Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

Status
Not open for further replies.

Serb

Junior Member
Registered Member
The US needs a quick victory over China, I mean in a couple of days, maybe weeks at most,

Or else if Chinese industrial output shifts to military equipment,

And the US citizens start taking it to the streets because they are weak-willed and divided, it's over.




50_Years_Of_Global_Steel_Produccion.jpg
 

Serb

Junior Member
Registered Member
And it's not advantage only in steel production, it's true for everything else too, article that came three days ago:


US lacks the explosive firepower to truly deter China​


China has surged past US explosive and propellant production capacity; US stockpiles would run dry within a week of a Taiwan war

The US is at growing risk of a firepower gap with China as US explosives and propellants production declines and China’s rises.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that China had overtaken the US in developing new types of explosives, notably its version of CL-20, an explosive developed in the 1980s, which is 40% more potent than RDX or HMX and widely used in US munitions since World War II.

The report mentions that China tested its CL-20 counterpart in 2011 and has since mass-produced the explosive.

In contrast, the article says that almost all US military explosives are made at one US Army plant at Holston, Tennessee, using World War II-style mixing systems and production techniques. It also notes that newer explosives such as CL-20 cannot be made with these dated methods and can only be produced in smaller amounts in chemical reactors.

The report also mentions that the US can make 10 tons of CL-20 a year with its current stockpile of precursor chemicals, but broad use of CL-20 will require a production rate of 1,000 tons a year, with US industries needing three to five years to scale up.

Forbes notes that the US depends on China as the only source for a half-dozen chemical ingredients used in its military explosives and propellants, and other countries of concern for another dozen, bringing the security of US energetics logistics chains into question.

The article also mentions that in the event of a Taiwan contingency, the US will face greater numbers of Chinese missiles, including some with power and range greater than anything in the US arsenal due to China’s development of new explosives and propellants that burn more efficiently.

Some of China’s advancements in terms of energetics include the development of cross-media weapons and thermobaric weapons.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on China’s development of a hybrid missile-torpedo that can cruise at Mach 2.5 at 10,000 meters, then transition to sea-skimming mode for 20 kilometers, and finally shift to supercavitating mode for the last 10 kilometers to the target.

Chinese researchers invented a new type of boron-powered solid-fuel ramjet engine to make this weapon, which features several innovations such as double the boron content compared to traditional ramjet fuel rods, and multiple coatings on the nanofuel particles to control their explosive properties.

They also claim no defense against a cross-medium attack, as it can change course at will or crash-dive up to 100 meters to avoid shipboard defenses.

China has also been developing thermobaric weapons that rely on atmospheric oxygen as the oxidizer for an aerosolized explosive. Thermobaric weapons create a much larger and more powerful blast than conventional explosives, followed by a devastating vacuum effect.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that China had developed a huge air-dropped thermobaric bomb, analogous to the US GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast (MOAB), or Russian Aviation Thermobaric Bomb of Increased Power (ATBIP).

The report notes that this weapon is the most powerful conventional bomb in China’s arsenal. Its large and powerful blast can wipe out fortified ground targets, instantly creating landing zones for helicopters or serving as a potent psychological weapon due to its sheer destructive power.

Given China’s advances in energetics, Sean Carberry, in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, cautions that the US might be at a disadvantage in a confrontation with China due to the latter’s planes and ships carrying munitions that can travel further, with those weapons being made smaller and lighter yet having more punch.

As to how the US lost its edge in energetics, Carberry mentions that while the US had the lead in energetics manufacturing during World War II and the Cold War, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Global War on Terror diminished the need for new energetics amid new and different capability requirements, namely counterinsurgency tactics and precision strikes over making farther-reaching and harder-hitting munitions.

The loss of US energetics production capability has directly impacted its capability to keep Ukraine and Taiwan supplied with enough ammunition for a protracted conflict against Russia and China.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
d that the US could manufacture 180,000 155-millimeter artillery rounds annually. Europe could produce 300,000 rounds, accounting for barely three months of Ukraine’s artillery round expenditure.

Although the source notes that the US and Europe have pledged to upscale artillery round production, with the latter even considering reactivating old Soviet-era artillery round production lines, European firms still need to sign procurement contracts.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
is month that a lack of machine tools constrains US artillery round production capability. Precision machining is vital for artillery rounds, as any imperfections in the round casing shape will result in erratic flight toward the target.

The article notes that while the US has abundant raw materials for manufacturing artillery rounds, the long lead time in acquiring machining tools for artillery round casings causes delays in scaling up production.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

tankphobia

Senior Member
Registered Member
Are you kidding? In the current Ukraine war, the Collective West, not just the US, can't outproduce Russia which has "a GDP the size of Italy's".

Then how are they supposed to outproduce China which has about 10 times the GDP? I talk in terms of military equipment.

Even the whole Collective West combined probably can't outproduce China now, it's more like a 10 to 1 advantage to the Chinese side, not to mention one small US which has an economy 70% consumption of mostly foreign-made goods and no real industry. They are a complete joke.
The West is currently not willing to eat into their domestic civilian industrial capacity to build military equipment. They don't see Russia-Ukraine as existential as such the stuff they are giving Ukraine are mostly ancient. In the case of basically WW3 they will all go into war economy.

When it comes down to it the West can build plenty of equipment, f-35 production is still substantially higher than j-20 for example. The weapons that will be used in a confrontation in the Pacific is not those that you can simply scale up, it will take years and years just to build capacity even during peace time, in the domains that are most important for a confrontation away from home needed for long war (subs, aircraft, force projection) China still trails the US. Once the shooting starts I doubt the US will leave coastal ship building intact.

What I'm trying to get at is that the US can target Chinese ship building easily because Korea and Japan is so close, but for China to target the collective West is extremely difficult because they are all over the world.
 

Serb

Junior Member
Registered Member
The West is currently not willing to eat into their domestic civilian industrial capacity to build military equipment. They don't see Russia-Ukraine as existential as such the stuff they are giving Ukraine are mostly ancient. In the case of basically WW3 they will all go into war economy.


No, they are really willing to produce more military equipment, it's just that they can't do it. All the media and statements point to that exact same conclusion. In fact, they already emptied their own reserves for Ukraine, you think that they don't want to fill that up ASAP? Here are a few examples contradicting your statement:


The other part of the puzzle is the rate of production. The U.S. defense industrial base is simply not ready to sustain a long-term war effort. In December, Lockheed Martin chief executive James Taiclet
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that “the U.S. defense industrial base is scoped for maximum efficiency at peacetime production rates.” The resulting lack of surge capacity in case of war is a profound vulnerability, and unless it is addressed, it will exist whether the war in Ukraine ends tomorrow or in a decade. Simply put, if a war breaks out, the military will have to make do with its existing peacetime stockpile and little ability to replenish its stores.

At the end of the Cold War, there were 51 prime defense contractors. Five of them
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
today, and most have only survived by focusing on the big-ticket, prestige projects favored by Pentagon planners, and otherwise avoiding risks. As a result, the military only has a single
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
for several key rocket and missile components. One industrial accident could therefore shut down an entire procurement program. For defense manufacturers, building new production lines and factories for ammunition is a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
long-term investment, which they will be reluctant to make without evidence that it will pay off. The larger the orders they receive now, the better that investment decision will look.


For the EU, Ukraine IS an existential threat, and they are already in WW3 with Russia. It's not that they don't want, it's that they can't.

Now, it is too late for the West to change its situation. They can't change the population's decades' worth of doing nothing, to all of a sudden switching back to being an industrial, hard-working, export-oriented country.

Where are their factories, machines, skilled workers, workers educated for those industries, and workers willing to work in those factories instead of doing must less taxing service-based jobs all of a sudden?

How are they thinking of accomplishing that in a short time in a case of war without some social unrest? You forgot that they are an inefficient oligarchy with 80% percent of their economies being consumption-based. Keep in mind that the EU is more industrially advanced that the US. You are living in the past, this is not the same WW2 West, but the one who has lived from printing money out of thin air for decades already.


When it comes down to it the West can build plenty of equipment, f-35 production is still substantially higher than j-20 for example.


It's just one 1 in 100 areas of military equipment. And I'm not sure if it is true today because I recently read recently that J-20 production surpassed the F-22. I don't understand your point, even Americans admit China currently outproduces them by 5-7 times in military equipment, and in the case of war, I think that that advantage could double, triple or more in China's favor. Not that in the West anyone outside the US would get into a war with China, especially the EU, when they have now Russia to worry about and geography.


as such the stuff they are giving Ukraine are mostly ancient.

This is way off the mark, especially today. It was like that maybe at the beginning of the war.


The weapons that will be used in a confrontation in the Pacific is not those that you can simply scale up, it will take years and years just to build capacity even during peace time, in the domains that are most important for a confrontation away from home needed for long war (subs, aircraft, force projection) China still trails the US. Once the shooting starts I doubt the US will leave coastal ship building intact.


That is true, but you forget that they need those things because Americans are fighting 10000km from their continent, while China is fighting 100km from its mainland. China doesn't need naval force projection, China just needs missiles, rockets, shells, and other types of ammunition, they are fighting from a 100km close distance, they are gonna fire from their land, and Americans would come to their home field.
 
Last edited:

Biscuits

Major
Registered Member
The West is currently not willing to eat into their domestic civilian industrial capacity to build military equipment. They don't see Russia-Ukraine as existential as such the stuff they are giving Ukraine are mostly ancient. In the case of basically WW3 they will all go into war economy.

When it comes down to it the West can build plenty of equipment, f-35 production is still substantially higher than j-20 for example. The weapons that will be used in a confrontation in the Pacific is not those that you can simply scale up, it will take years and years just to build capacity even during peace time, in the domains that are most important for a confrontation away from home needed for long war (subs, aircraft, force projection) China still trails the US. Once the shooting starts I doubt the US will leave coastal ship building intact.

What I'm trying to get at is that the US can target Chinese ship building easily because Korea and Japan is so close, but for China to target the collective West is extremely difficult because they are all over the world.
You do know America has less bombers than even Russia right? There doesn't exist an amount of platforms that could seriously threaten Chinese cities outside of ones on Taiwan.

The Hong Kong/Hainan direction is blocked by the SCS.

The Fujian direction is blocked by Taiwan.

Only place where China has less strategic depth is Liaoning, but that is assuming South Korea joins the invasion and that South Korea can maintain sorties when getting counterofferensived by North Korea and China.
 

HighGround

Junior Member
Registered Member
What I'm trying to get at is that the US can target Chinese ship building easily because Korea and Japan is so close, but for China to target the collective West is extremely difficult because they are all over the world.

Modern strategy is mostly built strategy these days though. Even for many land assets. Even if a war lasts two years, industrial capacity isn't going to make a huge difference in my opinion.

Outside of war? Huge difference, but during war? I don't think it'll matter too much. Of course, I'm assuming that modern wars won't last for years on end.
 

HighGround

Junior Member
Registered Member
You think for example making 10 missiles per month vs 100 missiles per month won’t make a huge difference?
If the amount of missiles in the stockpile is tens of thousands, and hundreds are expended every day, then yeah, I don't think it'll make a huge difference.

Unless of course, like I said, the war lasts many years. Ammo expenditure is likely to vastly outpace production capacity.
 

supersnoop

Major
Registered Member
The US needs a quick victory over China, I mean in a couple of days, maybe weeks at most,

Or else if Chinese industrial output shifts to military equipment,

And the US citizens start taking it to the streets because they are weak-willed and divided, it's over.




50_Years_Of_Global_Steel_Produccion.jpg
I don’t think US is weak willed, the blood and money spent on (mis)adventures like Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan say otherwise.

The wild card as you mentioned is the economy.
A mid-range laptop used to cost $3000 in 90’s dollars, so the fact that they cost 1/3 of that today spells a looming economic disaster if Chinese goods were cut off.

If the US forces the issue, the economic outcome might be more devastating to American power than the military.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top