PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

vincent said:

Two things: I’m questioning the “surprised” part and I‘m also questioning the effectiveness of the American first strike.

When China and the US have heighten tensions, I expect the PLAAF to keep a fleet of KJ-500 in air covering all coastal approaches, the PLAN to send out picket forces out to act as trip wires and all air defence units active (or ready to be turn on to replace destroyed units). I expect many of the Tomahawks and drones get identified and destroyed.

Click to expand...

Strategic surprise is unlikely to be achieved by either side, however operational surprise -- in terms of the exact timing, vectors, platforms and munitions used -- could very much be attainable to some degree.


As for the PLA's ability to "cover all coastal approaches" -- absolutely, the PLA would have active AEW&C and naval units as pickets and so on and so forth.
The question is whether the US are able to synchronize an air-naval-missile offensive that is able to blow multiple holes in the PLA's defenses (using stealth fighters to engage PLA AEW&C, using submarines and strike fighters to engage PLAN surface combatants), on the same day if not virtually the same hour as the US conducting their first wave strikes.

That would substantially reducing their effectiveness in defending against the first wave strikes from the US, which by the latter half of this decade, would constitute much more than just Tomahawks, instead they would likely include:
-land and submarine launched LRHW hypersonic glide vehicle weapons, possibly with some type of hypersonic cruise missile as well (which could be air launched)
-a lot, a lot of stealthy JASSM LACMs (and LRASM AShMs), launched from long range bombers at standoff range
-substantial F-35s with their own strike capabilities (including potentially JSM stealthy strike cruise missiles)
-and yes, Tomahawks launched from surface ships and submarines

Heck, depending on what sort of picket forces for the PLA we are talking about, even having an un-molested picket force, could still result in significant success from a US first wave strike simply because PLA capabilities are not yet as extensive as they need to be.



In short, I think you may be somewhat underestimating the capabilities the PLA needs to comprehensively and robustly track US westpac activities during peacetime and high tension (pre-conflict).

Your thinking about having a picket force is on the right track, but the distances you are thinking of are too short.
Instead of a few hundred kilometers outside of Chinese airspace, it should be something more like 4000km outside of Chinese airspace. And instead of simply waiting to receive and defend against an attack from the enemy launching long range weapons, the goal should be to try and as rapidly destroy the enemy after they launch their weapons (or even before they launch their weapons) to begin with, across as many of their mobile sea based platforms and fixed land based locations as possible.

That would require at least a half dozen operational carrier battle groups with escorts, many dozens and dozens of SSNs with a large complement of land attack weapons, many dozens and dozens of long range stealthy ISR and AEW UAVs, extensive satellite ISR coverage, many dozens and dozens of long range stealth bombers... and of course a very substantial stealth fighter fleet (on the order of well over a thousand) supported by a large fleet of traditional manned AEW&C, tankers and EW of course, and UCAVs as well depending on how mature they are.
Oh, and many hundreds of land based intermediate/regional ranged strike weapons across a number of domains as well, including hypersonic glide vehicles, hypersonic cruise missiles, IRBM/AShBMs, long range subsonic stealthy and non-stealthy cruise missiles.



Simply having KJ-500s orbit on the edges of Chinese airspace with active land based IADS and a few picket naval groups in the first island chain, is essentially a fixed defense whereby you have no real ability to take the initiative, and your defensive pickets will simply be targeted and destroyed in detail.
As a last line of defense, such a picket is fairly reasonable.

However, against the calibre of foe that they are up against, if they are forced to rely only on that last line of defense then chances are they are already at a major disadvantage.

What you described is the same dilemma face by the German Kaiser before the start of WWI

vincent said:

What you described is the same dilemma face by the German Kaiser before the start of WWI

Click to expand...

If you agree with my point -- which by extension, is also Mohsin's argument as well, then there's nothing else to say.


From the PLA's point of view, this is very much a question of what sort of capabilities they have. The more extensive and comprehensive and longer ranged they have, the better they would fare -- more persistent, longer ranged close in monitoring of US land and naval assets in the western pacific up to the second island chain, greater salvo strike size, greater ability to take the initiative as well as greater defensive capability for leakers.



The one point which Mohsin hasn't touched on in his posts, and one which I have emphasized, is that the damage that one suffers from a first strike wholly depends on how much combat capability (in offensive and defensive terms, as well as supporting/ISR/etc) one possesses and the positioning of said capabilities.
The scale of the threat posed by US first strike capabilities and US geographical positioning in the western pacific, means that PLA weapons development and procurement and force generation, needs to be done both carefully and expansively.
The challenge should not be underestimated, and it would also be dangerous to believe that the PLA currently have a sufficiently resilient force against what the US is capable of bringing to bear if a conflict were to occur in the near future.

Mohsin77 said:

You have no way to verify the actual underground warehousing capacity at any outpost. Nor can you ever reliably track the contents of shipments to its many FOBs in theater. A sufficiently masked logistical network can deploy a massive arsenal of missiles without anyone knowing. All you have to do is stretch the time dimension of this logistical operation. Not to mention the SSNs and surface warships that will already be in the theater, which themselves pack a serious punch for a 1st wave strike against critical targets.




The primary target of the 1st wave is not going to be ground formations. It's going to be IADS, Air, Naval and C4I targets. Because if you cripple those, the army doesn't matter. As for targeting rocket forces, yes not all of them would be found and destroyed, but a significant portion of them would be at risk if the enemy strikes the depots first.




The US can take 6 years to deploy a concealed missile inventory that it needs for a such a first strike. And again, for all you know, it already has. Also, Desert Shield has very little relevance here.




... ?! Dude, I said the exact opposite! I said it must mobilize without being detected.

Click to expand...

It's very hard to first strike a country as big and with as much cover as China. The converse, to first strike a few island airbases, is much easier.

It's also very hard to maintain expeditionary C4ISR and logistics over the ocean. There are very few critical network nodes to attack that cause disproportionate damage, like tankers and AWACs. The converse, maintaining C4ISR and logistics within your own country, is much easier.

So the list of targets proposed:

IADS - a large component are mobile ground vehicles hidden in cover. AGM-88 only has ~100 km range which is shorter than PLA SAMs radars. To avoid SAM radars, for SEAD missions aircraft typically fly low, but that exposes them to MANPADs, short ranged AA and high flying AWACs looking down. Very long range cruise missiles like Tomahawks typically only hit fixed targets at coordinates.

PLARF - geographically dispersed silos would be impossible to hit simultaneously with airpower or slow (non-ICBM) missiles. Not hitting them simultaneously could mean triggering a use it or lose it strategic launch of all remaining weapons. Trying to hit TELs is difficult even with air superiority over the entire country (see SCUD hunt in Iraq and Russian TEL hunt in Ukraine for how hard it is), much less from standoff range.

C4ISR - in times of tension commanders are dispersed into the field or ultra hardened bunkers. It is virtually impossible to hit a moving vehicle in the middle of central China at relevant standoff range.

Air - in times of tension pilots are going to be ready to take off within 10 minutes. geographic dispersion means it is hard to hit all airbases simultaneously and you'd need to hit the ones nearest to the coast, as hitting inland airbases means approaching closer without shooting and increasing chance of interception and shootdown.

Navy - this one is the hardest to defend because of no cover and simultaneously, not enough space to maneuver inside 1st island chain. So it is indeed possible that US cripples the PLAN in a first strike if PLAN is not prepared.

Of all possible targets, I see PLAN being most vulnerable to a first strike. Otherwise air defense, PLAAF and PLARF seem relatively survivable to me. As for how to reduce vulnerability of PLAN? , but in general, there is no single good answer. if PLAN is on high alert is will be likely to survive or at least inflict extreme damage before going down. if PLAN is not on high alert it could just get sunk for nothing. The only thing that China can do is increase full spectrum situational awareness.

In general, the answer is "just get better at everything", but the challenges of a first strike on a massive continent sized country are not to be underestimated. It has never occurred before and historical precedent on easier targets has shown extended time required for target prosecution that will not be available to the attacker in this case.

How are you going to first strike anything by surprise? Do you think China doesn't have satellites watching US bases for planes taking off? This sounds too much like those recent videos of DC "think tanks", which is questionable whether they do any thinking at all, drooling over war games. The US knew months in advance of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. What's important isn't "first strike" rather who has the logistics and weaponry in place and the capacity to project those weapons into the war theater. Similarly the surprise first strike on Hawaii by the Japanese didn't seem to help their war cause in the end. War moves in accordance to the machinery that exists to support it.

I would also add that such an extensive US first strike on China to help Taiwan would trigger a total war. Politically (worldwide and domestic), it would most likely favor China and strengthen China’s will in taking Taiwan militarily. It would be the Pearl Harbour moment for China domestically and make the US the aggressor internationally.

Even in military defeat and with an impossibility to take Taiwan in the near term, China can still reduce Taiwan to rubbles so the US cannot control and use it. Eventually the war would end for the US, but Taiwan would remain next to China for the next millenium. Thirty years after the war China can attempt to take Taiwan again and this time with a much convincing casus belli for a first strike.

With the amount of intelligence on both side, I think a slow build up will be pretty well tracked. I doubt there will be surprises. Also, it's pretty well established that US military desires to counter Chinese air defenses through mass drone attacks. The number of long range missiles that US military has and can move to West Pacific theater to be launched from various bases is actually not that abundant. The amount of destruction they can cause to mainland military bases is also quite limited. It takes a lot of missiles to disable military bases.

Also a preemptive attack would not be accepted by US public. Not say the hawks in military would not do it, but it would be hard for me to see.

FairAndUnbiased said:

It's very hard to first strike a country as big and with as much cover as China. The converse, to first strike a few island airbases, is much easier.

Click to expand...

Everyone knows this already!

I've even made this point before on this forum (i.e. the vulnerability of America's extended nodes in the Pacific.) The problem is that the US also knows this, and that's why they are now openly saying that they must make sure that they launch the 1st strike, despite knowing how hard it is, because that is the only chance they have to win. This changes the dynamic significantly, because up till now, US war plans have been about responding to a Chinese first strike. Now, they're finally shifting to initiating a pre-emptive strike on China.

This automatically means that China must deal with this threat, despite the difficulty the US faces in pulling it off. No one is saying it will be easy for the US. It will take a lot of planning and resources for them to pull it off. But it's not impossible, and if the US succeeds in a first strike, it's gonna hurt. This isn't a trivial threat. My solution is to avoid it altogether by masking forces, staying 'under the radar' during the build up, and ensure a first strike on the US.

The mistake you made was that in response to the possibility of a US first strike, your first words were: "Then they lose." That's just a ridiculous level of hubris. As if a 1st strike by the US would automatically result in a US loss. As if the US (with all of its resources) will never be able to pull it off.

Frankly, I can't even believe I'm having to defend this point. As Blitzo also pointed out, why are people so resistant to the idea that a first strike by the US is an actual threat? I'm suspecting it's just blind hubris, but the fact that it exists so openly here is concerning.

FairAndUnbiased said:

IADS - a large component are mobile ground vehicles hidden in cover. AGM-88 only has ~100 km range which is shorter than PLA SAMs radars. To avoid SAM radars, for SEAD missions aircraft typically fly low, but that exposes them to MANPADs, short ranged AA and high flying AWACs looking down. Very long range cruise missiles like Tomahawks typically only hit fixed targets at coordinates.

Click to expand...

No one is conducting DEAD with AGM-88s. You don't use Harms for DEAD, ask any Wild Weasel pilot. They're only a SEAD weapon because the SAM radars simply turn off as soon as they detect a threat. And it's funny how you started with the HARM threat, and then by the time you got to CMs (which are the actual threat) you casually brushed it aside again.

Yes, CMs/BMs typically hit fixed coordinates. Well, guess what, most of your IADS + Air + Naval + C4I nodes are fixed targets in a 1st strike (that's the whole point of a 1st strike!) Knowing their coordinates is the most important requirement of any 1st strike war plan. The fact that you're assuming the US wouldn't have spent the time and effort (using the vast amount of space/air/naval resources it has) to figure out its target set, is a huge mistake.

Also, drone swarms are a real threat in this scenario. The US is now officially talking about targeting meshes deployed in Taiwan and even in shipping containers, plus submerged and surface vessels, and also cargo flights. They are allowed to be clever in their deployment. It is completely possible that drone swarms launched from hidden deployments much closer to the Chinese coast will be included in the first strike packages to saturate defenses and strike key targets.

FairAndUnbiased said:

PLARF - geographically dispersed silos would be impossible to hit simultaneously with airpower or slow (non-ICBM) missiles.

Click to expand...

There's that word again.

Let's just keep declaring things as "impossible" so we don't have to worry about anything.

Oh, and skipping ahead, I just noticed this:

FairAndUnbiased said:

Navy - this one is the hardest to defend because of no cover and simultaneously, not enough space to maneuver inside 1st island chain. So it is indeed possible that US cripples the PLAN in a first strike if PLAN is not prepared.

Click to expand...

OmG..........

I wish I read this first so I wouldn't have wasted my time writing up all the above.

If you admit this, then what the hell are we talking about?!?!

If the PLAN is crippled in a first strike (which you admit is a real threat), then the invasion of Taiwan is kaput. That's the core objective of a US first strike! After that point come the follow-on strategic considerations Blitzo already mentioned, but they have their own strategic parameters. My point was about the threat of a pre-emptive US strike to cripple the invasion of Taiwan before it begins. The PLAN is a key part of that invasion, and if that is crippled (and you admit that this is a threat) then the argument is over. Period. End of story.

tphuang said:

Also a preemptive attack would not be accepted by US public. Not say the hawks in military would not do it, but it would be hard for me to see.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I can see the public here supporting a preemptive first strike. It's not like they haven't been preparing the public with anti-China news every day. They might even point to the Russian Ukrainian war and say "See? We said the Russians were going to attack, the Chinese will too so we need to prevent that".

I think you guys aren't realising you're talking from different directions. You're both correct in your own ways but you're talking about slightly different things.

It is indeed impossible for US or anyone to simultaneously hit up to 100 or more targets in a coordinated strike using assets launched 1000s km away from targets and hitting them all successfully at more or less the same time. Even China couldn't do that if it mass produced whatever HGV is used for long range strikes. At least not without another with similar levels of observation capabilities as China (only the US).

It is possible for a first strike to be damaging enough to warrant any PLA planned offensive to be reconsidered because certain vital assets are degraded.

Everyone knows PLAN is the most exposed since it is the furthest from land and air cover.

First strike on PLAN would be seen if it is surface based. If it is done by SSNs, it may or may not be noticed. A devastating attack on PLAN would be responded to with long range strikes on all regional US bases as a minimum and of course any USN in reach. If long range strike weapons against USN fleets within reach are not as effective without the same support that a totally intact PLAN would be providing, then yeah China needs to reconsider going all out to war after a first strike. This would be unprecedented aggression and casus belli though. It may not be something the US won't consider doing... in fact they clearly consider it. However, if the Chinese and PLA are going to allow such a significant first strike blow, then they really aren't doing their jobs. A blow but with commensurate retaliation would be fine though and something the US would have to consider.

The only way they can potentially pull this off is by using SSNs. What if they are allowed to believe they can and their SSNs are noticed and attacked while they are far from fleet support? If the Chinese can't pre-emptively take out those SSNs despite detecting and tracking them because it would be China starting the war, that would be a tricky situation. The Chinese side has to get those underwater drones I mean mountains to slam into more USN SSNs as warnings. Sink one and deny it. All rests on how well China can detect and attack USN SSNs.