Lessons for China to learn from Ukraine conflict for Taiwan scenario


FairAndUnbiased

Colonel
Registered Member
I never think Japan has any choice.
There is a view that they have not given up the fight for leadership in East Asia. Moreover, Japan's history determines that they do not care much about the disparity of national strength.
In fact, the Chinese have been studying the problem you are confused about, and many people have put forward their own ideas.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Some people here put forward a view that Japan's extreme mood makes them either get what they want at all costs, or fall into serious conservatism to deny all facts and changes.
Because the decline of China in the past 200 years is something they are familiar with, they cannot accept a fact that has completely changed.

Even if failure is not a problem for them, they can do everything to please their American masters without psychological burden.

To this day, Japanese politics is still controlled by hereditary families,they are not as rational as we think. So it's not surprising that these hereditary politicians who depend on the United States make such decisions.

This is a discussion on the possibility of war between China and Japan in 2019:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The respondent mentioned that many professors of strategic research in the Chinese military believe that the possibility of war between China and Japan is even higher than that between China and the United States.
He also reprinted some Japanese scholars and veterans' ideas about the future war between China and Japan.

The respondent analyzed that the Japanese right-wing plan was to take the initiative to attack when it was confirmed that the United States would carry out military intervention, and use the "American Japanese Alliance" to force the United States to become the protagonist of the war.

Their idea is to follow Mussolini's example and try to get the maximum benefit at the negotiation table at the minimum cost on the battlefield.
Mussolini did not survive. Looks like Japan is really looking for 靖康之变 to be applied to them as 令和之变.
 

dasCKD

New Member
Registered Member
I'm mainly referring to the scenario of Taiwan utilizing suicide UUVs against Chinese warships, which is exactly what Ukraine did to Russian when they targetted the Black Sea Fleet with their suicide UUVs some weeks ago.
I would think that the PLA is pretty secure right there already. They perhaps didn't intend to counter drone bomb ships directly, but China is familiar with the concepts of asymetrical warfare. There was an era when the PLA fielded small short-ranged attack missile ships in anticipation of having to run and perhaps damage CSG vessels. Taiwanese forces, if they had even slightly effectual commanders, would likely have thought of leveraging the tyranny of distance and distributed lethality to their advantage. I don't think it's a coincidence, for example, that the PLA has been fielding more and more rotary winged aircraft whilst also designing drones with a similar mission set.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Colonel
Registered Member
speaking of USVs, optionally snorkel breathing, shallow submersible USVs might be devastating if PLA deploys them, especially via LHDs and LPDs.

their low profiles in surface mode and then being submerged shield them from radar, and can be given commands via satnav if a wire antenna is integrated with the snorkel. Without crew and with snorkel, they can have very long endurance and carry a devastating 1000 kg warhead. Targets can be acquired via inertial or satellite guiding them to a given location, then allowed to search for targets via passive sonar or periscope.
 

dasCKD

New Member
Registered Member
speaking of USVs, optionally snorkel breathing, shallow submersible USVs might be devastating if PLA deploys them, especially via LHDs and LPDs.

their low profiles in surface mode and then being submerged shield them from radar, and can be given commands via satnav if a wire antenna is integrated with the snorkel. Without crew and with snorkel, they can have very long endurance and carry a devastating 1000 kg warhead. Targets can be acquired via inertial or satellite guiding them to a given location, then allowed to search for targets via passive sonar or periscope.
It'll honestly be hard to turn that into a useful system for the PLA. This kind of lurking submarine works great for Europe, filled with choke points and lots of massed land-based air power and fires which force ships into narrow, predictable channels. In the expanse of the Pacific against the USN, these vessels would struggle to even remain in one place as it fights against the waves of the ocean. In the Pacific, you want systems that can move quickly like SSNs or airborne missiles/drones. USVs are much more useful for ensuring that any US submarine that wanders into the SCS gets found and sunk.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Colonel
Registered Member
It'll honestly be hard to turn that into a useful system for the PLA. This kind of lurking submarine works great for Europe, filled with choke points and lots of massed land-based air power and fires which force ships into narrow, predictable channels. In the expanse of the Pacific against the USN, these vessels would struggle to even remain in one place as it fights against the waves of the ocean. In the Pacific, you want systems that can move quickly like SSNs or airborne missiles/drones. USVs are much more useful for ensuring that any US submarine that wanders into the SCS gets found and sunk.
narrow, predicable channels like all the islands lining the rim of the East China Sea up to Okinawa? or the SCS? or the Straits of Malacca? or as a stealthy first strike weapon against the ECS facing ports of some certain regional powers?
 

dasCKD

New Member
Registered Member
narrow, predicable channels like all the islands lining the rim of the East China Sea up to Okinawa? or the SCS? or the Straits of Malacca? or as a stealthy first strike weapon against the ECS facing ports of some certain regional powers?
Don't be ridiculous. If the USN is dumb enough to push their way through those channels before the entire PLAN is at the bottom of the ocean, then they'll deserve to get sunk. It's just natural selection by that point.

Having carriers means that the USN can persecute war from well beyond the first island chain where the bulk of PLARF munitions can't quite reach and where their air power can still be effective without being unsurvivable. The USN isn't going to be sailing through the Straits of Malacca or into the SCS with their carriers in an event of a hot war with China any more than they would be sailing up the Yangtze river.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Senior Member
Registered Member
It'll honestly be hard to turn that into a useful system for the PLA. This kind of lurking submarine works great for Europe, filled with choke points and lots of massed land-based air power and fires which force ships into narrow, predictable channels. In the expanse of the Pacific against the USN, these vessels would struggle to even remain in one place as it fights against the waves of the ocean. In the Pacific, you want systems that can move quickly like SSNs or airborne missiles/drones. USVs are much more useful for ensuring that any US submarine that wanders into the SCS gets found and sunk.
narrow, predicable channels like all the islands lining the rim of the East China Sea up to Okinawa? or the SCS? or the Straits of Malacca? or as a stealthy first strike weapon against the ECS facing ports of some certain regional powers?
I think if China are to employ USVs and UUVs in war, it would be mainly within the First Island Chain, especially to guard and pluck all the chokepoints along the chain and transforming the chain into a protective ring.

In fact, there are many key chokepoints along the First Island Chain which PLAN USVs and UUVs should take advantage of, not just in the South China Sea:
chainchokepoint.jpg
Clockwise from C1 to C7:
1. Chokepoint 1 (C1) - The Korea Strait, which spans from South Korea (mainland Asia) in the west to Japan's Kyushu in the east through Tsushima Island.
2. Chokepoint 2 (C2) - Along the Ryukyu Islands, which spans from Japan's Kyushu in the north to Taiwan in the south. The Miyako Strait is among the larger spans of open water to consider.
3. Chokepoint 3 (C3) - The Luzon Strait, which spans from Taiwan in the north to the Philippines's Luzon in the south through the Batanes Islands.
4. Chokepoint 4 (C4) - Along the Palawan Islands, which spans from the Philippines's Luzon in the north to Malaysia's North Borneo in the south.
5. Chokepoint 5 (C5) - The eastern regions of the Java Sea, which spans from Indonesia's South Borneo in the north to Indonesia's Java in the south. Arguably, this is the longest span of open water with few islands along this chokepoint.
6. Chokepoint 6 (C6) - The Sunda Strait, which spans from Indonesia's Sumatra in the west to Indonesia's Java in the east.
7. Chokepoint 7 (C7) - The Malacca Strait, which spans from Indonesia's Sumatra in the west to Peninsular Malaysia (mainland Asia) in the east).

Any ships and submarines that enter or exit the regions within the First Island Chain (i.e. East China Sea and South China Sea) MUST past through any of these 7 chokepoints.

Therefore, these 7 chokepoints are where I believe the PLA should allocate some of their USVs and UUVs at, in order to defend and intercept any attempted warship and (particularly) submarine intrusions from outside the First Island Chain.
 
Last edited:

ACuriousPLAFan

Senior Member
Registered Member
Don't be ridiculous. If the USN is dumb enough to push their way through those channels before the entire PLAN is at the bottom of the ocean, then they'll deserve to get sunk. It's just natural selection by that point.

Having carriers means that the USN can persecute war from well beyond the first island chain where the bulk of PLARF munitions can't quite reach and where their air power can still be effective without being unsurvivable. The USN isn't going to be sailing through the Straits of Malacca or into the SCS with their carriers in an event of a hot war with China any more than they would be sailing up the Yangtze river.
I believe submarines and submersibles (both manned and unmanned) operated by the US and her allies are indeed a greater concern WRT operating within the First Island Chain and along the Chinese coastline. Not so much for warships, as the PLAAF and PLARF can take good care of them even if without significant PLAN input.

Therefore, those checkpoints (as per mentioned in my previous post in this thread) should be plugged with PLAN USVs and UUVs to intercept any incursion attempts by submarines and submersibles of the US and her allies.
 

tankphobia

Junior Member
Registered Member
I'm just wondering what kind of endurance we are talking, those kind of jetski engine powered surface drones must not have more than a few hours of endurance, make it under water you'll probably cut it even shorter. You might be thinking of oceanographic USV and UUVs, but those moves at a snails pace and can't carry a useful payload.
 

Sinnavuuty

Junior Member
Registered Member
Is your contention that all these ASEAN countries will coalesce around the U.S. if and when the shooting war starts between the two countries? I can see the Philippines Japan, Australia participating since the the Filipinos are a quasi American satellite state and is a treaty ally by the U.S. the rest of ASEAN countries would be in a hl of a rude awakening if and when they do decide to commit a suicide Pact (which is what America is essentially forcing them to do) by participating in attacking China.

And when China does comes out on top with their war against the U.S. then what do you think will happen to those ASEAN countries?
It's not a statement. It is a provocation exercise. The provocation is to analyze if really all the countries in the region or most of them will adopt neutrality between a war between the USA and China, I can accept the optimistic version that there will be neutrality, but I do not share this optimism because I see clear intentions and directions that this may not really be true.
 

Top