Future War with (Red) China Hypotheticals/Theorycrafting

[Bassoe]

In some respects, I think a modern war would be a bit like a Napoleonic campaign: relatively short with a few decisive actions and limited manpower by comparison to the monster conscript armies of the early 20th century.

A modern war would either be an excuse to kill off problematic demographics by drafting them, steal more civil rights and give the military-industry complex a couple trillion more dollars of taxpayer money, or the nuclear apocalypse.

 

[Sailor.X]

Whelp here are a few articles on this situation I dug up.

If China Invades Taiwan, Taipei Plans To Throw A Thousand Tanks At The Beachhead

If China invades Taiwan and succeeds in landing troops on the island country’s southwestern beaches, expect brutal tank battles to help decide the outcome.

www.forbes.com

Despite Military Improvements, Chinese Invasion of Taiwan Still 'Highly Risky' Says Former Pentagon Official - USNI News

Xi Jinping’s go hard approach to bringing Taiwan to heel isn’t about to let up, but “it would be highly risky” for China to believe the United States would not intervene if it launched an all-out cross-straits invasion, a former senior Trump administration Pentagon official said. Speaking Monday...

news.usni.org

If China Invades Taiwan, This Is What The Fleet Could Look Like

A possible invasion of Taiwan has long been derided as the ‘million man swim’ because the Chinese Navy was not equipped to pull it off. That may no longer be the case.

www.forbes.com

Posted for your consumption.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Taiwan actually is adopting a more "Porcupine" Defense Strategy it seems, as its limited defense budget (which is finally increasing as of late since they feel their moat isn't as impressive as it once was) which means they want to focus more on the asymmetric deployment of their forces instead of equipping their military with large numbers of semi-pricey weapon systems like with major surface combatants for their Navy and the like.

In the next few years Taiwan will likely be getting 100 Harpoon Coastal Defense System Launcher Transporter Units with 400 Block II Harpoon Missiles, 25 radar trucks and associated training missiles, spare parts and so on and so forth. The State Department also recently notified Congress of the intention to sell Taiwan SLAM-ER Missile Systems and HIMARS Rocket Artillery Systems. Taiwan's Defense Review also announced an increased focus on all-volunteer rapid reaction forces and an increase in naval mine laying capability and more mobile and camouflaged launchers and other assets instead of some of the fixed systems or more inflexible systems they have acquired in the past.

Hopefully this partially offsets the ten thousand new Chinese destroyers and frigates that are rolling off of the ChiCom shipyards every week.

 

[Sailor.X]

Taiwan actually is adopting a more "Porcupine" Defense Strategy it seems, as its limited defense budget (which is finally increasing as of late since they feel their moat isn't as impressive as it once was) which means they want to focus more on the asymmetric deployment of their forces instead of equipping their military with large numbers of semi-pricey weapon systems like with major surface combatants for their Navy and the like.

In the next few years Taiwan will likely be getting 100 Harpoon Coastal Defense System Launcher Transporter Units with 400 Block II Harpoon Missiles, 25 radar trucks and associated training missiles, spare parts and so on and so forth. The State Department also recently notified Congress of the intention to sell Taiwan SLAM-ER Missile Systems and HIMARS Rocket Artillery Systems. Taiwan's Defense Review also announced an increased focus on all-volunteer rapid reaction forces and an increase in naval mine laying capability and more mobile and camouflaged launchers and other assets instead of some of the fixed systems or more inflexible systems they have acquired in the past.

Hopefully this partially offsets the ten thousand new Chinese destroyers and frigates that are rolling off of the ChiCom shipyards every week.

I highly doubt the CCP can crank out 10,000 Destroyers and Frigates. You only have so much Shipyard Drydock space and It takes at least 2 years to build a quality warship. Any claims by the CCP to crank out that number in less than 40 years is hogwash.

 

[Zachowon]

We have to take into account the Air battle as well.

 

[History Learner]

Because Taiwan antiship missiles can nail CCP ships in their ports. And Japanese antiship missiles can nail the rest. The CCP has the great misfortune of only having one coast for all of it's ships. They even sneeze wrong at Taiwan and their fleet gets wrecked.

Okay, with what magical weapons systems? We'll address the other issues with this hypothesis after that is answered.

 

[Bassoe]

Again, none of this matters, insofar as in event of an actual war, all these ships and planes on both sides would be blown to radioactive smithereens. Military spending beyond doomsday weapons for self-defensive MAD deterrence is a scam.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Again, none of this matters, insofar as in event of an actual war, all these ships and planes on both sides would be blown to radioactive smithereens. Military spending beyond doomsday weapons for self-defensive MAD deterrence is a scam.

That's horribly simple and not true.

Sometimes you need to just kill a few people, not all the people.

 

[Arch Dornan]

Again, none of this matters, insofar as in event of an actual war, all these ships and planes on both sides would be blown to radioactive smithereens. Military spending beyond doomsday weapons for self-defensive MAD deterrence is a scam.

Are you implying China wants a nuked Taiwan?

 

[Sailor.X]

Okay, with what magical weapons systems? We'll address the other issues with this hypothesis after that is answered.

Google Maritime Strike Tomahawk Cruise Missile. It has a range of over 1,000 miles and can target ships.

 

[Zachowon]

Are you implying China wants a nuked Taiwan?

He bsaically thinks any war involving two countries that aren't third world will end in nukes. Even if they want to take a country intact. Nuke it

 

[Arch Dornan]

He bsaically thinks any war involving two countries that aren't third world will end in nukes. Even if they want to take a country intact. Nuke it

It could work once when nuke policy was still in it's infancy after Hiroshima but that will never happen now.

China wants Taiwan nearly intact so they can use it for their maritime ambitions. Why would they turn it and the seas there into a glowing mushroom crater?

 

[Bassoe]

China-conquering-Taiwan wouldn't result in nuclear war, given that of the two nations involved, only China is a nuclear power. China-trying-to-conquer-Taiwan-while-the-US-tries-to-prevent-them on the other hand...

 

[Zachowon]

China-conquering-Taiwan wouldn't result in nuclear war, given that of the two nations involved, only China is a nuclear power. China-trying-to-conquer-Taiwan-while-the-US-tries-to-prevent-them on the other hand...

Why would China nuke Taiwan if they want to capture it

 

[Bassoe]

Why would China nuke Taiwan if they want to capture it

China wouldn't nuke Taiwan, they'd nuke us.

 

[Zachowon]

China wouldn't nuke Taiwan, they'd nuke us.

I am pretty sure they would not resort to nukes. THey can save face with the loss of Taiwan, they cant save face when there is no face

 

[JagerIV]

Google Maritime Strike Tomahawk Cruise Missile. It has a range of over 1,000 miles and can target ships.

Eh, Tomahawks are not fast missiles. They move at about normal jet aircraft speed, and are thus vulnerable to most of those same weapons. Its not easy to stop all of them, you have issues of "the bomber will get through", but heavily attritionable: I remember watching someone play through one of those navy sims which stives for realism protecting a Chinese air base against, I think it was a 100 cruise missile swarm directed against an airport narratively being used against Taiwan.

I recall it requiring a AWAC aircraft to pick up the missiles on radar and successfully target, then mobilize 10 fighters to intercept, which killed something like 20-30 missiles (one on the first pass, then had to turn around and chase down the remaining, getting another or two (which then suffered heavy casualties as there were fighters launched to intercept the fighters after the first pass, forcing them to either stay and engage in a combat they weren't prepared for, or try to keep chasing the missiles with fighters on their tail). After the fighters the missiles overflew the fleet, which shot I think 2 counter missiles per missile, which got another 30 of them. Then he had some last couple of fighters he could scramble from somewhere else, maybe one was a helicopter, which killed another 10. Then another 5-10 were destroyed by the final line of AA guns at the airfield directly, with I think it was something like 10 hits, 5 of them doing serious damage.

So, that does help highlight how difficult stopping a missile volley really is, but does show it is degradable. And even getting all the missiles through, making sure the missiles actually do something is fairly difficult. Especially with the more warning a target has to take measures. A ship in harbor with damage control crews mobilized and firefighters at the ready if it gets hit by a half ton bomb and all hatches closed in combat readiness has a very different survival profile vs a ship with the crew all away on weekend leave. And a half ton of explosives in not a whole lot in terms of anti ship weapondry. It definitely hurts a whole lot, but ships can survive a surprising amount of hurt.

So, while a Virginia sub might have 30 Tomahawks that can theoretically destroy 30 ships, more likely that's probably closer to 3 hits, maybe one damaged ship and 1 destroyed ship. And well, if its a single Virginia attacking a naval base with more than 30 aircraft available to intercept, its quite possible nothing gets through. And once it expends all its missiles, well, its 10,000 km back to the US, which should take about 10 days at its listed speed.

Assumedly, it will have closer bases, but, well, that puts it at the mercy of the broader Air and Naval war, and puts itself at more risk of being destroyed itself. Depending how broad the war is.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Yeah striking the ships in harbor would be more effective if it was literal surprise. Then the scrambling times would be reduced for aircraft and it'd take time for the anti-missile defenses to be brought up to par. Plus I suppose the destruction and blockage of harbor facilities, though that would be temporary and could be done as effectively with mines I reckon.

But if your sinking ships in the Taiwan Straights, that is far more of a loss when its sunk in 150 meter or so deep water. Plus it'd be happening during the semi-organized chaos of a Cross-Channel Amphibious Invasion across a body of water four times wider then the gap between Dover and Calais. In addition to the glorious Tomahawk spam you'll have all of the aircraft and rocket artillery on the Chinese side and other missiles and whatnot spamming the airspace along with ships and subs and the like that can result in surprises for everyone involved, but especially the fleet crossing the Taiwan Straights since that's where the focus of everything would be.

 

[Zachowon]

Yeah striking the ships in harbor would be more effective if it was literal surprise. Then the scrambling times would be reduced for aircraft and it'd take time for the anti-missile defenses to be brought up to par. Plus I suppose the destruction and blockage of harbor facilities, though that would be temporary and could be done as effectively with mines I reckon.

But if your sinking ships in the Taiwan Straights, that is far more of a loss when its sunk in 150 meter or so deep water. Plus it'd be happening during the semi-organized chaos of a Cross-Channel Amphibious Invasion across a body of water four times wider then the gap between Dover and Calais. In addition to the glorious Tomahawk spam you'll have all of the aircraft and rocket artillery on the Chinese side and other missiles and whatnot spamming the airspace along with ships and subs and the like that can result in surprises for everyone involved, but especially the fleet crossing the Taiwan Straights since that's where the focus of everything would be.

Ships sinking in Port are easier to recover then one sunk in the straight.

That war is gonna show how effective Anti missle vs Missle spam is

 

[Bacle]

Yeah striking the ships in harbor would be more effective if it was literal surprise. Then the scrambling times would be reduced for aircraft and it'd take time for the anti-missile defenses to be brought up to par. Plus I suppose the destruction and blockage of harbor facilities, though that would be temporary and could be done as effectively with mines I reckon.

But if your sinking ships in the Taiwan Straights, that is far more of a loss when its sunk in 150 meter or so deep water. Plus it'd be happening during the semi-organized chaos of a Cross-Channel Amphibious Invasion across a body of water four times wider then the gap between Dover and Calais. In addition to the glorious Tomahawk spam you'll have all of the aircraft and rocket artillery on the Chinese side and other missiles and whatnot spamming the airspace along with ships and subs and the like that can result in surprises for everyone involved, but especially the fleet crossing the Taiwan Straights since that's where the focus of everything would be.

China is currently regearing a bunch of civie ferries for use as troop transports. Those are not exactly hardened vessels, and do not have the same level of DC gear built in.

However, all of this ignores that China may chose to keep at it with the grey zone/socio-economic tactics no amount of hardware can change, like the whole Kinman Island/outlying islands issue.

I'd be more concerned about referrendums on 'rejoining the Mainland' in their local assemblies than about just the military build up currently happening. Think Donbass and Ukraine in the Taiwan Straight.