PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[4Tran]

AIM-260, their answer to the PL-15, is confirmed as likely too expensive to use in large numbers:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

“Look at AMRAAM as your capacity weapon. … It’s the affordable” weapon, said Norman. JATM, on the other hand, will be the “kick-the-door-down, very expensive weapon.”

Given the late-90s export variant of the AMRAAM sells today for $3.5 million each when ordered in bulk quantities of at least ~1000 units, I wonder what the price of AIM-260 JATM will be. Given the 25+ year technology gap and the Raytheon quote above, I speculate it will sell for ~$15-25 million each. Given the OBBB includes funding for procurement expected to be partial prepayment for long lead time manufacturing inputs, I expect LRIP in 2026 to 2027, depending on delays by their suppliers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

This link also seems to confirm AIM-174B is much too large to be held internally. So it's out of the question for use by F-22 or F-35. Maybe it will fit in B-21 and F-47 (maybe not even in F-47).

A couple of points. The first is that the AIM-174 and the R-37M are not standard AAM missiles. They're absurdly huge weapons akin to large cruise missiles shrunk down to be launchable by aerial platforms. These are specialized munitions and thus will have relatively limited applications. The PL-17 is a bit of a unique missile because it's significantly larger than standard AAMs, but it otherwise functions like them and can be employed pretty much the same way. The J-36 has a weapons bay that seems to be specifically designed to accomodate the PL-17, but the AIM-174 and R-37M are probably far too big to fit internally into a fighter.

The thing about the price of the AIM-260 is very bad news for the Americans. Western doctrine seems to treat the long range AAMs like the AIM-120 and Meteor as specialty weapons already. The Rafale tends to carry only 2 Meteors while the AIM-120 has a low production rate - Raytheon makes about 1200 a year. In comparison, China (and probably Pakistan) treat their long range AAMs like standard weapons, so more planes carry them and they and will probably fire them off much more generously. China's automated PL-15 factory probably build that same 1200 units a month.

 

[CMP]

A couple of points. The first is that the AIM-174 and the R-37M are not standard AAM missiles. They're absurdly huge weapons akin to large cruise missiles shrunk down to be launchable by aerial platforms. These are specialized munitions and thus will have relatively limited applications. The PL-17 is a bit of a unique missile because it's significantly larger than standard AAMs, but it otherwise functions like them and can be employed pretty much the same way. The J-36 has a weapons bay that seems to be specifically designed to accomodate the PL-17, but the AIM-174 and R-37M are probably far too big to fit internally into a fighter.

The thing about the price of the AIM-260 is very bad news for the Americans. Western doctrine seems to treat the long range AAMs like the AIM-120 and Meteor as specialty weapons already. The Rafale tends to carry only 2 Meteors while the AIM-120 has a low production rate - Raytheon makes about 1200 a year. In comparison, China (and probably Pakistan) treat their long range AAMs like standard weapons, so more planes carry them and they and will probably fire them off much more generously. China's automated PL-15 factory probably build that same 1200 units a month.

That sounds like great news for world peace. Raytheon's cut throat capitalist pricing model is ensuring imperialists can only ever get their hands on limited numbers of the AIM-260 and maximize profit per unit. Meanwhile China is ensuring low supply of rare earths so that Raytheon can justify even greater profit per unit. It's a partnership for profit and peace.

 

[4Tran]

That sounds like great news for world peace. Raytheon's cut throat capitalist pricing model is ensuring imperialists can only ever get their hands on limited numbers of the AIM-260 and maximize profit per unit. Meanwhile China is ensuring low supply of rare earths so that Raytheon can justify even greater profit per unit. It's a partnership for profit and peace.

I forgot to mention that it was 1200 AIM-120s across all models: B, C, & D. Raytheon also apparently said that they wouldn't increase production capacity until yearly purchases reached 2000. One can only imagine how few AIM-260s there are going to be. It's sort of nuts how woefully unequipped the US is for a real fight. I think the only countries in the world who approach the concept of munitions stockpiles correctly are China and Russia (Ukraine does too, but they can't make most of their own ammunition).

Circling back to the topic of this thread, it's pretty interesting that out of all the millions of Youtube videos talking about a war over Taiwan, how few of them talk about munitions. This is probably one of the top 5 most important facets of the conflict, but barely a mention. It's almost as if they don't care about being credible.

 

[00CuriousObserver]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The head of NATO says that China would have Russia attack in Europe to draw U.S. and allied forces away from the Pacific during a Taiwan invasion.

The original quote:

There’s a second reason that has to do with the Indo-Pacific. There’s an increasing realization, and let’s not be naïve about this: If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, residing in Moscow, and telling him, “Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory.” That is most likely the way this will progress. And to deter them, we need to do two things. One is that NATO, collectively, being so strong that the Russians will never do this. And second, working together with the Indo-Pacific — something President Trump is very much promoting. Because we have this close interconnectedness, working together on defense industry, innovation between NATO and the Indo-Pacific.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[gelgoog]

So much for NATO's claim to be a defensive alliance. If they were, there would be no need to keep them busy in Europe for an invasion of Taiwan. Which last I checked was not a NATO member.

 

[4Tran]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The head of NATO says that China would have Russia attack in Europe to draw U.S. and allied forces away from the Pacific during a Taiwan invasion.

The original quote:

There’s a second reason that has to do with the Indo-Pacific. There’s an increasing realization, and let’s not be naïve about this: If Xi Jinping would attack Taiwan, he would first make sure that he makes a call to his very junior partner in all of this, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, residing in Moscow, and telling him, “Hey, I’m going to do this, and I need you to to keep them busy in Europe by attacking NATO territory.” That is most likely the way this will progress. And to deter them, we need to do two things. One is that NATO, collectively, being so strong that the Russians will never do this. And second, working together with the Indo-Pacific — something President Trump is very much promoting. Because we have this close interconnectedness, working together on defense industry, innovation between NATO and the Indo-Pacific.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I wonder if this guy actually believes what he's saying. If he's just saying it to provoke some sort of reaction, then that's fine, but if he really believes it, then he's an idiot. First, forces that are in Europe aren't going to be deployed in the Western Pacific to begin with so how is this supposed to help? Next, why in the world would Putin start a war with Europe just on China's say so? None of this makes any sense.

The part that is wrong, but I at least have some sympathy for is that he says that Russia is China's junior partner. The thing is that China doesn't operate that way. It purposely avoids proper alliances (Pakistan being the sole exception), and it most certainly wouldn't force/coerce another country into starting a war. I used to believe that China was into senior/junior relationships but I'm a nobody; not someone who's supposed to know this kind of thing.

 

[zyklon]

I wonder if this guy actually believes what he's saying. If he's just saying it to provoke some sort of reaction, then that's fine, but if he really believes it, then he's an idiot. First, forces that are in Europe aren't going to be deployed in the Western Pacific to begin with so how is this supposed to help? Next, why in the world would Putin start a war with Europe just on China's say so? None of this makes any sense.

Mark Rutte is a fairly successful politician by Western standards and Secretary General of NATO: he should be assumed to be disingenuous whenever he opens his mouth to the media.

In this instance and to put it simply: Rutte is desperately trying to stay relevant.

NATO is principally an European and anti-Russian military alliance. However, Trump and his advisors are not particularly concerned about Russia, and very interested in focusing on and prioritizing finite American resources against China.

If Trump "successfully" reorient and reprioritize the US military against China, where will that leave NATO and its nominal leader, Mark Rutte? Will he even still have a job?

Obviously Rutte is unhappy and concerned about current US military priorities under the Trump administration, but he also doesn't want to upset "daddy:"

So in an effort to keep himself employed and his employer relevant, Rutte is trying to politely convince Trump and company that focusing on and somehow defeating Russia is the best way for achieving their goal of containing China.

It purposely avoids proper alliances (Pakistan being the sole exception), and it most certainly wouldn't force/coerce another country into starting a war.

Pakistan is not a treaty ally of China, only North Korea is.

Though in some ways your outlook is correct: should "shit hit the fan," China would probably be more keen to preserve the existing military led order in Islamabad than the current leadership out of Pyongyang.

 

[zyklon]

In case anyone is curious, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte is by no means the only senior European official who has sought to convince American policymakers that containing China starts with defeating Russia.

Earlier this year, EU "foreign minister" Kaja Kallas made a similar argument at a talk hosted by the Hudson Institute in DC.

However, Ms Kallas was more playful with her words than Mr Rutte, and perhaps gaming American policymakers as if they were the men of her youth:

Perhaps something was "lost in translation," but it sounded like Ms Kallas wanted to tell Daddy Trump:

> If you're not man enough to deal with Russia, you obviously can't protect me, yourself or anyone from China.

TBF, while these senior European officials are visibly, if not laughably manipulative with Trump, such behavior isn't distasteful so much as business as usual for the Western political class. No one gets elected without lying.

From the perspective of Beijing, the more Brussels does to keep Washington occupied in Europe, the fewer airframes, hulls and missiles the US will have for impeding armed reunification between the Mainland and Taiwan.

Likewise, while

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, which Ms Kallas calls home, it might behoove both sides to recognize that they're in a zero sum competition for a finite American military umbrella that may prove inadequate for protecting neither.

 

[LanceD23]

In US war simulations.
Once war broke out in taiwan, US will fight China covertly and long distance in first month.

It will use submarines in sink PLA transport ships.

US would assume China send out 2 carrier groups in the east of Taiwan to form a picket line to block income helps to taiwan.

But US B52 and B1B from Guam will launch stand off stealth antiship missiles at Chinese strike groups at very far distance.

US will actively engage once China ships and missiles got depleted significantly.

US calculated in the first month, China would lose significantly amount of their amphibious ships..

China maybe should engage taiwan in the form of continous civil war. Attack but not invade because US calculated Chinese landed troops would get bogged down in land warfare with taiwan troops.

Then chinese troops landed in taiwan would become major liabilities. They have high probabilities of being annihilated.

 

[CMP]

In US war simulations.
Once war broke out in taiwan, US will fight China covertly and long distance in first month.

It will use submarines in sink PLA transport ships.

US would assume China send out 2 carrier groups in the east of Taiwan to form a picket line to block income helps to taiwan.

But US B52 and B1B from Guam will launch stand off stealth antiship missiles at Chinese strike groups at very far distance.

US will actively engage once China ships and missiles got depleted significantly.

China maybe should engage taiwan in the form of continous civil war. Attack but not invade because US calculated Chinese landed troops would get bogged down in land warfare with taiwan troops.

Then chinese troops landed in taiwan would become major liabilities. They have high probabilities of being annihilated.

The scenario was invented by an idiot. Guam bases would be pancaked by DF-26s on day one. China would heavily leverage its merchant fleet for transport such that US submarines will be completely out of the fight from running out of missiles/torpedoes too quickly. Not to mention they'd be constantly hunted by Chinese diesel electric submarines. US missile stockpiles would be depleted into complete oblivion long before China goes through even a 10th of its own.