PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Neurosmith said:

It is speculation that China might've resorted to non-peaceful methods of reunification should the Portuguese have declined the 2000 date. This is in clear contrast to the Taiwan situation where the Chinese side have explicitly mentioned the use of military force in its Anti-Secession Law.


The change you are referring to, which I will assume refers to decreasing support for the KMT and increasing support for the DPP, matters to China only if there is still a significant number of the population of policymakers who are amenable to the idea of reunification under CCP rule. There simply isn't; the latest poll indicates that only ~16% (can't recall the exact number) is open to that idea. From a governance perspective, you are going to get a hostile population regardless of that statistic being 16% or 6%.

It would be hard to justify expediting a military campaign - the effects of which could have far-reaching consequences for China itself - just to chase after the minute segment of Taiwan's population that might support reunification.


You will need to explain how exactly how 2000-3500 Indians - not all of whom will be cheap laborers - affect China's calculus of the Taiwan situation and why they would be of concern to China in the first place. For comparison, there are approximately 15000 Indians in mainland China already.


Speaking of strawmans, lol. Both you and I know that the comparison was made with respective to the conflicts.

Click to expand...

Unless the economy in Taiwan collapses, the MO of the majority I would expect to be:
a. Support if fight is easy
b. Run / flee overseas before fighting starts
c. Surrender when lives are on the line
They don't see it as existential (despite media etc. etc. they still know, they are not 79 IQ), and just want to have a peaceful, productive life like everyone else.

supersnoop said:

Hilariously these were the first things I thought of when I saw these renderings. Honestly the latter might not be out of the question. If Chinese car exports increase, this could be a way to alleviate port congestion in combination with automated driving systems for unloading.

Click to expand...

The pizzafication of cars - delivery to doorstep for only 999.99

jnd85 said:

2) The technology on which the jack-up legs is based is almost certainly borrowed from China's oil-rig construction experience, so if one wanted to disable a craft of this sort, it would make sense to look at how to quickly take out oil-rig supports.

Click to expand...

Wind turbine installation vessel, WTIV
(Jack Up Installation Vessel)

According to OedoSoldier on Weibo and @pplsartofwar on Twitter (the latter being a US war veteran of Chinese ancestry) - It should be cautioned that the amphibious operations support ship should be viewed as to be deployed only once the beachheads have been secured, serving as a floating harbor/pier for the RORO ferries to unload troops, equipment and supplies ashore (i.e. akin to the Mulberry Harbors after Operation Overlord), and NOT being part of the first and second echelons to storm and secure the beachheads during the initial stages of amphibious assault operations (i.e. akin to a Landing Ship Tank).

GOODTREE said:

Hey, anybody wanna talk about that ship?
I always had a feeling it was a little less reliable.

Click to expand...

I don't see how they are "a little less reliable" when the designs and engineering are done right, and they are deployed for use correctly.

GOODTREE said:

The first is how is it supposed to adjust the height, or angle, of the pontoon? If it's as shown in the picture, it can at best be adjusted up or down a couple degrees at most.

Click to expand...

I suppose there are ballast tanks distributed across different parts of the ship which can be emptied or filled with seawater to assist with the pitch of the ship.

Also, the pontoon ramp is structurally operated by and suspended from the onboard cranes, which are able to lift and lower the pontoon ramp. What makes you think that the cranes can only adjust the pontoon ramp "up or down a few degrees"?

GOODTREE said:

The second is, is the Pontoon Bridge too narrow? But wouldn't it be a pain in the ass if vehicles got stuck in the middle?

Click to expand...

It comes from the engineering requirements on the ship, where the pontoon ramp (and the onboard cranes suspending it) must be able to support the weight of the amphibious assault vehicles that are to be driven over them, repeatedly. And those vehicles certainly aren't light like your typical car or van.

Widening the pontoon ramp means requiring additional measures to strengthen the pontoon ramp and the cranes, which drives up costs and increases unreliability (the later of which can be lethal during wartime).

If there is vehicle that got stuck on the pontoon ramp, they can:
1. Tow the vehicles ashore (from the front, best option);
2. Push the vehicle ashore (from behind, 2nd best option); or
3. Push the vehicle aside and overboard (if the situation is extreme enough, worst option).

GOODTREE said:

Third is, why does it have so many masts?

Click to expand...

Those aren't masts. Those are "legs" meant to be lowered to the coastal seabed to "anchor" the ship and makes it more stable and less susceptible to sea waves for the RORO ferries to moor and disembark troops, equipment and supplies.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

According to OedoSoldier on Weibo and @pplsartofwar on Twitter (the latter being a US war veteran of Chinese ancestry) - It should be cautioned that the amphibious operations support ship should be viewed as to be deployed only once the beachheads have been secured, serving as a floating harbor/pier for the RORO ferries to unload troops, equipment and supplies ashore (i.e. akin to the Mulberry Harbors after Operation Overlord), and NOT being part of the first and second echelons to storm and secure the beachheads during the initial stages of amphibious assault operations (i.e. akin to a Landing Ship Tank).

Click to expand...

The fact that this needs to be clarified in the first place says a lot about the quality of discourse, none of it flattering.

ACuriousPLAFan said:

According to OedoSoldier on Weibo and @pplsartofwar on Twitter (the latter being a US war veteran of Chinese ancestry) - It should be cautioned that the amphibious operations support ship should be viewed as to be deployed only once the beachheads have been secured, serving as a floating harbor/pier for the RORO ferries to unload troops, equipment and supplies ashore (i.e. akin to the Mulberry Harbors after Operation Overlord), and NOT being part of the first and second echelons to storm and secure the beachheads during the initial stages of amphibious assault operations (i.e. akin to a Landing Ship Tank).

Click to expand...

Honestly, this is so obvious that I'm surprised that anyone would think otherwise (not directed to you of course, but to others in general).

For an amphibious assault itself, extensive preparatory fires and interdiction (enabled by air control and sea control) in the lead up to the assault will occur, followed by more specific fires targeted at the beaches you're assaulting on the day (with overwatch fires and air and sea escort) and immediate follow-on of amphibious capable landing units (AAVs/ZBD05 family vehicles, and landborne AFVs dislodged from LCACs, LSTs and LCM/LCUs) complemented by selective air assault elements if required or viable.

Only once a beachhead has been secured and the immediate vicinity and regional opfor suppressed, would it be safe to move in the more vulnerable elements to form an artificial harbour such as the PLA JLOTS equivalent and these new landing barge support platforms, and even then they'll need to be vigilant against opfor artillery, counter-maneuver forces, sabotage, and will need to continuously reinforce and defend the beachhead and the barges and floating piers until better port facilities can be secured.

plawolf said:

Having a few as insurance is fine, but such heavy investment would imply the beachhead getting heavily shelled is a realistic prospect, which to be frank, would be totally unacceptable for China.

For the small chance and small number of such assets needed, the escorting national warships should be able to easily provide sufficient cover until the first waves of landing forces deploy, since having mobile AAA and HQ17 type assets deploying with the first wave would be reasonable and a much better investment of resources.

But personally I think the CGI guys missed a trick. They could have maximised trolling potential of these by depicting a string of these all linked together to force a road bridge straight across the strait.

Click to expand...

It's less of a worry for the artificial harbour to be attacked after setting up, because you are right that land based AA vehicles would be available then.

The idea is more a specialized ship dedicated to defend defenceless ships like the RORO ferries without tying down general purpose navy assets that may be required elsewhere (blockade, posturing to keep the USN away etc).

I understand that this is probably not available, but does anyone have an idea what the draft of these support ships is?