Taiwan Simulates Chinese Invasion

[Figaro]

Can China please sell to us those 140 odd upgraded F-16's once reunification is complete?

Those F-16s would likely have gotten shot down or flown to a US military base by the time the invasion is over

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

In Okinawa and Iwo Jima, the US had complete air supremacy and it still took months and tens of thousands of lives to clear the defenders out. Even in Vietnam or Afghanistan, you can see that isolated strongpoints are still very difficult to defeat and require huge amounts of manpower (i.e. casualties). Of course, maybe Taiwanese military morale is not as high as those of the Japanese, Vietnamese, or Taliban defenders. But that is just a maybe ... the PLA has to expect the morale to be high and for the defenders to fight to the last man. In WW2, the Japanese strongpoints were also cut off and overwhelmed one at a time ... fighting in this type of terrain is not so different from WW2.

Bombs were very inaccurate in WW2. To get an idea of how inaccurate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_bombing

"It took 108 B-17 bombers, crewed by 1,080 airmen, dropping 648 bombs to guarantee a 96 percent chance of getting just two hits inside a 400 x 500 ft (150 m) German power-generation plant."

Today the CEP is 1-10 meters.

Also, have you considered these tactics from a certain air force and deliberately targetting civilian infrastructure until surrender?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_air_campaign

"Coalition bombing raids destroyed Iraqi civilian infrastructure. 11 of Iraq's 20 major power stations and 119 substations were totally destroyed, while a further six major power stations were damaged.[32][33] At the end of the war, electricity production was at four percent of its pre-war levels. Bombs destroyed the utility of all major dams, most major pumping stations, and many sewage treatment plants, telecommunications equipment, port facilities, oil refineries and distribution, railroads and bridges were also destroyed."

 

[gambit]

Holding static positions = dead from strategic bombing once PLAAF destroys the ROCAF within day 1.

This is like masturbating with a copy of Playboy (or whatever your fancy). You know that you will never get the centerfold but you must go thru the fantasy anyway.

You have to understand that the ROC military isn't going for an Iraqi insurgency or Swiss strategy where they bog the other side down in urban warfare. Their procurement patterns are for "offshore engagement". Basically, they want ROCAF and ROCN to attack the PLAAF and PLAN before they can establish a beachhead. This is, as you may guess, insane of them, because in a large scale fleet action or air war... PLAAF and PLAN are going to smash them.

Since we know the PLA's next vulnerable points -- the amphibious staging points on mainland China. As long as Taiwan can occasionally land a few missiles on those ports, no amphibious fleet will be created. It is very simple. It takes months to build up an amphibious landing force. There can be no interruptions during the buildup. Not only that, the PLA must convince itself that once the invasion fleet is committed, the strait must be secured from air assaults.

But before the air assaults...

Back in 1949, Mao directed generals Su Yu and Zhang Zhen to plan for an amphibious landing on Taiwan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Su_Yu
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhang_Zhen_(general)

Both generals found that the closest points between mainland China and Taiwan was 80 miles, almost the same distance as the English Channel that deterred the German army. How much harassment from Taiwan would it take to create delays on the creation of that amphibious fleet on mainland China? How about a couple of missiles an hr? Or maybe more?

Kinmen...You might want to research on the 10,000 PLA troops lost.

So how many PLA troops would be needed to take Taiwan? Back in 1949, the estimate was about 400,000. Today, PLA generals would have to factor in the possibility of at least 10K loss so the final invasion figure would be half mil. How many amphibious ships to transport 500,000 millions troops? Now add in the daily missile harassment from Taiwan during the buildup that would damage or even destroy a few landing ships.

Back in 1949, Su, with Soviet study assistance, estimated it would take nearly 600 ships just to land 60,000 troops. Those 60,000 troops would also need about 150,000 tons of heavy equipment to support their takeover of the beaches. So, total 600 ships. All Taiwan missiles have to do is either disable or destroy 1/10th of those ships to render the invasion plan inop.

Operation Causeway was the US plan for an invasion of Taiwan and that called for at least 500,000 troops and about 4000 ships. Look it up. Keep in mind that this would be after D-Day (Europe) and that the Americans would be amply experienced with amphibious operations. But for today, the PLA have literally no amphibious operation experience.

What about the weather? Back in 1949, Su had 10 yrs of meteorological data to study. Today, both China and Taiwan would use the same meteorological data so that mean both sides would know quite to the week, if not the day, when the PLA could launch. There goes the element of surprise.

So just before the Taiwan air assaults on the strait on the PLA amphibious fleet, Taiwan already can wield a credible threat on the creation of that amphibious fleet.

 

[Brainsucker]

I don't think the Taiwanese military is a push over as many members here claim ... sure they are not the highest caliber but then again, you don't need super top of the grade line military to defend an amphibious assault. Just moving enough Chinese soldiers to land on Taiwan would be a huge undertaking already ... not to mention the Taiwanese military could just hold static positions.

The S-400 is not even a proven system ... why are we to assume that F-16s are not capable of handling them? I have always said it is very dangerous to underestimate your opponent ... often times in the case between the United States and China. I'm sure the Chinese posters here should also not underestimate Taiwan's military capabilities ...

This is a wrong assumption. S-400 is a defensive platform. So F-16 can only face to face against Chinese S-400 if they decided to attack mainland China. But like what Jeff Head, or somebody in SDF long time ago, when Type-052D were still developed by PRC, before F-16 can face S-400, there are a lot of factor that make these jet fighters become useless in the battlefield. It is not about the quality of F-16. But more of the battlefield situation.

1st. Chinese Aegis Type factor. You can't neglected the capability of Type 052D in tandem with 055 and 054A that can surround Taiwan water in the event of war. The island will be besieged by Chinese water based anti air platform that has both capability and quantities.

From what I read from Jeff Head's opinion long time ago in SDF, (at that time, Obama was about to attack Syria with tomahawk from 5 of his AEGIS destroyers. You can find it there). That a single Type 052D Aegis like destroyer can make any Taiwanese's aircraft to be in danger when they fly / take off from their airfield. That is one 052D, and in the event of war, F-16 must face many Chinese anti air platforms that surround Taiwan. You can count how many 052D, 054A, and 055A that China can muster in the war.

2nd. China Balistic Missiles and Cruise Missiles. You know that Taiwan is so near to China mainland. So all of their airfield are within Chinese's missile range. China can rain the islands with hundred of missiles, and Taiwan F-16 will be lucky if they can survive the onslaught. We also have to mention that China can muster hundreds of Flankers, J-10, H-6, and even J-20 to work in tandem with their land based missiles attack. Their numbers is surpass Taiwanese air assets.

3rd. Also don't forget about their intelligence assets, like Satellites, AWACS, drones, etc. China intelligence assets will stare Taiwan island 24/7. It is simply that there is no place to hide for those F-16 in Taiwan.

So I doubt that Taiwan's F-16 will able to meet China S-400 in the event of war. Maybe, they'll have some role, but mainly to defend against China mainland's airstrike.

The only way Taiwan can survive the invasion is if US and Japan willing to sacrifice their naval power to breakthrough the Chinese siege. They may success, but with a lot of sacrifice.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

This is like masturbating with a copy of Playboy (or whatever your fancy). You know that you will never get the centerfold but you must go thru the fantasy anyway.


Since we know the PLA's next vulnerable points -- the amphibious staging points on mainland China. As long as Taiwan can occasionally land a few missiles on those ports, no amphibious fleet will be created. Not can, but WILL. It is very simple. It takes months to build up an amphibious landing force. There can be no interruptions during the buildup. Not only that, the PLA must convince itself that once the invasion fleet is committed, the strait must be secured from air assaults.

Both generals found that the closest points between mainland China and Taiwan was 80 miles, almost the same distance as the English Channel that deterred the German army. How much harassment from Taiwan would it take to create delays on the creation of that amphibious fleet on mainland China? How about a couple of missiles an hr? Or maybe more?

Back in 1949, Su, with Soviet study assistance, estimated it would take nearly 600 ships just to land 60,000 troops. Those 60,000 troops would also need about 150,000 tons of heavy equipment to support their takeover of the beaches. So, total 600 ships. All Taiwan missiles have to do is either disable or destroy 1/10th of those ships to render the invasion plan inop.

Operation Causeway was the US plan for an invasion of Taiwan and that called for at least 500,000 troops and about 4000 ships. Look it up. Keep in mind that this would be after D-Day (Europe) and that the Americans would be amply experienced with amphibious operations. But for today, the PLA have literally no amphibious operation experience.

What about the weather? Back in 1949, Su had 10 yrs of meteorological data to study. Today, both China and Taiwan would use the same meteorological data so that mean both sides would know quite to the week, if not the day, when the PLA could launch. There goes the element of surprise.

So just before the Taiwan air assaults on the strait on the PLA amphibious fleet, Taiwan already can wield a credible threat on the creation of that amphibious fleet.

When the first missile is launched it means the start of total war. Taiwanese forces are not going to have the opportunity to just keep throwing a few missiles once in a while. PLA is just going to go all in at that point and destroy not only the missile launchers but Taiwan's entire air force and air defense capabilities. Just like the USAF in Desert Storm did not allow Saddam to just keep firing missiles - they went after him.

But unlike the US which used Desert Shield as a pretext to build up forces in Saudi Arabia over 4 months, the PLAAF is permanently stationed and on high alert across Taiwan. Unlike USAF which had to use tankers and carriers to project air power, PLAAF can base 1000+ combat aircraft within 200 km of Taiwan on sovereign Chinese soil. Unlike USN, which could not cover all of Iraq with destroyer anti-air cover, 052Ds and 055s can cover all of Taiwan with air defense while docked in Quanzhou. A few Taiwanese missiles will have about the same effect as Saddam's SCUDs - next to nil.

 

[Mav3rick]

Those F-16s would likely have gotten shot down or flown to a US military base by the time the invasion is over

I predict a scenario where those F-16's wouldn't even be allowed to take off as the air fields would all be taken out by Stealth Jets (J-22) along with radar and SAM sites.

 

[Brainsucker]

I predict a scenario where those F-16's wouldn't even be allowed to take off as the air fields would all be taken out by Stealth Jets (J-22) along with radar and SAM sites.

What is J-22?

 

[Mav3rick]

What is J-22?

J-20

 

[gambit]

When the first missile is launched it means the start of total war. Taiwanese forces are not going to have the opportunity to just keep throwing a few missiles once in a while. PLA is just going to go all in at that point and destroy not only the missile launchers but Taiwan's entire air force and air defense capabilities. Just like the USAF in Desert Storm did not allow Saddam to just keep firing missiles - they went after him.

But unlike the US which used Desert Shield as a pretext to build up forces in Saudi Arabia over 4 months, the PLAAF is permanently stationed and on high alert across Taiwan. Unlike USAF which had to use tankers and carriers to project air power, PLAAF can base 1000+ combat aircraft within 200 km of Taiwan on sovereign Chinese soil. Unlike USN, which could not cover all of Iraq with destroyer anti-air cover, 052Ds and 055s can cover all of Taiwan with air defense while docked in Quanzhou. A few Taiwanese missiles will have about the same effect as Saddam's SCUDs - next to nil.

Then it goes back to what I said earlier that from a military perspective, the ONLY way for a successful invasion of Taiwan is to obliterate the island, by then you will ruling over ashes.

Here is something you probably did not think about: The amphibious launch and the missile barrage will not occur at the same time.

Taiwan's defenses must be at least %50 destroyed in order to secure the strait transition, which mean the missile barrage will last for days. An amphibious transition is not the same as running over land, which was Desert Storm. A land force under movement will have mobility that a navy cannot have. This is real physics, not 'Chinese physics' as we often see on this forum.

Because of that, there will be three major phases for an invasion of Taiwan:

- Long range negation of the defenses.
- Amphibious landing.
- Occupation.

All of them must be in sequence.

Long range negation of the defenses. Taiwan is an island, which mean the islanders' defense can be resupplied by sea, which is not controlled by anyone, unlike land where there are controlled territories with enforced borders. This means a naval blockade of Taiwan is %90 certainty. A naval blockade would also allow the PLAN to attack the island from all sides. With today's warfare, the negation of the defense also mean dominance in the EM spectrum.

So even before the first missile launch from mainland China, the PLA must secure a naval blockade and EM coverage over Taiwan. Real easy for the PDF Chinese brigade, am sure.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Then it goes back to what I said earlier that from a military perspective, the ONLY way for a successful invasion of Taiwan is to obliterate the island, by then you will ruling over ashes.

Here is something you probably did not think about: The amphibious launch and the missile barrage will not occur at the same time.

Taiwan's defenses must be at least %50 destroyed in order to secure the strait transition, which mean the missile barrage will last for days. An amphibious transition is not the same as running over land, which was Desert Storm. A land force under movement will have mobility that a navy cannot have. This is real physics, not 'Chinese physics' as we often see on this forum.

Because of that, there will be three major phases for an invasion of Taiwan:

- Long range negation of the defenses.
- Amphibious landing.
- Occupation.

All of them must be in sequence.

Long range negation of the defenses. Taiwan is an island, which mean the islanders' defense can be resupplied by sea, which is not controlled by anyone, unlike land where there are controlled territories with enforced borders. This means a naval blockade of Taiwan is %90 certainty. A naval blockade would also allow the PLAN to attack the island from all sides. With today's warfare, the negation of the defense also mean dominance in the EM spectrum.

So even before the first missile launch from mainland China, the PLA must secure a naval blockade and EM coverage over Taiwan. Real easy for the PDF Chinese brigade, am sure.

Taiwan doesn't have AESA radars and it has a 1970s vintage cold war Navy. No problem enforcing a blockade or EM dominance.

But you may be right in one thing: Taiwan will be destroyed if not taken. They can choose to surrender or be turned into a bombed out shithole. US destroyed 90% of Iraqi power, also targeted civil infrastructure like water treatment plants, oil refineries, etc. You are just uncomfortable that the PLAAF can do the same to Taiwan. The PLAAF can cripple the Taiwanese economy so hard they will NEVER recover no matter what the outcome of the war is while the reverse can never happen.

Everything the US did to Iraq in the air phase can be replicated in Taiwan. You're uncomfortable with that notion because you know exactly what was done to Iraq.

 

[Globenim]

I suppose crashing their helicopters into the ground wasnt part of the script for this propagnda stage play.

Have they considered moving the island out of Chinas range?

 

[gambit]

Taiwan doesn't have AESA radars and it has a 1970s vintage cold war Navy. No problem enforcing a blockade or EM dominance.

But you may be right in one thing: Taiwan will be destroyed if not taken. They can choose to surrender or be turned into a bombed out shithole. US destroyed 90% of Iraqi power, also targeted civil infrastructure like water treatment plants, oil refineries, etc. You are just uncomfortable that the PLAAF can do the same to Taiwan. The PLAAF can cripple the Taiwanese economy so hard they will NEVER recover no matter what the outcome of the war is while the reverse can never happen.

Everything the US did to Iraq in the air phase can be replicated in Taiwan. You're uncomfortable with that notion because you know exactly what was done to Iraq.

It is funny that you guys consistently contradict yourselves without knowing it.

You guys consistently insisted that 'China is not Iraq', meaning everything about Desert Storm are NOT applicable to China. But now you are insistent that China can replicate the US when current PLA is not comparable to the US military while the Taiwan military today is actually qualitatively better and the island is tactically better postured than Iraq.

No problem enforcing a blockade? A single US sub can render any attempt at blockade that -- attempt. Militarily speaking, the US can have minimal engagement to help Taiwan make long term deterrence credible.

China can achieve EM dominance over Taiwan because Taiwan do not have AESA radars? More 'Chinese physics', I see. Your assertion is based on gross ignorance. Burst data can be transmitted over the simplest HF radio, kinda like TV. Link-16 is about 1.5mhz and is frequency agile. Is China going to jam cell phone signals as well? When we achieved EM dominance over Iraq, that did not mean the Iraqis could not communicate with each other. It meant we countered them whenever it was tactically and strategically opportune to US, and there was nothing the Iraqis could do about it and even when they heard our signals they still could do nothing about it. That is what WILL happen between Taiwan and US -- that we could talk to each other and the PLA can do nothing about it.

So now just on China's attempt to destroy Taiwanese defense, two critical components are questionable: a naval blockade and EM dominance.

And we have not even touched the amphibious landing and land battles.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

It is funny that you guys consistently contradict yourselves without knowing it.

You guys consistently insisted that 'China is not Iraq', meaning everything about Desert Storm are NOT applicable to China. But now you are insistent that China can replicate the US when current PLA is not comparable to the US military while the Taiwan military today is actually qualitatively better and the island is tactically better postured than Iraq.

No problem enforcing a blockade? A single US sub can render any attempt at blockade that -- attempt. Militarily speaking, the US can have minimal engagement to help Taiwan make long term deterrence credible.

China can achieve EM dominance over Taiwan because Taiwan do not have AESA radars? More 'Chinese physics', I see. Your assertion is based on gross ignorance. Burst data can be transmitted over the simplest HF radio, kinda like TV. Link-16 is about 1.5mhz and is frequency agile. Is China going to jam cell phone signals as well? When we achieved EM dominance over Iraq, that did not mean the Iraqis could not communicate with each other. It meant we countered them whenever it was tactically and strategically opportune to US, and there was nothing the Iraqis could do about it and even when they heard our signals they still could do nothing about it. That is what WILL happen between Taiwan and US -- that we could talk to each other and the PLA can do nothing about it.

So now just on China's attempt to destroy Taiwanese defense, two critical components are questionable: a naval blockade and EM dominance.

And we have not even touched the amphibious landing and land battles.

Only about half of Taiwan's airforce is Link 16 capable F-16s and Mirages, their F-5s and Chingkuos may not be Link 16 capable. But communications jamming is only 1 part of EW as you know. I also never said that achieving EW dominance required that Taiwanese forces couldn't even talk.

AESA radars, as you are well aware, are frequency agile and can form multiple beams. This is a decisive advantage over Taiwanese legacy pulse doppler radars on their Mirages, F-5s and Chingkuos. Even among their 60 F-16Vs which have AESA radars, the fighter radars still have lower power than PLAAF AWAC AESA radars, and will be going against J-10s, J-16s and J-20s which also have AESA radars. The difference is that their F-16Vs will only be armed with AIM-120D with 160 km range while J-10s, J-16s and J-20s will be armed with PL-15s having 300 km range. Once their AWACs are shot down and their ground radar stations are crippled, the ROCAF would just be sitting ducks.

And that's all assuming they'll be able to take off with cratered runways and destroyed infrastructure from a missile first strike, and won't be shot down after takeoff by PLAN destroyers being fed data from navy AWACs. If you haven't noticed, all of Taiwan is within the air defense perimeter of destroyers even sitting at dock.

If the "single US sub" is shooting at PLAN ships then that sub will be sunk by a PLAN sub, helicopter or patrol ship, as there's little to worry about from the antiquated ROCN. USN will not be able to slip subs in without being subject to ASW patrols. The Taiwan Strait is narrow and shallow, while almost all Taiwanese ports are on the west side of the strait. Taitung/Hualian/Yilan on the east side represents less than 1 million people combined, out of 23 million in Taiwan, and has no ports. This narrows the combat theater significantly, and not to the US's favor.

In summary, the advantages that the PLAAF and PLAN hold over Taiwanese armed forces is similar to the advantage that US forces held over Iraq in 1991. The difference is, since Taiwan is within 150 km of China and has the majority of its population concentrated on the side facing China, the PLAN and PLAAF can bring its full firepower on Taiwan with short notice, unlike the US which had to engage in a lengthy buildup prior to Desert Storm.

 

[Daniel808]

 

[gambit]

Only about half of Taiwan's airforce is Link 16 capable F-16s and Mirages, their F-5s and Chingkuos may not be Link 16 capable. But communications jamming is only 1 part of EW as you know. I also never said that achieving EW dominance required that Taiwanese forces couldn't even talk.

The problem with your argument is that unlike Iraq who stood alone, Taiwan will have US support in the EM spectrum. So, not only can Taiwanese forces talk to each other and with US with impunity, odds are better than 50/50 that the Taiwanese can even present effective countermeasures against the PLA. Not only that, Taiwan defense forces have invested decades of planning at decoy radio stations designed to simulate vital units.

AESA radars, as you are well aware, are frequency agile and can form multiple beams.

Odds are good, like maybe %99 certainty, that I am the only person on this forum who seen an AESA radar in action.

Even though an AESA radar equipped fighter do have a technical advantage over a non-AESA opponent, tactical employment can make up the difference. Among the best examples of tactical employment that defeated technical superiority is Operation Bolo where US F-4s shot down half the North Vietnamese MIG-21s in one day. The main advantage of an AESA system is true multi-tasking which includes true multiple targets engagements. Taiwanese fighters do not have to engage the PLAAF fighters directly. All Taiwan has to do is create sufficient uncertainty over Taiwan and strait airspace. Without PLAAF air supremacy over the strait, no amphibious launch is possible.

And that's all assuming they'll be able to take off with cratered runways and destroyed infrastructure from a missile first strike, and won't be shot down after takeoff by PLAN destroyers being fed data from navy AWACs. If you haven't noticed, all of Taiwan is within the air defense perimeter of destroyers even sitting at dock.

After Desert Storm, US airpower analysts turned their attention on Taiwan as an intellectual exercise. I will not say when. The group contains US Air Force and Navy.

Back in DS, US airpower planners laid out two lists of target levels: important and critical.

The 'important' list contained nearly 700 targets. The 'critical' list was about 1/10th. US airpower planners decided to focus on the 'critical' list. Even with such a magnitude difference of targets, we still took about 40 days of heavy bombardment on those critical targets.

For Taiwan, if it was US who would attack Taiwan, a much smaller geographical area than Iraq, we identified nearly 1200 'important' targets and almost 1/2 qualified as 'critical' due to terrain and decades of Taiwanese planning at deception and hardening. Taiwanese runway rapid repair crews are well trained and equipped, and most fighter-bombers can take off in 2/3 of their peacetime runway length. After a missile barrage, Taiwan can deploy fake craters and simulated damages designed to delay intelligence gathering and analyses.

Here is an example of the minimum runway repaired length to return a runway to fully operational status...

That went back to the Cold War days where even C-130s can take off in that runway length. Further, most Taiwan roads can support fighter-bombers and the ROCAF routinely trained for that contingency. Not only are all air bases and airports must be targeted, since the goal is an amphibious landing, the entire western coast must be targeted because any point can be used to attack the few amphibious landing sites. Compound the problem for the PLAN is that those potential amphibious landing sites are mined and laid with various structural traps, not only as deterrence but also for destruction, making an amphibious landing difficult if not outright impossible. The mountains offers plenty of cover for artillery and missile batteries targeted specifically at those potential amphibious landing sites.

So the PLA is looking at weeks of heavy bombardment while fending off harassment from ground and air against an opponent who is supported by US.

If the "single US sub" is shooting at PLAN ships then that sub will be sunk by a PLAN sub, helicopter or patrol ship, as there's little to worry about from the antiquated ROCN. USN will not be able to slip subs in without being subject to ASW patrols. The Taiwan Strait is narrow and shallow, while almost all Taiwanese ports are on the west side of the strait. Taitung/Hualian/Yilan on the east side represents less than 1 million people combined, out of 23 million in Taiwan, and has no ports. This narrows the combat theater significantly, and not to the US's favor.

It really is amazing that you do not give US enough credit at submarine operations, especially since China have not contributed anything to the arts and crafts of submarine and submarine operations since the submarine was invented in the first place.

Do you really think that there are no US sub nor have not been in that area all these yrs? We probably know the area better than you do. I work with a few former navy guys, enlisted and officers. We have the usual 'shop talks' and the subject of Taiwan came up. The consensus is that if there is a US sub in the eastern side of the island, it will be the ONLY sub in the area. PLAN subs will be on the bottom and flooded. The PLAN to conduct ASW? Sure. But that mean no attack from Taiwan coastal missile batteries on those ASW operations?

In summary, the advantages that the PLAAF and PLAN hold over Taiwanese armed forces is similar to the advantage that US forces held over Iraq in 1991. The difference is, since Taiwan is within 150 km of China and has the majority of its population concentrated on the side facing China, the PLAN and PLAAF can bring its full firepower on Taiwan with short notice, unlike the US which had to engage in a lengthy buildup prior to Desert Storm.

In summary, the PLA is not the US military, and Taiwan is not Iraq.