PLA Strategy in a Taiwan Contingency

Andy1974 said:

China continues to develop for 25-30 years, it’s standard of living, it’s governance and people happiness and life satisfaction should all be better than Taiwans by then. China just keeps things stable, continue doings it job well, continues to make breakthroughs of all kinds, while the US continues it’s losing and selfish strategies and the population will come to realize that reunification will be much better than the status quo and will move for it.

All China has to do is continue what it is continually improving at, which is making friends and influencing people.

I’d like to see China focusing on a war against western media, capital and politicians, using science and technology to expose the tactics they use to unduly influence people and show their corruption for all to see. Kind of like the Facebook whistleblower. If China can win the battle for people hearts and minds, and they should because they are the good guys here, then war can be avoided, Taiwan reunites peacefully and we move fully into the new era.

This is what I think Chinese victory looks like, win without fighting.

Click to expand...

That should be the plan yes. A high-income China should drag up incomes in much of the developing world, and also vastly increase the trading opportunities available globally.

---

And a military perspective, China's military capacity keeps rising.

Some people (Erickson, Adm Davidson) think China will end up peaking in the next decade, and that China needs to act now before it is too late.

But if we look at the Chinese "stock" of advanced weapons, I get a figure of a 50% increase in the next 6 years from 2021-2027.
Using that projected 2027 figure as a baseline, I get another increase of 47% in the following 6 years.

China's stock of advanced weapons (and capabilities) would roughly double in the space of 10 years, and still continue to grow fast afterwards.

So there isn't actually any rush to act now.

If the status quo was to remain for another 10+ years, I think that would be fine. Wars come with all sorts of risks and costs.


NB. Assumptions include an average 30 year weapons lifespan, China continues at 1.7% of GDP in military spending, and only 4% GDP growth per year

AndrewS said:

Agreed.

But the issue is that runways are relatively easy to repair and we're looking at an overall campaign lasting at least a month.
Even if the entrances/exits to the mountain bases are caved in, they can be excavated and the planes start flying again.

I agree that the mountain airbases can be kept permanently non-operational, but it would require low levels of continuous strikes from aircraft, drones or land-based missiles.

---

China potentially faces the same issue with attacks on its 40 hardened underground/mountain airbases by standoff missiles or bombs dropped by stealth aircraft.

But at a campaign level over the course of a month, China will have air superiority and/or active SAM systems over its numerous bases for 99% of the time. So runway repairs or excavating caved in exits/entrances is not an issue.

Click to expand...

the idea of air base in the mountains was a good one but it was one that was built with a 1980 PLAAF in mind not 2020. with the availability of PGM and drones in large numbers, as well as PLAAF/PLAN presence on the east of Taiwan, even if operations were temporarily restored at those two airports they would not amount to much. Iraqi air force also managed to scramble fighters into the air here and there but had no effect on the gulf war. that is because you actually need a lot more than just a repaired runway to conduct air operations. for example, lets say ROCAF finally repairs a runway and scrambles 10 fighters in the air. those fighters were dispatched because it was their opportunity to do so not because they know where they are going. now do they just fly around looking for a mission? and what if the runways were closed once again when they needed to land? How do they even know what ammunition to load before taking off? and I am asking these questions while being very generous to assume that ROCAF will suffer no casualties in the air.

the best defence for air bases, aside from air superiority, is numbers and area. when there are so many air bases spread out over a large swatch of land it is hard to pin all of them. this is where China will have an advantage over not just Taiwan but the US on the west pacific. because the latter relies on hard points that are already identified and surveilled. you say that China has 40 hardened airbases, but there are also many more unhardened ones, and abandoned ones (because it is no longer the old days when there were thousands of aircraft). those will have to be taken into account when calculating China's advantage. also, if the US resolves to join the battle, assuming that it does not go nuclear and render this discussion pointless, then China will clearly change its approach from shooting for a quick victory to one of attrition. that will place the US at a disadvantage, having to rely on limited number of airbases, very long and vulnerable lines of communication, and allies that may or may not be fully on board. but that is of course veering off topic.

drowingfish said:

the idea of air base in the mountains was a good one but it was one that was built with a 1980 PLAAF in mind not 2020. with the availability of PGM and drones in large numbers, as well as PLAAF/PLAN presence on the east of Taiwan, even if operations were temporarily restored at those two airports they would not amount to much. Iraqi air force also managed to scramble fighters into the air here and there but had no effect on the gulf war. that is because you actually need a lot more than just a repaired runway to conduct air operations. for example, lets say ROCAF finally repairs a runway and scrambles 10 fighters in the air. those fighters were dispatched because it was their opportunity to do so not because they know where they are going. now do they just fly around looking for a mission? and what if the runways were closed once again when they needed to land? How do they even know what ammunition to load before taking off? and I am asking these questions while being very generous to assume that ROCAF will suffer no casualties in the air.

Click to expand...

It's pretty simple from the perspective of a Taiwanese fighter jet.
Switch on the radar. If you detect anything over the Eastern Coast, shoot until your air-to-air missiles run out and then head back to reload.

Taiwan is only 120km across, so everywhere is within range of AMRAAMs as soon as you take off.

AndrewS said:

It's pretty simple from the perspective of a Taiwanese fighter jet.
Switch on the radar. If you detect anything over the Eastern Coast, shoot until your air-to-air missiles run out and then head back to reload.

Taiwan is only 120km across, so everywhere is within range of AMRAAMs as soon as you take off.

Click to expand...

then these fighters will be going into combat blind, no mission, no intel. and fighter radar is not meant to be used like awac radar, very inefficient for what you are envisioning here. this is all before we even get into the EW aspect of it.

zxy_bc said:

Highly unlikely. Taiwanese media is just a translation machine of CNN, BBC and any other English language media sources. As long as the English world continue to pump "Chinese inevitable collapse", "the totalitarian regime of Chinese oppression" and other subliminal anti-CCP messages, there will not be any pro-reunification sentiment. (DDP has also already sealed the route for Taiwanese to work or study in mainland by imposing numerous security and political surveillances on those that returned from mainland) Taiwan by 2049 would be more likely become the old DPP-KMT Martial Law Taiwan 2.0.

Click to expand...

Don’t want to make this into a political thread, but did want to say this. Taiwanese media was not always like this. Since KMT still had strong support network overseas, even up to the 90’s TW-based media could be supportive of “Greater China” causes like HK handover and Diaoyu Islands dispute. Remember that CIA wanted ROC/Taiwan to represent “the voice of Free China”. Things changed in the 00’s, opening up PRC was firmly rooted and the political situation didn’t look likely to change (about the same time as the rise of Falun Gong as well). After 20 years of Pro US everything is why you get Sunflower and HK riots. No surprise we are seeing decolonization and clean up operations now in HK.

There are 10 air bases in Taiwan, PLA should have more than sufficient inventory of munitions to supress ground activities. If they fire one 300km long range rocket every 15 minutes for 48 hours, they would only need :-
4 rockets per hour X 48 hours X 10 air bases = 1,920 rockets

Besdies long range rockets, there are gliding bombs, SRBM (non-nuclear warhead), Loitering anti-radiation missiles, all kinds of armed drones, all types of AGMs.

It would be a miracle that if any of these 10 airbases can be opeational after 48 hours of non-stop attacks.

lcloo said:

There are 10 air bases in Taiwan, PLA should have more than sufficient inventory of munitions to supress ground activities. If they fire one 300km long range rocket every 15 minutes for 48 hours, they would only need :-
4 rockets per hour X 48 hours X 10 air bases = 1,920 rockets

Besdies long range rockets, there are gliding bombs, SRBM (non-nuclear warhead), Loitering anti-radiation missiles, all kinds of armed drones, all types of AGMs.

It would be a miracle that if any of these 10 airbases can be opeational after 48 hours of non-stop attacks.

View attachment 80583

Click to expand...

good picture. I think those air bases are also manned to different degrees. for example makung can pretty much be discounted because it does not have fighters permanently stationed there. even if it does it is within range of MLRS. out of the 10 airbases I imagine there are 5 worth hitting with up to 30 missiles for the first wave, the other 5 can be allotted 10 each. that will require 200 missiles to reduce ROCAF's effectiveness drastically in the opening hours.

There is also the consideration of how ROCAF plans to deploy. if, just prior to the opening salvo, it intends to evacuate most of its fighters to the two fortified air bases, it would be impossible to hide such manuever and will simply invite the PLA to concentrate more of its fire onto those two air bases, actually making it easier to paralyze ROCAF entirely. though I do not believe that that is ROCAF's plan, it sounds too much like a 50 year old.

BoraTas said:

Taiwan simply bets on the USA. If they were really serious about waging an independence war against China, they would behave like Israel, Singapore, South Korea or cold war Turkey and Greece. What I mean:
-Military spending to GDP ratio of at least 4% up to 8%
-2-3 years conscription, men and women
-Huge reserve forces who get at least a week of training every year
-Promotion of gun ownership, maybe even Switzerland style arrangement of people keeping the gun they served with.
-Promotion of martial culture and nationalism
-A lot of underground military and civilian facilities
-Plans to destroy the infrastructure to slow the invasion forces
-Large stores of natural resources
-Fortifications throughout the island
-Big focus on developing an indigenous defense industry
-A military focused on capabilities that bring the most bang for the buck. These include anti-ship missiles, ATGM vehicles, mine warfare (both land and sea), SAMs, surface to surface missiles, special forces and drones for asymmetric warfare, fast attack craft and midget subs. Basically everything that would increase the monetary and human cost of the war for the invader with a small investment.

Taiwan does none of these. It behaves more like a country in the middle of the oceania rather than a small country fighting for its existence against a giant. It isn't even serious about its own defense beyond hoping the USA will come and defeat the foe. The same goes for the Baltics too but they at least have a concrete treaty with the entire Europe and the USA. Taiwan doesn't have that too.

Click to expand...

Let's say Taiwan did increase double military spending to 4% of GDP and undertook the other actions listed above.

It still wouldn't stop the airbases on Taiwan being attacked by missiles and the Chinese Air Force obtaining temporary air superiority at a minimum.

And China can still shut down Taiwan's electricity network and keep it shut down permanently.
China has more than enough offensive missiles and other forces located inland.

A larger and more effective Taiwanese Army would delay a Chinese invasion, but with no electricity and under blockade, Taiwan loses in such a scenario. Think the collapse of Japan or Germany in 1945.

And yes, Taiwan is ultimately dependent on US intervention anyway.
So why should Taiwan bother spending drastically more on the military?

i wonder if there is any war game ensusiast here, willing to play out a taiwan scenario together, with CMO software and pbem function
please pm me if so, thanks

AndrewS said:

Let's say Taiwan did increase double military spending to 4% of GDP and undertook the other actions listed above.

It still wouldn't stop the airbases on Taiwan being attacked by missiles and the Chinese Air Force obtaining temporary air superiority at a minimum.

And China can still shut down Taiwan's electricity network and keep it shut down permanently.
China has more than enough offensive missiles and other forces located inland.

A larger and more effective Taiwanese Army would delay a Chinese invasion, but with no electricity and under blockade, Taiwan loses in such a scenario. Think the collapse of Japan or Germany in 1945.

And yes, Taiwan is ultimately dependent on US intervention anyway.
So why should Taiwan bother spending drastically more on the military?

Click to expand...

A larger standing army is unlikely to ever come back unless the US specifically instructs Taiwan to do so. politically it is a non-starter, and militarily it is expensive to maintain a larger army, therefore taking resources away from air force and navy.

Taiwan is going the way of having a large reserve army, though I question their effectiveness in battle, or whether they could be stood up at all. now another question is whether a reserve army can potentially lead to a operation valkyrie type outcome. after all, an officer assigned to lead reserve units is unlikely to be one in anyone's favour, and reserves forced to fight are more willing to see a swift end to the war.