You've just dismantled your own argument. Your initial claim was that the defense of Sakhalin is analogous to the defense of Taiwan and low casualties by Soviet forces are indicative. You now yourself claim that Sakhalin was poorly defended due to a diplomatic factor, that clearly doesn't apply to Taiwan. Taiwan is armed to the teeth, and is actively modernizing their military to try if not keep up with China, at least to present a credible deterrent to open invasion.
Taiwan is far from armed to the teeth. Taiwanese F-16 are no match for J-10C let alone J-20. Taiwanese Kidd class are no match for Type 052D let alone Type 055. Taiwanese subs are not match for Chinese Type 636 Kilos. Not to mention China has KJ-2000 strategic AWACs and H-6K strategic bombers. Taiwan is only 180 km from mainland China. PL-15 has more range than that at 200 km. Taiwan would lose control of its airspace and coastal waters within a couple of days even if they decide to fight. It is far more lop sided compared to Argentina and Britain in the 1982 war in which Argentina had rather comparable equipment such as aircraft carrier, fighter jets.
The J-20 is relatively unknown at this time, and is available in tiny quantities. We can talk about it when more information becomes available. I'm not sure why you think Taiwanese F-16Vs are no match for the J-10C. Remember, they're not only purchasing new ones (deliveries on those aren't slated to finish until 2026 iirc) but they're also upgrading their existing fleet, if I understood correctly, to the same standard. It's also my understanding that they carry a very modern AESA radar, and have access to top of the line BVR missiles. While China has indigenous BVR missiles, with comparable ranges, I can't help but wonder how they will compare. The US has extensive air-to-air combat experience, China not so much. The US has flown combat missions with 4.5th generation aircraft against 4th generation adversaries. That kind of experience could mean that even if the tech levels are comparable (and I'm far from sold that they are) the side with more knowledge and experience could very well design a better weapon system. It would be a mistake to dismiss top of the line F-16 variants.
This simply isn't how battles are fought. China would have to plan and execute a very complex multi-domain operation, and this is likely where the failures would come. Superior, on paper, ships and planes, still need to coordinate, communicate, and execute a large scale joint operation. And remember, the Kidd class isn't alone. Taiwan has a large fleet of frigates, and has recently purchased a sizable force of coastal AShMs. None of this is likely to surrender easily, and landing ships and troop transports are highly vulnerable to a battery or btln of coastal missile system. This means some of the warships have to spend time protecting the transports, while the rest have to be ready to deal with the Taiwanese Navy.
It's not Taiwanese subs that Chinese Kilos would have to worry about but Taiwanese ASW, represented by a fleet of helos and capable P-3Cs. This means diverting combat aircraft to keeping enemy MPAs away from your submarines.
Both sides have AEW in comparable(~ish) quantities (can't seem to figure out how many of their smaller AEW they have). The KJ-2000 is larger (not sure what "strategic AWACS" refers to) but it's also China's first indigenous AEW design, with no previous experience. Taiwan has a mature system (E-2Ks) from the US.
I'm not sure what the significance of this is. The advantage of larger bombers over tactical aircraft comes in combat range and payload, but given the scale of the conflict, Chinese tactical aircraft should be able to do the job. I'm sure the H-6K would get used for missile strikes, but it's hardly a decisive advantage.
How does the performance of a long range anti-air missile decline towards the margins of its engagement envelope? ;-)
I don't know enough about the Falklands war to compare, but I don't see any evidence to confidently claim that the Taiwanese military would surrender in the face of an ultimatum, or that it would be a "short battle" (whatever that even means, you apparently think a 1.5 month-long campaign with thousands dead, and iirc ~150K forces involved from the Azeri side qualifies as a short battle, so by that standard maybe it would be a short battle?) I see a best case scenario for the PRC would involve large casualties taken, and huge resources expended ending in an eventual, quite bloody, victory. And while we're at it, how good is PLAN mine-sweeping capability? "Small" factors like that may turn out to play a far bigger role then how many Type 55s China has available.
I very strongly suggest that you read your history and check your facts before making such claims. You are sailing in very dangerous waters and have already broken rules since you have returned from being banned. The Moderators are not impressed with your posting behaviour since you have returned and unless there is a marked improvement, your future on here will be short.
www.navalnews.com
navalinstitute.com.au
I would love to be a fly on the wall to witness their training methods and outcomes.Article from the ANI discussing the size of the PLAN. It compares the PRC shipbuilding to that of the US from 1941 - 1945 and states that the PRC probably built more ships in 2019 alone that the US did from 1941 - 45. No wonder the article states that the PLAN is now the worlds largest navy.
China has world’s biggest navy. Now what? | The Australian Naval Institute
It's also a conscript navy and I believe that the Soviet Navy had problems with their senior rates because they didn't have the experience, length of service or technical knowledge that a senior rate in a western navy would. So the tasks that many western senior rates performed would in the Soviet Navy be performed by officers. Since the PLA structured their forces along similar lines, I think that the same may be true in the PLAN. Perhaps @Feanor can confirm whether or not I am correct in my view of the senior rates of the Soviet Navy.
I recall that Soviet Navy conscripts served for 3 years, unlike for Soviet Army, for which conscript service was 2 years. That's probably enough time to learn a navy profession and then serve for a year or two. I hope that @Feanor can shine more light on this.
That seems a little unlikely; the US built more than ten thousand ships in WW2, about evenly spilt between warships and merships. OK, about half the warships were amphibious ships and craft of various sorts, but there were still well over 1,000 combatants built, and that was mostly after 1940. I very much doubt the PRC built anywhere near that number in a single year.Article from the ANI discussing the size of the PLAN. It compares the PRC shipbuilding to that of the US from 1941 - 1945 and states that the PRC probably built more ships in 2019 alone that the US did from 1941 - 45. No wonder the article states that the PLAN is now the worlds largest navy.
China has world’s biggest navy. Now what? | The Australian Naval Institute
This is true for all branches of the Soviet military. A heavier load was placed on officer billets, and more officers were staffed in proportion to enlisted. With that, it is as SolarWind said, the VMF always had longer service times then the Land Forces. I can't speak for the PLAN.
www.navalnews.com
So they haven't got the flux capacitor physics and engineering sorted yet. Maybe they haven't got access to any dilithium crystals. They cannot be artificially made.Edit in progres
Wait....i just realize its 1 April today....
Revealed: China's New Super Submarine Dwarfs Typhoon Class - Naval News
The new submarine, identified as the Type-100 Class, is armed with 48 Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs). It can also carry ginormous nuclear-powered nuclear-armed autonomous torpedoes. And a hangar on its back indicates a smaller submarine will also be supported. There is no doubt...
I am sure they will soon reverse engineer the dilithium crystals and then illegally copy them.
I really still tought this is April fool from Naval News..
and if it is..then it"s a good one. Haven't touch news from morning. Hectic day in work.
I was reading the Navalnews article and then sharing it during my dayshift, so i didn't directly realize its 1 april today and that this is a 100% genuine fakenews article.I really still tought this is April fool from Naval News..
www.navalnews.com