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 over reliance on extremely outdated information or sources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.
 
V

vaguba

Just Hatched
Registered Member
gelgoog said:
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.
Click to expand...
america has beaten and stretched the burke's superstructure to absurd ends, while the type 052D is a purpose built ship for its role.

not to mention the type 054 frigates, which are numerous and more than a match for just the taiwan theater of operations
 
M

Michaelsinodef

Senior Member
Registered Member
HighGround said:
Well that's embarassing then, but I really do have difficult believing that somebody that high-ranking could would reduce war-gaming down to VLS counts.

Even if it is paper napkin math, surely he can do better than shitty arithmetic.
Click to expand...
Either that.
Or he knows, but just have to go out and present it like that to public media.

1. Would mean greater chance of war/conflict (in which US would lose even harder).
2. Would comparatively, mean lower chance (and US performance being better in the even of conflict)
 
V

votran

New Member
Registered Member
Index said:
It is still unacceptable aggression by America.

Induction of the J-35 is well timed (accidentally) to completely overmatch them.
Click to expand...
all of himmars value belong to how well crafted targeting intelligence , GPS , spy , awacs information it can get .

russian suffer because they have very limited power to stop US/NATO spy satellites ,GPS, awacs , global hawk , even elon musk starlink freely roaming around helping ukrainian pin point russian target location

and russian airfoce themselves have very limited power lead to no air supremacy , russian tactical strike aircraft can't roam deep behind enemy frontline to SEAD and hunt ukraine radar , himmars , drone HQ ..etc

(maybe they scare of heavy loss + lack of spare part , reproduction ability and want to save their air fleet for real NATO direct fight)

and finally ukraine landmass are just too big , very easily for guild missile system playing hit and run game

in taiwan case atleast in term of land mass taiwan isn't a nice place to play hit and run

and for the rest ....well it depend on how soft PLA high comand gonna be in term of airpower deployment and the will to not let US/nato/allied gang freely help taiwan with their intelligence (gps . global hawk , awacs , satellites)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top