PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

SanWenYu said:

Perhaps China will not even need to cross NATO's blockade in Indian Ocean. Africans and Arabs will come to China with iron ores and crude and carry home the Made-in-China goods. What is NATO going to do then?

Click to expand...

Sink them all. What can the African and West Asian non-existence navies do?

I said in my earlier post. With China eliminated, no one will have the ability to challenge the Hegemon in the next millennium given the current structure of world economic order. The Hegemon can continue to print god-smacking amount of money and the rest of the world will gladly accept them in exchange of their goods and servitudes.

Blitzo said:

Basically, it is a much more advanced block of F-35 primarily in terms of software/computing, EW, ability to be more easily upgraded, and field much more capable strike weapons than the current F-35s do (including standoff strike and maritime strike, with the requisite sensor and computing mods to enable those roles more effectively), as well as integrating weapons developed by international customers.

This is a decent summary from 2019, though a few things have changed since then

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Just to add that though this is not part of Block 4, the US is also planning to re-engine their existing and new F-35As & Cs with AETP engine program around the same timeframe as Block 4, and this is supposed to increase their range by 30% while reducing fuel consumption.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

The difference being, if the ROC declares independence on a whim, the US will not intervene. This much I am absolutely 100% certain of. The PLA also happens to know this.

Click to expand...

I feel like I disagree. Why would the US not intervene?

It's not the military or experts like you and your colleagues who decide, but the politicians. If the politicians order intervention, the military has to do it, no complaining about potential "disasters".

The military and experts might operate on "physical" realism, but politicians operate on "political" realism.

Politically, the US president and their party would get skewered alive (metaphorically) if they chose not to intervene at all. They HAVE to do something. Not even diplomatic/economic sanctions would be enough, military equipment aid like for Ukraine won't work for Taiwan (obviously), it has to be direct military intervention.

Politicians don't have to worry about the war hypothetically being a "disaster", their priority is to do whatever gets them the most support/loses them the least amount of support, that is, "political" realism. It's political unrealistic to abandon Taiwan even if Taiwan "triggers" a conflict by "declaring independence".

It's not the politicians job to explain properly to the people why they should or shouldn't get involved, they couldn't even if they wanted to. Emotions will be running high, I personally believe the situation will be like after 9/11, where overall broad support for decisive action will drown out anyone who disagrees. "If you don't want to intervene, you're a CCP shill/traitor/hate democracy" and so on.

I personally believe the politicians (the elite) at the top have a lot of power to make decisions. There's a limit to what they can realistically do, but if the "leader" makes an "official" decision, the fact that the decision is "official" will swing most people towards it.
Once the "official" decision to intervene is made, anymore who disagrees is attacked Goring style:

"We(democracy and liberalism and all the good in the world) are being attacked, the "pacifists"(panda huggers) are unpatriotic and are exposing our country to danger." and so on...

I feel it's more 50/50 than 100%.

The political leadership don't have to answer to the military officials and research experts who think its a "bad idea", they answer to the body politic (in the end, not necessarily in the beginning), and they can always find "yes men".

After the war, maybe a military official will write a book about how they warned politicians it was going to be "bad", but that's *if* things actually go "bad" for the US, and long after the decision was already made.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I feel my point is valid in that the decision to intervene will be primarily politically based and not "realism" analysis based.

P.S. I'm 100% sure there's at least one rep/senator? in the US (right now) who will vote no to intervention. I don't remember his name, but he's a *real* paleo-conservative. He voted no on the "Uygur Bill", for example.

Suppose Esper gets his wishes (US ends strategic ambiguity and Taiwan reorganizes its military for access denial and urban warfare at the expense of power projection), and US-Japan continues to converge on China. I wonder if a better plan for China is to initiate a conflict with Japan and US before making any move on Taiwan. China could, for example, strike American bases after some American weapon delivery to Taiwan on the ground that China is still in an on-going civil war and weapon supplies to Taiwan make US a belligerent. At the same time make a landing on Diaoyu islands. Maybe it's better to make a surprise landing on Diaoyu first then strike American bases as soon as the US Japan security pact gets activated.

The rationale is that a victory over US-Japan in Western Pacific could potentially pave the way for peaceful reunification with Taiwan just like the fall of Tianjin paved the way for the peaceful liberation of Beijing. The biggest downside with a military resolution to the Taiwan problem has always been that there's bound to be deep resentment (or let's be frank, hatred) on both sides for a long, long time which will make Taiwan difficult to govern. A lot of current Chinese debates on reunification are about replicating the peaceful liberation of Beijing and the question that always gets asked is: this time what is going to be Tianjin? To my mind, Diaoyu islands are the best candidate for the new Tianjin.

This scenario of course requires substantial PLA military advantages as well as economic and technological power to withstand the economic fallout. So it will probably have to wait until 2040s. But IMO this is the scenario most in favor of a strategy of maximum patience.

Patchwork_Chimera said:

We do our best to make sure the ROC doesn't plunge the world into the worst economic depression in human history by starting a war. One of the ways we do that is to make very very clear that any unilateral attempt to "change the status quo" will result in us leaving them to the hounds.

Click to expand...

This is somewhat more geopolitical in nature -- however the trends of US policy to Taiwan over the last few years (including during Trump's tenure), seems to be one where they are enabling Taiwan to move closer towards the side of the spectrum that is "de jure independence", including but not limited to:
- rhetorical support for Taiwan to have a seat in various international organizations under the auspices of Taiwan as a separate entity rather than having the usual One China Policy caveats
- enabling or allowing US politicians to travel to Taiwan (including the most recent one being Pelosi's currently planned visit), in a way that suggests that the US government has either turned a blind eye to this visits or has not actively disavowed those visits
- enabling or allowing US allies/dependents to raise Taiwan as a card to play in terms of political recognition or naming, in a manner where again the US govt either turns a blind eye or does not disavow those changes in close allies/dependents
... among others

All of this, coupled with increased US military sales to Taiwan, as well as a repositioning of US military forces for a westpac conflict that has been often publicly justified in terms of a conflict with China over Taiwan (by govt, military and think tanker individuals), is difficult to reconcile with the idea that the US is not providing Taiwan with a degree of "moral hazard" in terms of giving them geostrategic cover to allow Taiwan to push the boundaries towards de jure independence.


Perhaps the US plans to dial it back in the future, but the trend is fairly obvious I think, and US actions are effectively already changing the status quo, and if I were the PRC, I'd be suspicious if the US is seeking for Taiwan to be as close to "de jure independent in practice" in terms of their relationships, status and recognition in the world among other states, simply without having the full last ceremonial titles of being "de jure independent".

China will not choose to restart the civil war until she has enough nukes to wipe CONUS off the map, unless she was forced to.
I don’t think China will attack American forces unprovoked as long as the chance of non-intervention is not zero.

Blitzo said:

Perhaps the US plans to dial it back in the future, but the trend is fairly obvious I think, and US actions are effectively already changing the status quo, and if I were the PRC, I'd be suspicious if the US is seeking for Taiwan to be as close to "de jure independent in practice" in terms of their relationships, status and recognition in the world among other states, simply without having the full last ceremonial titles of being "de jure independent".

Click to expand...

Hence the threat of strong military action if Pelosi tries to visit Taiwan, to stop the salami slicing.

vincent said:

Hence the threat of strong military action if Pelosi tries to visit Taiwan, to stop the salami slicing.

Click to expand...

I know, but we aren't talking about China's response to the pelosi visit.

It was just an example to describe the trend of US policy to Taiwan in relation to what Patchwork described in terms of US willingness to allow Taiwan to "unilaterally change the status quo".

Patchwork_Chimera said:

The difference being, if the ROC declares independence on a whim, the US will not intervene. This much I am absolutely 100% certain of. The PLA also happens to know this.

Click to expand...

Why are you so sure of that? The chances in that context go down, sure, but I'd say there's still like a 50% chance. Most Americans are pro Taiwan independence and I'm pretty sure most would support military intervention even in that case.

You said you're 100% sure the US *would* intervene otherwise, and I don't think the difference between 100 and 0 is the exact trigger of the conflict..

Blitzo said:

By 2030 I would be surprised if the PLA had more H-20s in service than the US did B-21s.
Given the PLA currently has some 30-40 Y-20 airframes in service, building 160-170 airframes total between now and 2030 also seems a bit optimistic.

I expect the US to have more than only very few Block 4 F-35s by 2030, and I think it is reasonable to expect even some elements/form of NGAD in service.

Click to expand...

I'm going by this report that block 4 development will extend into 2029. I maybe misunderstanding this but it seems to indicate no full capability block 4 F-35 until 2029. That would align with the lower deliveries in 2023 to 2025 time frame. I don't know if that means there will be half capability block4s from 2026 to 2028..

I think there are probably 50 Y-20/Y20U in service at this point. 150 over 8 years is under 20 a year. I could be overestimating things but that doesn't seem too aggressive. Even if it's 120 over 8 years. that would still be 170 Y-20/U by 2030.

OppositeDay said:

Suppose Esper gets his wishes (US ends strategic ambiguity and Taiwan reorganizes its military for access denial and urban warfare at the expense of power projection), and US-Japan continues to converge on China. I wonder if a better plan for China is to initiate a conflict with Japan and US before making any move on Taiwan. China could, for example, strike American bases after some American weapon delivery to Taiwan on the ground that China is still in an on-going civil war and weapon supplies to Taiwan make US a belligerent. At the same time make a landing on Diaoyu islands. Maybe it's better to make a surprise landing on Diaoyu first then strike American bases as soon as the US Japan security pact gets activated.

Click to expand...

If China is going to attack US/Japan, that better be as part of plan to take over Taiwan. PLA isn't going to destroy China' economy without gaining Taiwan. Why would you do a surprise landing on Diaoyu? It offers no value in a war. Now, it actually would make sense after the initial phase to do a landing in Okinawa and then use the base there for the rest of the conflict.

I'd be curious to hear from others on the wisdom of attempting a landing on Okinawa in the first couple of weeks of a war assuming they have neutralized the air/naval assets there.

If they do a full blockade of Taiwan where Taiwan goes a month without internet, gas, oil and face food shortage and are constantly terrorized by UCAVs. I would be surprised if Taiwan does not surrender if both US/Japan cannot successful mount a counter by then. That's a long time to be denied of hope.

Blitzo said:

This is somewhat more geopolitical in nature -- however the trends of US policy to Taiwan over the last few years (including during Trump's tenure),

Click to expand...

Although interesting enough, Trump would almost definitely not get US involved in a Taiwan invasion. And if he gets elected, he is apparently going to do a clean up of civil servant so that those remaining will not oppose his isolationist policies.