PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

PLAwatcher12 said:

when I did say nuclear exchange? I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning

Click to expand...

No, I agree with your assessment. We, the public, do not have access to all the information and thus I cannot confidently say that the PLA is assured victory in the case of a confrontation right now. I don't know the odds so I will not comment on it as it is nothing but speculation.

The nuclear exchange scenario was not a reaponse to you but to the other poster's hypothetical. I outline a mindset held by certain overzealous Americans and what course of action they endorse.

zyklon said:

There was a time when I would've told you: "good thing these idiots aren't in charge." That is still more or less the case, at least I think or "hope" so.

However, it'd be outright irresponsible to count on "hope," especially once we consider who some of the men with "launch authority" are these days.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The current US administration does not inspire confidence when it comes to rational thought. For all we know, the Annoying Orange will initiate nuclear war to pump and dump the stock market.

PLAwatcher12 said:

The US has a lot more military experience, a lot more 5th gen planes, 11 aircraft carriers, they also have access to ally bases, to say the US absolutely can’t win if war started today is just wrong

Click to expand...

"Short-legged" 5th-generation fighters. They lack the range needed for the West Pacific scenario. Furthermore, this won't be what truly wins the US the war.

11 CVNs mean nothing when they could deploy half that number in a single theater, considering the different timeframes for each to be deployed. Furthermore, 6 or 11 CVNs won't make a difference because China has land-based airpower, which will be a game-changer in the theater, and only China has that because of its geostrategic advantage.

The advantages in any scenario are tilted toward China, despite agreeing with its arguments that we shouldn't underestimate American capabilities.

PLAwatcher12 said:

The US has a lot more military experience, a lot more 5th gen planes, 11 aircraft carriers, they also have access to ally bases, to say the US absolutely can’t win if war started today is just wrong

when I did say nuclear exchange? I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning

how so? Why do you think the US can’t win if war happened today.

We’re just going to need to agree to disagree but simply put the US still has the ability to beat China if war happened today, past 2027 that gets much harder, and if we’re talking about nuclear exchange than both China and the US are destroyed

Click to expand...

I would like to remind you of the following:

1. In recent years, there have been multiple instances where no a single US CSG active in Asia.

2. Allied bases and other facilities are not untouchable targets for the PLA.

3. base on the 1 & 2 point, there are not many US fifth-generation fighters can break into the theater of operations outside the PLA's A2/AD zone. The "tyranny of distance" provides security but also hinders reinforcements. Do you really believe that launching F-35s from the second to third island chains, then refueling multiple times to reach Taiwanese airspace, is a feasible, sustainable operation on a large scale?

4. I have mentioned countless times everywhere, not all combat experience gained from fighting any opponent can be directly transferred and helpful; it can also mislead and hinder the development of the troops.

For example:
Former French pilot Ate Chuet claims that two-thirds of his career was spent dealing with asymmetric targets, namely bombing African/Middle east militias that had little to no manpads.

What significance does this experience have for the May 7 India-Pakistan air battle? Would such French pilots really perform much better than Indian pilots when facing PL-15?

I don't think so, because at least the air combat capabilities of both India and Pakistan are relatively balanced. The PAF needs to worry about the IAF gaining air superiority, while the IAF needs to worry about losing air superiority when facing the PLAAF. Both sides will place greater emphasis on a2a combat.

This is why I think the May 7 India-Pakistan air combat is the most important one since the Bekaa Valley air war. This, rather than bombing the Taliban, can truly provides guidance for a possible air war between China and the United States.

PLAwatcher12 said:

The US has a lot more military experience,

Click to expand...

No it doesn't. It has no experience fighting peers. You may work at an animal shelter with stray cats but if you think you can take that "experience" to wrangle a tiger, you're gonna get mauled, even worse than if you entered cautiously assuming you know nothing about tigers.

PLAwatcher12 said:

a lot more 5th gen planes,

Click to expand...

Not in the area. The fighters it can bring to a Taiwan scenario are very limited. It's actually fairly close to none after all carriers are sunk or taken out of range and all allied bases are struck by Chinese missiles.

PLAwatcher12 said:

11 aircraft carriers,

Click to expand...

China has quite a bit more than 11 carrier killing missiles. As Hegseth said, opening 20 minutes sees all of America's carriers sunk. They wouldn't even dare bring them to that slaughter.

PLAwatcher12 said:

they also have access to ally bases,

Click to expand...

That's included in the calculations or they'd have nothing. All allied bases are in China's missile range.

PLAwatcher12 said:

to say the US absolutely can’t win if war started today is just wrong

Click to expand...

No, everything you said above is inapplicable and/or wrong.

PLAwatcher12 said:

when I did say nuclear exchange? I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning

Click to expand...

Which is wrong due at least to tyranny of distance. As Donald "Bone Spurs" Trump said to John "I-didn't-want-to-die-in-a-Viet-rice-field" Bolton, "This desk is China. This pen is Taiwan. We're all the way out in the hall. If China invades, there's not a damn thing we can do about it."

PLAwatcher12 said:

how so? Why do you think the US can’t win if war happened today.

Click to expand...

Can't as in 0% chance, or can't as in far less chance than China? It's the latter.

PLAwatcher12 said:

We’re just going to need to agree to disagree

Click to expand...

That's what wrong people say when they can no longer defend their statements

PLAwatcher12 said:

but simply put the US still has the ability to beat China if war happened today,

Click to expand...

No, with the desperation in Washington, if that were true, they would have already tried. They know they're getting run down by time but they can't move because it's already too late.

PLAwatcher12 said:

past 2027 that gets much harder, and if we’re talking about nuclear exchange than both China and the US are destroyed

Click to expand...

K

PLAwatcher12 said:

The US has a lot more military experience, a lot more 5th gen planes, 11 aircraft carriers, they also have access to ally bases, to say the US absolutely can’t win if war started today is just wrong

Click to expand...

Fighting goat keepers in the desert doesn't count as the same experience as fighting near peer nuclear powers. For the scale and density of a war that could happen, those bases are nowhere close or enough. Basically sitting ducks. And if the war becomes a grinding forever war, is over.

PLAwatcher12 said:

when I did say nuclear exchange? I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning

Click to expand...

The only way that the US could barely managed itself is that case of a war is with nukes but that means nuclear retaliation.

PLAwatcher12 said:

The US has a lot more military experience, a lot more 5th gen planes, 11 aircraft carriers, they also have access to ally bases, to say the US absolutely can’t win if war started today is just wrong

Click to expand...

How many 5th gen planes US has compared to China? U.S only has 650 5th gen planes. They have produced 1k+ but most of them delivered to their customers.

How many 5th naval planes are equipped into those 11 carriers total?

manqiangrexue said:

No it doesn't. It has no experience fighting peers. You may work at an animal shelter with stray cats but if you think you can take that "experience" to wrangle a tiger, you're gonna get mauled, even worse than if you entered cautiously assuming you know nothing about tigers.

Not in the area. The fighters it can bring to a Taiwan scenario are very limited. It's actually fairly close to none after all carriers are sunk or taken out of range and all allied bases are struck by Chinese missiles.

China has quite a bit more than 11 carrier killing missiles. As Hegseth said, opening 20 minutes sees all of America's carriers sunk. They wouldn't even dare bring them to that slaughter.

That's included in the calculations or they'd have nothing. All allied bases are in China's missile range.

No, everything you said above is inapplicable and/or wrong.

Which is wrong due at least to tyranny of distance. As Donald "Bone Spurs" Trump said to John "I-didn't-want-to-die-in-a-Viet-rice-field" Bolton, "This desk is China. This pen is Taiwan. We're all the way out in the hall. If China invades, there's not a damn thing we can do about it."

Can't as in 0% chance, or can't as in far less chance than China? It's the latter.

That's what wrong people say when they can no longer defend their statements

No, with the desperation in Washington, if that were true, they would have already tried. They know they're getting run down by time but they can't move because it's already too late.

K

Click to expand...

I said agree to disagree not because I can’t defend because I don’t want to get banned again

bebops said:

How many 5th gen planes US has compared to China? U.S only has 650 5th gen planes. They have produced 1k+ but most of them delivered to their customers.

How many 5th naval planes are equipped into those 11 carriers total?

Click to expand...

each can carry 14+.


To answer everyone’s questions the US can bring an good amount of F-35/F-22 to the pacific they don’t need to use Guam to launch, they can use Japan, yes China has carrier killer missiles but that doesn’t mean the US carriers are useless. My overall point is it’s possible that if war started today the US could win and it would be more likely it would than if war started in 2027. But I won’t discuss this anymore to avoid getting banned. We can agree to disagree

I have said before. Western militaries had lots of big game hunting experiences in the past 30 years, not war fighting experiences.
Pakistan and India's May 7 battle is a small sample of future Sino-Americana War.

bebops said:

How many 5th naval planes are equipped into those 11 carriers total?

Click to expand...

It's 42. Only Vinson, washington, and Lincoln are cleared to fly F-35s.

PLAwatcher12 said:

The US has a lot more military experience, a lot more 5th gen planes, 11 aircraft carriers, they also have access to ally bases, to say the US absolutely can’t win if war started today is just wrong

when I did say nuclear exchange? I just said if war happened today the US has more of a possibility of winning

how so? Why do you think the US can’t win if war happened today.

We’re just going to need to agree to disagree but simply put the US still has the ability to beat China if war happened today, past 2027 that gets much harder, and if we’re talking about nuclear exchange than both China and the US are destroyed

Click to expand...

US only has subsonic cruise missiles and short ranged glide bombs as air to ground strike munitions.

Based on existing data, subsonic cruise missiles get shot down easily and short ranged glide bombs require getting well within visual range while weighing down the plane.

It is basically a Cold War era munitions layout.