PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
They caused significant economic and social disruption. their ringleaders have not been sufficiently punished to establish deterrence. Instead the lack of brutal punishment has resulted in them emboldening traitor elements within China to further attack Chinese interests.
Slowly, assets of the enemy are being activated. Russia found out the hard way that internal security and military strength go hand in hand. China has a history of struggles with internal security with the most infamous being someone as high as Lin Biao attempting to defect to the Soviets.
Yes. Some of these elements are prominent in the CPC as well, which makes the challenge more severe. But thankfully the CPC is rooting them out and marginalizing them. I agree there could be more aggressive pursuit and punishment of these fifth columnists however.
On the Taiwan topic, I think it's interesting to see where the US is positioning assets globally right now. How many CSGs are available in 3, 7, and 30 days for WESTPAC?
One thing I've always lacked information on is china's anti-air systems. We know Russians have S-400 and s-500 systems. US has THAAD, Patriot. Israel has Arrow, David sling etc
How capable are Chinese air defense systems in wake of Taiwan invasion. As a Pakistani, I do know that we have deployed china's hq 9 defense system but can china replenish it's air defenses in wake of missile barrages?
How capable are Chinese air defense systems in wake of Taiwan invasion. As a Pakistani, I do know that we have deployed china's hq 9 defense system but can china replenish it's air defenses in wake of missile barrages?
China has loads of systems. Basically equivalents to every single major Russian SAM system you can think of like Tor, S-350, S-400.
They imported most Russian SAM systems and they developed their own SAMs with more modern Chinese electronics, and their own carrier vehicles.
So you have the HQ-17 (aka Chinese Tor), HQ-16 (aka Chinese S-350), HQ-9 (aka Chinese S-300/400).
This is a gross oversimplification but you should get the idea.
You can think of the HQ-16 as an equivalent to David's Sling, and the HQ-9 as an equivalent to Patriot and maybe THAAD.
What I am less familiar with is their equivalents to the Russian BMD systems like the S-500 or the A-135.
I assume China will buy the S-500 for evaluation eventually and make their own version of it.
I have heard there is some sort of Chinese A-135 equivalent. That would be closest thing to the Israeli Arrow I guess, but I do not know much about it.
They imported most Russian SAM systems and they developed their own SAMs with more modern Chinese electronics, and their own carrier vehicles.
So you have the HQ-17 (aka Chinese Tor), HQ-16 (aka Chinese S-350), HQ-9 (aka Chinese S-300/400).
This is a gross oversimplification but you should get the idea.
You can think of the HQ-16 as an equivalent to David's Sling, and the HQ-9 as an equivalent to Patriot and maybe THAAD.
What I am less familiar with is their equivalents to the Russian BMD systems like the S-500 or the A-135.
I assume China will buy the S-500 for evaluation eventually and make their own version of it.
I have heard there is some sort of Chinese A-135 equivalent. That would be closest thing to the Israeli Arrow I guess, but I do not know much about it.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
There is no Chinese equivalent of the S-500 or A-135. Rather, they use the DN-3 which seems to be more or less an equivalent to the GBI. The SC-19/DN-1 is also a GBI-type interceptor but might've been developed into the DN-3 instead.
There were also rumors of a HQ-26 (supposedly an SM-3 equivalent) and HQ-29 (PAC-3MSE equivalent) but nothing came of them. Perhaps the HQ-19 superseded their role.
So, their air defense tiers are also follows:
1. HQ-9B
2. HQ-22/HQ-9A
3. HQ-16FE
4. HQ-16A/B
5. HQ-11/HQ-17
While their missile defense tiers are:
1. DN-3
2. HQ-19
3. HQ-9B
lcloo
Captain
In about 3 weeks time, much will be reveal in 2024 Zhuhai Airshow. Keep the dates.
Did the white paper demonstration really caused significant economic and social disruptions? All I remembered is their stunt being mocked and meme'd in the Chinese internet, and their movement fizzled out in just a few days.
In a Taiwan contingency, I doubt saboteurs would have a decisive effect on the success of the operations, especially after seeing how Russia is still doing alright despite these setbacks in Ukraine, and Hezbollah still being an effective threat despite the moles, targeted assassinations and sabotage to their equipment by Israel. But yes, internal security is very important, especially with the history of power struggles and defection in China.
The problem these fifth columnists create isn't in direct sabotage, but more in adversely shaping the information arena in a way that makes favorable, decisive, rapid conflict termination less likely.
Basically, any public messaging from influential members of Chinese society that makes the US/Japan/Taiwan side perceive that China might back down in the face of US escalation or continued Taiwan resistance would make escalation/resistance more likely. Hence it is critical that China present only one united front months or even years before the conflict begins - and that "soft" Chinese voices are neutralized or eliminated as rapidly as possible.
Basically, any public messaging from influential members of Chinese society that makes the US/Japan/Taiwan side perceive that China might back down in the face of US escalation or continued Taiwan resistance would make escalation/resistance more likely. Hence it is critical that China present only one united front months or even years before the conflict begins - and that "soft" Chinese voices are neutralized or eliminated as rapidly as possible.