[quote=“Mr He”]
Now, while their missiles in Fujian may inflict considerable damage on Taiwan, what will they do, if the Taiwanese command structure and most of their defence remains intact?[/quote]
Use nuclear weapons?
Time to start digging the bomb shelter,
Robert
“Gee, I wish we had one of them doomsday machines.”
[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”]
No, that’s not what I’m assuming at all. I think that’s the least likely of their strategies because it has the largest probability of failure. I have said before on multiple occasions that it will be a lightning attack using a missle barrage, special forces, and airborne troops initially. If they can take Taipei and take out the leadership and command/control, the war is virtually over. The amphibious landing would come later once the fighting had calmed down and would be to reinforce and perform mop-up operations. [/quote]
I think the mainlanders will do something like the following:
As LB said, the amphibious bit would not be their lead off move. I imagine their first step would be to land a 747 full of special forces goons at either CKS or Gaoxiong. How would they do that? Simple. They’ll just commandeer one from Cathay Pacific or Dragon Air. It would be a regularly scheduled flight. The regular passengers would be detained at Chek Lop for a few hours. The Taiwanese wouldn’t even know what’s hitting them until the plane pulls up to the terminal and they open the hatches. I imagine they could load the thing with over 300 goons and small arms. That would be more than enough to take over the airport. All they would have to do is keep the runway clear long enough for PRC airlift planes coming in thirty or forty minutes later. Those would carry some armoured vehicles, low alititude SAM kits, etc, all the kind of stuff they would need to secure the airport and set up a perimeter. Then they could pour in as many sortes as they could line up.
Just as that Cathay or Dragon Air 747 is landing, the ballistic missiles will fly. They’ll manage to take out or slow down the operations of at least a few airbases. Whatever fighters get into the air will be armed for air to air, not for hitting CKS. The PRC will heavily escort their airlifts into CKS; they probably wouldn’t use their fighters for much else. They will lose fighters and perhaps a few transports to ROC interceptors, but if they keep hitting the airbases, the ROC fighter threat will diminish. If they pummel the airbases hard enough and accurately enough for a few hours (something that we shouldn’t yet assume that they can do just now), there will hardly be any ROC jets in the air after the first five or six hours. By that time, the ROC infantry might have started to organize themselves for taking back the airport. Without air support, though, they will be vulnerable to strikes from SU-30s. The PRC won’t be able to fly heavy armour in, but they won’t really need to if they have air superiority. They would be able to hold off any ROC infantry assault until they can land the armour from the sea a week later. In my opinion, they would never need the armour. Once they’ve taken firm control of a large airport and they control the skies over Taiwan, the ROC military will surrender. The ability of units to communicate with each other probably would have been taken out in the first few days. SU-30s would roam the island and plink any armour they saw moving.
All of this assumes two things. The first is that they can put enough ballistic missiles on target to ground the ROCAF. Even now, I don’t think there is any guarantee of that. Sure, they’ve stolen guidance technology, but the accuracy of their missiles still probably isn’t good enough to insure that they will completely put down most or all of the airbases. Add to that that some of these missiles will be destroyed or knocked off course by ROC SAMs. Nevertheless, their missiles are only going to get more accurate and greater in number. I imagine they will also start beefing up their arsenal of cruise missiles to supplement the ballistic missiles.
The second assumption is that Taiwan will have little or no ability to hit the airbases and missile launch areas in Fujian. If they could manage to crater the runways in Fujian, it would be extremely difficult for the PRC to conduct an airlift. They wouldn’t be able to sortie fighters or ECM jets for escort, thus leaving their transports vulnerable to whatever ROC fighters that are flying and ROC SAMs.
The key to repelling any PRC invasion is the ability to hit back. In my opinion, that means cruise missiles and ballistic missiles. There will be no time to organize any air to ground missions for the ROCAF. Within a few minutes of it becoming clear that the PRC is attacking, the ROC will need to be able to take steps to take out Fujian airbases, radars and missile sites. Doing so could stop the invasion cold. To do that, I imagine they would need to be able to put around three hundred accurate missiles in the air in an hour or so. If they can’t do it in the first hour, then they better start learning the words of the PRC national anthem.
In this scenario, all of the navy build up is just for scattering the ROCN, not for protecting any sort of amphibious invasion from the ROCN. Once they’ve got a foothold on Taiwan and air superiority over the island and the seas surrounding it, the PRC would then finish wiping out the ROCN and start landing heavy stuff. The amphibious stuff would really just be for firming up their control and spreading out from their original airport beachhead(s). I imagine they could start landing armour on Taiwan six or seven days into the conflict. It won’t be much-just whatever they could have prepared in those few days or before the war without being noticed-but it might be enough. Around that time, a US carrier group would probably come onto the scene. They wouldn’t be able to do a lot to halt amphibious landings if they are having to battle to re-establish air superiority as soon as they arrive. By that time, the PRC may have even landed a few fighters at CKS.
As LB said, I think the first steps will be from the air. If they do much of anything from sea, the US would see it coming. Amphibious assaults would require a lot of gear to be concentrated into a few ports, which would be easy for the US to spot. Airlift, though, could come from quite a few different civilian and military airstrips as far away as Guangdong, Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Anhui and perhaps even further. If preparations for a large airlift are scattered across a lot of airbases, it may not be noticed by the US until it is too late.
Unfortunately for the PRC, the only aspect of this sort of assault that might have a high degree of efficacy is the missiles. That’s why they’re putting so much into them. I am just speculating, but I think the reason they’ve been putting so much money into the ballistic missiles is because they know that their own pilots, even those who are flying top of the line aircraft like the SU-27, just aren’t up to going head to head with ROCAF pilots who get 150 hours/year of flight time and are backed up by a strong AEW system. They trust fire and forget missiles much more than they trust their own undertrained pilots. If the missile threat can be diminished, I don’t think the PLAAF will stand a chance against the ROCAF for quite a few years. That’s a big if, though.
Good post Jive Turkey…
Well… In that case, Taiwan building up a strong arsenal of mid range missiles would appear to be the best bet, enabling them to cripple the PRC invasion effort and retake the airport in question.
That said, I think that the ROC defences would not surrender early.
Very good post, Jive Turkey. I agree with most of what you’ve said. With enough missiles, however, being a little off on accuracy won’t be a big deal. The PLAN has also been testing a new LACM. It’s said to look a lot like the Tomahawk … I have no idea about performance though.
Have you personally worked with any ROC military units? I have. Their will to fight and morale is not the greatest, as with any conscription army. This is one of the ROC’s weakest points. And since you mentioned armor, the number of M48s they use is quite a bit larger than M60s. Do you know what era those are from? Even the M60s with the refits they’ve are still past their prime. It’s doubtful that the US would sell them M1A1s, though.
As for special forces, the PLA has 30,000+, and they’re not just for planting plastic explosives or causing a little havoc here and there. As for their airborne troops, they are now believed to be able to airlift two divisions (that’s about 22,000 troops, plus light tanks and armored personnel carriers) within 48 hours.
The “advantages” of the ROC and “disadvantages” of the PRC from the two reports I gave you are from two and four years ago respectively. We’re talking about 2006 as the beginning of a possible “window.” The military balance will have changed by then. The PLA has been VERY rapidly improving it’s missile guidance systems, airlift capabilities, amphibious landing capabilities, AEW, ECM, etc. They’re modernization in such a short period of time is scary. The ROC is still bickering over whether or not to buy a few important weapons systems that is DESPERATELY needs. There’s a bit of a problem here …
BTW, throwing around words like “fool” and “surrender monkey” really lower the quality of your posts. I thought you were above that.
[quote=“LittleBuddhaTW”]
Have you personally worked with any ROC military units? I have. Their will to fight and morale is not the greatest, as with any conscription army. This is one of the ROC’s weakest points. [/quote]
Well, the PRC army? Semiliterate peasants? I thought their army was a conscripted one as well?
They might bitch, but… Most soldiers do. When they are staring at an enemy thru a sight, then things might be different. Also, they are fighting for their home, which is usually somewhat motivating.
PRC light tanks… Are they good enough to face a division of M60’s?
Also, in the scenario, Jive Turkey mentioned, the crucial hours would be the first ones… when you have 2000 PRC soldiers lightly armed & cut off from their supply lines, then even a few older M60’s should do the job, I presume.
30,000 special forces… Well, numbers… the PLA has 2+ milllion soldiers… What matters is that special forces in the pure meaning of the word do special operations… And therefore units tend to be small. Us marines are counted as special forces by some.
An airlift will need air superiority. If not, you are looking at loosing your airborne divisions mid air. As mentioned the PLAAF have troubles keeping a large number of Sukhois in the air simultaneously…
Well, those links were yours and they were perfectly good, as long as you could use them to argue that the ROC defences were too weak. When I then started to read what they actually said and posted quotes, their value in your eyes suddenly dropped. What happened overnight with those sources? Enlighten me.
I did not say that the ROC army was not in need of those wepons systems… What I said was that you were unduly alarmist. Constantly improving and crying “Wolf” is not the same.
I remember a time, when people said that the PRC would be aboe to invade and win a war fast in 2000 - they said so in 1996 - and well, they were far from ready in 2000. I hope that I mentioned the book “T-day” here before. It’s about China invading Taiwan and how they would do it… Written when the Chinese had 30 Sukhoi 27 as their only remotely modern planes.
Starting to blabber about me being a European appeasement idiot is not that smart either.
Read my actual posts, and keep a level head.
There’s an ommision and a bit of flawed logic here. Some of it hurts your argument, some of it helps it.
Yes, the Kitty Hawk is the only forward-deployed carrier, but that doesn’t mean that it will always be the one that will be able to respond the fastest. The US has four carriers that sail from the US west coast. Of those four, at least two are at sea at any given time. The only exception to that has been just recently. That is because the US surged something like 6 carriers to the Middle East for the war there. That put a huge strain on the Navy’s deployment plan and it is taking up to a year to get the carriers back to a normal state of deployment. Even now, the US has five of its 12 carriers in port for maintainance or overhaul. That’s one or two more than what’s considered ideal or balanced.
During the decade after Gulf War I, the US kept at least one or two carriers in the Gulf at all times. Now the burden is just about certain to be kept down to just one, and that burden will be shared between the Atlantic and Pacific fleets. The Atlantic is no longer in need of so many carriers, so at least one is surely going to be moved over to the Pacific in the next couple of years (but as you said, moving all the support infrastructure takes time). I think it is safe to assume that excluding the Kitty Hawk, the US will have at least one west coast based carrier in the Pacific at any one time. Considering that such a carrier would more likely than not already be sailing on the western side of the Pacific (where all the potential action would be anyway), I can’t imagine a Nimitz class carrier and its group taking longer than four days or so to get on the scene for a Taiwan conflict. This is all assuming, of course, that there will be no new long term burdens like Iraq on the carrier fleet.
Your statement about the four or five days for the Kitty Hawk not even including the time it takes for the US to make a decision is flawed. If the shit hits the fan, that ship will sail ASAP. Decisions will be made while it’s underway. They won’t wait until the President makes a final decision before untieing from the pier. In favor of your argument, though, is that it is impossible for the Kitty Hawk to always be on alert status. Just like any other carrier, it has to go into port for maintainance for at least a few weeks after each deployment, or for overhauls that take months. Longer stretches in port would usually be scheduled for when other carriers can make up for her absence, though.
One thing we haven’t mentioned is that the USAF will be able to provide some CAP support on the first day of any conflict. At any given time, there are at least three squadrons of F-15s at Kadena in Okinawa. They’d have all the tanking and AWACS support they would need to make the run over to Taiwan. I imagine that they could keep a dozen or so F-15s on CAP at all times while waiting for more squadrons to be moved into place. If the Kitty Hawk happened to be stuck in port, its wing could be moved from Iwo Jima to Kadena to suppor the AF. That’s not even counting what could be moved in from other bases in Japan and Korea.
Yes, it is. In some areas, specifically ballistic missiles, they are absorbing technology and doctrine quickly. However, they are also doing the same thing that the ROC has done: buy a lot of expensive, shiny shit and wave it around to make a big show. There are a lot of systems that they definitely are not absorbing well. Just how well or how poorly is difficult to measure, but there are some indicators that show they aren’t absorbing a lot of their high tech kit well at all. Take for example the SU-27s. They are stationed no where near Taiwan. The reason is that there are no airbases near Taiwan that would be suitable for them. They don’t have hardened shelters for them, even in the places where they stay now, and the airfields they are stationed at and the ones close to Taiwan are laid out in a way that is quite vulnerable to attack. Here are some comparisons between pre-Gulf War Iraq and the PRC:
[quote]By the time of the 1991 Gulf War, most of Iraq’s combat aircraft were in widely dispersed hardened aircraft bunkers (HAB) with thick concrete walls. Many of Iraq’s airfields had two or more widely separated long runways, connected by redundant taxiways which could be used as a runway for emergency operations. Multiple-approach taxiways connected each aircraft bunker to the runway, providing redundant means to gain access to operating surfaces.
In contrast, Chinese airbases lack hardened aircraft shelters, and revetments are frequently connected to runway areas by a single taxi-way. [/quote]
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/airfield-overview.htm
This is just one obvious example of the PRC not having all the things it needs to match the shiny equipment it has bought. My guess is that they probably have other handicaps that are not so easily seen. I doubt their pilots get many hours, I doubt they get much multi-role training and I doubt they get much practice conducting large scale exercises where a lot of aircraft have to be managed with precision by ground based or airborne controllers. In contrast, when I lived in Taichung I would go to the large park on that hill overlooking the city from the north (the name escapes me) just about every Sunday. I don’t recall ever going there without seeing a flight of at least three IDFs, and sometimes F-16s, in the air. I once saw a flight of six IDFs (in pretty tight formation) and two F-16s in the air at one time. A pretty cool sight. That park seemed to be under the pattern for CCK and there were always a lot of old farts there spotting planes.
Very well-reasoned arguments, Jive Turkey. This is the kind of debate I like. 
Thank you for keeping me on my toes!
Just a few additions of my own to correct some misconceptions. Firstly to mr. He’s ignorant remark about semi-literate peasants. The PLA is an all volunteer force. With a population base the size of China’s, conscription is simply not neccessary in either peace time or times of limited warfare. If anything, the PLA has been shaving off excess personnel to improve the quality of existing forces. The PLA officer corps is also growing in size and sophistication and many more college graduates are entering the army to find employment opportunities.
Secondly, Jive Turkey would be surprised at the amount of airtime received by PLA pilots. Your assumption that the PLA pilots are undertrained and have little flight experience may have been true in Korea or even in the 70’s but that isn’t neccessarily the case today. True, flight time on the shiny new aircraft is limited by aircraft and trainer availability but it may surprise you that PLA pilots do get considerable flight time on their hordes of older aircraft. Literally thousands of older model aircraft such as mig-21’s are available to train with. Some of the oldest model mig-19’s have even been converted into unmanned guided aircraft. It’s experimental and ad hoc at present, but who knows, there could be dozens of pilotless mig 19’s drones flying over Taiwan to act as either cruise missiles or decoys.
I taught English at a military base in Tainan county, near the border with Chia Yi. It housed an armoured brigade, I don’t think they have enough armour to be called a division. Anyway, I asked my students what they thought would happen in the event of an attack? They said they would hold out until the cavalry came to rescue.
As an aside some of my students were interested in computer wargames, I made them two copies of Steel Panthers II and Steel Panthers III. We played them over a serial cable. The first game was me as the PRC and them as ROC (Although in the game it was called Taiwan). I crushed them in an amphibious landing. And we played a game of me, being Canada, and them being Taiwan, and I narrowly won. Now I gave them two months to prepare for the game, my students practiced hard. Anyone play SPII or SPIII and fancies a game should pm me.
One would assume that the PLA serves as a ladder of opportunity for people wanting to escape poverty - at least on the private soldier level. My comment alluded to the fact that they are not likely to be recruited from the most well-educated segments of the Chinese youth.
Training people on old MIG-19’s and then telling them to go fly combat missions in Sukhoi-30’s does not sound like a good idea to me. After all the the profiles, performance, and armament of the 2 types are quite different.
Also, 1000 MIG 19’s scrambling simultaneously might pose a a challenge in numbers for the Taiwanese SAM batteries. However, due to the logistical constraints pointed out by Jive Turkey, this scenario would appear unlikely.
That’s true of any military. If a military was full of Ph.D candidates and abstract thinkers, you think anyone would die or bother going to war?
Wars would look more like forums if that was the case.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]
That’s true of any military. If a military was full of Ph.D candidates and abstract thinkers, you think anyone would die or bother going to war?
Wars would look more like forums if that was the case.[/quote]
Some people have brains AND balls…
:bravo: :bravo: :bravo:
I guess my short snide comment about China using nuclear weapons wasn’t taken seriously. That’s probably my own fault since I have a (well-deserved) reputation for being a smart-ass cynic.
But really, I would like to posit this question to you, my fellow armchair warriors. If China attacks Taiwan and finds itself stalemated, and facing the possibility of the US Calvary coming to the rescue in a few days or weeks, wouldn’t it be entirely possible that they’d go nuclear?
Three or four nuclear warheads would definitely ruin Chen Shuibian’s weekend. Sure, the PRC would face international condemnation and all that, but they’d face it anyway for launching an unprovoked attack on Taiwan. True, they would no doubt prefer to take Taiwan without having to reduce Taipei and Kaohsiung to smoldering ashes, but I don’t expect that the ruling Politburo is going to lose much sleep over 10 million innocent civilians being killed. After all, Mao managed to kill about 40 million during his reign (though he did suffer from severe insomnia).
Well, there I go again, being cynical.
happy Tuesday,
Robert
“I’d never join any club that allows people like me in it.”
Doubtful, if they want to see Beijing and Shanghai still standing. I don’t think the US would stand for nuclear weapons going off in East Asia, and if the PRC showed that it was more than willing to use them, Japan would certainly go nuclear. They have the know-how already to put weapons together quite quickly.
As far as the pilot training goes, I (finally) have to agree with Mr. He. Flying MiG-19s or J-7s is no substitute for an Su-30 or Su-27. As far as soldier recruitment in China goes, I visited a military base in Xinjiang, and studied Qinna (a type of grappling martial art) with a colonel in the PLAAF and some other pilots. Especially with the latter, although I didn’t see them fly, they were VERY well-disciplined and extremely intelligent. They were career soldiers, not 18 month conscripts, which makes a BIG difference.
[quote=“ac_dropout”] That’s true of any military. If a military was full of Ph.D candidates and abstract thinkers, you think anyone would die or bother going to war?
Wars would look more like forums if that was the case.[/quote]
Sure, and the US army was at the forefront of racial equality, Colin Powell’s auto-biography mentioned that more than once.
However, in China the education level of the recruits is likely to be somewhat lower than the one in the US. I am here speaking of the grunts, As LT mentioned, the airforce pilots are likely to be sharp, well-educated guys, but they are an elite. Becoming a fighter pilot is very tough, and the competition to get in is likely to ensure that only the very best make it in. That is true for the US and Taiwan too, I presume.
[quote=“Mr He”]Becoming a fighter pilot is very tough, and the competition to get in is likely to ensure that only the very best make it in. That is true for the US and Taiwan too, I presume.[/quote]You are aware how the name ROCAF became synonymous with nepotism aren’t you? Sure it’s competitive, pulling enough strings to get your son or nephew into fighter pilot school is a bitch. From what I hear it’s no different in China, and just look at that idiot Wang Wei as an example of how bright, skilled and professional the PLAAF pilots are… 
Thinning the herd? 
[quote=“Jive Turkey”]
Thinning the herd? 
[/quote]Yeah, I think it was a terrible oversight that he didn’t get a Darwinian Award…
You raise an interesting scenario littlebuddha, would the PRC unleash nuclear weapons against Taiwan if defeat looked possible and the future of the communist party uncertain? I have generally come to the same conclusion as you have though for different reasons. It doesn’t seem likely with China’s nuclear arsenal at its present condition. If the PLA did drop the bomb on Taipei and certain other cities, I’d imagine the international condemnation would be far worse than a mere invasion. China would become overnight a pariah state which probably wouldn’t happen with just an invasion. Japan would also almost certainly develope nuclear weapons of its own. However, Washington is almost certain not to engage in nuclear retaliation. For one thing, Taiwan is not part of Washington’s nuclear umbrella and the U.S. would never accept losses if they could be avoided. A nuclear attack on China would mean a nuclear retaliation on the U.S.; a consequence the U.S. would not accept. India had asked in the late 60’s to be either part of the U.S. or even Soviet MAD shield, for fear of a nuclear China and was rebuffed leading to the developement of its own nuclear weapons. The U.S. would more likely opt for a simple yet no less efficient retaliation by cutting off China from the international community altogether. Afterall, why go engage in a suicidal nuclear exchange when you don’t have to?
I myself am a nihilistic and spiteful little bastard and have come to view the PLA’s limited deterrance doctrine as useless in the 21st century. If anything, China needs to massively expand its nuclear arsenal on an exponential scale to assure its interests. The current nuclear forces are insufficient and I feel the PLA needs to adopt the triad (well biad really since the strategic bomber force concept is a bit antiquated) integrated nuclear strike force the U.S. and Russia are capable of deploying. The PLA needs at least a few thousand mirved missiles; mobile, silo, and sub launched to complement traditional military modernization. The nuclear card is too valueable to ignore and even the mere knowledge that China has a sufficient arsenal to annihilate every potential hostile power could facilitate in the “liberation” of Taiwan. For one thing, the U.S. would be a lot less inclined to intervene if they thought a massive nuclear war was a possible outcome and the size of China’s present stockpiles is simply not intimidating enough. The reunification of Taiwan is of paramount importance and an existential struggle for China, which is why I believe that the threat of nuclear force, if not neccessarily the application of it, needs to be an essential part of the equation. If a nuclear standoff is required for reunify Taiwan, then a nuclear standoff it should be. However, the PLA needs to make sure it has the capacity to carry out on its threats. With a few thousand more ICBM’s, I believe a sufficient insurance policy would be acheived. Inflicting horrendous damage is simply not enough and I hate to leave a job unfinished. In the event a nuclear gambit for the reunification of Taiwan goes awry, instead of China merely suffering the crushing weight of defeat, it should instead seek to make sure that everyone and I mean everyone dies. I believe this is the only secure way to insure reunification. To let Washington be aware that the reunification issue is deadly serious. The neoconservatives in the Whitehouse and the generals of the PLA, far removed as they are, seem to share the same ideological outlook. That diplomacy is for the weak, negotiation is simply “appeasement”, and that compromise equates to surrender. Only a political dance on the knife’s edge will ensure that Taiwan is returned to the fold. And if things do go horribly wrong, at least we can live secure in the knowledge that we will all be too dead to care.
So… in case China does not get Taiwan, life as we know it should end?
I don’t know how to reply to this… You must surely be joking.