Also needs good EO detection systems. Lasers will become much better at this in the future, or some sort of quick fire cannon with AHEAD shrapnel rounds. The issue here is simply that all systems must be running at a very high speed because the goal of stealthy cruise missiles is to reduce detection time and thus score a hit before all systems are online and responding to the threat.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
I believe it's the opposite. China needs to win in a decisive manner at least in the initial stage of an armed takeover of Taiwan. That will decrease the US's resolve to join an armed conflict. If the initial stages of an invasion is shakey, the US may be embolden by the prospect of an 'easy win' to join the conflict.
Further, given the conflict is far from US coasts it gives the US homeland an advantage in terms of safety and production. China risks domestic stability the longer a war close home drags on and as citizens increasingly bear risk.
David "US wunderwaffen" Axe also quoted Ian "100% probability of intercepting all PLA missiles" Easton
These two guys are amongst the worst "analysts" on the internet. Really pulling things out of their behinds to fit the "anal" part.
Invading China will never be easy, if US thinks that, it might as well go home as they won't be able to present real threat to China then.
US trying to take Taiwan is always going to require 100% power investment from the start, we shouldn't assume anything but an US that is serious at executing their serious territorial threats.
This is nonsensical. US homeland is whererver US launches attacks from. China has a massive advantage in both safety and logistics (production goes without saying), as they actually legally own all their homeland and can have giant networks of air defenses there, whereas every time US moves even a few batteries close to the battleground, it risks triggering an early conflict and more escalation.
US faces the classic difficulty of being the invader, which classically requires a 3x power difference to succeed. But unlike say Russia in Ukraine, US faces another difficulty in that they can't break through the contact line to damage China's core territories.
Together, it creates the most difficult imaginable situation, where a great power has to stretch his supplies line to attack another great power, and the latter has the strategic depth to face the attack into a fortified border and therefore can have a 100% safe domestic situation while at the same time enjoying all the bonuses of fighting in home court.
Yeah, EO would definitely be part of the solution. And the vast majority of today's CIWS in production would have EO suite integrated.
The LO munitions cruising at wave tops themselves are not going to be invisible in other parts of the EM spectrum either. They have relatively predictable flight profiles, and would not generally have the latest and greatest LO tech, a good surface search radar should be able to see them clearly at close range.
The key is to have systems that are always ready, and using automatic engagement, because seconds is sometimes all you have. It would be much better for the most likely individual targets themselves (medium amphibious ships) to have systems installed. It would provide a better engagement arc, and more timely reactions, if nothing else.
solarz
Brigadier
If it's that easy, why don't they just give Ukraine a few thousand of these? ROFL!
In any case, if it was really true, do you think they would be proclaiming it publicly like that?
Last edited:
if we go by what's publicly known, Chinese anti ship and land attack missiles are much faster and with longer range than that of the US. and China has all kinds of cruise and ballistic missiles of intermediate range. also we have seen how well US defenses (including the almighty SM-3) performed against Iranian BMs which are definitly far less advanced than what China has. so it's the US that needs to produce offensive missiles equivalent to what China has, not the other way around.