Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario

supersnoop said:

What happened to Russia's cyberwarfare capabilities? A few years ago they were able to shut down the Ukrainian power grid using cyber attacks, but now it seems like the Tiger has lost it's teeth...

Click to expand...

US aid. I wouldn't be surprised if Ukrainian Internet traffic is mostly routed through NATO data centers now with the Ukrainians only using end terminals.

Not applicable for Taiwan though, as their undersea cables can be physically cut to drastically limit their available bandwidth.

Honestly Taiwan's military resembles Russia much more closely in spirit.

• Budget blown on few "high end" equipments at the expense of the basics
• Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
• Undesirable conscript to volunteer ratio
• Brutal treatment towards recruits with training comprised of menial tasks
• Corrupt procurement process
• Limited to no live ammo training
• Major surface combatants built in the 1980s with period tech
• Inadequate EW capabilities
• Unrealistic assumptions about future conflicts

SEAD said:

I know little about ground battle but for Air Force I’m pretty sure the similarities between China and Russia is much less than similarities between Europe and Russia.
For Navy… does Russia have surface fleet?

Click to expand...

i dont think there is any similarity between Ruaf and PLA. Ruaf primary using low altitude SU-25/Ka-52. there is practically no single engine aircraft. The big pods side looking airborne radars, and fuel tanks are used in Su-34 for persistence over battlefield.
Russia surface fleet is lunching 3000km range land attack missiles when missiles has to fly in zig zag formation from Caspian to Western Ukraine. so far there is no evidence missiles are unreliable and falling midway. it is much easier to reload ships in Caspian for round the clock cruise missile strikes.

Jason_ said:

Honestly Taiwan's military resembles Russia much more closely in spirit.

• Budget blown on few "high end" equipments at the expense of the basics
• Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
• Undesirable conscript to volunteer ratio
• Brutal treatment towards recruits with training comprised of menial tasks
• Corrupt procurement process
• Limited to no live ammo training
• Major surface combatants built in the 1980s with period tech
• Inadequate EW capabilities
• Unrealistic assumptions about future conflicts

Click to expand...

Actually, this sounds more like Pre-2014 Ukrainian military

pmc said:

i dont think there is any similarity between Ruaf and PLA. Ruaf primary using low altitude SU-25/Ka-52. there is practically no single engine aircraft. The big pods side looking airborne radars, and fuel tanks are used in Su-34 for persistence over battlefield.
Russia surface fleet is lunching 3000km range land attack missiles when missiles has to fly in zig zag formation from Caspian to Western Ukraine. so far there is no evidence missiles are unreliable and falling midway. it is much easier to reload ships in Caspian for round the clock cruise missile strikes.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

The fundamental difference is about C3 and training, not weapons. PLAAF aviation basically copied USAF doctrines letter by letter in past 20 years and developed their own innovations and advantages in that foundation.

I do know Russia has a surface fleet, but it is more like US/China coast guard rather than a real navy.

SEAD said:

The fundamental difference is about C3 and training, not weapons. PLAAF aviation basically copied USAF doctrines letter by letter in past 20 years and developed their own innovations and advantages in that foundation.

I do know Russia has a surface fleet, but it is more like US/China coast guard rather than a real navy.

Click to expand...

There was a good infographic about naval displacements.

US has a logistics and carrier heavy navy (similar to western imperialist navies like UK and France, just bigger).

China has a surface combatant centric navy much like other industrial Asian countries like South Korea and Japan.

Russia has a submarine and small ship navy like most Northern and Eastern Europeans ie Sweden.

FriedButter said:

That doesn’t paint a good picture for an US intervention since it means that the PLA will face “less stubborn resistance” on securing a beachhead. Also would make any US ground intervention significantly harder with Taiwan unable to delay for a long enough time or prevent any PLA landings. However, I don’t expect this policy will last by the start of 2025 when Trump comes back anyway.

Click to expand...

I don’t think so. If CM salvo from US and Taiwan failed to sunk Chinese amphibious fleet, the main landing field is undefendable. It is Taoyuan, a ~40km*60km region without main cities and can be easily isolated. Considering air superiority, UAV and the super-narrow space, I believe PLA will smash any resistance no matter how many troops, SAM or barrel artillery are placed around beachhead. The only thing may work is HIMARS, which can hide in the mountains.

in contrast , any attack to urban areas or east beach would still be very difficult even with air superiority and drones. Since US conducted a large number of war games in past decade, I believe their recommendation is serious and practical.

SEAD said:

The fundamental difference is about C3 and training, not weapons. PLAAF aviation basically copied USAF doctrines letter by letter in past 20 years and developed their own innovations and advantages in that foundation.

Click to expand...

i dont see any problem in C3 to manage such complex operation with practically no blue on blue and this include Belarus air force integrated into Russia. its very wide area conflict with huge amount of SAM systems interconnected all the way to snake island.
than you add ships that are firing cruise missiles from two different seas Caspian and Black. all this need coordination to avoid falling on civilian areas.

pmc said:

i dont see any problem in C3 to manage such complex operation with practically no blue on blue and this include Belarus air force integrated into Russia.

Click to expand...

Yes, because they basically deserted their own air superiority. If you don’t shoot, you will never kill your friends lol.

tbh Russian aviation doesn’t have necessary AEW&C3 capabilities to control Ukrainian airspace. It’s a long story but for now they even don’t want to have a try.

SEAD said:

Yes, because they basically deserted their own air superiority. If you don’t shoot, you will never kill your friends lol.

Click to expand...

air superiority is well established by making Ukraine airforce ineffective. without too much investment from Ruaf.
you havent shown any shortcoming of C3 related to this operation.
they are firing these missiles from distance and since no missiles are shot down in friendly fire we can assume all the SAM systems recognize the cruise missiles over huge area how will a SAM unit recognize cruise missile if the system are deficient in C3. they are low flying and low rcs.