PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[Paradigm]

The Chinese government has proven time and again that the most obvious course of action is not necessarily the wisest.

In HK, everyone was expecting the Central Government to step in and quell the riots. Instead, the Central Government provide support to the HK government and enabled the passing of the NSL, which completely neutralized the US sponsored insurgency without a single shot being fired by the PLA. Of course, the cutting of CIA funding behind the scenes also played an instrumental role.

When Pelosi visited Taiwan, everyone expected a direct armed confrontation between China and the US. Instead, the Chinese government allowed Pelosi to land safely and instead used the incident to normalize the conduction of military exercises around the island.

You proposed for China to match US trade bans in a tit for tat response, except you failed to realize that economic decoupling was exactly what the US administration was seeking. Why should China help the US achieve its aims? So long as China has trade ties with the US, China has leverage. Ban those trade ties, and you lose that leverage, as the US found out with their tech bans.

As for the other proposals in your post, they are even more childish. Dumping US treasuries? Sailing off the coast of Guam and Hawaii? Those are as empty gestures as the US FONOPs in SCS. Worse, those responses are eminently predictable. That means the US would be able to dictate Chinese actions through their own.

As Chairman Mao once said: 你打你的，我打我的。Never let your adversary dictate your responses.

Sorry, some China "successes" come at a cost. What was stopping the CPC from enacting the NSL in HK much earlier? Why was such wanton damage needed before they bring in the NSL? Could it not been done right after the rioters destroyed the legislative council? Answer: not assertive enough.

Pelosi is not a good example. Will US shoot down Li Keqiang's plane if he was visiting Hawaiian independence figures? China was never going to shoot down Pelosi's plane.

The west are run by overgrown children. They do childish provocative moves. China has been responding with language like, "we oppose, we protest, the west should correct their mistakes". How is that working out so far? Have the tempo of US provocations increased, or decreased? You tell me.

 

[solarz]

Well, some of us in this forum did want the PLA to shoot down Pelosi's plane before she could land in Taipei. Bad idea.

Like the guy who swore he'd leave the forum in shame if war didn't break out before August 2022?

I think he's peddling credit cards these days.

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

In the meantime:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US Navy is putting focus back at mid-sea refueling as a way to combat logistic shortfalls by having US warships resupplied and rearmed on the sea. This is viewed to reduce dependence on fixed naval bases and ports, especially those located along the FIC and SIC since they can be targetted by the PLA during wartime. US warships also don't have do sail all the way back to Hawaii or CONUS to resupply and rearm once their ammunitions and supply onboard has been exhausted, thus saving time, energy and increasing flexibility.

It should be noted that the proposed concepts are for the replenishment ships to house the cranes meant for rearming and resupplying the warships, and not the warships themselves as what has been experimented beforehand.

The idea would be for the replenishment ships to sail from CONUS or Hawaii to designated locations beyond the SIC (which would be safe from the warzone in the WestPac), while US warships would sail to those locations to rearm and resupply before heading back into the warzone within the SIC.

For this, I could think of two probable solutions for China to deal with this:
1. DF-27 boost-glide HGV missile - Having a range somewhere between 5000-8000 kilometers, it should be able to target much of the waters between the SIC and TIC (and perhaps even Honolulu nearing the edge of strike coverage) when stationed in northeastern China. However, for the southern hemisphere, the missile could only reach as far as the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu when stationed in southeastern China.
2. Ultra-long range (ULR) torpedo - Recall that nuclear torpedo last time, touted to have the capability to sail across the entire Pacific to reach the West Coast? I think these can be useful for this scenario. If range is a concern, then having UUVs carry them all the way to the Central Pacific before launching them towards their targets would be one way to solve the problem.

The impetus is that if the US Navy lost access to useful bases in the FIC and SIC, then they still have bases along the TIC (i.e. Hawaii, Sydney, New Zealand) to resupply and rearm, alongside those replenishment ships stationed in the middle of the ocean. But if they lose access to them as well... then forcing them back to CONUS is a no-brainer.

However, in order for the above to happen, constant ISR and guidance coverage over the entire Pacific is necessary. But I think this would be more suitable for another post.

 

[vincent]

Finally an insightful opinion pieces instead of hysterical western MSM reporting.

This is one of the goal the American want to have, to use the bases for intelligence gathering especially at SCS and the Philippine sea.

Yup we are not stupid for a repeat like what happen during WW2 , a total destruction of my country.

Here I will counter that under Philippine constitution forbade any foreign deployment / storage of nuclear and offensive weapons that is counter to our national interest.

EDCA is about pre deployment of weapon, VFA is to allow the American entry to use those equipment, in a way design to circumvent our constitution BUT this arrangement is ideal for us and not the US, why? we can revoke the VFA and deny them entry, here the American want to renegotiate the terms of the VFA BUT any deviation is counter to our constitution, So we have the American under our thump. They don't have the luxury of independent action like before when they operate Clark and Subic, this will deny any misadventure on their part.

Sorry bud, I doubt Philippine has the ability to inspect the things American are placing on your soil. No offensive weapons? Ha. You wouldn’t know if the American ship in a few nuclear-tipped missiles.

As for revoking VFA, wake me up when the US withdraw its forces as demanded by the Iraqi government.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[HighGround]

In the meantime:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The US Navy is putting focus back at mid-sea refueling as a way to combat logistic shortfalls by having US warships resupplied and rearmed on the sea. This is viewed to reduce dependence on fixed naval bases and ports, especially those located along the FIC and SIC since they can be targetted by the PLA during wartime. US warships also don't have do sail all the way back to Hawaii or CONUS to resupply and rearm once their ammunitions and supply onboard has been exhausted, thus saving time, energy and increasing flexibility.

It should be noted that the proposed concepts are for the replenishment ships to house the cranes meant for rearming and resupplying the warships, and not the warships themselves as what has been experimented beforehand.

The idea would be for the replenishment ships to sail from CONUS or Hawaii to designated locations beyond the SIC (which would be safe from the warzone in the WestPac), while US warships would sail to those locations to rearm and resupply before heading back into the warzone within the SIC.

For this, I could think of two probable solutions for China to deal with this:
1. DF-27 boost-glide HGV missile - Having a range somewhere between 5000-8000 kilometers, it should be able to target much of the waters between the SIC and TIC (and perhaps even Honolulu nearing the edge of strike coverage) when stationed in northeastern China. However, for the southern hemisphere, the missile could only reach as far as the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu when stationed in southeastern China.
2. Ultra-long range (ULR) torpedo - Recall that nuclear torpedo last time, touted to have the capability to sail across the entire Pacific to reach the West Coast? I think these can be useful for this scenario. If range is a concern, then having UUVs carry them all the way to the Central Pacific before launching them towards their targets would be one way to solve the problem.

The impetus is that if the US Navy lost access to useful bases in the FIC and SIC, then they still have bases along the TIC (i.e. Hawaii, Sydney, New Zealand) to resupply and rearm, alongside those replenishment ships stationed in the middle of the ocean. But if they lose access to them as well... then forcing them back to CONUS is a no-brainer.

However, in order for the above to happen, constant ISR and guidance coverage over the entire Pacific is necessary. But I think this would be more suitable for another post.

What about submarine warfare?

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

What about submarine warfare?

unfortunately there is no way to stop ASW patrol planes and LHDs at such great distances far outside the reach of ground aviation and you'd have to wrest control of the air across all that distance, which cannot be done quickly. it'll be a brutal grind right at the 1st island chain which allows involvement of Japan.

 

[HighGround]

unfortunately there is no way to stop ASW patrol planes and LHDs at such great distances far outside the reach of ground aviation and you'd have to wrest control of the air across all that distance, which cannot be done quickly. it'll be a brutal grind right at the 1st island chain which allows involvement of Japan.

Sorry if it seem stupid, I'm asking because I don't know.

I understand that convoys and resupply ships will have specific routes, that will be patrolled regularly by ASW planes and ships. But can't submarines just hit convoys, then sail back out into the expanse of the ocean and sit quietly and then hit again, or return to base? What am I missing?

There is a vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean between CONUS/Hawaii and the SIC.

 

[bebops]

I believed submarine torpedo is one of the better option against a warship. second option is a swarm of 6-10+ mach hypersonic missile.

Most defense is focused on SAM like Patriot missile, SM6 and other air defense system. Nothing was mentioned about underwater missile defense.

If several submarines launch a swarm of underwater missile (torpedo), it will sink anything.

China needs tons of 95/96 submarine. If they can build submarine as fast as warship, then they will rule the world.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Sorry if it seem stupid, I'm asking because I don't know.

I understand that convoys and resupply ships will have specific routes, that will be patrolled regularly by ASW planes and ships. But can't submarines just hit convoys, then sail back out into the expanse of the ocean and sit quietly and then hit again, or return to base? What am I missing?

There is a vast expanse of the Pacific Ocean between CONUS/Hawaii and the SIC.

there's no way out into the open Pacific without taking Taiwan, as there's already a hydrophone network located in Philippines and Japanese islands to detect subs trying to exit from ECS or SCS, while eastern Indian Ocean will be crawling with ASW planes so you can't even send PLAN SSNs down through Indonesia, and circumnavigate the world to hit them from behind.

 

[HighGround]

there's no way out into the open Pacific without taking Taiwan, as there's already a hydrophone network located in Philippines and Japanese islands to detect subs trying to exit from ECS or SCS, while eastern Indian Ocean will be crawling with ASW planes so you can't even send PLAN SSNs down through Indonesia, and circumnavigate the world to hit them from behind.

Ah I see, so the chokepoints acting as a tripwire alert for US forces is one of the issues. Is there any potential for China to open up a submarine base in Kamchatka?

Hypothetically, if cooperation with Solomon Islands blossoms into a full size naval base. Can China's submarine fleet threaten US supply lines at that point?