I agree with the points you have raised. As I mentioned before, I think there is a lack of "think tank style" graphic/narrative from the Chinese side and I am trying to imitate the US think tank style including some over the top phrases, over confidence/excess certainty, "big arrow with planes," "I have future capabilities while you are stuck with current capabilities," etc. In other words, think of them as features instead of bugs. If I "fix" these issues it just wouldn't be as fun.
PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC
- Thread starter SEAD
- Start date
Well, if the intent of this infographic is meant to confront individuals who tout B-21 as a means of targeting and/or defeating the PRC in a HIC, those individuals are probably going to require more than a fair bit of signposting to accept the notion of the PRC being able to win a 1IC/westpac conflict to such a degree such that they have the ability to carry out strategic offensive operations outside of the immediate westpac/1IC/2IC region.
Yeah, I somewhat suspected that was the goal.
I'm not entirely sure if such infographics from the "PLA watching side" is constructive in the sense that it would just serve as a means for others to dismiss the PLA watching community as simplistic/unrealistic/missing obvious US counters and strategies (i.e.: many of the same critiques leveraged to thinktanks).
Advanced/ironic ragebaiting and trolling is certainly something I see the motivation in, but I suspect people aren't going to interpret it this way.
I suppose if you titled it explicitly in a way of "if Chinese thinktanks produced overconfident US style maps with arrows" then it could be a bit more noticeable that way and somewhat more immune to the obvious critiques.
But I also think that would be a bit of a waste of effort and talent, because the underlying premises of your depicted strategy are fairly sound.
I don't believe the first and second ICs will be neutralized until well into the 2030s, if not later /shrug
Their neutralization is a humongous assumption.
At the same time, I see this infographic also as showing what’s needed to neutralize the island chains, and that both are, for the most part, two sides of the same coin
Their neutralization is a humongous assumption.
At the same time, I see this infographic also as showing what’s needed to neutralize the island chains, and that both are, for the most part, two sides of the same coin
For the 1IC, I think being able to neutralize those in a HIC could be viable by the early 2030s depending on how geopolitical decision making pre-conflict occurs as well as which other nations get involved.
For the 2IC it would be immediately dependent on how quickly the 1IC distance conflict is resolved and balance of in theater (and remaining forces) occur, because the 2IC is in some ways more fragile and limited in basing opportunities than the 1IC but their vulnerability is mitigated by a smaller count of long range PLA strike systems reaching there at present. But a more robust PLA 2IC distance ISR/strike complex may well be able to outrun 2IC basing IAMDs in both quantity and sophistication while being able to bring to bear additional strike complexes if the 1IC tussle is resolved quickly in the PLA's favour.
I agree with this.
There is simply no reason to underestimate US military.
Also, if we are actually doing an actual depiction of Westpac conflict, it will need to be less B-21 focused.
Given the whole host of assets that we are seeing PLA deploy recently, I'm also fully unconvinced B-21 is the biggest threat facing China.
Also, if we are actually doing an actual depiction of Westpac conflict, it will need to be less B-21 focused.
Given the whole host of assets that we are seeing PLA deploy recently, I'm also fully unconvinced B-21 is the biggest threat facing China.