PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

[HighGround]

Disagree. There will be a window of opportunity between 2027-2030 where American and Japanese warships and aircraft are retired faster than their replacements as described here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. After that, introduction of next generation western platforms like NGAD and the LRASM successor will make the current A2/AD strategy much less tenable.

DDG(X) is not even entering service until 2032. NGAD is only entering service in 2030s.
Public war games (which tend to massively favor United States) project that if war were to break out today, LRASM inventory would be burned through within days.

There is no magic bullet that wins wars. Capability doesn't just need to exist, it needs to exist in meaningful quantities in order to generate substantive effects. A Pacific War in 2030s is going to be fought with Flight 3 Burkes, Nimitz carriers, F-35s, and at best, NSMs and JATMs. Both of which are responses to Chines MIC developments, not new capabilities.

Meanwhile, what is coming online from China by the end of 2030s?

Type 95 submarines.
Next generation SSBNs.
1-2 new carriers.
J-20B
J-35
J-15B
H-20
PL-XX missiles.

Now forget new platforms and everything I forgot to mention, what is China going to have in quantity?

1-3 batches of 054B frigates.
At least 1 new batch of Type 055 Destroyers
J-16D EW Fighters
J-20s
DF-26 and DF-21Ds
Several more SSNs
KJ-500s (already dozens of these)
Y-20s
Y-8 ASW variants

I could go on and on.

China's newest generation of destroyers have reached parity and even superseded US designs in size, radar capability, and armaments. They have developed new platforms faster, continuously improved and retrofitted older inventory, have arguably outbuilt us in every conceivable platform, and have essentially reached technological parity it not leapfrogged us in several systems like IRBMs and AAMs. And they have done this with less GDP.

Now you really want to bet that we could outdevelop and outbuild this country when they have the same or greater GDP?

You really wanna see how far behind we will be after 2030s?

Please, the window for United States to choke out and destroy China is rapidly coming to a close. We either do it now or never.

Personally, I vote to live and let live, admit that we cannot defend Taiwan and move on with our lives. If we want to retain hegemony, we basically have to get our own shit in order, and pray that China somehow massively fucks up and destroys its own potential.

That statistic is meaningless. Whether the PLA has the production capacity and standing force to shatter the Anglo-Japanese forces within the second island chain and keep the SLOCs open is the relevant question. The answer to that currently is no.

The PLA should've received massively engorged budgets by year two of the Trump trade war. Instead the PRC leadership and population coped, gaslit themselves with empty slogans, and slept walk into these heightened tensions with an insufficient expeditionary fighting capability and lagging strategic nuclear force.

The answer to these questions is not no. The answer to this question is a big fat question mark.

As for PLA "massively engorging their budget". All I'm gonna do is post this graph.



Chinese spending is not only sustainable, it's almost downright reasonable. In fact, if this was United States, they'd be crying about how the military budget is far too small. The idea that China is pumping unearned billions into its budget is farcical. China's military budget is growing because their economy is growing. China is outbuilding and outspending us in military procurement because they are far better at building things than we are. Therefore, their unit costs end up much lower than ours, despite having similar capability and technological sophistication.

We lost this race in 2010s. By the time Obama pivoted to Asia, it was too late. We did not fix our industrial base. We had 10 years to do so since then and we've done jack shit. You wanna blame someone, blame the people who thought we could keep getting away with gaslighting the world about international law with zero consequences. Eventually, "business as usual" ends.

 

[bebops]

Many many more new platforms will release by 2030

Wing Long 3
KJ 3000 IRS plane
Type 096
Loyalman drone
Submarine Drone
DF 27 Hypersonic missile

I don't think the military budget too serious. The U.S might have 4x bigger budget than China. It doesn't equates to 4x more hardware than China. In fact, China is pumping out more hardware than the U.S with a much smaller budget

 

[solarz]

The biggest achievements of Xi are his anti-corruption campaign and military modernization campaign. He certainly set the foundations for a successful AR.

Yes, it difficult to overstate how much of an impact his anti-corruption campaign has had on China as a whole. Before Xi, the loudest voices were from those who worshipped money and the West. After the anti-corruption campaign, in the space of only a few years, all the Gongzhi went from having millions of followers to being openly mocked and reviled. Patriots became respected again. I still remember when Wolf Warrior 2 came out, there were still voices on the internet mocking Wu Jing for being patriotic. Yet, the explosive success of that movie showed that the writing was on the wall, and the days of west-worshipping Gongzhi were numbered.

 

[Minm]

Xi is one of the better leaders but honestly I don't find his foreign policy successful.

People say that, but I don't see how he could have done anything differently. The relationship with the west broke down because of Trump, not because of Xi. He just made the best out of a bad situation. The West was always going to challenge China at around this time, simply because Chinese power is now approaching American power and given current growth rates, is set to eclipse it soon.

Of course there are things that Xi could have done better or earlier, nobody is perfect, but did he actually make a mistake?

 

[BoraTas]

Disagree. There will be a window of opportunity between 2027-2030 where American and Japanese warships and aircraft are retired faster than their replacements as described here:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

. After that, introduction of next generation western platforms like NGAD and the LRASM successor will make the current A2/AD strategy much less tenable.



That statistic is meaningless. Whether the PLA has the production capacity and standing force to shatter the Anglo-Japanese forces within the second island chain and keep the SLOCs open is the relevant question. The answer to that currently is no.

The PLA should've received massively engorged budgets by year two of the Trump trade war. Instead the PRC leadership and population coped, gaslit themselves with empty slogans, and slept walk into these heightened tensions with an insufficient expeditionary fighting capability and lagging strategic nuclear force.

I personally don't blame Xi. He has tried since 2014 to change Deng's slogans to make national security equal to economic development in priority, indicating that he understands that history is trending towards violence in the early 21st century. The vote has failed every time until the most recent Two Sessions. It's the rest of the Chinese party leaders that are asleep at the wheel.

Well, this is just regurgitation think tank points.

This Decade of Concern argument fails to justify itself when you look at actual facts. It is more of a cultural meme caused by Americans perceiving the successes of foreign countries as a result of America being distracted, trickery, cheating, etc... There are two questions that should be asked:

Which side has been introducing new platforms faster? China. In many categories, China managed to develop and field competitive platforms and, in some cases like the 055, it outright surpassed Americans. We saw even new platforms such as J-16 and J-20 getting multiple upgrades and a new J-20 variant is about to emerge. So, unlike what could be argued 5 years ago, the rapid iterative development is not limited to catch-up.

Which side is getting equipment faster? China. Even in the fighter jet department, which is among America's shining successes, PLA is getting aircraft as fast as the US Armed Forces does. All of the USN fleet plans of the last 20 years failed while PLAN added hundreds of thousands of tons every year.

So no, there is no window of danger. It is getting worse for the US every year. You said NGAD. What about 1000+ J-20's that will be available by then? What about the H-20? What about the 095, sino 6th gen, DF-27 and vast investment in air defenses that will happen until then?

You said LRASM successor. Again what about Chinese investment in air defense and PLAN ships that actually have the equivalent of LRASM successor now? I don't know what else shows better than this that Chinese tech introduction is not limited to catch-up.

People say that, but I don't see how he could have done anything differently. The relationship with the west broke down because of Trump, not because of Xi. He just made the best out of a bad situation. The West was always going to challenge China at around this time, simply because Chinese power is now approaching American power and given current growth rates, is set to eclipse it soon.

Of course there are things that Xi could have done better or earlier, nobody is perfect, but did he actually make a mistake?

Japan and Anglosphere were lost causes but European-Chinese relations could be handled better. I am not sure about India.

 

[AndrewS]

DDG(X) is not even entering service until 2032. NGAD is only entering service in 2030s.
Public war games (which tend to massively favor United States) project that if war were to break out today, LRASM inventory would be burned through within days.

There is no magic bullet that wins wars. Capability doesn't just need to exist, it needs to exist in meaningful quantities in order to generate substantive effects. A Pacific War in 2030s is going to be fought with Flight 3 Burkes, Nimitz carriers, F-35s, and at best, NSMs and JATMs. Both of which are responses to Chines MIC developments, not new capabilities.

Meanwhile, what is coming online from China by the end of 2030s?

The 2030s is much more speculative, but we can make a reasonable guess as to the military balance in 2030.
We can see that the Chinese Air Force and Navy are procuring more big-ticket platforms that the US is.
So we can reasonably assume Chinese procurement of munitions and other systems will be comparable, given these tend to be a lot less expensive.

So here's my guess on the 2030 Chinese military

Air Force
1000 J-20. Based on 100+ annually, as per Patchwork and observed serial numbers
600 Flanker airframes (J-11/J-15/J-16)
600 J-10 airframes
400+ H-6 and JH-7 strike aircraft
100+ Y-20U tankers. There are about 20 Y-20 airframes produced annually.

Munitions and Missiles
We can see that the US plans on buying the following in the next 6 years
a) 4000 JASSM missiles
b) 700 HIMARS launch trucks
c) 106K GMLRS missiles @ $220K each

a) The Chinese equivalent to the JAASM is the DF-17, which is comparable in range and cost
So let's say China buys just 2000 DF-17, which is only half the US plan of 4000 missiles

b) Those DF-17 would be launched from 500 Launch Trucks, in comparison to the 700 HIMARS the US is buying

c) China doesn't need 100K GMLRS as these are expensive short range missiles for a ground war.
Instead, they could buy low-cost munitions like 100K JDAM glide bombs and another 100K Shaheed-136 piston-engine powered cruise missiles. This would only come to $4 Billion, which is only a quarter of what the US is spending on GMLRS

Then if you look at the geography of the Western Pacific, all of Japan is within 1300km of the Chinese mainland. That would be within range of the DF-17, Shaheed, J-20 and also the Flanker airframes. There are also 150+ airbases in China versus approx 10 in Japan. So when you look at Chinese military capabilities, you have the recipe for outright Chinese air superiority over Japan.

Japan can then be blockaded by air and sea indefinitely. In addition, you could allocate say 100K munitions for targets in Japan. Japan is a small but densely populated island which has to import all of its natural resources, including 30% of its food. In comparison, China is the same size as the continental USA and shares land borders with many countries for trade, so China can be broadly self-sufficient. So we can see Japan would collapse in weeks/months in a modern-day version of Operation Starvation. This scenario still applies even if the US military gets involved.

We can extend this scenario to South Korea and Philippines (if required), as there is more than enough spare Chinese military capability.
As for Taiwan, they already face this strategic situation today

---

There's very little that the US can do in this scenario, as the US will be reliant on a small number of submarines, carriers and bombers operating from a handful of distant bases in the 2nd Island Chain and beyond. And those few bases would be under intermittent attack.

This still applies even if they US starts fielding larger numbers of submarines, NGAD, long-range stealth bombers or long-range hypersonic missiles for example after 2030.

From 2030-2040, we could see China buy another 1000 J-20s and its NGAD successor for example. And if NGAD really does have long range, then we could see Chinese NGAD conducting air-superiority operations deep in the Pacific and over Guam for example. There are other Chinese military capabilities as well. By 2040, I would expect a minimum of 6 Chinese carriers and a maximum of 10 carriers if relations with the USA are bad.

@BoraTas

Yes, talk of a "decade of concern" doesn't really make sense.

1. At the granular level, the analysis above goes into some detail as to what is happening

2. At a medium level, if you model the "stockpile" of annual weapons procurement and assume a typical 30 year service life, you can see the Chinese stockpile doubling by 2030 and then increasing another 50% from 2030-2035. In comparison, the US is pretty much flat.

3. At a high-level, you get into how China already has a larger economy than the US in terms of actual output when measured by PPP. Furthermore China should continue to grow faster, which will support even more military spending. And from a requirements perspective, historically the world's largest trading nation builds the largest Navy to protect its global trade interests and investments.

So we are looking at US military superiority dropping away every year for the next 20+ years, just on the current size of the Chinese economy and current military spending levels.

---
So what does this mean?

For Japan, the way out of this security dilemma is good relations with China. It is pointless for Japan to have an alliance with a distant USA that can provide neither military security nor economic prosperity. A similar calculation applies to many other countries in Asia.

For the USA, they have to publicly acknowledge that a war with China is not an option. Otherwise we'll see a larger and faster Chinese military buildup to "persuade" the USA.

 

[tankphobia]

You said LRASM successor. Again what about Chinese investment in air defense and PLAN ships that actually have the equivalent of LRASM successor now? I don't know what else shows better than this that Chinese tech introduction is not limited to catch-up.

Is China actually moving towards Stealthy cruise missiles such as LRASM or JSM? I think they're still set on super/hypersonics ASMS.

 

[AndrewS]

Is China actually moving towards Stealthy cruise missiles such as LRASM or JSM? I think they're still set on super/hypersonics ASMS.

I don't see this happening.

For example, to shoot down a DF-17 ($2 Mn), you need a minimum of a Patriot SAM ($4 Mn) which is twice as expensive.
So in an arms race, China can build more DF-17 and watch the US struggle to buy enough Patriots.

In comparison, you can shoot down LRASMs and JSMs with lower cost SAMs or even guns.
An AMRAAM equivalent ($2 Mn) is half the cost of an LRASM
Stinger and equivalent SAMs start at $100K, which is 40x less than an LRASM
The cost of gun ammunition is essentially zero.

Hypersonic missiles are the way to go.

 

[BoraTas]

Is China actually moving towards Stealthy cruise missiles such as LRASM or JSM? I think they're still set on super/hypersonics ASMS.

IMO we will see stealthy cruise missiles for fighters and smaller aircraft. It is very hard to get useful ranges from high-speed munitions at the required form and weight factors. The H-20 would also benefit from a stealthy cruise missile it can carry internally. But for large munitions range advantage shifts to high-speed munitions. Large rockets can achieve very high speeds and thus can benefit from ballistic trajectories. Thus ranges reaching thousands of kilometers become possible.

Survivability-wise, the effects are different. Stealth terrain huggers are not detected until the last 2-3 minutes. But once they are detected they can be engaged by most systems around. High-speed munitions are easier to detect but they collapse engagement geometries. IMO for the 055, which has a quite large VLS cell, the hypersonic approach is better. Especially in land attack missions (in which the enemy always has limited air defenses compared to targets), hypersonics are simply superior to anything else. A DF-17 or YJ-21 is a completely different animal to defend against compared to the likes of JASSM and Tomahawk. IMO circular body subsonic cruise missiles are simply not survivable anymore. We see even old variant S-300 batteries dropping a lot of them in Ukraine.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Is China actually moving towards Stealthy cruise missiles such as LRASM or JSM? I think they're still set on super/hypersonics ASMS.

I'm not sure how much of an advantage specifically shaped stealth antiship missiles are. Cruise missiles have very low RCS already and stealth against ships matters most if it actually reduces detection distance within the ships radar horizon.

A clean F-16 has far more 90 degree retroreflectors due to large size and many flight control surfaces, yet has only a 1 m2 X band average RCS. What really increases RCS is exposed compressor and external mounted munitions creating more corner retroreflectors.

A regular cruise missile is geometrically a simple tube with wings. Random guess: even something like the Harpoon would be just 1/10 the RCS of a clean F-16.

In addition, a sea skimmer would only be visible on radar within 10-15 km. The RCS reduction has to be sufficient such that it isn't detectable by radar even within essentially visual range.