PLA strike strategies in westpac HIC

[FairAndUnbiased]

Destroy all PLAN’s major combatants and all Chinese shipyards. Bomb all infrastructures along the coast line.

they don't have the capability to destroy all of China's shipyards. the most important one - the conventional sub production site - is in Wuhan, surrounded by air defense and airbases. It is outside tactical air range and they'll have to park a carrier almost on the beach to hit it.

they also don't have the capability to destroy China's infrastructure along the coast. you realize there's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and even AI filtering out 90% of them means 200 needs to be checked out by recon assets? They need to dedicate almost all their assets just to hunt military ground targets, and that assumes they don't shoot back. Even Serbia - a tiny poor country surrounded by NATO - with an ancient air defense network against entire NATO - could inflict losses and suffered surprisingly few of them. In this case, all airbases in central China are still far out of reach and their attempted bombing of Chinese coastal infrastructure with the only thing feasible - gravity bombs - would require overflying the targets and be met with intercepts while they're still operating at the edge of their fuel radius.

and just by not trading with them China inflicts damage on them. Russia, a relatively small $1.6 trillion economy, being sanctioned, gives them ~10% inflation a month. War on China, an economy bigger than the EU, is unprecedented economic territory.

 

[SanWenYu]

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.

Remember the oil crisis in the 70s?

 

[tphuang]

I think he want to use the landing as a trigger for war

why would you use landing as a trigger for war when your goal is to destroy as much of the air bases and naval ships within 2nd island chain as possible in the first day?

It is retarded to attempt take over Okinawa without destroying majority of American and Japanese forces. PLA doesn’t have the force projection to contest the battle space in the Ryukyu Islands.

retarded? Have you been following the theme that PLA will degrade everything within 2nd island chain in the first phase of the war? If anything Okinawa region would be one of the easier ones to neutralize given its short distance to the mainland. Pretty much any ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles could target there. Naha is 700 km from Wenzhou.

In order of difficulty when it comes to degrading air base/air defense/surface combatant. I'm probably going to sound like a total noob here, but:
Taiwan
Okinawa air and naval bases
sasebo naval base
Misawa air base
air/naval bases around Tokyo (Iruma, Yokosuka)
Guam

I would also expect Okinawa to be a base they can continually drop PGMs with J-10s/JH-7As. They wouldn't even require J-16s to perform that role.

 

[Blitzo]

they don't have the capability to destroy all of China's shipyards. the most important one - the conventional sub production site - is in Wuhan, surrounded by air defense and airbases. It is outside tactical air range and they'll have to park a carrier almost on the beach to hit it.

they also don't have the capability to destroy China's infrastructure along the coast. you realize there's

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, and even AI filtering out 90% of them means 200 needs to be checked out by recon assets? They need to dedicate almost all their assets just to hunt military ground targets, and that assumes they don't shoot back. Even Serbia - a tiny poor country surrounded by NATO - with an ancient air defense network against entire NATO - could inflict losses and suffered surprisingly few of them. In this case, all airbases in central China are still far out of reach and their attempted bombing of Chinese coastal infrastructure with the only thing feasible - gravity bombs - would require overflying the targets and be met with intercepts while they're still operating at the edge of their fuel radius.

and just by not trading with them China inflicts damage on them. Russia, a relatively small $1.6 trillion economy, being sanctioned, gives them ~10% inflation a month. War on China, an economy bigger than the EU, is unprecedented economic territory.

Your conditions of victory for the US is too generous.

The US does not require victory to be one where China undergoes "regime change" -- the outcome of a war, whereby China does not have the ability to geoeconomically or militarily challenge the US outside of China's immediate periphery and territorial airspace and waters, for multiple decades going into the future, would likely be seen as satisfactory.



The question that should be asked instead, is what is the conditions of victory for the PRC?

 

[latenlazy]

A

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 thi

A few years back I would have agreed but the ideological shift about how to see Taiwan in the beltway establishment has not been subtle.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Your conditions of victory for the US is too generous.

The US does not require victory to be one where China undergoes "regime change" -- the outcome of a war, whereby China does not have the ability to geoeconomically or militarily challenge the US outside of China's immediate periphery and territorial airspace and waters, for multiple decades going into the future, would likely be seen as satisfactory.



The question that should be asked instead, is what is the conditions of victory for the PRC?

the victory condition for the PRC is simple. Regime change in Taiwan, which is a small island that's de jure China already. As Deng Xiaoping once offered, merely switching the flag and diplomatically following PRC is sufficient, not even ROC military needs to be removed. that's comparatively tiny vs. US maximalist goals of regime change or total conquest of China.

and remember, for US to not be humiliated, they need to either win a small goal effortlessly, or win the big goal of conquering China. Just look at world opinion regarding Ukraine. Russia is grinding Ukraine down and yet because they are doing so at great cost, they are still being humiliated and have lost influence/prestige as a result. If US loses 5-6 CBGs, thousands of planes, tens/hundreds of thousands of troops, suffers 30%+ inflation etc. just to sink the PLAN alone, and still can't inflict significant losses on the PLAAF and PLARF, they'd be seen as being utterly humiliated even if that technically is a "win". They'd have lost more influence than they gained as enemies and rivals become emboldened. they not only need to win, they need to do so without losing much of anything.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

Your conditions of victory for the US is too generous.

The US does not require victory to be one where China undergoes "regime change" -- the outcome of a war, whereby China does not have the ability to geoeconomically or militarily challenge the US outside of China's immediate periphery and territorial airspace and waters, for multiple decades going into the future, would likely be seen as satisfactory.

The US has no conditions for victory because US victory is impossible. If it manages to attain what you wrote above, the nukes fly.

The question that should be asked instead, is what is the conditions of victory for the PRC?

Ironically, they're exactly what you wrote in that paragraph above. The difference between the US and PRC is that it isn't an existential issue for the US, it's purely a matter of ego and prestige. The US could be wholly expelled from the western Pacific and it would still get on just fine. For China, there's no going back a single step; its back is already against the wall.

 

[caohailiang]

Thanks! Like I've said, I'm glad to be back. Just easy to get ultra-mega burned out from writing so much lol. Hopefully I'll be able to restrain the urge to go into all the (admittedly, necessary for understanding) nitty gritty details going forward.


Aha, so... those hopes were dashed rather promptly. I spent yesterday night and (following a superbad DC work trip) the rest of today putting together a response. Problem is, I kinda went over every major/pertinent employment detail I could think of about the Tomahawk Weapons System in it, and in all, the whole thing sorta ended up being like 45,000 characters (~7000 words) plus some pictures. So uh... I'm gonna avoid posting 5 separate messages, and am just gonna link to the pdf (too large to upload here). sorry in advance.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Hello, would it be possible for your to attach the PDF again, seems the link is outdated. thanks!

 

[vincent]

why would you use landing as a trigger for war when your goal is to destroy as much of the air bases and naval ships within 2nd island chain as possible in the first day?

I don’t agree Chinese leaders will initiate hostilities against the US without a valid reason. Landing at Diaoyu Islands does force Japan and the US to react and if they go hostile, PRC can then have a valid reason to attack them

retarded? Have you been following the theme that PLA will degrade everything within 2nd island chain in the first phase of the war? If anything Okinawa region would be one of the easier ones to neutralize given its short distance to the mainland. Pretty much any ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and anti-ship missiles could target there. Naha is 700 km from Wenzhou.

That’s the wish, but PLA will not have that capabilities for quite a few years yet, plus American forces aren’t gonna be standing still.

 

[Blitzo]

the victory condition for the PRC is simple. Regime change in Taiwan, which is a small island that's de jure China already. As Deng Xiaoping once offered, merely switching the flag and diplomatically following PRC is sufficient, not even ROC military needs to be removed.

that's comparatively tiny vs. US maximalist goals of regime change or total conquest of China.

and remember, for US to not be humiliated, they need to either win a small goal effortlessly, or win the big goal of conquering China. Just look at world opinion regarding Ukraine. Russia is grinding Ukraine down and yet because they are doing so at great cost, they are still being humiliated and have lost influence/prestige as a result. If US loses 5-6 CBGs, thousands of planes, tens/hundreds of thousands of troops, suffers 30%+ inflation for a year, etc. just to sink the PLAN alone, they'd be seen as being utterly humiliated even if that technically is a "win".

As I said, I think your description of US victory in this conflict is overly expansive. I do not believe the US would seek regime change as a condition for victory.

In your description of victory for China, are there any conditions whereby China may lose so much materiel or suffer losses to such a degree that even if they were able to achieve regime change in Taiwan, that the outcome is one where China still cannot claim victory?