PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Bltizo said:

So, in such a scenario, let me repeat my question -- against your self described force, do you really think the PLA will not seek to prioritize the ability to conduct a major operation to significantly degrade US air and sea power projection capabilities in the region first, while significantly deprioritizing their Taiwan airlift and sealift operations?

Click to expand...

i get your point and agree with you now
then how would you evaluate the broader scenario such as this?
On PLA side they probably can commit all ETC/CTC/STC fighter units, that would be 300+ J10, 200+ J11B/J16, ~40 J20, plus 250+ Su-30/JH-7a, plus 150+ H6, plus entire PLAN & PLARF.
how would that play out? really curious to hear your opinion

caohailiang said:

i get your point and agree with you now
then how would you evaluate the broader scenario such as this?
On PLA side they probably can commit all ETC/CTC/STC fighter units, that would be 300+ J10, 200+ J11B/J16, ~40 J20, plus 250+ Su-30/JH-7a, plus 150+ H6, plus entire PLAN & PLARF.
how would that play out? really curious to hear your opinion

Click to expand...

My position remains the same as the principle I wrote previously:

"The priority and focus of the PLA on continuing and supporting a Taiwan invasion, has a positive relationship with the the extent of air and sea control they can assert in the western pacific.... and an inverse relationship with the extent of air and sea control that the US can assert in the western pacific."

You can plug in what I wrote, and try to game out various scenarios and adjust various forces that the PLA and US have respectively, and see how applying the above p inciple would affect the PLAs ability to assert regional air and sea control which in turn directly affects the focus and priority they have on continuing a Taiwan invasion.

I guess it still depends on how the war broke out.
If there is an unknown event, and China needs to regain Taiwan promptly, neither side is ready for combat, then the Americans can choose:
a) Scorched earth policy, use carrier-based aircraft to decline the usable value of Taiwan, such as attacking infrastructure, or even attacking nuclear power plants to cause nuclear leakage;
b) Attack the China Navy and landing forces with SSN and carrier;
c) Destroy military bases in China's homeland to decline operational capabilities in the Western Pacific;
d) Attack military or civilian targets to reduce industrial capabilities.
And China can similarly select the same level of action, such as:
a) Attack US aircraft carrier;
b) Attack US military bases in Asia Pacific countries;
c) Attack US military targets in Guam and Hawaii;
d) Attack American cities on the west coast.
Surely, in all respects, a) is more appropriate for the US to persist in the Western Pacific after the battle, and b) is more suitable for China's plan to drive the US out of the Western Pacific. Nonetheless, taking Taiwan is the first goal.
And if the two sides are already prepared and ready to go to war, for example, the US aircraft carrier battle group is already in the north of the Philippine Sea and China is conducting "exercises". At this time, abc may reach directly, then the goal may become to destroy it so that it will not cause trouble in the war, or as long as there is a foothold, it is not required to control the whole territory. Especially with China already stocking up on low-cost rocket launchers, it may be simpler to destroy it than to take it.
Holding territory requires large consumption. Thus is it possible for the US to select a time point when the US can complete combat preparations faster than China, and China cannot know the details, and then spend money to create an "unknown event"? In this way, China needs to maintain an army and army supply lines in addition to naval and air operations. Even if the US does not take the initiative to destroy, those people who are bribed by the US may actively destroy infrastructure and resources.
But I still can not estimate the response of c). China does not agree with tactical nuclear weapons, and the B1, B2, F18 and F35 can all carry nuclear bombs. Is it possible that China could activate a nuclear counterattack because of dozens of missiles that flew to the mainland with unknown details? Does the US consider this and be cautious of attacking military base?

Bltizo said:

My position remains the same as the principle I wrote previously:

"The priority and focus of the PLA on continuing and supporting a Taiwan invasion, has a positive relationship with the the extent of air and sea control they can assert in the western pacific.... and an inverse relationship with the extent of air and sea control that the US can assert in the western pacific."

You can plug in what I wrote, and try to game out various scenarios and adjust various forces that the PLA and US have respectively, and see how applying the above p inciple would affect the PLAs ability to assert regional air and sea control which in turn directly affects the focus and priority they have on continuing a Taiwan invasion.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree that the PLA would delay a Taiwan campaign if the US got involved.

From the civilian perspective, the electricity and fuel networks on Taiwan will be attacked. There are only 100-odd major targets like Power stations, Fuel Depots and Refineries. The transportation network could also be crippled with another 300-odd bridges on major rivers/canals in Taiwan, which would result in roughly 15 isolated regions comprising 1-2 million people each. I would see this happening within the first week, even with US intervention.

If these targets are hit, no matter what happens afterwards, it is only a matter of days/weeks before a societal collapse in Taiwan, reminiscent of the last days of Imperial Japan. Taiwan only produces one-third of its food requirements during peacetime and China can still prevent outside aircraft and ships from reaching Taiwan for example. I don't see any way for Taiwan to avoid this scenario except with a political settlement with China.

So if there is US intervention, then the PLA can afford to delay a Taiwan invasion by a few weeks.
In that time, we would see increasingly desperate attempts by the US forces to reach Taiwan which is only 200km from the Chinese coast.

Bltizo said:

Yeah, that isn't going to be the case.

During a longer war of attrition, the pre-conflict positions of US forces in the region and greater US maneuver capability of air and naval forces means that the US has the capability to strike at Chinese production facilities on the Chinese mainland, while China does not have the same capability to strike as US production facilities.
This is not to mention the greater capability of the US to control SLOCs outside of the western pacific to limit Chinese importation of resources.

Click to expand...

With what is the US going to attack Chinese production facilities? Aircraft? All nearby US airbases would be under 2nd artillery fire. Any remaining operational US aircraft would have to contend with Chinese SAM systems and the PLAAF. Long range missiles? China has more missiles than the US. If you think Chinese missiles aren't enough to permanently take out a few US airbases, then what makes you think US missiles can permanently take out hundreds of Chinese factories? Not to mention most of the production would be done inland, out of US strike range.

Control SLOC? China is completely self-sufficient in resources and energy, and it can continue to import resources via land routes. This is war we're talking about, not business as usual.

Furthermore, are there any US weapon systems that can strike China without satellite coverage? Because they're not going to have any satellites over China you know. Or any type of C&C for that matter, as recent Pentagon wargames have shown.

solarz said:

With what is the US going to attack Chinese production facilities? Aircraft? All nearby US airbases would be under 2nd artillery fire. Any remaining operational US aircraft would have to contend with Chinese SAM systems and the PLAAF. Long range missiles? China has more missiles than the US. If you think Chinese missiles aren't enough to permanently take out a few US airbases, then what makes you think US missiles can permanently take out hundreds of Chinese factories? Not to mention most of the production would be done inland, out of US strike range.

Control SLOC? China is completely self-sufficient in resources and energy, and it can continue to import resources via land routes. This is war we're talking about, not business as usual.

Furthermore, are there any US weapon systems that can strike China without satellite coverage? Because they're not going to have any satellites over China you know. Or any type of C&C for that matter, as recent Pentagon wargames have shown.

Click to expand...

Thank you! Finally, I’ve been wondering why everyone has been “Nerfing” PLA weapon systems and capability.

There is no bomber sortie from CONUS without sea and air control far to the east of the island. There is no sea control, because DF-21D and DF-26 say so.

There is no air control because of the above (plus the full conventional DF express suite), 100s of 5th gens (likely by that time), plus all the drones, AEW&Cs and that gigantic missile (think Huitong said it might be called PL-18? We’ve seen pictures of J-16 and JH-7 with it). I even foresee armed HALE UCAVS, along with all the AEW&C drones. A flight of 10 Lancers plus the aerial refuelling assets will be easy to spot. B2s as well, just harder to actually shoot down.

If it gets more serious, no more GPS.

Biggest danger by far, are the SSGNs. But with air control, all the MPA assets will be on the hunt.

If it has to go down like this (I hope it won’t), the PLA are not going to play games here.

A few things from comments above.

In the event of a Taiwan conflict, China will need to be quite confident that it can take Taiwan quickly. As such, it needs to continue to:
- train joint force operations that gets larger and larger.
- normalize such operations so that neither Taiwan nor US know when they will attack
- demoralize Taiwan military so that they will want to not continue fighting. Make a Chinese takeover feel inevitable.
- do this without expanding much of its ballistic missiles, J-20s and B-20. Keep in mind of aircraft and pilot fatigue factors. Too many sorties to subdue Taiwan
- plug in certain areas needed for a quick and successful amphibious landings. That means more UCAVs, attack helicopter, transport helicopters, large amphibious ships.
We need to see a lot more of this

Aside from that, it needs sufficient deterrent of a US retaliation. That means it needs H-20 that can take out military bases like Okinawa, Guam, Japan and surrounding area. Keep in mind that no country's population wants a prolonged war. The top thing to do is to make US intervention as undesirable to the American public as possible. The quicker and more painless (fewer civilian casualty/destruction) a Taiwan invasion is, the less appetite there will be in US military and US public for an intervention. The longer and more civilian casualties on TV, the more likely US will intervene. You do not need to conquer the entire island for Taiwan to give up. Take over the primary government/media buildings in Taipei (and maybe Taichung and Kaohsiung), Taiwan will give up. I've spent some time in Taiwan. People have a very comfortable life style. They are not looking for a permanent destruction of that.

In order to take Taiwan quickly, you will not only need more weapons for amphibious landings. You will also need options to attack Taipei from the mountainous side. That's where all the transport helicopters and Lynx ATV comes in. Basically, the largest PLA investment in the recent years have been the attack and transport helicopters. Being able to enter Taipei from mountainous regions in the north and in the East is very important. I was struck listening to Shilao's podcast on how much PLA emphasized those Lynx ATVs. Besides Tibet and southwest China, Taiwan is the most likely reason that PLA really favors them.

Sending Chinese carrier groups to Japan or Hawaii are possibly the worst ideas. That will make US public feel like they are under attack and need to participate. More importantly, Chinese carrier groups will be sitting ducks without land based air protection or diesel submarine/underwater hydrophone protection from very very quiet American nuclear submarines.

Do not think of just military conflict here. Nobody wants the supply chain disruptions, the economic warfare, the financial market attacks and cyber warfare that would be just as unpleasant. Those are the kind of things you would want threaten US and Japanese officials with. Basically, most Americans don't care about Taiwan. They also don't want to see ugly photos of Chinese bombers killing a bunch of Taiwanese civilians. They also want their supply chain to be restored as soon as possible. You want to limit this as much as possible. The more detached that American public feels from PLA invasion, the less they are inclined to support an intervention.

Also, you cannot keep Japanese/US bases offline with ballistic missiles or cruise missiles. There is not enough of them. They can't do enough damage that the repair crew won't be able to fix up. PLAAF will have to rely on H-20 to keep those bases offline.

tphuang said:

- do this without expanding much of its ballistic missiles, J-20s and B-20. Keep in mind of aircraft and pilot fatigue factors. Too many sorties to subdue Taiwan

Click to expand...

Do you "expand" or "expend"? I think they most certainly would want to expand their inventory.

tphuang said:

Also, you cannot keep Japanese/US bases offline with ballistic missiles or cruise missiles. There is not enough of them. They can't do enough damage that the repair crew won't be able to fix up. PLAAF will have to rely on H-20 to keep those bases

Click to expand...

Well why not? What can bombers do that missiles can't?

tphuang said:

- do this without expanding much of its ballistic missiles, J-20s and B-20. Keep in mind of aircraft and pilot fatigue factors. Too many sorties to subdue Taiwan

Click to expand...

agree with the general idea but ballistic missile targeting tw is df11/15, it is df16/21 that are targeting JPN, their inventory dont really overlap.

tphuang said:

Also, you cannot keep Japanese/US bases offline with ballistic missiles or cruise missiles. There is not enough of them. They can't do enough damage that the repair crew won't be able to fix up. PLAAF will have to rely on H-20 to keep those bases offline.

Click to expand...

i think as of now, neither side has the capability to close meaningful portion of airfields of the opponent.

we all know CHN has 40 military airfields within 1000km of tw, while in JPN there are also over 40 military airbases - not all as big as Kadena but most enough for fighters to take off.

there are just too many to be closed.

the best both sides can hope for is to destroy some aircrafts on the ground, the key here is really robust & near real time kill chain, will volume of ammunition matter? i am not sure but dont think it is THE bottleneck.

plus i think if one side's air defense is degraded to the point where you can use direction attack ammo in large scale, even with stealth bombers, that would mean the war is already close to an end

solarz said:

Do you "expand" or "expend"? I think they most certainly would want to expand their inventory.



Well why not? What can bombers do that missiles can't?

Click to expand...

I mean expend. you want to quickly get Taiwan to give up without using most of your inventory.

ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are expensive. They can be intercepted. You can't replace them quickly. You can't keep air bases offline with them.

bombs are less expensive and quite numerous. You can even put satellite guidance kits (like LS-6) on dumb bombs and have them glide to the right location. You can even drop 1000 KG bunker busters. H-20 can carry 20 ton of munition and bomb a target. it's a lot harder to recover an air base after 20 ton of destruction vs. few ballistic/cruise missiles. cruise/ballistic missiles are good to exhaust or takeout the air defense of that air base. H-20 is good to actually take it out.

All of this assumes H-20 will be VLO and be available in non trivial numbers. Even if they have 10 H-20s, it would be a pretty bid deal.