Honestly, that's one of the reasons why China should develop manned/unmanned strike warplanes that can cruise at hypersonic speeds for long distances. China should possess the capability to not just hunt down, but also to send every single one of the DPP leaders a.k.a. literal tumor manifestations that are actively harming the Chinese soil and Chinese people to meet King Yanluo as soon as sh1t hits the fan - Regardless if whether they are hiding in bunkers deep underground or trying to catch private jets that are heading towards Guam or Tokyo.
PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency
- Thread starter pugachev_diver
- Start date
Honestly, that's one of the reasons why China should develop manned/unmanned strike warplanes that can cruise at hypersonic speeds for long distances. China should possess the capability to not just hunt down, but also to send every single one of the DPP leaders a.k.a. literal tumor manifestations that are actively harming the Chinese soil and Chinese people to meet King Yanluo as soon as sh1t hits the fan - Regardless if whether they are hiding in bunkers deep underground or trying to catch private jets that are heading towards Guam or Tokyo.
Never in history has a nation defeated a technologically and industrially superior opponent. Are you saying the USA will be the lone exception? Also we are talking the WestPac, China's backyard. Thinking the USA has any chance against China in 2025 is delusional.Drone warfare is less relevant for PLAN vs USN and PLAAF/PLANAF vs USAF/USN, at least in the short term, since both militaries are still in nascent stages of development of drones for these domains. It's on the ground where the lessons of Ukraine and Russia are probably the most mature for the PLA, and maybe somewhat less so for the US Army/Marines, though PLA vs US Army seems to be only a very distant and honestly laughable possibility for me. As for missile production, what of it? As for railguns, the PLAN looks like it's further along, but we haven't heard any news about it lately.
Absolutely not. In fact IMO the PLA may be somewhat favored to win in the 2027/2028 timeframe.
And yet I don't know of any missiles that actually use this outcaliberage saving possibly the YJ-21, and even then nobody knows for sure. So basically your argument is like saying the Mk 57 is so much better than the Mk 41, except oh wait it's not really since you don't have the actual rounds to make the larger size matter.
WTF are you talking about? Was I the one who posted the photo of the Burke right next to a photo of the 052D and insinuated they are the same? Did you not even read where I quoted Paparo as saying that the 052D is a "0.6" Burke, or did you just decide to ignore that? If you cannot even get your basic facts straight, you should not even be in the argument.
This is a totally nonsensical point which again shows you totally missed the point to begin with. BTW, it would NOT be nonsensical to compare the 052D to the Burke since these are the two most numerous destroyers in each navy; BTW the Burke outsizes, outshoots and outnumbers the 052D. If someone else juxtaposes these two classes together, you could certainly compare them in that sense.
Oh really? Every competent combat system can achieve what I said? If it's every, you must have articles and numbers for some, yes? Go ahead, I'll wait.
Scare the US off from attempting an invasion??? Of which country??? I'm sorry, which retard's war are you referring to again? You are trying to claim that the US will invade China? Or what? ROFLMAO
LOL no, just no.
I listed specific points which annihilated your ridiculous claims, and your response here is like that of a petulant child with a bruised ego trying to front to everyone like he didn't actually just get punched in the eye on the playground.
Well I'm glad you're good at entertainment because you sure as shit aren't good at either debating or intellectual honesty
All US+Jap+SK bases will be wiped out in the first week by our fleet of H-6 and Ballistic misiles, end of story. No B-2, B-21 hitting Df-26 launchers. PLAN will do the clean up and we'll just take over the 1st and 2nd IC and the USA will be out of Asia for good.
Some fanboys prefer to compare VLS numbers to determine which navy will win in a war. I can break out these time-wasting arguments with only one sentence: US has no means to intercept HGVs like DF-17 and future DF-27, also doubtful for HCMs like DF-100.
As long as these missiles exist, US can't win the war about Taiwan until they work out an effective way to intercept. Thousands of hypersonic missiles will destroy all US assets in the range, no matter they're on the ground or at sea. Differences only remain in how much PLA & China will lose before winning. This is the direction China is now working hard at.
China's not kidding. Missiles, especially hypersonic missiles, are the Asymmetric Military Advantages China has developed for decades. China also developed a comprehensive & flexible kill chain for these missiles to launch, maneuver, anti-jam, find targets & keep aiming at. No one has better or more missiles than China.
As long as these missiles exist, US can't win the war about Taiwan until they work out an effective way to intercept. Thousands of hypersonic missiles will destroy all US assets in the range, no matter they're on the ground or at sea. Differences only remain in how much PLA & China will lose before winning. This is the direction China is now working hard at.
China's not kidding. Missiles, especially hypersonic missiles, are the Asymmetric Military Advantages China has developed for decades. China also developed a comprehensive & flexible kill chain for these missiles to launch, maneuver, anti-jam, find targets & keep aiming at. No one has better or more missiles than China.
Last edited:
So violent. I think planting trees in Inner Mongolia is a much better form of justice.
All this just to say that the PLAN can outproduce the USN? This is not some kind of revelation, you know. The USN has been stressing alot about this very issue, and it is definitely the Achilles' Heel for the USN going forward, something which looks irreversible at this point. As for the carriers, it is well known that for many years the USN has been using a 10-carrier fleet like an 11-carrier fleet and deploying CSGs for far longer than they would otherwise to ensure a 3 carrier on-station presence at all times. This is why the carriers are not in great shape. The Ford has experienced well known teething problems being first-in-class, and has not made significant contributions to presence since its commissioning, though I don't expect subsequent Fords to have as many problems.
What you don't seem to understand is that the US could trigger a war with China AT ANY TIME. China has so many buttons the US could push that would inevitably lead to war that the actual inescapable conclusion is that the US does not actually want to start a war with China, probably for the same reasons the US does not want to intervene directly in Ukraine against Russia. Wars between great powers with nuclear weapons have a high risk of escalation to a full nuclear exchange; the exact probabilities are unknown because great powers have not wanted to directly fight a war in the nuclear age. Even already in the Korean War Truman had to pimpslap MacArthur's desire to nuke China out of fear of Russia's perceptions if they did.
What? The lessons of history actually teaches that industry beats technology. The German military was indisputably technologically superior to the American military, even right up to the very end of WW2 in many areas. That didn't matter to the US, who could build tens of thousands tanks and fighters and bombers and destroyers and whatever else was needed to beat Germany. The situation is now reversed, with the US being the technologically superior adversary but China being the industrially superior adversary, though in the realm of technology China has already caught up in many domains. This may yet be another reason the US does not want to start a war with China. OTOH "thinking the USA has any chance against China in 2025 is delusional" is IMO dramatically overconfident bombast.
Your bravado is amusing.
What I said was that VLS count is ONE of the metrics used to measure a navy's strength, like ship count or total tonnage; nobody stupidly said VLS count would somehow determine "which navy will win a war". Stop beating a useless straw man.
How do you know the US has no means to intercept HGVs? How do you know THAAD or SM-6 or even SM-2 do not work against HGVs? Do you have access to top secret specs or testing that nobody else has access to? Also, the American LRHW (Dark Eagle HGV) is finally set to be deployed starting this year after multiple delays, so if your boasts about the DF-17 and "DF-27" are true, the same circumstances certainly would apply to China as well.
Last edited:
We went from "how do we know China has actually designed missiles meant to fit their own VLS? We cant believe it unless we have a spreadsheet telling us exactly how much mileage VLS loaded missiles get out of the extra caliber, otherwise we must assume the space is entirely wasted!"
To "how do we know US didn't secretly leapfrog hq-19 and have secret upgrades on even old SM-2s, do you have access to secret specs that tell you US doesn't (lmfao) have these secret capabilities that they've never even claimed or made ppts on??" (not counting GPI which is probably at a lesser stage development than even GCAP lol
WTF are you even smoking ROFLMAO You are making so many laughable assumptions I actually let out a laugh as I read your post here.
First, you have _admittedly_ ZERO evidence of any full-caliber missiles in the current PLAN's inventory. This is an undeniable fact no matter how many useless words you throw at me.
Second, you assume that the HQ-19 has some capability that is undeniably untested in a real world setting, such as against HGVs. What we do know about the HQ-19 is that it is an ABM system, like THAAD. Whether and to what extent it has capability against HGVs is UNKNOWN.
Third, I didn't make ANY claims about the USN "secretly leapfrogging" HQ-19 in some capability that the HQ-19 does not even definitely have. My implication is that you personally have no idea whether the SM-2's latent capabilities do or do not include at least some anti-HGV capability in your laughable bombast about the supposedly invincible powers of an HGV.
Fourth, I note that you conveniently FAILED to mention either the SM-6 or the THAAD in your reply, as if they simply don't even exist. You also have no idea what their capabilities vs an HGV are.
Fifth, you conveniently FAILED to mention the LRHW in your reply, as if that system simply doesn't even exist. As much as you hype HGVs, you can't escape the fact that other nations' HGVs would have the same (alleged) 'invincibility' that you claim for Chinese HGVs.
TLDR; there is simply not enough information for ANYONE here to conclude that HGVs are some kind of automatic war-winner or nation-killer or whatever other stupidity that the fanbois trolling on here want to stupidly fantasize about.
HQ-19 is the only system in the world rated anti HGV capability, straight from the manufacturer's mouth, on public display during Zhuhai.
THAAD, SM-6 has never been talked about as having this ability.
I didn't reply to your full text because most of it does not merit a reply when you make fundamental mistakes like not following the development of some of the largest military advances in recent time. Explaining missile defense to someone that didn't follow HQ-19 public release would be like explaining fighter jets to someone that ignores the existence of 6th gens.
If you want a response to LRHW, then sure it's a nice thing when it releases. China has a had a lot of time mastering anti HGV interception, since they've had it for half a decade longer than US. The keyword is when it releases. It's not in service.
I also "failed" to mention DF-27, HQ-29 etc just like I didn't mention LRHW, because they're not ready yet.
I've never said HGVs are automatic war winner, I'm pointing out the hilarious and blatant hypocrisy from someone who demands unrealistic proof and errs on the side of vastly underestimating when it comes to PLA platforms but turns around to demanding no proof and referring to "top sekrit" when it comes to US military.
C-HGB is just a hypersonic warhead that barely passes the threshold, and is far from an HGV. US military, which never produce a proper HGV, uses C-HGB, which is equivalent to the PLA's DF-21C/D almost 20 years ago, to break through the HQ-19 that is comparable to the THADD-ER, and uses THADD to intercept the DF-21D and even the DF-17/27 - a proper HGV. WOW, just WOW. What else can I say?
In fact, before the almost failure of ARRW & HACM, the US military did not think that C-HGB was advanced and powerful, they don't even want to be classified as a decent hypersonic weapons. Their goal has always been the waverider HGVand the hypersonic cruise missile. And guess what, ARRW failed, HACM has not made breakthroughs for many years, and the THADD-ER program was cancelled, they have to hold their noses and rely on C-HGB and admitted that the maneuverable warhead is a hypersonic weapon. But the other side of the ocean has made all of these except HCM.
In fact, before the almost failure of ARRW & HACM, the US military did not think that C-HGB was advanced and powerful, they don't even want to be classified as a decent hypersonic weapons. Their goal has always been the waverider HGVand the hypersonic cruise missile. And guess what, ARRW failed, HACM has not made breakthroughs for many years, and the THADD-ER program was cancelled, they have to hold their noses and rely on C-HGB and admitted that the maneuverable warhead is a hypersonic weapon. But the other side of the ocean has made all of these except HCM.
Last edited:
That's pretty hilarious that you think that the manufacturer saying there is an anti-HGV capability for the HQ-19 automatically means it can actually serve as an effective defense against HGVs in the real world. The HQ-19 is new, and HGVs are a recently developing thtreat, so it's not even remotely surprisingly that it would be advertised as having a capability against HGVs. For the same reason, THAAD and SM-6 came out years ago, so their public displays at any military conventions would not have mentioned any HGV capabilities to begin with. OTOH this does NOT mean that they therefore do NOT have an anti-HGV capabilities. The mechanisms used to track and engage ICBMs would be the same ones used to track and engage more maneuverable warheads such as HGVs, though the extent to which an HGV's maneuverability mitigates the tracking/engagement systems of the THAAD and SM-6 are totally unknown.
Just like you have no evidence that there are definitively any full-bore missiles (YJ-21 included) in the PLAN inventory, you also have no evidence that the THAAD, SM-6, or even SM-2 have no anti-HGV capabilities. These are neutral, factual, and UNDENIABLE statements. OTOH you have been making definitively positive assertions, such as that we are somehow supposed to assume that the UVLS is using some unknown full-bore missile already (for which you again have no evidence), and that we are somehow supposed to assume that the THAAD and SM-6 have no anti-HGV capabilities simply because they did not explicitly state so in their release brochures, or stands or whatever, again for which you have no evidence. ROFLMAO Meanwhile, I myself did not claim that either THAAD or SM-6 in fact do have such capabilities, simply that nobody in the public domain knows (or is likely to ever be allowed to know).
TLDR: here's me: "you don't know, I don't know, nobody knows anything". Here's you: "I get to assume whatever the hell I want". LOL
Barely passes the threshold, really? You actually know the classified details of the C-HGB's classified terminal speed? AND as a bonus you know the DF-17/27/21D's classified terminal speeds??? Wow! You know Everything(TM). You're right, there is literally nothing else for you to say Hahahahaha