket launchers with reload mechanisms and more ammo below deck. If shore bombardment really was required PLAN could easily modify a few ships to modern version of this, but I rather doubt its necessary.

What might be a good idea is specialized short range AAW ships dedicated to defend the RORO fleet. Imagine something a bit like 516 Jiujiang, but instead of rockets it's filled from bow to stem with HQ-10 launchers and 1130 and specializing in taking out kamikaze drones and subsonic ASM up close.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
What might be a good idea is specialized short range AAW ships dedicated to defend the RORO fleet. Imagine something a bit like 516 Jiujiang, but instead of rockets it's filled from bow to stem with HQ-10 launchers and 1130 and specializing in taking out kamikaze drones and subsonic ASM up close.

Provided that sustained high cruising speed isn't a major requirement, such a SHORAD-purpose escort warship type using the readily-available 056A FFL's hull is definitely plausible.

Given that the FFL's hull isn't exactly large, i.e. limited space and weight allowances onboard - Depending on viability and feasibility, such escort ships can be designed to be equipped with either:
1. Both detection, processing and fire-control systems + weapon platforms (namely HQ-10, HQ-17, H/PJ-17 and H/PJ-11) onboard; or
2. Only equipped with the former + only either the HHQ-10 or 1130 for self-defense, while serving as a command ship for directing smaller ships/boats and/or USVs (acting as wingman ships) that are armed with the aforementioned SHORAD weapons.
 

HardBall

New Member
Registered Member
China has developed specialized shore bombardment ships before:
516 Jiujiang, modified 053H:
View attachment 135917
View attachment 135918
View attachment 135919

Two twin 100mm main guns, five (count 'em) 50 tube 122mm rocket launchers with reload mechanisms and more ammo below deck. If shore bombardment really was required PLAN could easily modify a few ships to modern version of this, but I rather doubt its necessary.

What might be a good idea is specialized short range AAW ships dedicated to defend the RORO fleet. Imagine something a bit like 516 Jiujiang, but instead of rockets it's filled from bow to stem with HQ-10 launchers and 1130 and specializing in taking out kamikaze drones and subsonic ASM up close.
Interesting idea.

However, might be much faster and more convenient to temporarily install self contained CIWS per RORO ship, and a datalink to other surface platforms and/or shore based MALE and HALE surveillance drones.
 

Heliox

Junior Member
Registered Member
Interesting idea.

However, might be much faster and more convenient to temporarily install self contained CIWS per RORO ship, and a datalink to other surface platforms and/or shore based MALE and HALE surveillance drones.

There are tradeoffs.

Every shooter platform requires field of fire control. The more such platforms you have in close proximity, the harder that becomes.

Even with self-destructing ammo, having a CIWS will require you to space out you merchant ships 2~3,000m apart - more if you don't trust the confluence of Murphy's law and the dud rate on the SD ammo. Putting each vessel 3,000+m apart really spreads out your fleet, increasing the difficulty of covering your invasion fleet with the next layers of short and medium range AD. You could pack them closer but then you'll need to be very accurate on arcs of fire and station keeping, having small crews on board each civ ship to service the CIWS lest they flip the thing to the wrong mode, etc. Complications -> Murphy's Law.

The other method is the traditional convoy and escort method. Pack all your civvies in a herd and put your watchdogs in between them and the likely incoming vector(s). Allows you to pack the civvies closer (100m spacing) which condenses the area your layers need to cover.

There are 2 things that are inherently difficult in this environment that a lot of non-prof seem to take for granted. Within the military, there are a lot of compartmentalised networks both intra- and inter- unit/formation (let alone inter-service). Comms across multi-service, large ops is never easy and relay lag is a real thing even if the signals themselves are near instantaneous. Better to shorten the loop in the case of dealing with inbound bogeys where your engagement window is under a minute.

The other stems from above, which is blue-on-blue. Everything needs to be deconflicted - from the channels that your naval gunfire support (shells) flies through to the lanes your air assets ingress/egress, everything needs to be accounted for. The sea might seem like a big place but it can get incredibly crowded when you have an invasion fleet of a few hundred vessels. Even if you have SD shells, a dud rate of 1% can mean an awful lot of strays in the beaten zone - and generally, in an amphib scenario, where the incoming bogeys are coming from is the same direction as your LZs are, so guess where your beaten zone is?

Which is why (coming from a TAG background), the idea of thousands of FPV drones swarming the area I'm in, controlled by operators 10s of km away with no direct comms, looking for targets of opportunity? I'm crawling into a bunker till they go away - in between low fidelity optics, EW degraded signals, opstempo hastening their decision making - I'm not taking my chances. Battlefield Management Systems do make things a little easier but really, target id is not as easy as you think it is, especially in the world of those guys behind enemy lines doing blocking, interdiction and just generally f-ing with the enemy's rear (sometimes driving commandeered vehicles as well). I'm not coming out until someone deconflicts my battlespace.
 
Last edited:
Top