PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

HighGround said:

That's literally not what he wrote at all.

Click to expand...

He said passive antenna doesn't use energy at all and it does.

Do switches, filters and LNAs in RF receiver just operate without power? And if you need to upgrade this RF set to better pick up LPI radar signals, does that require a more comprehensive RF receivers?

Remember, that IAF Rafales that got shot down were not able to pick up that it got locked on during operational Sindoor. And Rafale should by reputation have better EW suite than upgraded F-16s. So, being able to pick up PLA's latest radar locking onto you without getting spoofed is no easy feat. It requires a pretty big upgrade.

A lot of annoy plumbing probably has to be changed along the way for an aircraft with old architecture like those ROCAF block 15s to support something like that.

Of course, I could've been less lazy originally and mentioned the constraint was more than just power, but whatever. I don't have the energy or time to write long posts on everything.

CMP said:

You do realize China's currently military buildout looks tailor made to take on the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, India and NATO all at once and still win, right? They're not going to spend years wrestling with Philippines or Taiwan while the West gets to cheer and throw funding from the sidelines. They're all fiscally exhausted to begin with anyways. There's no meaning in comparing China to Russia. It's like comparing the US to the UK.

Click to expand...

no i don't see it , to take on US and their allied gang . china's economy , social stability , confidence must be way stronger than what they have right now

at the moment china's economy is super heavy export depend . bilions of chinese people livehood depend production all kind of stuff from cheap to expensive for foreign market

the gov keep devalue the yuan to export stuff better .

if this kind of economy plan for big war like you said then high way and railload thought pakistan , pipe-line from russia to china must be more than half way done right now . to avoid any FUBAR happen with malacca strait

and last if china really build for big war then CCP will not let the china-friendly gov in philipines being clean off and replace by 1000% pro US one that easy

remember philipine isn't some sort of tiny island . offer no place to hide and shield military weapon such as missile system and fighter jet base . PLA rocket force not gonna clear out US weapon hiding there cakewalk easy like many pro-china here think .

votran said:

no i don't see it

Click to expand...

This part sounds about right.

votran said:

no i don't see it , to take on US and their allied gang . china's economy , social stability , confidence must be way stronger than what they have right now

Click to expand...

You have confidence confused with aggression. The aggressive are not aggressive out of confidence (US attacking its own allies out of fear of China) and the confident don't need to be aggressive to be confident (US did none of this after the fall of the Soviet Union when the US became the lone unchallenged superpower).

votran said:

at the moment china's economy is super heavy export depend . bilions of chinese people livehood depend production all kind of stuff from cheap to expensive for foreign market

the gov keep devalue the yuan to export stuff better .

Click to expand...

1. It's not; it's 75% domestic consumption, 25% export. You have China's economy mixed up with Vietnam's economy.
2. China has 1.4 billion people.

votran said:

if this kind of economy plan for big war like you said then high way and railload thought pakistan , pipe-line from russia to china must be more than half way done right now . to avoid any FUBAR happen with malacca strait

Click to expand...

And China also has reserves to last 6 months+, which is an incredibly long time for a modern high intensity war between peers.

votran said:

and last if china really build for big war then CCP will not let the china-friendly gov in philipines being clean off and replace by 1000% pro US one that easy

Click to expand...

China's better at technology than corruption and bribes. The US fights with the latter because that is its strength; we meet it with our strength, which is to overwhelm enemy bases with our firepower.

votran said:

remember philipine isn't some sort of tiny island . offer no place to hide and shield military weapon such as missile system and fighter jet base . PLA rocket force not gonna clear out US weapon hiding there cakewalk easy like many pro-china here think .

Click to expand...

It's also very very hard for it to be useful to America because it is so far from China.

manqiangrexue said:

You have confidence confused with aggression. The aggressive are not aggressive out of confidence (US attacking its own allies out of fear of China) and the confident don't need to be aggressive to be confident (US did none of this after the fall of the Soviet Union when the US became the lone unchallenged superpower).

1. It's not; it's 75% domestic consumption, 25% export. You have China's economy mixed up with Vietnam's economy.
2. China has 1.4 billion people.

And China also has reserves to last 6 months+, which is an incredibly long time for a modern high intensity war between peers.

China's better at technology than corruption and bribes. The US fights with the latter because that is its strength; we meet it with our strength, which is to overwhelm enemy bases with our firepower.

It's also very very hard for it to be useful to America because it is so far from China.

Click to expand...

China's reserves are much longer than 6 months if we're talking about a total war economy. Prioritizing inputs to military industrial activity over civilian economic activity. More likely to be essentially infinite if we can count on continued trade with Russia. In contrast, the West would run completely out of munitions in a couple of months given they would no longer be able to get their hands on Chinese industrial outputs essential for their military industrial complex.

tphuang said:

He said passive antenna doesn't use energy at all and it does.

Do switches, filters and LNAs in RF receiver just operate without power? And if you need to upgrade this RF set to better pick up LPI radar signals, does that require a more comprehensive RF receivers?

Remember, that IAF Rafales that got shot down were not able to pick up that it got locked on during operational Sindoor. And Rafale should by reputation have better EW suite than upgraded F-16s. So, being able to pick up PLA's latest radar locking onto you without getting spoofed is no easy feat. It requires a pretty big upgrade.

A lot of annoy plumbing probably has to be changed along the way for an aircraft with old architecture like those ROCAF block 15s to support something like that.

Of course, I could've been less lazy originally and mentioned the constraint was more than just power, but whatever. I don't have the energy or time to write long posts on everything.

Click to expand...

Given that Gloire_bb wrote the following:

Passive antenna is just that - it's passive. It by itself doesn't emit(use energy) at all, it receives it, and the more power is around, the worse (noise isn't exactly advantage for receiving antennas).

Click to expand...

But then also wrote this right aftewards:

Yes, RWR itself obviously needs power like any computer, but it's quite a low requirement

Click to expand...

Then there should be some room to clarify what the actual meaning was considering those statements directly contradict each other, and therefore should have consideration if you are both inadvertently talking past each other.

manqiangrexue said:

You have confidence confused with aggression. The aggressive are not aggressive out of confidence (US attacking its own allies out of fear of China) and the confident don't need to be aggressive to be confident (US did none of this after the fall of the Soviet Union when the US became the lone unchallenged superpower).

1. It's not; it's 75% domestic consumption, 25% export. You have China's economy mixed up with Vietnam's economy.
2. China has 1.4 billion people.

And China also has reserves to last 6 months+, which is an incredibly long time for a modern high intensity war between peers.

China's better at technology than corruption and bribes. The US fights with the latter because that is its strength; we meet it with our strength, which is to overwhelm enemy bases with our firepower.

It's also very very hard for it to be useful to America because it is so far from China.

Click to expand...

I think China has roughly 1 year of grain reserve and probably the same for pork & chicken, etc. Definitely more than 6 months

However during crisis, there will be ration and the focus will be for military and then civilian, so the consumption will reduce significantly, hence the reserve will last longer

China is considerably stronger than it is presented and presents itself to be. But it's not US + Japan + South Korea + Australia + UK + NZ + India + Canada strong. Like, lets be real. This conflict if it starts wont be restricted to military and even if conventional military China has an edge vs that combination while in China's near periphery, the economic warfare that the US would be forced to commit (they would have to bare the pain which they've continuously shied away from) would devastate China.

China is not able to develop at the same pace if it was restricted to internal economic activity and trade only. China would get all its foreign assets frozen. It would need to retaliate to discourage such a move. Sort of like if your opponent is able to deny you access to your space based assets, you would be forced to deny the entirety of space based assets. Trade nukes mean trade MAD and China hasn't yet got the total advantage if the US were to pull off trade nukes like 150% tariffs for instance. They've shied away in the past but if war starts, it is a certainty.

votran said:

at the moment china's economy is super heavy export depend .

Click to expand...

You've been misled by false Western narratives. In reality, China is far less dependent on exports than other leading manufacturing powers. China's manufacturing output is 35% of the global total, which is more than the next 9 countries combined, while China's share of global manufacturing exports (at 20%) is only about half of the next 9 countries combined (~40%).

votran said:

if this kind of economy plan for big war like you said then high way and railload thought pakistan , pipe-line from russia to china must be more than half way done right now . to avoid any FUBAR happen with malacca strait

Click to expand...

Importance of energy imports through the Malacca Strait to China is also over exaggerated. While China is the World's largest importer of oil and natural gas, energy imports only account for 20% of China's total energy and that 20% includes oil and gas imported through pipelines from Russia and Central Asian. Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Philippines are all far more dependent on energy imports through the Malacca Strait than mainland China. A Taiwan conflict that shuts down oceanborne energy trade in the region will just debilitate the US allies in the region but cause only minor pain to China.

I have found that many people do not realize that the entire Middle East is within the strike range of the DF26, which means that in wartime, the US Navy would be unable to threaten China's and the Gulf countries' oil shipments by any means other than submarine warfare.
The claim that China could be severely damaged through economic warfare is even more absurd. I am too lazy to even refute this stupid view. What kind of person actually believes that a country completely self-sufficient in food and essential industrial goods would lose an economic war to a country that exports financial products but lacks the capacity to produce daily necessities?