PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Sardaukar20 said:

Nuclear war doesn't care on what authority you're on. Never say never? How about asking why first?

Talking about a post-1996 scenario for the Taiwan scenario of today is a moot point. We are fortunate that armed reunification didn't happen back then. In 1996, the power gap between the PLA and the US military was so vast, that nukes and extreme sacrifices were needed to create deterrence factors. The PLA of today is not gonna be using the same war plans as 1996. We are entering 2025 already, and you're gonna be bring up post-1996 simulations and mindsets?


That's a pointless argument. Don't be arguing just for argument's sake. Renouncing NFU at the last minute is still no justification to nuke China's own lands based on assumptions. If China were to renounce the NFU anyway, why not go ahead and nuke the US 7th fleet first? No? Afraid of US retaliation? Then will nuking Taiwan with US forces on it not trigger retaliation anyway?

Yeah, never say never. But talking about nuking Taiwan is cheap. Again, today is not 1996 or 2001. If the China of today wants to deny Taiwan from US occupation, there are so many more options to go for before even thinking about using nukes. Naval blockade, long range bombardment, mines, submarines, drone warfare, guerilla warfare, etc. I don't understand this obsession about justifying using Chinese nukes on Taiwan.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that PLA is in a much better position compared to 1996 for armed reunification and have much more conventional options available than 30 years ago. However that's not to say nuke is no longer available as an (last) option.

Proactively ruling out nukes is just inviting nuclear blackmail from the other side.

Temstar said:

Yes, I agree that PLA is in a much better position compared to 1996 for armed reunification and have much more conventional options available than 30 years ago. However that's not to say nuke is no longer available as an (last) option.

Proactively ruling out nukes is just inviting nuclear blackmail from the other side.

Click to expand...

I have never ruled out using nukes. If the enemy deserves to be nuked by China, then by all means, nuke them from coast to coast. If the US nukes the Shanghai shipyards, then China should nuke the 7th fleet.

What I will stand by is my point that Chinese nukes should be reserved for the enemy first and foremost. The enemy already has desires to nuke Chinese lands anyway, there is no need to add to the misery with China's own nukes.

As for nuclear blackmail. Well that's what China's nuclear deterrence force was meant to deal with. Me and a number of people are not satisfied with its current status. But it's good to see that the Chinese leadership is finally working on building it up for today's standard of adequate deterrence against the US and friends.

Brainsuker said:

What does J-35 and J-20 can do in an offensive military operation? Both J-35 and J-20 are fighter. They are defensive platforms to protect China sky, not to bring nightmare to the enemy land.

Click to expand...

Who says that the J-20/As and J-35/As must carry A2G ordinances in order to be counted as offensive platforms?

Apart from what others have explained above - Having the J-20/As and/or J-35/As escorting the J-16s, JH-7As and H-6s (plus H-20 in the future) that are conducting strike missions against the enemy targets at extended/expeditionary distances from home is one such application.

Besides, thanks to their inherent LO characteristics, the J-20/As and J-35/As can stay relatively hidden and fly closer to the enemy targets while providing target illumination and standoff missile guidance for non-(V)LO, "missile-truck" warplanes (JH-7, J-16, H-6 etc) that are located further back (namely, A射B导 (A shoots, B guides)).

Don't forget that the J-20/As and J-35/As are also expected to come with MUMT capability, which essentially allows them to pilot and manage UCAVs (including the likes of GJ-11 and Jetank) to conduct similar strike missions without exhausting the PLAAF and PLANAF's H-6K/J/N fleet.

TL; DR - Cooperative engagement capability (CEC) across multiple platforms.

Brainsuker said:

Can both J-35 and J-20 bring a bomb as big as FAB-3000? Or at least FAB-1500? The biggest bomb they can bring is FAB-500 or equivalent. And that is not enough in an offensive war in Taiwan. Because Taiwan is not Hamas in Gaza.

Click to expand...

Nobody said that the J-20/As and J-35/As must be the only platforms across the entire PLAAF and PLANAF capable of carrying such ordinances.

In fact, neither the F-22s & F-35/A/B/Cs of the US, nor the Su-57s of Russia are capable of carrying those guided bombs that are in and above the FAB-1000 guided bomb category without chucking their respective LO capabilities into the drain, which basically nullifying the absolute advantages of 5th-gen fighters over the previous-gen counterparts.