PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

S

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
Jason_ said:
I briefly skimmed through it. Overall, not impressed.

Some notables problems, which should be very familiar to readers of American think tank reports:
1. over reliance on extremely outdated information or sources
2. uncritical reading of translated PLA documents (e.g. concluding the PLA lack capability X because Y document says "we must strengthen X")
3. completely absurd scenarios that ignores preparatory phases before the invasion
4. Recycled articles from the 2010s with just passing mentions of new PLA capability, completely ignoring how these capabilities fundamentally invalidates previously made core assumptions

This is a boilerplate US think tank report that could have been written in 2017. What is funny is that its recommendations for Taiwan is functionally identical to reports a decade ago, but over that time the RoCArF didn't change much but the PLA is completely unrecognizable.
Click to expand...

I didn't skim it, but I Ctrl+F the word 'drone'.

It only appears 15 times. 2 times is in the references, a few times were in reference to opportunities for Taiwan, and another to mention a US lead in long range drones.

I don't think drones are the end all of the discussion, but I think it certainly illustrates point 4
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member

Millennium 7 comments on a video where Ward Carroll speaks with the chief of US INDOPACOM. Discussing the US Navy's posture against the PLAN.

It is kind of pathetic when the US chief of INDOPACOM compares the Type 052D performance vs the Arleigh Burke by just counting the number VLS cells of each ship. Claiming the Type 052D has 60% of the power of an Arleigh Burke. When the offensive weapons of the Type 052D are way more powerful.
 
A

A potato

Junior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:

Millennium 7 comments on a video where Ward Carroll speaks with the chief of US INDOPACOM. Discussing the US Navy's posture against the PLAN.

It is kind of pathetic when the US chief of INDOPACOM compares the Type 052D performance vs the Arleigh Burke by just counting the number VLS cells of each ship. Claiming the Type 052D has 60% of the power of an Arleigh Burke. When the offensive weapons of the Type 052D are way more powerful.
Click to expand...
This image pretty much sums up the video and the Chief of US INDOPACOM words.
1731087530701.png
 
H

HighGround

Senior Member
Registered Member
gelgoog said:

Millennium 7 comments on a video where Ward Carroll speaks with the chief of US INDOPACOM. Discussing the US Navy's posture against the PLAN.

It is kind of pathetic when the US chief of INDOPACOM compares the Type 052D performance vs the Arleigh Burke by just counting the number VLS cells of each ship. Claiming the Type 052D has 60% of the power of an Arleigh Burke. When the offensive weapons of the Type 052D are way more powerful.
Click to expand...
I don't think it reflects the thinking of the US defense establishment , these guys aren't active duty. Actually I don't recall if Millennium 7 ever served.

Can't take Ward Carroll's interviews or channels seriously, it's almost always a US jerk-off fest with very little if anything useful ever said.
 
G

gelgoog

Lieutenant General
Registered Member
Millennium 7 is an Italian aerospace engineer I think. He is just providing his own comment on the video of Ward Carroll and Samuel Paparo.

You are wrong about Samuel Paparo.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

He is the current commander of INDOPACOM. So it is the thinking of the US defense establishment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top