PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

This:

coolgod said:

Because your imagination limits you?

Click to expand...

is fishing for a cheap gotcha. As for my post, that was mirroring the original wording of the post I responded to. And there is no contradiction, because you have again overlooked the original context. Which I already pointed out.

Wrought said:

That's why there is no assumption. You can assume one now if you like, but that's hardly the original discussion or disagreement.

Click to expand...

coolgod said:

You can imagine free lunches for US military but no free lunches for Chinese military.

Click to expand...

Yes. Because that's what the original discussion was about. And the fact that you can't imagine such a thing without making it "fair" says a lot more about you than it does about the discussion. Hypotheticals do not need to be fair to be valid; they can be as perfectly fair or utterly unfair as the context requires. After all, war is never fair.

Wrought said:

And the fact that you can't imagine such a thing without making it "fair" says a lot more about you than it does about the discussion.

Click to expand...

You are right, I admit defeat. I am actually stupid for arguing online with a person who thinks it's worth discussing "Assuming US military wins, therefore US military wins? " scenarios.

coolgod said:

You are right, I admit defeat. I am actually stupid for arguing online with a person who thinks it's worth discussing "Assuming US military wins, therefore US military wins? " scenarios.

Click to expand...

Glad to hear it. I didn't think it was worth discussing either, which is exactly why I wrote my first post. It should be completely obvious.

As for your stupidity, well, those are your words not mine. No wonder Patch doesn't post much around here. I can hardly blame him.

Even with the generous charitable assumption that US MIC cuts excess fat, corruption, and pivots exclusively to China, there is a 8000 mile distance from US to the first island chain. This geographic distance is a hard limit to the US sortie rates generation, and availability of hardened bases within strike distance of China. US has power projection in the form of carriers and airbases, but with recent advancement PLA modernization, they have to operate farther and farther away from first island chain, limiting their operational efficiency. See moving US marines from Okinawa to Guam. Basically, US has to execute flawlessly some stealthy penetration SEAD, air dominance, and Malacca convergence to have some semblance of a fight, which is debatable with the advent of J-36 and J-50.

I think people are overtly fixated on the technical aspects of the conflict. I think the much bigger issue is with Trump’s style of diplomacy, with him openly calling for annexations of close allies such as Canada and Greenland. Imagine how this would look from the optics of Japan/South Korea when the sovereignty of tier one US allies with much closer all cultural/religious/demographics to the U.S. are being treated this way for God knows what reason. In times of conflict, what incentive is there for them to provide military support or even access to bases and logistics? What will prevent the U.S. from potentially annexing and/or abandoning them when they’ve outlasted their usefulness?

coolgod said:

WTF kind of assumption is this? Assuming US military wins, therefore US military wins?

Click to expand...

Assuming US military wins, assuming Chinese leadership is stupid, assuming the US wins a war thousands of km from it's industrial heartland, assuming the US manages to maintain a logistical trail of thousands of km in a near-peer conflict, assuming that China is too cheap to invest in the PLA, assuming that US political system is not controlled by oligarchs (one of the biggest assumption of all)

If you make all these assumptions, China has lost, US has won.

Meanwhile back in the real world of the "reformed" MIC
Senate Republicans release budget plan with $150B more for defense

Overbom said:

Assuming US military wins, assuming Chinese leadership is stupid, assuming the US wins a war thousands of km from it's industrial heartland, assuming the US manages to maintain a logistical trail of thousands of km in a near-peer conflict, assuming that China is too cheap to invest in the PLA, assuming that US political system is not controlled by oligarchs (one of the biggest assumption of all)

If you make all these assumptions, China has lost, US has won.

Meanwhile back in the real world of the "reformed" MIC

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Senate Republicans release budget plan with $150B more for defense

Click to expand...

More for the US jobs program.

Does this remind anyone of how the 国企 were being ran in the 90s, before the Zhu Rongji reforms?

I'll just respond it here to avoid derailing the thread.

tphuang said:

This part is off topic, but just to answer. China has sensors and ships all over SCS. This is not a great comparison from you

Click to expand...

You should read back to what I've mentioned regarding the Soviet/Russian bastion in the Barents Sea. My point is - This is regardless of how powerful or capable the PLA is right now and will be in the future - No fortress is impenetrable.

In fact, what China is expected to face regarding her SCS bastion is actually more challenging than what Russia/USSR faces in their Barents Sea bastion. While at least half of the Barents are flanked by Russian-controlled land and islands, the SCS only has the northern portion under full Chinese control, while being flanked by unfriendly or even outright hostile territories elsewhere.

tphuang said:

The point they were making is that due to 1IC been close enough to mainland that there are regular MPAs in the area that can chase away submarines and ASW assets from other side, 094s can get beyond 1IC without being tracked. Now, I don't know how often this happens in real life. This is entirely classified.

Click to expand...

Then the PLAN should utilize the opportunity (obtained from the strengthening of the PLA's ability to ward off enemy hunting and tailing their own SSBNs in and around the 1IC) as best as possible to secure the passage for their SSBNs to slip into the "true blue" Pacific from the 1IC.

I see no clash between what the Guancha Trios mentioned and what I've said.

asif iqbal said:

one big difference

Chinese will equal the USN in Carrier advantage and even surpass it something Soviets never got near to doing

second Chinese have JXX and J-36 6th generation fighters leap frogging the Americans

the Chinese flat deck real estate is growing and J-35 and KJ-600 will match anything Americans field

Chinese SSN + SSBN fleet can go toe to toe without the disadvantage the Soviets had in the lacking of a surface fleet

intelligence , surveillance, jamming, code breaking, eves dropping and GPS advantages are all in the Chinese basket

preparation, strategy and doctrine are all part of Chinas growing assets

Hers the thing, Americans have looked closely at China and come to one conclusion, they simply cant match China in the Pacific while having commitments in Europe, US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made no secret either NATO spends 5% or we leave NATO we can't do both

and Chinese SSN + SSBN fleet is very underrated and hardly even discussed by many Western commentators, yet Type 075 LHD gets all the Glory , that's a good thing

Click to expand...

Pardon my rudeness, but that's a rather simplistic view of things in question.

Phead128 said:

Even with the generous charitable assumption that US MIC cuts excess fat, corruption, and pivots exclusively to China, there is a 8000 mile distance from US to the first island chain. This geographic distance is a hard limit to the US sortie rates generation, and availability of hardened bases within strike distance of China. US has power projection in the form of carriers and airbases, but with recent advancement PLA modernization, they have to operate farther and farther away from first island chain, limiting their operational efficiency. See moving US marines from Okinawa to Guam. Basically, US has to execute flawlessly some stealthy penetration SEAD, air dominance, and Malacca convergence to have some semblance of a fight, which is debatable with the advent of J-36 and J-50.

Click to expand...

The transfer of the Marines from Okinawa to Guam was the result of a primary and a secondary factor:

Primary factor - Local opposition to the American military presence;

The relocation of the Marines from Okinawa to another location had long been anticipated because of local grievances about the American presence on the island.

Secondary factor - The reestablished Japanese Amphibious Brigade can now comfortably assume American military obligations;

In 2012, Tokyo and Washington agreed to relocate 9,000 U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam and Hawai‘i. This movement of U.S. troops to the Second Island Chain does not represent a retreat or defensive posture, but is rather evidence of a Japanese government that will fill the gap with its own forces and a new missile defense base on Ishigaki island near Taiwan. An expanded Japanese Self Defense Force (SDF) presence in Okinawa and the Nansei Islands is ultimately the legacy of former Prime Minister Abe Shinzo’s agenda of constitutional reform to broaden the scope of Japan’s armed forces.

Click to expand...

00CuriousObserver said:

He also talked about PLA's CONEMP

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Translation:



View attachment 143968

Also a comment on beating the US... It's not how some people imagine lol

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Also a comment by Ayi

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

It is worth noting that Taiwan’s Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) has published a report on the PLAN’s carrier strategy.

Dissecting China’s purported carrier strategy against Taiwan