PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Neurosmith said:

The ROC inventory isn't anything to dismiss and the Chinese brass would be well aware of its capabilities. In rough terms, Taiwan's most capable surface-to-surface missile - the Yun Feng - seems to be somewhat analogous to the Chinese CJ-100, even as the latter makes way for more capable systems like the DF-26. The HF-3 is analogous to the YJ-12, the HF-2E the CJ-10, and their Wan Chien the AKF-98A.

My point is that, on an one-to-one basis, Taiwan's missile technology isn't that far behind China's and it is only recently that China has had the technological upper hand in this field. However, Taiwan does not have any significant ballistic capabilities aside from their ATACMs, and it is this gap that China is likely to exploit in a hypothetical conflict.

Click to expand...

HF-2E is just a subsonic Tomahawk copy.

Yun Feng is interesting. I doubt that it can pull sustained Mach 6 like the Wikipedia article tries to imply. At best it is Mach 6 terminal with a lo hi hi flight profile and cruises at lower speeds at altitude.

An unstealthy, atmospheric, high flying cruise missile is just an aircraft that is blind and doesn't maneuver much. It would also pass over the strait and inhabited land to hit targets, plenty of time and space to be intercepted in cruise phase or even boost phase by PLAN destroyers in the Strait.

In comparison, PLA missiles launched at Taiwan spends 90% of its flight trajectory in friendly territory. Only the terminal phase is anywhere near Taiwan.

There's a reason why the US stopped development of the Regulus supersonic cruise missile the minute they got Jupiter ballistic missiles.

HardBall said:

even the densest and most elaborate air defences are not immune to saturation attacks.

Click to expand...

The supersonic drones would be useful in knocking out Taiwan's SAMs. Or just use ballistic missiles with MARVs and terminal speed of Mach 5+. But Taiwan does have one of the densest multi-layered air defense networks akin to Israel.

FairAndUnbiased said:

Yun Feng

Click to expand...

Based on worse-case scenario assumption, that's what the DPP regime could use top strike Mainland's nuclear power plants in desperate. A risk for Beijing to consider. Of course, it won't change the outcome of the war. But given Lai and VP Hsiao's all-or-nothing hardline stance, it would not be far fetched to think that the two would consider blowing up something big and create a lasting effect before going down.

RoastGooseHKer said:

The supersonic drones would be useful in knocking out Taiwan's SAMs. Or just use ballistic missiles with MARVs and terminal speed of Mach 5+. But Taiwan does have one of the densest multi-layered air defense networks akin to Israel.

Click to expand...

Israel doesn't have that dense of an air defense network. It has:

-24x Arrow ABM launchers (in 3x batteries)
-12x David's Sling ABM/SAM launchers (in 2x batteries)
-40x Iron Dome SHORAD launchers (in 10x batteries)

It recently retired all of its Patriot PAC-2 systems.

By comparison, Taiwan has:

-50x TK-3 ABM launchers (in 2x battalions)
-72x Patriot PAC-3 ABM/SAM launchers (in 3x battalions)
-50x TK-2 SAM launchers (in 2x battalions)
-A further 4x ADA battalions with a mix of Skyguard (30x launchers)/Antelope SHORAD and AAA

Given how Taiwan has only 1.5x Israel's land area, its IADS is far denser.

SinoAmericanCW said:

Israel doesn't have that dense of an air defense network. It has:

-24x Arrow ABM launchers (in 3x batteries)
-12x David's Sling ABM/SAM launchers (in 2x batteries)
-40x Iron Dome SHORAD launchers (in 10x batteries)

It recently retired all of its Patriot PAC-2 systems.

By comparison, Taiwan has:

-50x TK-3 ABM launchers (in 2x battalions)
-72x Patriot PAC-3 ABM/SAM launchers (in 3x battalions)
-50x TK-2 SAM launchers (in 2x battalions)
-A further 4x ADA battalions with a mix of Skyguard (30x launchers)/Antelope SHORAD and AAA

Given how Taiwan has only 1.5x Israel's land area, its IADS is far denser.

Click to expand...

That's still less than 1000 SAM missiles. That will get saturated within the first hours

Counting the number of missiles is useless. They are paperweights without radars. How many radars does ROC have? How many of them are fixed installations and how many are mobile?

vincent said:

Counting the number of missiles is useless. They are paperweights without radars. How many radars does ROC have? How many of them are fixed installations and how many are mobile?

Click to expand...

That's not my point. My point is that even if all Taiwanese SAM hit their target, they'll still ran out of missile within the first hours

RoastGooseHKer said:

Based on worse-case scenario assumption, that's what the DPP regime could use top strike Mainland's nuclear power plants in desperate. A risk for Beijing to consider. Of course, it won't change the outcome of the war. But given Lai and VP Hsiao's all-or-nothing hardline stance, it would not be far fetched to think that the two would consider blowing up something big and create a lasting effect before going down.

Click to expand...

IDK about how big it is but based on its claimed satellite delivery capabilities (lol, good luck with an airbreather doing that) its warhead is 50-200 kg.


Note that a subsonic cruise missile of comparable claimed range has 500 kg warhead.


Reactor containment is rated to survive an airliner ramming it with no damage.

The containment building itself is typically an airtight steel structure enclosing the reactor, normally sealed off from the outside atmosphere. The steel is either free-standing or attached to the concrete missile shield. In the United States, the design and thickness of the containment and the missile shield are governed by federal regulations (10 CFR 50.55a), and must be strong enough to withstand the impact of a fully loaded passenger airliner without rupture.

Click to expand...

An airliner carries ~25 tons of fuel, which is of comparable specific energy to a conventional warhead payload.

26,020–29,670 L

Click to expand...

if something can survive 25 tons of payload, it can probably survive 0.2 tons of payload.

RoastGooseHKer said:

Based on worse-case scenario assumption, that's what the DPP regime could use top strike Mainland's nuclear power plants in desperate. A risk for Beijing to consider. Of course, it won't change the outcome of the war. But given Lai and VP Hsiao's all-or-nothing hardline stance, it would not be far fetched to think that the two would consider blowing up something big and create a lasting effect before going down.

Click to expand...

They can attempt but shouldn't have enough stockpiled missiles to break through. You'd need to concentrate high hundreds or maybe a thousand to fire at once. The thing is China unlike Israel can actually attack the launchers on the ground rather than being forced to be reactive in the air due to lack of range platforms.

In this situation it would also be on the table to tactical nuke the most major KMT bases like Hualien, which would make continued resistance impossible.

Biscuits said:

They can attempt but shouldn't have enough stockpiled missiles to break through. You'd need to concentrate high hundreds or maybe a thousand to fire at once. The thing is China unlike Israel can actually attack the launchers on the ground rather than being forced to be reactive in the air due to lack of range platforms.

In this situation it would also be on the table to tactical nuke the most major KMT bases like Hualien, which would make continued resistance impossible.

Click to expand...

I'm very, very skeptical that China would ever resort to nuclear use for the sake of battlefield effects, however significant they could be.