PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

latenlazy

Brigadier
Density of traffic works both ways. You can’t rely on massive civilian traffic to hide your logistical tail and also have clear roads for jets to land on.

If you start blocked traffic to prepare the roads for aircraft to land, you are going to quickly create massive traffic jams that are easily detected even without enemy ISR assets in range, as you can see that from just civilian traffic apps.

There are a small number of roads which are long and straight enough for jet fighter operations. The PLA can probably keep all those stretches monitories 24/7 with drones alone. Add in some AI pattern recognition overlapping unexpected traffic jams with those stretches of roads and PLA strike sites and any prep work to get roads ready for fighters will stand out like flashing flares.

Sweden made it work because of its low population density and a road network designed with such a need in mind, and even then it’s more of a theoretical capacity that has never been tested in actual real world combat operations.

If Taiwan seriously desired such a capability, it should have made a proper attempt to buy Harrier jump jets. STOVL jets would have given the PLA an actual challenge. But I guess one can’t be too harsh on the ROCAF for being caught out by the sheer speed and scale of Chinese advancement in the last 20 years. They went from decisive battle at a distance (to Taiwan) to facing PLAAF air dominance over Taiwan within a generation. By the time they realised they needed harriers, almost all harriers were retired. The only other STOVL option is the F35B, which is off limits.

In a sense, that tells you all you need to know about how committed America is to shoring up Taiwan’s defences. If they truly wanted to make Taiwan a tough nut for China, offering F35Bs would have given Chinese planners a real headache.

All of the hype and noise by the US about Taiwan increasing defence spending isn’t really about maximising Taiwan’s military capabilities, but more about profit maximisation for the USA.
The critical point here is that all of the ROCAF (Armed Forces not Air Force) planned tactics and capabilities were oriented around the assumption that the PLA could only conduct strikes from a standoff position and would have to actively exert itself for limited access over Taiwan’s airspace. It’s why the ROCAF brass insisted on protecting the budget for fighter procurement despite the political demand to shift purely to a missile based porcupine strategy. They knew if they lost control over their own airspace nothing else about the strategies they invested decades into would work.

Quite literally any answer you could come up with to support high tempo activities to protect the island perimeter or prevent the PLA from landing effectively is DOA if Taiwan loses control of its air domain, especially given the density of mass the PLA can now flood into the zone. The inability to prevent the PLA from asserting total operational control over Taiwan’s air domain with a massive amount of surveillance and strike capacity means any ground force accumulation needed to make perimeter defense possible becomes sitting ducks. There is no reason for the PLA to put ground forces into heavily contested situations when they can clear out area with air power first, and if you cannot provide viable answers to stop that first none of the other tactical minutiae matters.

This hard reality is *also* why there is simply no situation where the PLA progresses to landing without first ripping Taiwan’s integrated air defense and counterstrike system to shreds, which is essentially the core objective of the first wave strike campaign. By the time the PLA is confident about asserting total air superiority over Taiwan the best any remaining anti air assets could do would be to take half blind potshots. And there’s no reasonable possibility of the PLA operating in a more contested scenario for either their opening wave strike campaign or assertion of total air control because the sheer mass disparity guarantees that without an effective intervention by the US they will get their ideal conditions for moving through their invasion sequence sooner or later. Any reasonably plausible scenario for mucking up this invasion sequence would first need to answer how the US can gather enough force on short turnaround in time to intervene. Without that there is no meaningful resistance that today’s ROCAF can field against today’s PLA.
 
Last edited:

AndrewJ

Junior Member
Registered Member
I don't think china's sam system network is as good as russia or us. Russia has like 1500 s-300/s-400. US has 1000+ patriots. Compared to that China only has 300 HQ-9 launchers overall and out of which only 100 HQ-9B. It only has 2-300 s-300 from older generation as well. It's simply inadequate to cover the entirety of China. There will be gaps and US could exploit them. China needs to really up its air defense missile production if they want to have a solid air defense shield.

Dude, you know nothing about China's Anti-Air Defense. You should read some posts to learn about China's development & deployment on anti-stealth capablility. The most hardest part for anti-stealth is to detect & keep tracking/aiming. No one can tell you China's AAM/SAM numbers, but you can tell the difference from China's newly-deployed radars. These kinds of anti-stealth radars are only seen in China. No such work in Russia or US so far.

China's giant SIAR radars on multiple SCS islands.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

1743405253570.png

China's anti-stealth radar got found around Taiwan Strait. (An older news)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China also developed airbrone anti-stealth platforms, for example, using drones like WZ-9 (with giant UHF/VHF side radar arrays) to detect stealth aircrafts.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Also latest AEW&C planes (such as KJ-500/600/3000) are equipped with centain level of anti-stealth capablility.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Another development such as LPAR EW radars. (not sure if they're also with anti-stealth capablility)



Again. Stop spreading idea like "China's AAD has some breach, that B-2/B-21 can penetrate", "China's AAD is weaker/less than US/Russia", "Tell me how to detect/aim a stealth bomber. If you can't, then China can't". :)

China's radar development are newest, aiming to defend latest threats, such as small drones, stealth planes, hypersonic missiles, etc. Meanwhile, US & Russia's radar are mostly developed decades ago!
 
Last edited:

latenlazy

Brigadier
Dude, you know nothing about China's Anti-Air Defense. You should read some posts to learn about China's development & deployment on anti-stealth capablility. The most hardest part for anti-stealth is to detect & keep tracking/aiming. No one can tell you China's AAM/SAM numbers, but you can tell the difference from China's newly-deployed radars. These kinds of anti-stealth radars are only seen in China. No such work in Russia or US so far.

China's giant SIAR radars on multiple SCS islands.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 149084

China's anti-stealth radar got found around Taiwan Strait. (An older news)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

China also developed airbrone anti-stealth platforms, for example, using drones like WZ-9 (with giant UHF/VHF side radar arrays) to detect stealth aircrafts.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Also latest AEW&C planes (such as KJ-500/600/3000) are equipped with centain level of anti-stealth capablility.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Another development such as LPAR EW radars. (not sure if they're also with anti-stealth capablility)



Again. Stop spreading idea like "China's AAD has some breach, that B-2/B-21 can penetrate", "China's AAD is weaker/less than US/Russia", "Tell me how to detect/aim a stealth bomber. If you can't, then China can't". :)
Yup. Anyone who doesn’t understand “if any stealth plane is detected before they reach their targets there will be some fighter intercepting them and if any stealth plane is detected after they drop their payload they’re as good as dead” doesn’t actually understand how air defense doctrine works. When you have a large local air force detection of ingressing threats, not the number of GBAD launch points, is the name of the game.

There is today no scenario where an adversary’s stealth plane can reach the Chinese coast with its density of modern anti-stealth coastal sensors without being seen. Even if they can make it to their target they are not surviving the egress, so the total damage you can do over the length of a war given high attrition in engagements that try to move past standoff range is limited. This means there is no high frequency high intensity volume attack capabilities that can be regularly exercised by the US using B-2s or B-21s. Any employment of B-2s and B-21s will have to depend on the survivability of cruise missiles launched from reasonably safe distances. This dramatically complicates how much erosion of offensive force the US can impose on China in any intervention scenario.
 
Last edited:

bsdnf

Junior Member
Registered Member
OedoSoldier analyzing the expansion of ammunition production in China’s military industry through OSINT, especially the automation and intelligence upgrade of production lines.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Ayi: The bottleneck is still explosives production (note: local governments generally do not like this literal powder keg under their administration, and the high safety requirements limits production capacity)

Shenhua: Today I am also a drunkard (a stereotype of a middle-aged man who drinks and brags about himself or talks about politics and the military at a dinner party). The number of various air-launched ammunition purchased by the military has reached a level that anyone would be shocked or even outrageous after hearing the number.

Ayi: There are many air-to-air missiles, but the air-to-surface missiles are not that outrageous. They are probably at the same level as the US military.

Ayi’s self-reply in the comment section: Endless KD88
 
Last edited:

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
OedoSoldier analyzing the expansion of ammunition production in China’s military industry through OSINT, especially the automation and intelligence upgrade of production lines.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Ayi: The bottleneck is still explosives production (note: local governments generally do not like this literal powder keg under their administration, and the high safety requirements limits production capacity)

Shenhua: Today I am also a drunkard (a stereotype of a middle-aged man who drinks and brags about himself or talks about politics and the military at a dinner party). The number of various air-launched ammunition purchased by the military has reached a level that anyone would be shocked or even outrageous after hearing the number.

Ayi: There are many air-to-air missiles, but the air-to-surface missiles are not that outrageous. They are probably at the same level as the US military.

Ayi’s self-reply in the comment section: Endless KD88

I believe Ayi's self-reply in the comment section is more of a joke.
 
Last edited:

Gloire_bb

Major
Registered Member
In a sense, that tells you all you need to know about how committed America is to shoring up Taiwan’s defences. If they truly wanted to make Taiwan a tough nut for China, offering F35Bs would have given Chinese planners a real headache.

All of the hype and noise by the US about Taiwan increasing defence spending isn’t really about maximising Taiwan’s military capabilities, but more about profit maximisation for the USA.
I think that both sides long since went "Trump way" - rather than make logical purely military decisions, they simply went 100% into US ambiguity defense(US interests, not obligations).

F-16V in this sense is the most logical procurement - pay as much as possible, and in case of war - try to play Polish Air Force in Exile. Pure defense capability in this sense is secondary, primary is american dollars and interoperability with american stocks(basically pool of additional aircraft and pilots for USAF).

A bit pitiful after october 2024, but who we are to judge. Maybe gotta try to give out all resources rights to US, i don't know.
 

zhangjim

Junior Member
Registered Member
OedoSoldier analyzing the expansion of ammunition production in China’s military industry through OSINT, especially the automation and intelligence upgrade of production lines.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Ayi: The bottleneck is still explosives production (note: local governments generally do not like this literal powder keg under their administration, and the high safety requirements limits production capacity)

Shenhua: Today I am also a drunkard (a stereotype of a middle-aged man who drinks and brags about himself or talks about politics and the military at a dinner party). The number of various air-launched ammunition purchased by the military has reached a level that anyone would be shocked or even outrageous after hearing the number.

Ayi: There are many air-to-air missiles, but the air-to-surface missiles are not that outrageous. They are probably at the same level as the US military.

Ayi’s self-reply in the comment section: Endless KD88
707's response indicates that this matter is not as optimistic as expected. The biggest problem is that without a sufficiently high-level leadership to coordinate, no place will take huge safety risks for large-scale storage of hazardous materials.
So this means that unless there is a clear risk of war, large-scale expansion of ammunition production is impossible. The worst-case scenario is that even if war breaks out, it is impossible to expand production on a large scale, and we must rely on inventory.
screenshot-1743434272983.png
Optimistic emotions that blindly believe in production advantages are harshly criticized. Perhaps we can only pray that there will be enough ammunition to use in future wars?
In a sense, that tells you all you need to know about how committed America is to shoring up Taiwan’s defences. If they truly wanted to make Taiwan a tough nut for China, offering F35Bs would have given Chinese planners a real headache.

All of the hype and noise by the US about Taiwan increasing defence spending isn’t really about maximising Taiwan’s military capabilities, but more about profit maximisation for the USA.
You need to consider the price at which they purchase weapons: far higher than the price at which Ukraine can obtain the same weapons. This island is actually a second-hand garbage disposal site in the US.
I have read some related articles and videos, and in the past few years, the media on the island has been manipulating the news to instill the illusion of "Ukraine has an advantage" in the audience. So purchasing these 'advanced weapons' is politically necessary, only then will the public believe that they have the ability to defeat the PLA, which is "weaker" than Russia.
Anyway, DPP and their powerful propaganda tools can always promote these garbage as invincible Transformers.
 

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Not that I'm an expert on Chinese geopolitical texts by any stretch of the imagination, but is there a provision of the Anti-Secession Law that warrants a military response to a declaration of independence by Taiwan? Much of what is reported in the media is either a paraphrase or interpretation of the Law, which itself seems to warn against Taiwan "splitting" from China, which could mean any number of things.
Well-known to most people.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
The default assumption that a Taiwan operation would be a "walk in the park" - even without US involvement - needs to be questioned.
You can just read through the thread. Nothing in Taiwan would surrender constant Chinese missile/fighter/armed drone suppression. Without the US, Taiwan would just surrender. The polls didn't even ask about the US; they asked if young people in Taiwan would fight China and most said no.
It wasn't until the 2000s that the balance of military technology shifted from Taiwan to the mainland
And some 2 decades later, the balance of military tech is shifting from the US to China. Amazing Chinese speed, eh?
and the ROC to this day maintains a very potent missile and fighter force.
Puahahaha. They have a jet their their own citizens call "I Don't Fly."
It is quite unfathomable that some still believe that the PLA would launch an operation that involves mass beach landings against a defended coastline. No. If that becomes a necessity, then you'd know that something went very awry with the initial phases of the entire operation. If the PLA deems the Taiwan coastline suitable enough for boots on the ground, then it better be sure that all significant and organized defensive and counteroffensive forces have been eliminated in the opening bombing campaign.
It's not going to be a defended coastline anymore after the PLARF then PLAAF get a couple hours with them. Nobody thinks an invasion starts with landing ships. This is the most common strawman that people like to put up when arguing that the PLA would have trouble invading Taiwan.
 
Last edited:

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
There's something else which I'd like to add.

Firstly - I believe that those foreign think tanks/agencies-sourced numbers are seriously underestimated.

Secondly - Just like in the Miscellaneous News thread - @tamsen_ikard's problem is looking at things too simplistically and have a superficial understanding of how things actually work.

Raw number of SAMs, while important, is absolutely very far from being the sole determining factor of the overall effectiveness of China's SAM capabilities.

Beyond all those aforementioned SAMs - Where are all those:
1. Stationary early warning radar and EO/IR sites,
2. Mobile search/fire control radar and EO/IR stations/vehicles,
3. AEW&C and ELINT/ECM aircrafts,
4. AEW and ELINT/EW UAVs,
5. Satellite-based EO/IR sensors (particularly for tracking supersonic and hypersonic targets),
6. AAM-armed manned fighter aircrafts,
7. AAM-armed HALE/MALE/loyal wingman-type UCAVs,
8. Gun-based/DEW-based/Counter-UAV UAV-based CIWS,
9. BACN-type communication node aircrafts/UAVs that are completely lacking from his argument, and
10. Active and passive decoys - Of which he completely choose to neglect/ignore?

All of these work together in integrated-&-distributed networks of air defense systems across multiple domains, which means the overall result and impact would be 1 + 1 >> 2 instead of just 1 + 1 = 2. No unit and no platform will ever work completely on its own unless under exceptional circumstances.

As speaking of "muh SAM TELs": Under the same integrated-&-distributed networks of air defense systems, this beast-mode WL-3 UAV can actually intercept the same number of enemy (cruise) missiles as several SAM TELs combined.

View attachment 149077

So there's that.
In reality, we were just comparing GBAD vs Stealth, but your comment reflects more against @Iron Man positioning than mine.
 

Sinnavuuty

Senior Member
Registered Member
You can't just wave your hands in the air and say "Muh loTz RaDArz" as if that were a magic shield against stealth aircraft designed for broadband stealth. Air search radars operating in the lower bands (VHF, UHF, L) will still have a difficult time against B-2s and B-21s (i.e. significantly reduced detection ranges vs B-2s/B-21s) because of this, unlike F-22s and F-35s which being optimized against higher band radars WILL actually have lots of problems penetrating China's air defense network. The fact that China has been researching ALOT of various nontraditional detection techniques to detect large flying wing stealth aircraft designs is a definitive indication that traditional detection techniques are viewed as inadequate to the task. These techniques include quantum sensors, even lower band long-wave (HF) OTH radars, and passive detection systems. You should note, BTW, that the same problems experienced by the Chinese side vs B-2s and B-21s will the be same exact problems experienced by the US side vs the H-20, which no doubt is one of the reasons the PLAAF has kept the development of the H-20 going despite the advent of the J-36 and the J-50.
Dude, give me a break.

Counter stealth, called CLO (counter low observable), includes more than 50 proposals for systems to detect stealth aircraft, with some that have been tested experimentally, such as acoustic systems, bistatic radars, infrared, interaction with cosmic rays, radar shadow detection, magnetic anomaly detection, bistatic space radar, OTH radars, EW, radiometric detection, turbulence detection, ultra-wideband radar, distributed network concepts, return and propagation study, and signature exploration with advanced signal processors. These systems are used together because they have deficiencies and the capacity of one covers the deficiency of another. Air defense systems already do this to a certain extent, because they use radar, laser, IR and TV sensors at the same time.

We are facing a modern scenario. There are a large number of Chinese and Russian long-wavelength radars in use around the world. Enhanced with current computers, they can provide a powerful means of locating stealth aircraft. Although these radars are easy to destroy because they are large and difficult to camouflage, their signal is difficult to jam. SAM missile batteries are equipped with high-frequency radars and target acquisition radars, which can be defeated by the shape and material of the stealth aircraft RAM, but for a very simple reason, the transfer of the target from the surveillance radar to the fire control radar is still not possible efficiently and is the main argument for investing in stealth. One approach is to use the guidance of the VHF radar command terminal, causing it to take the place of the high-band acquisition and tracking radars. The idea is to link the search radar to the weapon system and use its data to direct the missiles to the target. According to data released by NNIIRT, however, this is not accurate enough for this. Thus, the long-range missile would be unable to hit a target guided only by the VHF radar. But faster processors, smaller memory chips, stronger transmitters, better signal processing, and superior antenna technology all have the potential to erode the advantage that current stealth aircraft enjoy. The Americans are betting solely on GaN AESA radar for counter-stealth.

This is not a magic shield, but it does force enemy planners to make more prudent decisions in terms of strike capability, and it frames the entire strategy toward a strike against the mainland to hunt down mobile launchers, as you wrongly stated. Your fantasy scenario is only true in your thinking.
 
Top