The strategic landscape of the Indo-Pacific is being fundamentally reshaped by the modernization of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). China’s military doctrine has undergone a profound evolution, shifting from a posture focused on “local wars” on its periphery to preparing for high-intensity, multi-domain conflict against a peer competitor. This transformation is driven by a central concept that redefines modern warfare: the PLA no longer views conflict as a contest between individual platforms but as a “systems confrontation” between opposing operational networks. At the heart of this doctrine is the goal of waging “systems destruction warfare,” a concept predicated on achieving victory not through the simple attrition of enemy forces, but by inducing the catastrophic collapse of an adversary’s ability to sense, communicate, command, and control its forces.

This doctrinal shift towards “informatized” and “intelligentized” warfare mandates the deep integration of cyber, space, information, and autonomous platforms into all PLA operations, with the People’s Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) positioned as a primary instrument for executing both kinetic and non-kinetic effects. The objective is to shape the battlespace and achieve a swift, decisive victory by paralyzing the enemy’s decision-making cycle.

In response, the United States has embarked on its own doctrinal revolution. The development of Agile Combat Employment (ACE) and Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) represents a fundamental redesign of the U.S. force posture and command architecture. ACE seeks to mitigate vulnerability through dispersal and maneuver, while JADC2 aims to create a resilient, decentralized network that can withstand and fight through a systems-destruction attack. This emerging strategic dynamic is therefore a clash of competing philosophies: China’s effort to find and destroy the centralized nodes of our system versus our effort to decentralize and make that system inherently resilient.

It is critical to recognize that the PLA is not blind to its own limitations. Internal PLA assessments acknowledge significant gaps in the complex integration and joint capabilities required to fully realize their system-of-systems concept. This self-awareness drives them to pursue asymmetric strategies designed to exploit perceived U.S. dependencies and vulnerabilities, rather than engaging in a symmetric, platform-for-platform fight. The following analysis identifies the five most probable and impactful air combat strategies a PLAAF commander will employ to execute this doctrine and outlines the corresponding USAF counter-maneuvers designed to defeat them.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Key 5th-Generation Air Combat Platforms

Section 1: Strategy I – Systems Destruction: The Decapitation Strike

Adversary TTPs

The purest expression of the PLA’s “systems destruction warfare” doctrine is a multi-domain, synchronized decapitation strike executed in the opening moments of a conflict. The objective is not merely to inflict damage but to induce systemic paralysis by severing the command, control, and communications (C3) pathways that constitute the “brain and nervous system” of U.S. and allied forces. The PLAAF commander’s primary goal will be to collapse our ability to direct a coherent defense, creating chaos and decision-making paralysis that can be exploited by follow-on forces.

This attack will be meticulously planned and executed across multiple domains simultaneously. Kinetically, the PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) will launch waves of long-range precision-strike munitions, including theater ballistic and cruise missiles, against fixed, high-value C2 nodes such as Combined Air Operations Centers (CAOCs), major headquarters, and key satellite ground stations. Concurrently, the PLA’s Cyberspace Force (CSF) will unleash a barrage of offensive cyber operations designed to disrupt, degrade, and corrupt our command networks from within. This “information offense” is intended to destroy the integrity of our data and undermine trust in our own systems. In the electromagnetic spectrum, PLA electronic warfare (EW) assets will conduct widespread jamming of satellite communications and GPS signals, aiming to isolate deployed forces and sever their links to strategic command.

This physical and virtual assault will be augmented by operations in the space and cognitive domains. The PLA Aerospace Force (ASF) will likely employ a range of anti-satellite (ASAT) capabilities, from co-orbital kinetic kill vehicles to ground-based directed energy weapons, to blind our ISR satellites and degrade our PNT (positioning, navigation, and timing) constellations. Finally, a sophisticated cognitive warfare campaign will be launched, disseminating targeted disinformation to sow confusion among decision-makers and fracture the political will of the U.S. and its allies to respond effectively. This concept of “Social A2/AD” seeks to defeat a response before it can even be mounted by compromising the socio-political fabric of the target nation.

USAF Counter-Maneuver: The Resilient Network

The U.S. counter to a decapitation strategy is not to build thicker walls around our command centers but to eliminate them as single points of failure. The doctrinal response is rooted in the principles of decentralization and resilience, embodied by the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) framework. JADC2 is designed to create a distributed, self-healing, and resilient network that can absorb an initial blow and continue to function effectively, moving both data and decision-making authority to the tactical edge. If a primary C2 node is destroyed, its functions are seamlessly transferred to subordinate or alternate nodes across the network, ensuring operational continuity.

In this construct, the F-35 Lightning II fleet becomes a pivotal asset. With its advanced sensor fusion capabilities and robust, low-probability-of-intercept data links, a flight of F-35s can function as a forward-deployed, airborne C2 and ISR node. These aircraft can collect, process, and disseminate a comprehensive battlespace picture to other assets in the theater, effectively acting as the “quarterback of the skies” even if their connection to rear-echelon command has been severed. They transform from being mere strike platforms into the distributed “brain” of the combat force.

This distributed C2 architecture will be supported by a multi-layered and redundant communications network, leveraging proliferated low-Earth orbit (LEO) satellite constellations, resilient line-of-sight data links, and emerging technologies designed to operate in a heavily contested electromagnetic environment. Critically, this technological resilience is matched by a philosophical shift in command: the empowerment of tactical leaders through the principle of “mission command.” A key enabler of Agile Combat Employment, mission command grants subordinate commanders the authority to make decisions based on their understanding of the higher commander’s intent, rather than waiting for explicit instructions from a centralized headquarters. This accelerates our decision-making cycle, allowing us to operate inside the adversary’s, and turns the PLA’s attack on our physical C2 infrastructure into a strike against a target that is no longer there.

Section 2: Strategy II – The Long-Range Attrition Campaign: Hunting the Enablers

Adversary TTPs

Recognizing that U.S. airpower in the vast Indo-Pacific theater is critically dependent on a logistical backbone of high-value airborne assets (HVAAs), a PLAAF commander will execute a long-range attrition campaign designed to cripple our operational endurance and reach. The primary targets of this campaign are not our frontline fighters, but the “enablers” that support them: aerial refueling tankers (KC-46, KC-135), ISR platforms (AWACS, Rivet Joint), and other specialized support aircraft. By destroying these assets, the PLA can effectively ground entire fighter wings and achieve area denial without needing to win a direct confrontation.

The key instrument for this strategy is the combination of the J-20 stealth fighter and the PL-15 very-long-range air-to-air missile (AAM). The PLAAF will employ J-20s to leverage their low-observable characteristics, allowing them to bypass our fighter screens and penetrate deep into what we consider “safe” airspace. Their mission is not to engage in dogfights with F-22s, but to achieve a firing solution on HVAAs operating hundreds of miles behind the main line of conflict.

The PL-15 missile, with its estimated operational range of 200-300 km and a dual-pulsed rocket motor that provides a terminal energy boost, is purpose-built for this task. The missile’s capability allows a J-20 to launch from well beyond the engagement range of our own fighters’ AAMs, creating a significant standoff threat. As demonstrated in the 2025 India-Pakistan conflict, the effective range of the PL-15 can be dangerously underestimated, providing adversary pilots with a false sense of security and leading to catastrophic losses. A salvo of PL-15s fired at a tanker formation forces a stark choice: abort the refueling mission and concede operational reach, or risk destruction. This targeting process will be enabled by a networked system of sensors, including over-the-horizon radars and satellites, which can provide cuing data to the J-20s, allowing them to remain passive and undetected for as long as possible.

USAF Counter-Maneuver: The Layered Shield

Countering this long-range threat requires extending our integrated air defense far beyond the immediate combat zone to protect the logistical and ISR assets that form the foundation of our air campaign. This cannot be a purely defensive posture; it must be a proactive, multi-layered shield designed to hunt the archer before he can release his arrow.

The F-22 Raptor is the centerpiece of this counter-maneuver. Its primary mission in this scenario is offensive counter-air, specifically to hunt and destroy the J-20s that threaten our HVAAs. With its superior stealth characteristics, supercruise capability, and powerful AN/APG-77 AESA radar, the F-22 is the asset best equipped to detect, track, and engage a J-20 before it can reach its PL-15 launch parameters. Continuous modernization of the F-22 fleet, including upgraded sensors, software, and potentially podded IRST systems, is therefore a strategic imperative to maintain this critical qualitative edge.

Operating in coordination with the F-22s, flights of F-35s will act as a forward “sanitizer” screen for the HVAAs. Using their powerful, networked sensors like the Distributed Aperture System (DAS) to passively scan vast volumes of airspace, the F-35s will serve as a persistent early warning layer. They can detect the faint signatures of inbound stealth threats and use their data links to vector F-22s for the intercept, creating a networked hunter-killer team. This layered defense will be augmented by dedicated fighter escorts for HVAAs, a departure from recent operational norms. Furthermore, we must accelerate the development of next-generation, low-observable tankers and unmanned ISR platforms that can operate with greater survivability in contested environments. Finally, HVAAs themselves must adopt more dynamic and unpredictable operational patterns, employing strict emissions control (EMCON) and randomized orbits to complicate the PLA’s targeting problem.

Section 3: Strategy III – The A2/AD Saturation Attack: Overwhelming the Bubble

Adversary TTPs

A central pillar of China’s military strategy is the creation of a formidable Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) capability designed to make it prohibitively costly for U.S. forces to operate within the First and Second Island Chains. In a conflict, a PLAAF commander will leverage this capability to execute a massive, synchronized, multi-domain saturation attack aimed at overwhelming the defensive capacity of a key operational hub, such as a Carrier Strike Group (CSG) or a major airbase like Kadena or Andersen.

The execution of this strategy will involve coordinated waves of aircraft designed to saturate defenses through sheer mass. J-20s, potentially operating in a “beast mode” configuration with externally mounted munitions, will sacrifice some stealth for overwhelming firepower to engage defending fighters and suppress air defenses. They will be followed by large formations of J-16 strike fighters and H-6 bombers launching salvos of advanced munitions, including the YJ-12 supersonic anti-ship cruise missile. These manned platforms will be augmented by swarms of unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs) and smaller drones, which will be used to confuse and saturate defensive radars, act as decoys, conduct electronic jamming, and carry out their own kinetic strikes against critical defensive systems like radar arrays and missile launchers.

This aerial assault will occur simultaneously with a multi-axis missile barrage from other domains. The PLA Rocket Force will launch salvos of DF-21D and DF-26 “carrier killer” anti-ship ballistic missiles (ASBMs), while PLA Navy warships and coastal defense batteries contribute their own volleys of cruise missiles. The entire operation is designed to present a defending force with an insurmountable number of threats arriving from multiple vectors—high and low, supersonic and subsonic, stealthy and conventional—in an extremely compressed timeframe. This complex strike package is enabled and coordinated by a vast C4ISR network of satellites, over-the-horizon radars, and forward-deployed sensors that provide the real-time targeting data necessary to find, fix, and engage U.S. forces.

USAF Counter-Maneuver: Agile Combat Employment (ACE)

The doctrinal counter to a saturation attack is not to build an impenetrable shield, but to deny the adversary a concentrated target. Agile Combat Employment (ACE) is the USAF’s operational concept for maneuver and dispersal, designed to fundamentally break the adversary’s targeting model by complicating it to the point of failure. ACE shifts air operations from large, centralized, and vulnerable Main Operating Bases (MOBs) to a distributed network of smaller, dispersed locations.

Instead of concentrating combat power on a few well-known airfields, ACE prescribes the dispersal of forces into smaller, more agile packages across a wide array of locations, including allied military bases, smaller contingency airfields, and even civilian airports in a “hub-and-spoke” model. This forces the PLA to divide its limited inventory of high-end munitions against dozens of potential targets rather than a few, drastically diluting the effectiveness of a saturation strike. ACE, however, is not static dispersal; it is a “proactive and reactive operational scheme of maneuver”. Force packages will constantly shift between these dispersed locations based on threat assessments and operational needs, making it impossible for the PLA to predict where U.S. combat power will be generated from at any given time.

This operational concept is enabled by two key innovations: Multi-Capable Airmen (MCAs) and pre-positioned materiel. MCAs are personnel trained in multiple skill sets outside their primary specialty, such as aircraft refueling, re-arming, and basic security. This allows a small, lean team to deploy to an austere location, rapidly service and relaunch aircraft, and then redeploy, minimizing the logistical footprint and personnel vulnerability at any single site. To support these rapid “turn and burn” operations, the “posture” element of ACE requires the pre-positioning of fuel, munitions, and essential equipment at these dispersed locations. By transforming our airpower from a fixed, predictable target into a distributed, mobile, and resilient force, ACE imposes immense cost, complexity, and uncertainty onto the adversary’s targeting cycle.

Section 4: Strategy IV – The Stealth Quarterback: J-20 as a Forward Battle Manager

Adversary TTPs

Beyond its role as an interceptor, the PLAAF is developing sophisticated tactics to leverage the J-20’s stealth and advanced sensors as a forward battle manager, enabling strikes by a network of non-stealthy platforms. This represents a mature application of their “network-centric warfare” concept, mirroring some of the most advanced U.S. operational constructs. The objective is to use the J-20 as a survivable, forward-deployed sensor to create a high-fidelity targeting picture deep within contested airspace, which is then used to direct standoff attacks from “arsenal planes.”

In this scenario, a small element of J-20s would penetrate U.S. and allied air defenses, employing strict EMCON procedures. They would use their suite of passive and low-emission sensors—including their AESA radar in a low-probability-of-intercept mode, their chin-mounted IRST, and their 360-degree electro-optical systems—to build a detailed, real-time picture of our force disposition without emitting signals that would betray their own position.

Once high-value targets are identified and tracked, the J-20 acts as a “quarterback,” using a secure, LPI data link to transmit precise targeting information to shooters operating outside the range of our primary air defenses. These shooters could be J-16 strike fighters laden with long-range air-to-air or anti-ship missiles, or even PLA Navy surface combatants. The introduction of the twin-seat J-20S variant is a significant force multiplier for this tactic. It is not a trainer; it is a dedicated combat aircraft where the second crew member can act as a weapons systems officer and battle manager, focused on processing sensor data, controlling unmanned “loyal wingman” drones, and managing the flow of targeting data to the network. This frees the pilot to concentrate on the demanding tasks of flying and surviving in a high-threat environment and signals a clear commitment to advanced, “intelligentized” manned-unmanned teaming.

USAF Counter-Maneuver: Shattering the Network

Defeating the “stealth quarterback” strategy requires attacking the entire kill chain, not just the platform itself. The counter-maneuver must focus on both detecting the J-20 and, just as critically, severing the fragile data links that connect the forward sensor to its shooters.

Detecting a low-observable platform like the J-20 requires a multi-spectrum, networked approach to counter-stealth. No single sensor is likely to maintain a consistent track. Instead, a composite track file will be built by fusing intermittent data from a distributed network of sensors. This network includes the F-35’s 360-degree DAS, the F-22’s powerful AESA radar, space-based infrared warning systems, and naval assets like Aegis-equipped destroyers. Once the network establishes a probable track of a hostile stealth aircraft, the F-22 Raptor is vectored to prosecute the target. As the premier air dominance fighter, the F-22’s unique combination of stealth, speed, and advanced avionics makes it the most effective platform for the lethal end of the counter-stealth mission: hunting and destroying other stealth aircraft.

Simultaneously, U.S. electronic warfare assets, such as the EA-18G Growler, will focus on jamming and disrupting the specific LPI data links the J-20 relies on to communicate with its network of shooters. If this link can be broken, the J-20 is transformed from a potent battle manager into an isolated sensor, unable to guide weapons to their targets. This EW assault will be complemented by the use of sophisticated decoys and deception techniques. By feeding the J-20’s advanced sensors with false targets and conflicting information, we can sow confusion, cause it to misdirect its shooters, or force it to emit more powerful radar signals to verify the data, thereby revealing its own position. This creates a complex battle of stealthy networks, where victory belongs to the side that can best manage its own signature while detecting and disrupting the enemy’s.

Section 5: Strategy V – Vertical Envelopment: The Airfield Seizure

Adversary TTPs

In a potential conflict over Taiwan, a high-risk, high-reward strategy available to the PLA is a vertical envelopment operation using airborne forces to rapidly seize critical infrastructure. The objective would be to capture key airports or seaports, bypassing Taiwan’s heavily defended coastal landing zones. This would create a strategic lodgment for the rapid introduction of follow-on forces and supplies, potentially unhinging the island’s entire defense plan. This is a fundamentally joint operation in which the PLAAF serves as the critical enabler.

The execution would involve the PLAAF’s growing fleet of Y-20 strategic transport aircraft, tasked with airlifting elements of the PLAAF Airborne Corps. These airborne units are no longer lightly armed paratroopers; they have been modernized into combined-arms brigades equipped with their own light armored fighting vehicles, artillery, and drones. Furthermore, they have benefited from Russian training in advanced airborne command and control systems, enhancing their operational effectiveness.

Such an operation is only feasible if the PLAAF can establish and maintain a temporary bubble of local air superiority over the designated landing zones. This implies that the preceding strategies—the decapitation strike and A2/AD saturation attack—must have been at least partially successful in degrading or suppressing Taiwanese and U.S. air defense capabilities. The slow and vulnerable Y-20 transports would require a heavy fighter escort of J-20s, J-16s, and J-10s to fend off interceptors, along with dedicated Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD) and EW aircraft to neutralize any remaining surface-to-air missile (SAM) threats.

USAF Counter-Maneuver: Interdicting the Assault

Countering a vertical envelopment presents a time-critical targeting problem. The transport aircraft must be engaged and destroyed before they can land and disgorge their troops and equipment. Failure to interdict this force in transit could dramatically and perhaps decisively alter the course of the ground campaign.

The first priority is to engage the transport force at the maximum possible range. U.S. stealth fighters, the F-22 and F-35, will be tasked with penetrating the Chinese fighter escort screen to target the high-value Y-20s. The transports themselves are large, non-maneuvering targets, making them ideal for long-range AAM engagements. The success of this interdiction mission hinges on our ability to win the preceding battle for air superiority, creating windows of opportunity for our fighters to strike.

This mission cannot be undertaken by the USAF alone; it demands seamless coordination with allied forces. The Republic of China Air Force (ROCAF) and the Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) would form crucial layers of the defense, engaging the transport force as it approaches the island. Beyond air assets, U.S. Navy submarines can play a vital role by launching precision cruise missile strikes against the designated landing airfields on Taiwan. By cratering the runways, these strikes could prevent the Y-20s from landing even if they manage to penetrate the air defenses. Finally, if ISR capabilities permit, long-range strikes will be launched against the airfields on the mainland from which the airborne assault is being staged, aiming to destroy the transports on the ground before they can even take off. This brittle but powerful PLA operation represents a strategic center of gravity; its decisive defeat would have a disproportionate psychological and operational impact on the entire invasion effort.

Conclusion: Winning the Contest of Speed and Resilience

An air confrontation with the People’s Liberation Army Air Force will not be a simple contest of platform versus platform. It will be a dynamic and complex struggle between two highly capable, networked, and intelligent military systems, each guided by a distinct and coherent operational doctrine. The PLAAF’s strategies are not merely a collection of tactics; they are an integrated approach designed to execute a “systems destruction” campaign aimed at the core tenets of traditional American power projection: our centralized command, our logistical reach, and our forward-based posture.

Victory in this new era of air combat will not be determined by marginal advantages in aircraft performance or weapon range. It will be decided by which side can more effectively execute its core doctrine under the immense pressures of multi-domain conflict. The central questions are clear: Can the PLA successfully orchestrate the immense complexity of a synchronized, multi-domain “systems destruction” strike? And conversely, can the United States successfully execute a distributed, resilient, and agile “systems preservation” and counter-attack through the principles of ACE and JADC2?

The ultimate U.S. advantage in this contest lies not in any single piece of hardware, but in the synergistic combination of our advanced technology, our evolving doctrine, and our unmatched network of capable allies and partners. While the PLA has made enormous strides, it remains a force that would largely fight alone in a major conflict. In contrast, U.S. operational plans are deeply integrated with the formidable capabilities of allies such as Japan, Australia, and South Korea. This coalition creates a strategic dilemma for China that is exponentially more complex than a simple bilateral confrontation. The integrated power of this combined, networked, and resilient joint force remains our most potent and enduring advantage in the contest for air dominance.

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly contribute towards our continued reporting, please visit our funding page.

Sources Used

1. Mapping the Recent Trends in China’s Military Modernisation – 2025, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.orfonline.org/research/mapping-the-recent-trends-in-china-s-military-modernisation-2025
2. The Cognitive Crucible Episode #113 Jeff Engstrom on Chinese Systems Warfare, accessed October 3, 2025, https://information-professionals.org/episode/cognitive-crucible-episode-113/
3. Gaining Victory in Systems Warfare: China’s Perspective on the U.S. …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1535-1.html
4. Gaining Victory in Systems Warfare (China’s Perspective on the U.S.-China Military Balance) – RAND Corp : r/CredibleDefense – Reddit, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.reddit.com/r/CredibleDefense/comments/11s2fnv/gaining_victory_in_systems_warfare_chinas/
5. Finding the Right Model: The Joint Force, the People’s Liberation Army, and Information Warfare – Air University, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/3371164/finding-the-right-model-the-joint-force-the-peoples-liberation-army-and-informa/
6. Defense Primer: Agile Combat Employment (ACE) Concept – Congress.gov, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF12694/IF12694.4.pdf
7. Joint All-Domain Command and Control – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_All-Domain_Command_and_Control
8. Defense Primer: Agile Combat Employment (ACE) Concept – Congress.gov, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12694
9. Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control Strategy – DoD, accessed October 3, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf
10. Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-22_Raptor
11. F-22 Raptor – Lockheed Martin, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-22.html
12. About the F-35, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.f35.com/f35/about.html
13. 5th Gen Capabilities – F-35 Lightning II, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.f35.com/f35/about/5th-gen-capabilities.html
14. J-20 Mighty Dragon vs. the World: 5 Strengths That Make China’s Stealth Jet a Problem, accessed October 3, 2025, https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/j-20-mighty-dragon-vs-the-world-5-strengths-that-make-chinas-stealth-jet-a-problem/
15. Chengdu J-20 – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20
16. Lockheed Eyes Upgrades For Oldest F-22 Raptors – The War Zone, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.twz.com/air/lockheed-eyes-upgrades-for-oldest-f-22-raptors
17. AIR COMBAT COMMAND – AF.mil, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.388fw.acc.af.mil/Portals/103/F35A_LightningII_ACC%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
18. F-35A Lightning II > Air Force > Fact Sheet Display – AF.mil, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/478441/f-35a-lightning-ii/
19. Does China’s J-20 Rival Other Stealth Fighters? | ChinaPower Project, accessed October 3, 2025, https://chinapower.csis.org/china-chengdu-j-20/
20. F-35 Lightning II | Lockheed Martin, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/f-35.html
21. PL-15 (Thunderbolt-15) Chinese Active Radar-Guided Very Long Range Air-to-Air Missile, accessed October 3, 2025, https://odin.tradoc.army.mil/WEG/Asset/PL-15_(Thunderbolt-15)_Chinese_Active_Radar-Guided_Very_Long_Range_Air-to-Air_Missile
22. GAO-23-105495, BATTLE MANAGEMENT: DOD and Air Force Continue to Define Joint Command and Control Efforts, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105495.pdf
23. China’s J-20S Stealth Fighter Explained in 3 Words – The National Interest, accessed October 3, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/chinas-j-20s-stealth-fighter-explained-3-words-213676
24. Anti-access/area denial – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-access/area_denial
25. Chinese information operations and information warfare – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_information_operations_and_information_warfare
26. The Challenge of Dis-Integrating A2/AD Zone: How Emerging Technologies Are Shifting the Balance Back to the Defense – NDU Press, accessed October 3, 2025, https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media/News/News-Article-View/Article/2106488/the-challenge-of-dis-integrating-a2ad-zone-how-emerging-technologies-are-shifti/
27. Social Antiaccess/Area-Denial (Social A2/AD) – Marine Corps University, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-vol-12-no-1/Social-Antiaccess-Area-Denial-Social-A2-AD/
28. Joint All-Domain Command and Control – JADC2 – SAIC, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.saic.com/what-we-do/mission-it/jadc2
29. Pathways to Implementing Comprehensive and Collaborative JADC2 – CSIS, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/pathways-implementing-comprehensive-and-collaborative-jadc2
30. AGILE COMBAT EMPLOYMENT – Air Force Doctrine, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.doctrine.af.mil/Portals/61/documents/AFDN_1-21/AFDN%201-21%20ACE.pdf
31. PL-15 Abaddon Missile – CAT-UXO, accessed October 3, 2025, https://cat-uxo.com/explosive-hazards/missiles/pl-15-missile
32. PL-15 – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PL-15
33. India Paid the Price for Underestimating China’s PL-15 Missiles …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/india-paid-price-underestimating-chinas-pl-15-missiles-ps-080625
34. We Know Why the Air Force is Pouring Money Into the F-22 Raptor, accessed October 3, 2025, https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/we-know-why-the-air-force-is-pouring-money-into-the-f-22-raptor/
35. China’s A2/AD strategy – Fly a jet fighter, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.flyajetfighter.com/chinas-a2-ad-strategy/
36. China’s Anti-Access/Area-Denial Strategy – TDHJ.org, accessed October 3, 2025, https://tdhj.org/blog/post/china-a2ad-strategy/
37. China’s J-20 Flying in ‘Beast Mode’ Again with Eight Air-to-Air Missiles – The Aviationist, accessed October 3, 2025, https://theaviationist.com/2025/09/29/china-j-20-beast-mode-again/
38. YJ-12 | Weaponsystems.net, accessed October 3, 2025, https://weaponsystems.net/system/1221-YJ-12
39. China builds smaller but more capable air force – Defence Blog, accessed October 3, 2025, https://defence-blog.com/china-builds-smaller-but-more-capable-air-force/
40. Attaining All-domain Control: China’s Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) Capabilities in the South China Sea – Pacific Forum, accessed October 3, 2025, https://pacforum.org/publications/issues-insights-issues-and-insights-volume-25-wp-2-attaining-all-domain-control-chinas-anti-access-area-denial-a2-ad-capabilities-in-the-south-china-sea/
41. Agile Combat Employment Interoperability and Integration – Air University, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Wild-Blue-Yonder/Articles/Article-Display/Article/4008841/agile-combat-employment-interoperability-and-integration/
42. Agile Combat Employment – Joint Air Power Competence Centre, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.japcc.org/articles/agile-combat-employment/
43. CSAF signs Agile Combat Employment doctrine note – Joint Base Charleston, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.jbcharleston.jb.mil/News/Article/2887386/csaf-signs-agile-combat-employment-doctrine-note/
44. Russia quietly arming China’s paratroopers for Taiwan fight – Asia Times, accessed October 3, 2025, https://asiatimes.com/2025/10/russia-quietly-arming-chinas-paratroopers-for-taiwan-fight/

Russia is helping prepare China to attack Taiwan, documents suggest, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2025/09/26/russia-china-weapons-sales-air-assault/

This report provides a strategic assessment of the primary operational strategies that a People’s Liberation Army (PLA) commander will employ in a land confrontation with United States forces. It further outlines the corresponding counter-strategies that a US commander must be prepared to execute to seize the initiative and achieve decisive outcomes. The foundational premise of this analysis is that any future conflict with the PLA will not be a traditional war of attrition focused on the destruction of opposing mechanized forces. Instead, it will be a “systems confrontation”. The PLA’s overarching operational doctrine, “Systems Destruction Warfare” (系統破壞戰), is designed not to annihilate but to paralyze the US operational system by disrupting its critical functions and shattering its cohesion. This philosophy permeates every facet of their warfighting doctrine and capability development, transforming the modern battlefield into a contest between opposing operational systems.

The PLA’s doctrinal evolution has been rapid and deliberate. It has transitioned from its historical roots in a “people’s war” concept to a focus on fighting and winning “informatized local wars”. This shift, heavily influenced by observations of US military operations, moved the PLA’s doctrinal focus from being weapon platform-centric to being cyber- and network-centric. The PLA is now aggressively advancing toward “intelligentized warfare,” a future form of conflict supported primarily by artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. This evolution is not merely a technological upgrade; it represents a fundamental change in their theory of victory. The ultimate goal is to achieve decision dominance by disrupting and collapsing the adversary’s Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act (OODA) loop, rendering them unable to respond coherently.

Critically, any assessment of the PLA’s military strategy must begin with an understanding of its political nature. The PLA is not the army of the Chinese state; it is the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Its primary mission, above all else, is the defense of the Party and its continued rule. This political reality is the bedrock upon which its command structure, doctrine, and battlefield conduct are built. Consequently, political warfare is not an ancillary or supporting effort for the PLA; it is an inseparable and central component of its military operations, fully integrated into its concept of systems destruction.

A surface-level analysis of PLA doctrine reveals a significant degree of imitation. Concepts such as “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” (MDPW) and “informatized warfare” appear to “mirror,” “replicate,” or “copy” US military concepts like Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) and net-centric warfare. The PLA is clearly observing and learning from the US military, adopting analogous terminology and pursuing similar technological goals, including networked C4ISR, AI integration, and multi-domain precision strike. However, this mirroring masks a fundamental and exploitable asymmetry. The underlying command philosophies of the two forces are diametrically opposed. The United States is developing JADC2 to empower and accelerate a decentralized Mission Command philosophy, which relies on disciplined initiative at the lowest echelons. The PLA, in contrast, is developing MDPW to enhance and enforce a rigidly centralized, top-down command structure where deviation from the Party’s directives is impermissible.

The PLA is not simply adopting US methods. It is attempting to harness the speed and lethality of a networked force without accepting the political risks associated with decentralized authority, a concept that is anathema to the CCP’s existential need for absolute control. AI and automation are being pursued as a technological solution to a political problem: how to shorten the OODA loop without empowering subordinate commanders. This creates a critical vulnerability. The PLA’s entire operational system is becoming increasingly dependent on a complex, technologically advanced, yet philosophically brittle, centralized architecture. While their system may look like ours on the surface, its “brain” is singular and centralized, making it susceptible to systemic shock. Disrupting their network is not merely a degradation of their command and control (C2); it is a fundamental attack on their entire command philosophy, one that can lead to systemic paralysis. This report will analyze the five key strategies the PLA will employ based on this doctrine and the corresponding US counters designed to exploit these inherent vulnerabilities.

I. Strategy 1: Information Paralysis – Seizing Dominance in the Electro-Cyber Domain

The PLA Commander’s Approach: Integrated Network Electronic Warfare (INEW)

The PLA’s opening salvo in any land confrontation will not be kinetic; it will be an all-out assault on the information domain. PLA doctrine views information as the central resource on the modern battlefield and cyberspace as a primary domain of conflict, co-equal with land, sea, and air. Their primary objective is to achieve information dominance in the earliest phases of a conflict, possibly preemptively, to create “blind spots” and decision-making paralysis within US forces before significant ground combat is joined. This strategy is designed to fragment the US operational system into isolated components, rendering it less than the sum of its parts.

This offensive will be executed by the PLA’s Cyberspace Force, a strategic arm established in April 2024 from the cyberwarfare capabilities of the former Strategic Support Force (SSF). This organization consolidates China’s space, cyber, electronic warfare (EW), and psychological warfare capabilities into a single, integrated force designed to secure the information domain. Their operational approach is “Integrated Network Electronic Warfare” (INEW), which calls for the simultaneous and coordinated application of computer network attacks (CNA) and EW against the entirety of the US C4ISR architecture.

The tactical application of INEW will be multi-faceted and relentless:

• Disrupting Sensors and Data Links: The PLA has invested heavily in ground- and air-based jammers and spoofing systems designed to interfere with wireless communications, tactical data links, radar systems, and GPS signals. The goal is to sever the connections between US sensors and shooters, breaking the kill chains that underpin our precision-strike capabilities. This includes jamming low-orbit satellites and degrading SATCOM links that are vital for beyond-line-of-sight communications.
• Degrading Command Nodes: The PLA’s Cyberspace Force will conduct offensive cyber operations targeting our command posts, logistics hubs, and critical infrastructure. These attacks will aim to disrupt, degrade, or destroy networks by manipulating or corrupting data, deploying ransomware, and executing distributed denial-of-service attacks to slow our decision-making and erode confidence in our own information systems.
• Counter-Space Operations: Recognizing US dependence on space-based assets, the PLA will employ a range of counter-space capabilities. This includes co-orbital anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, direct-ascent kinetic kill vehicles, and ground-based directed energy weapons and jammers designed to deny US forces access to space-based ISR, communication, and PNT (Positioning, Navigation, and Timing) assets.

A critical element of this strategy is the PLA’s concept of “peacetime-wartime integration”. This doctrine posits that effective cyber warfare is an unending activity that seamlessly transitions across the spectrum of conflict. Therefore, PLA cyber activities—such as intelligence gathering, mapping critical infrastructure, operational preparation of the environment (OPE), and pre-positioning malicious code on vulnerable networks—are not activities that will begin at the onset of hostilities. They are continuous operations that will simply intensify, aiming to achieve decisive effects before the first shot is fired.

The US Commander’s Response: Assured C2 through Network Resilience and Offensive Cyber

The US response to the PLA’s information paralysis strategy is not predicated on building an impenetrable, static network defense. Such a defense is impossible against a peer adversary with the resources and capabilities of the PLA. Instead, our core response is to build and operate a resilient network architecture that can “fight through” sustained attacks and continue to enable effective command and control. This philosophy of resilience is the central technological and doctrinal pillar of our Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept.

Our approach to achieving this resilience is multi-layered:

• Technical Resilience: We will execute a robust Primary, Alternate, Contingency, and Emergency (PACE) communications plan built upon the principle of transport diversity. This involves creating and maintaining multiple, redundant communication pathways for data to travel, leveraging a hybrid network of Low Earth Orbit (LEO), Medium Earth Orbit (MEO), and Geostationary Orbit (GEO) SATCOM; high-capacity terrestrial microwave and fiber; and line-of-sight optical communication systems. Automated network management systems will intelligently and seamlessly route data over the best available pathway, automatically switching when a primary link is degraded or jammed, often without the user even noticing. To harden our signals, we will employ advanced techniques such as frequency-hopping waveforms, low probability of intercept/low probability of detection (LPI/LPD) transmissions, advanced encryption standards, and complex modulation schemes to make it more difficult for the adversary to detect, target, and disrupt our communications.
• Organizational Resilience: The US Army’s Multi-Domain Task Forces (MDTFs) are the primary organizational tool for this fight. At the heart of each MDTF is the Multi-Domain Effects Battalion (MDEB), a unique formation that integrates cyber, EW, space, intelligence, and information operations capabilities. The MDEB is our maneuver element in the electro-cyber domain. Its mission is not only to defend our own networks but to conduct offensive operations to disrupt the PLA’s C4ISR system. The MDEB will actively sense the electromagnetic environment, identify and locate PLA emitters and network nodes, and then deliver converged non-kinetic effects—jamming, spoofing, and cyber-attacks—to degrade their ability to command their forces.
• Doctrinal Resilience (JADC2): JADC2 is fundamentally designed to function in a contested, degraded, and intermittent communications environment. By establishing a data-centric enterprise—where data is uncoupled from specific systems and made available to all authorized users—and employing AI-enabled processing at the edge, JADC2 can rapidly re-route information from any available sensor, fuse data from disparate sources, and provide commanders with a “good enough” common operational picture to continue making timely and effective decisions. JADC2 accepts that some nodes will be lost; its purpose is to ensure that the loss of individual nodes does not lead to the collapse of the entire system.

The PLA’s sophisticated doctrine for EW, which outlines a comprehensive campaign plan for achieving electromagnetic dominance, reveals their strategic calculus. Their “Systems Destruction” doctrine correctly identifies an adversary’s C4ISR network as the primary center of gravity in modern warfare. The electromagnetic spectrum (EMS) is the physical terrain upon which this network operates. Therefore, a PLA commander will not view the fight for control of the EMS as a supporting effort; it will be the main effort in the initial phase of any conflict. Their doctrine is explicit: “Whoever controls the EMS…will retain enormous advantages in securing victory”. This necessitates a paradigm shift in our own thinking. We must treat the EMS as maneuver space, on par with land, sea, and air. Our MDEBs cannot be held in reserve or treated as specialized support assets. They must be deployed forward and postured to compete for and establish pockets of electromagnetic superiority from the very outset of hostilities. Our ability to maneuver and win in the physical domains will be directly contingent on our ability to win, or at a minimum achieve a stalemate, in the EMS. This elevates the role of the EW and Cyber operator from that of a supporting specialist to a primary combatant in the opening hours of a modern conflict.

II. Strategy 2: Political Disintegration – The “Three Warfares” on the Battlefield

The PLA Commander’s Approach: Weaponizing Narrative and Law

A PLA commander will view the cognitive and political domains as a battlefield co-equal to the physical domains. For the PLA, political warfare is not an adjunct to military operations; it is a “central pillar” of their strategy and a “critical component of systems destruction warfare”. The objective of this warfare is to achieve victory before the decisive battle is even fought by weakening our will to fight, fracturing our alliances, shaping our strategic assessments, and undermining the morale of our soldiers. This approach is encapsulated in the doctrine of the “Three Warfares” (三戰), which will be employed directly and continuously against our deployed forces, our leadership, and our home front.

The “Three Warfares” will be integrated into every phase of a PLA operation:

• Public Opinion Warfare (輿論戰): The PLA will leverage the CCP’s vast state-controlled media apparatus and its sophisticated social media manipulation capabilities to wage a global information campaign. This will involve disseminating targeted disinformation and propaganda through every available channel to erode US domestic support for the conflict, create and exacerbate rifts between the US and its regional allies, and portray US military actions as aggressive, illegitimate, or incompetent. The goal is to isolate the US politically and create domestic pressure to de-escalate or withdraw.
• Psychological Warfare (心理戰): This warfare will be aimed directly at the minds of US soldiers and commanders. The PLA will conduct tailored psychological operations (PSYOP) designed to instill fear, doubt, and a sense of hopelessness. Tactics will likely include the use of AI-generated deepfakes to create false orders or demoralizing messages from supposed US leaders, exploiting any captured US personnel for coerced “confessions” or propaganda statements—a tactic with deep historical roots in PLA operations from the Korean War—and flooding tactical networks and social media with content designed to create a sense of futility and undermine trust in leadership.
• Legal Warfare (法律戰 or “Lawfare”): The PLA will weaponize international and domestic legal frameworks to constrain US military action. This involves meticulously crafting operations to appear compliant with international law while simultaneously lodging legal challenges and protests that accuse the US of violations. The objective is to challenge the legality of US deployments and operations, restrict our Rules of Engagement (ROE), create hesitation and delay in our decision-making cycles by bogging down commanders and policymakers in legal reviews, and ultimately achieve strategic paralysis through legal ambiguity.

These three “warfares” are not separate lines of effort; they are a converged, mutually reinforcing campaign. A psychological operation targeting US soldiers might be amplified by a public opinion campaign at home, which is then reinforced by a legal challenge at the United Nations. The cumulative effect is intended to disintegrate the political and psychological cohesion of the US operational system.

The US Commander’s Response: Seizing the Narrative and Hardening the Force

To defeat this strategy, we must recognize that we are engaged in an information and political fight from “Phase 0,” long before any shots are fired. Our response cannot be reactive; it must be a proactive campaign of narrative control and comprehensive force inoculation.

Our counter-strategy will be built on the following pillars:

• Proactive Counter-Narrative: We cannot cede the information environment to the adversary. We must develop and articulate a clear, concise, and persistent counter-political warfare strategy. This involves educating our own forces, the American public, and our international partners about the PLA’s methods and objectives. Our Public Affairs elements must be empowered to rapidly deconstruct and expose PLA disinformation. We will “pre-bunk” likely PLA narratives by anticipating their lines of attack and preemptively providing factual context. We must aggressively and transparently highlight the PLA’s coercive, deceptive, and aggressive actions to seize and maintain the initiative in the global narrative.
• Force Resilience and Cognitive Hardening: Our training must evolve to prepare soldiers for the cognitive battlefield. This includes mandatory “cognitive hardening” programs that educate every soldier on the nature of PLA PSYOP, including specific training on identifying deepfakes, resisting social media manipulation, and understanding the historical precedent of the PLA’s use of POWs for propaganda purposes. Critically, this requires reinforcing information discipline and operational security (OPSEC) at all levels, from the individual soldier to the command post, to deny the PLA the raw material for their psychological and public opinion campaigns.
• Legal Preparation and Integration: Our legal teams (JAG) must be fully integrated into the operational planning process from the very beginning. They will not be consulted merely for review; they will be part of the design of operations. Their role is to anticipate and prepare robust responses to likely PLA lawfare tactics, ensuring that our ROE are clear, legally defensible, and provide commanders with the necessary operational flexibility. We must be prepared to counter their legal arguments swiftly and authoritatively on the international stage, defending the legitimacy of our actions.
• Organizational Empowerment: US Army Civil Affairs, Psychological Operations (PSYOP), and Public Affairs units are our primary maneuver arms in this non-physical domain. They must be resourced, trained, and empowered to compete effectively against the PLA’s whole-of-government approach to information warfare. This requires deep integration with the intelligence community and interagency partners to ensure their efforts are synchronized and effective.

The PLA’s long and documented history of using intense indoctrination and psychological coercion on prisoners of war is not merely a historical footnote; it is a window into their strategic mindset. Their doctrine explicitly aims to “weaken the enemy’s will to fight” as a primary line of effort. Western military tradition often treats morale as an outcome of physical combat—if you win the battle, morale will be high. The PLA, however, stemming from its revolutionary and CCP roots, views the psychological state of the enemy as a distinct center of gravity to be actively targeted, degraded, and shattered. The goal of their PSYOP is not simply to demoralize, but to induce “lasting behavioral changes” and create a stream of propaganda that serves their strategic objectives. In the 21st century, this means that every US soldier with a smartphone is a potential target for tailored, AI-driven psychological attacks designed to undermine their trust in their leaders, their faith in their mission, and their connection to their country. This reality demands that our definition of force protection expand beyond the physical domains of armor and fortifications. We must implement and institutionalize robust “cognitive force protection” measures. This requires a paradigm shift in training and leadership, where commanders at every level are held responsible for the psychological and informational resilience of their troops with the same gravity and seriousness they apply to physical security, maintenance, and combat readiness.

III. Strategy 3: Stand-off Strike – The “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” Kill Web

The PLA Commander’s Approach: Achieving Victory through Fires

The PLA’s core operational concept for the kinetic fight is “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” (MDPW). This concept is the physical manifestation of their “Systems Destruction Warfare” doctrine. It leverages a vast, networked C4ISR system, increasingly enhanced by big data analytics and AI, to rapidly identify key vulnerabilities and critical nodes in the US operational system and then launch overwhelming, multi-axis precision strikes against them. Instead of seeking to close with and destroy US ground forces in direct combat, the PLA commander will attempt to achieve victory from a distance, using their massive arsenal of Long-Range Precision Fires (LRPF) to attack the nodes that provide our system with its cohesion and lethality—our command posts, logistics hubs, air and missile defense sites, and concentrations of forces.

This strategy is enabled by a formidable and growing suite of capabilities:

• Massed Rocket and Cannon Artillery: The PLA has made significant breakthroughs in MRLS (Multiple Rocket Launcher Systems) and self-propelled artillery. Systems like the PHL-03 and the newer PHL-16 are not simply area-fire weapons; they are precision-strike systems capable of launching guided rockets to ranges of 70-130 km and over 220 km, respectively. The PHL-16 is reportedly capable of launching tactical ballistic missiles, blurring the line between conventional artillery and strategic assets. These systems will be used to provide a high volume of precision fires against tactical and operational targets.
• Ballistic and Hypersonic Missiles: The PLA Rocket Force (PLARF) is a separate service branch that controls the world’s largest and most diverse arsenal of conventional land-based ballistic and cruise missiles. This includes hundreds of short-range (SRBM), medium-range (MRBM), and intermediate-range (IRBM) ballistic missiles, as well as ground-launched cruise missiles. The introduction of hypersonic glide vehicles, which are highly maneuverable and travel at speeds greater than Mach 5, is designed specifically to defeat advanced air and missile defense systems and hold critical fixed sites like ports, airfields, and command centers at risk from hundreds or thousands of kilometers away.
• Integrated Targeting Kill Chain: The lethality of these strike systems is entirely dependent on a robust, multi-domain “system-of-systems” for targeting. The PLA has invested heavily in a network of ISR satellites, over-the-horizon radars, electronic intelligence platforms, and a growing fleet of UAVs to find, fix, track, and target US forces across the theater. This network is designed to provide high-fidelity, real-time targeting information to their shooters, enabling them to strike both static and mobile targets with precision at extended ranges.

The PLA commander’s intent will be to use this kill web to establish an anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) environment, attriting our forces as they deploy into the theater and then systematically dismantling our operational system by destroying its key nodes before we can bring our combined arms capabilities to bear.

The US Commander’s Response: A Multi-Layered Counter-Fire Strategy

Our response to the PLA’s stand-off strike strategy cannot be a single system or a simple tit-for-tat exchange of fires. It must be a comprehensive, multi-layered approach that attacks every link in the PLA’s kill chain—from their sensors to their shooters to their C2 nodes. This is a central tenet of our Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) doctrine, which emphasizes the convergence of effects from all domains to create and exploit windows of superiority.

Our counter-fire strategy comprises three mutually supporting lines of effort:

• Passive Defense and Deception: The most effective way to defeat a missile is to ensure it is never fired, and the second most effective is to ensure it has nothing to hit. We must deny the PLA’s ISR systems a clear and static target. This requires a radical commitment to dispersal of forces, hardening of critical assets, constant mobility of command posts and logistics nodes, and the sophisticated use of camouflage, concealment, and deception (CCD). We cannot allow our forces to concentrate in predictable locations that are easily targeted by PLA LRPF.
• Active Defense: We will protect our critical assets and maneuver forces with a layered and resilient Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) architecture. This architecture will integrate sensors and effectors from all services to provide a comprehensive defense against the full spectrum of PLA threats, from UAV swarms and cruise missiles to ballistic and hypersonic weapons. This includes kinetic interceptors like Patriot and THAAD, as well as emerging directed energy and other advanced capabilities.
• Offensive Counter-Fire: We will not assume a defensive posture and absorb the PLA’s first punch. The Army’s MDTFs are specifically designed and equipped to penetrate and disintegrate enemy A2/AD networks. The Strategic Fires Battalion within the MDTF will employ its own organic LRPF assets—including the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) with a range exceeding 500 km, the Mid-Range Capability (MRC) based on the SM-6 and Tomahawk missiles, and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW)—to hold the PLA’s own sensors, launchers, and C2 nodes at risk. These land-based fires provide a persistent, 24/7 strike capability that is highly survivable and complicates the adversary’s targeting problem.
• JADC2-Enabled Dynamic Targeting: The key to defeating the PLA’s numerous and often mobile missile launchers is speed. JADC2’s “any sensor, best shooter” architecture is the doctrinal and technical solution to this problem. By networking all available sensors (from satellites to ground-based radar to special operations forces) with all available shooters across the joint force, and by using AI/ML algorithms to rapidly process data and generate targeting solutions, we can dramatically compress our own OODA loop. This will enable us to find, fix, and finish time-sensitive PLA targets before they can fire and relocate.

The PLA’s MDPW and the US JADC2 are conceptually parallel; both are ambitious efforts to build a “system-of-systems” that links sensors to shooters across all domains. However, their developmental priorities reveal their underlying strategies. The PLA has invested massively in the “shooters”—the long-range missiles themselves. The US, while also developing new LRPF, has placed a primary emphasis on perfecting the network that connects the system. This sets the stage for a duel not of missiles, but of kill chains. A kill chain consists of several links: find, fix, track, target, engage, and assess (F2T2EA). The PLA’s strategy is to overwhelm us at the “engage” link with a massive volume of high-speed, long-range munitions. Our counter-strategy is to dominate the “find, fix, track, and target” links through a superior, more resilient, and faster network (JADC2), and then use our own precision fires to break the PLA’s kill chain at its most vulnerable points—their sensors and their C2 nodes. Victory in the fires duel will go to the side that masters information, not just ballistics. Therefore, our primary effort must be to attack the PLA’s kill chain before they can launch. This means prioritizing our MDEBs to blind their sensors and disrupt their command networks, turning their technologically advanced missiles into inert munitions on the launcher. Our own LRPF will be most effective not when trading salvos with their launchers, but when used to destroy the “eyes” and “brain” of their entire strike system.

IV. Strategy 4: Asymmetric Overwhelm – The Use of Unmanned and Autonomous Swarms

The PLA Commander’s Approach: Manned-Unmanned Teaming and Saturation

The PLA is aggressively pursuing what it terms “intelligentized warfare,” a concept that centers on the integration of AI-enabled unmanned and autonomous systems to create asymmetric advantages and achieve decision dominance. A PLA commander will leverage these emerging capabilities to create tactical and operational dilemmas that are difficult to solve with traditional, platform-centric military forces. The PLA is already testing and fielding drone swarm technology for a wide range of missions, including ISR, ground surveillance, precision strike, and amphibious landing support.

In a land confrontation, a PLA commander will likely employ two primary tactics leveraging unmanned systems:

• Saturation Attacks with Drone Swarms: The PLA understands the economic asymmetry of modern air defense. They will use swarms of small, low-cost, expendable drones, potentially numbering in the hundreds, to saturate and overwhelm our sophisticated air defense systems. A single high-value interceptor, such as a Patriot missile, cannot be economically or logistically sustained to defeat a large number of inexpensive drones on a one-for-one basis. This tactic is designed to exhaust our limited supply of advanced interceptors, open gaps in our defensive coverage, and allow their more valuable assets, like cruise missiles or manned aircraft, to penetrate our defenses.
• Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T): The PLA is actively exercising with “human-machine collaborative combat teams,” integrating unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), often referred to as “robot wolves,” and Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs) directly with their conventional combined arms brigades. In complex terrain, such as urban environments, these unmanned systems will be used to lead the advance. They will conduct reconnaissance into high-threat areas, breach obstacles under fire, provide direct fire support for dismounted infantry, and absorb the initial casualties of an engagement, thereby preserving the lives of their own soldiers while increasing the tempo and lethality of their assault. This approach also creates immense psychological pressure on defending forces, who must contend with a relentless, unfeeling mechanical advance.

This strategy of asymmetric overwhelm is designed to invert the traditional strengths of US forces. It targets our reliance on technologically advanced, high-cost platforms by presenting a threat that is too numerous and too cheap to defeat with conventional means, while simultaneously reducing the PLA’s own historical vulnerability to high casualty rates.

The US Commander’s Response: Layered, Integrated Counter-UAS Defense

There is no single “silver bullet” solution to the threat of unmanned and autonomous swarms. An effective response requires a layered, integrated, defense-in-depth that is made organic to all units, not just siloed within specialized air defense formations. Every unit on the battlefield must have the ability to defend itself against small uncrewed aerial systems (UAS).

Our counter-swarm strategy is built on a framework of layered effectors and AI-enabled command and control:

• Layered and Diverse Effectors:

• Kinetic Systems: For high-volume, short-range defense, we will employ gun-based systems (like the C-RAM) and low-cost, guided rocket interceptors. These systems provide an immediate and proven capability to engage individual drones or small groups.
• Electronic Warfare: Our EW systems, organic to the MDEBs and other formations, will provide a non-kinetic option to defeat less sophisticated drones by jamming their command and control links or spoofing their GPS navigation.
• Directed Energy (DE): High-energy laser systems offer a critical advantage: a deep magazine with a very low cost-per-shot. These systems are ideal for engaging large numbers of drones and can be mounted on tactical vehicles to provide mobile protection for maneuvering forces.
• High-Power Microwave (HPM): HPM weapons are the most promising technology for defeating entire swarms simultaneously. Systems like the Tactical High-power Operational Responder (THOR) can emit a cone of energy that disables the electronics of multiple drones with a single pulse, providing a true area-defense capability against saturation attacks.

• AI-Enabled Command and Control: Defeating a drone swarm, which can involve hundreds of targets moving in a coordinated fashion, is a problem that exceeds human cognitive capacity. The response must occur at machine speed. We will use AI-enabled C2 systems that can autonomously fuse data from multiple sensors (radar, electro-optical/infrared, RF detection), classify and prioritize threats, and then recommend or direct the optimal effector for each engagement. This AI-driven C2 is essential to shorten the kill chain and effectively manage a layered defense against a high-volume attack.
• Offensive Action: We will not remain purely on the defensive. A key part of our counter-swarm strategy is to attack the system at its source. This involves using our own ISR and strike assets to target the drone operators, their ground control stations, their launch vehicles, and their C2 networks. Furthermore, the US is developing its own autonomous swarm capabilities, which can be employed offensively to counter PLA swarms or to conduct our own saturation attacks against their critical assets.

The PLA correctly assesses that small, expendable drones offer “key offensive and defensive asymmetric advantages”. The US military is rightly concerned about the unsustainable economics of wasting expensive precision munitions on low-cost drones. This dynamic fundamentally alters battlefield geometry and economics. Traditional warfare has often been a contest of exquisite, high-cost platforms against each other, where the side with the qualitatively and quantitatively superior platforms held the advantage. Drone swarms introduce a new paradigm: the triumph of mass over class. A swarm of hundreds of drones, each costing only a few thousand dollars, can potentially disable or destroy a multi-billion-dollar asset, such as an advanced IAMD radar or a theater-level command post. This inverts the traditional cost-imposition curve, making it economically impossible to rely on million-dollar interceptors for defense. This reality forces a strategic shift in our defensive thinking, moving from a focus on platform protection to a broader concept of area defense, and from a model of attrition to one of cost-effective engagement. We must therefore accelerate the development, procurement, and fielding of non-kinetic and low-cost kinetic C-UAS solutions across the entire force. The future of battlefield air defense against this threat will be dominated by directed energy and high-power microwave systems, and our resourcing and acquisition priorities must reflect this fundamental change in the character of war.

V. Strategy 5: Command Decapitation – Exploiting Centralization through Combined Arms Assault

The PLA Commander’s Approach: System Warfare at the Tactical Level

The PLA’s doctrine of system warfare extends down to the tactical level. Here, it translates into a focus on identifying and destroying the high-value battlefield systems that enable the enemy’s operational effectiveness, with a particular emphasis on command and communication nodes. A PLA commander will seek to physically decapitate US command and control on the battlefield, believing that this will induce systemic paralysis and create the conditions for a rapid victory.

Their Combined Arms Brigades (CA-BDEs) are the primary tool for this mission. These are not the infantry-heavy formations of the past; modern PLAA CA-BDEs are powerful, mobile, artillery-heavy formations designed for rapid and violent offensive action, with envelopment and penetration being their primary offensive tactics. PLA guidelines for offensive operations call for achieving overwhelming local superiority, suggesting a four-to-one advantage in maneuver forces and a five-to-one to seven-to-one advantage in artillery firepower at the point of attack.

The likely PLA approach to command decapitation will follow a clear sequence:

1. Find and Fix: The PLA will dedicate significant ISR assets, including unmanned aerial systems, electronic intelligence, and forward-deployed Special Operations Forces (SOF), to the task of locating and fixing the position of our operational and tactical command posts (CPs).
2. Isolate and Suppress: Once a CP is fixed, the PLA commander will leverage their overwhelming advantage in organic artillery firepower to suppress and isolate the target. Massed fires from 122mm/155mm self-propelled guns and 122mm rocket artillery will be used to disrupt the CP’s operations, sever its communication links, and prevent reinforcement or withdrawal.
3. Penetrate and Destroy: With the CP suppressed and isolated, a mechanized CA-BDE will execute a high-speed penetration or envelopment. Using its organic infantry fighting vehicles and assault guns, the brigade will bypass frontline defenses and drive directly to the CP’s location with the singular objective of physically destroying the node.

This tactic is designed to directly attack what the PLA perceives as our critical vulnerability—our reliance on a networked command structure. It is also perfectly suited to their own centralized, prescriptive command philosophy, which excels at executing well-defined, pre-planned operations against a fixed objective and requires less freedom of action and initiative from subordinate commanders.

The US Commander’s Response: Leveraging Mission Command for Asymmetric Advantage

The PLA’s greatest perceived strength—its ability to orchestrate highly centralized, controlled operations—is simultaneously its most profound weakness. Our response to their command decapitation strategy is to turn this strength against them by fully embracing our own unique and powerful command philosophy: Mission Command.

Our counter is not primarily technological, but philosophical and doctrinal, enabled by technology:

• Command Post Survivability: We will refuse to present the PLA with a fixed target. Our command posts will not be static, high-signature headquarters. We will employ active survivability measures, including constant mobility and frequent displacement, and passive measures, including dispersal of CP functions across multiple smaller nodes and rigorous signature management (EMCON, thermal, acoustic). Agile, distributed, and low-signature command nodes are significantly harder to find, fix, and target, complicating the PLA’s entire operational sequence.
• Decentralized Execution through Mission Command: Mission Command is the conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based upon mission-type orders. By providing subordinate leaders with a clear commander’s intent—the purpose, key tasks, and desired end state of the operation—we empower them to exercise disciplined initiative. They understand why they are fighting, not just what they are supposed to do. This means they are trained and trusted to adapt to the local situation and continue the fight to achieve the commander’s intent even if communications with higher headquarters are severed. The successful destruction of a single brigade or division command post, while a serious blow, will not paralyze our force. Subordinate units will continue to operate based on their understanding of the intent, preventing the systemic collapse the PLA seeks to achieve.
• Turning the Tables on the Attacker: A PLA CA-BDE executing a deep, prescriptive penetration against a single objective is a powerful but predictable force. With its focus narrowed on a single goal dictated from a higher headquarters, its flanks, rear area, and logistical tail become exposed and vulnerable. Empowered by Mission Command, our subordinate units, who are not paralyzed by the attack on a single CP, can seize the initiative. They can transition from a defensive posture to launching decisive counter-attacks against the over-extended and exposed PLA force. By exploiting the predictability inherent in the PLA’s centralized system, we can disrupt their timetable, shatter their operational plan, and turn their decapitation strike into a decisive engagement fought on our terms.

The battlefield is a crucible that tests not only technology and tactics but also command philosophies. The PLA employs a strict, top-down command structure where deviation from centrally directed orders is not permitted, and the ever-present political commissar ensures absolute loyalty to the Party’s directives. The US system of Mission Command is built on the foundations of trust, mutual understanding, and the empowerment of subordinate leaders to act—and even to act contrary to the last received order if the situation demands it, as long as their actions remain within the commander’s intent. The PLA’s command system is optimized for planned, deliberate operations in a controlled environment; it is inherently brittle and struggles to adapt to the friction, chaos, and uncertainty of modern combat. The US Mission Command philosophy, in contrast, is designed for chaos and uncertainty. It assumes that plans will fail, communications will be lost, and opportunities will emerge unexpectedly. It empowers leaders at the lowest possible level to adapt, innovate, and win. The PLA’s attempt to decapitate our command structure is a direct attempt to force their preferred style of warfare upon us—to remove our flexible, distributed “brain” and make us as rigid and fragile as they are. Our response—resilient CPs and decentralized execution—is a direct counter that leverages our most powerful asymmetric advantage. We will refuse to fight on their terms. Our single most crucial advantage over the PLA is not a particular weapon system, but our philosophy of command. We must therefore relentlessly train and cultivate Mission Command in our leaders at every echelon. In a chaotic, contested environment where networks are degraded and units are isolated, the side whose junior leaders are best able to understand intent, seize the initiative, and make bold, decisive actions will win. The PLA’s political system makes it structurally incapable of replicating this advantage. Therefore, our leader development programs are as critical to future victory as our weapons modernization programs.

Conclusion: Prevailing in the Contest of Systems

The five core strategies a People’s Liberation Army commander will employ in a land confrontation—Information Paralysis, Political Disintegration, Stand-off Strike, Asymmetric Overwhelm, and Command Decapitation—are not disparate lines of effort. They are the integrated components of a singular, overarching warfighting philosophy: Systems Destruction Warfare. The PLA will not seek a linear, attrition-based fight. It will wage a holistic, multi-domain campaign aimed at finding and exploiting the critical vulnerabilities within the US operational system to induce paralysis and collapse.

To prevail in this contest of systems, US forces must counter with a system that is not only technologically superior but also doctrinally and philosophically more resilient. Our response must be equally integrated, leveraging the technological backbone of Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) and the profound doctrinal strength of Mission Command. JADC2 provides the means to build a resilient, adaptable, and lethal network that can withstand and fight through the PLA’s initial information onslaught. Mission Command provides the human element—the trained and trusted leader who can adapt, innovate, and seize the initiative in the chaos and uncertainty that JADC2 is designed to endure.

This combination creates a powerful asymmetry. The PLA’s system, for all its technological sophistication and impressive scale, is ultimately constrained by the political imperatives of the Chinese Communist Party. Its reliance on rigid, centralized control makes it powerful when executing a pre-ordained plan but brittle and slow to adapt when confronted with unexpected friction and complexity. The US system, in contrast, is designed for chaos. It embraces decentralized execution and empowers initiative at the edge, creating a more resilient, adaptable, and ultimately more lethal force in the fluid reality of modern combat.

By understanding the PLA’s system-centric approach and its inherent vulnerabilities, we can tailor our operational concepts, training, and capabilities to attack their system at its weakest points. We will win not by fighting their preferred battle of systems—a deliberate, centralized, and predictable contest—but by forcing them to fight ours: a fast-paced, decentralized, and chaotic engagement that their rigid command structure is fundamentally ill-equipped to handle. The key to victory lies in exploiting the philosophical gap between our two armies—a gap that no amount of technology can bridge.

Table 1: PLA Strategy vs. US Counter-Strategy Matrix

Works cited

1. PLA Reform and Systems Attack – Capstone – National Defense …, https://capstone.ndu.edu/Portals/83/Wed%20-%20PLA%20Systems%20Attack%20-%20Saunders.pdf 2. Political Warfare against Intervention Forces > Air University (AU …, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4167178/political-warfare-against-intervention-forces/ 3. Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2024 – DoD, https://media.defense.gov/2024/Dec/18/2003615520/-1/-1/0/MILITARY-AND-SECURITY-DEVELOPMENTS-INVOLVING-THE-PEOPLES-REPUBLIC-OF-CHINA-2024.PDF 4. China developing own version of JADC2 to counter US – C4ISRNet, https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2023/01/05/china-developing-own-version-of-jadc2-to-counter-us/ 5. Political Warfare against Intervention Forces – DoD, https://media.defense.gov/2025/Apr/28/2003698966/-1/-1/1/FEATURE%20-%20CHAN%20&%20GERSHANECK%20DISCLAIMER.PDF 6. China Military Power Report Examines Changes in Beijing’s Strategy, https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/3230682/china-military-power-report-examines-changes-in-beijings-strategy/ 7. Chinese information operations and information warfare – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_information_operations_and_information_warfare 8. PLA’s Perception about the Impact of AI on Military Affairs*, https://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/security/pdf/2022/01/04.pdf 9. Chinese Information Operations and Information Warfare – Encyclopedia.pub, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/29211 10. The size, scope and sophistication of Chinese military modernization programs is breathtaking.” One of China’s primary strategic objectives is multi-domain precision warfare which seeks to incorporate advances in big data and AI to rapidly identify – Reflections, https://reflections.quora.com/The-size-scope-and-sophistication-of-Chinese-military-modernization-programs-is-breathtaking-One-of-China-s-primary 11. Army Cites China’s AI-Based “Intelligentized Warfare” As Growing Threat – Warrior Maven, https://warriormaven.com/news/land/army-cites-chinas-ai-based-intelligentized-warfare-as-growing-threat 12. Military Artificial Intelligence, the People’s Liberation Army, and US-China Strategic Competition, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2024-02/Jacob_Stokes_Testimony.pdf 13. People’s Liberation Army – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army 14. The PLA and Mission Command: Is the Party Control System Too …, https://www.ausa.org/publications/pla-and-mission-command-party-control-system-too-rigid-its-adaptation-china 15. The PLA and Mission Command – AUSA, https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/LWP-159-The-PLA-and-Mission-Command-Is-the-Party-Conrol-System-Too-Rigid-for-Its-Adaptation-by-China.pdf 16. China’s New “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” Operational Concept …, https://warriormaven.com/news/china/chinas-new-multi-domain-precision-warfare-operational-concept-completely-mirrors-us-strategy 17. MISSION COMMAND IN THE 21ST CENTURY – Army University Press, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Primer-on-Urban-Operation/Documents/mission-command-in-the-21st-century.pdf 18. The People’s Liberation Army’s Command and Control Affects the Future of Out-of-Area Operations > Air University (AU) > Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs Article Display, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/3371571/the-peoples-liberation-armys-command-and-control-affects-the-future-of-out-of-a/ 19. Informatized Wars: How China Thinks About Cyber | American …, https://www.aei.org/articles/informatized-wars-how-china-thinks-about-cyber/ 20. Commander’s Toolkit: Cyber – Air University, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Toolkit%20presentations/4%20CASI%20Commanders%20Toolkit-%20Cyber.pdf 21. Capability of the People’s Republic of China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation – The National Security Archive, https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB424/docs/Cyber-030.pdf 22. Cyberwarfare and China – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_and_China 23. SECTION 2: CHINA’S CYBER CAPABILITIES: WARFARE, ESPIONAGE, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE UNITED STATES Abstract, https://www.uscc.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/Chapter_3_Section_2–Chinas_Cyber_Capabilities.pdf 24. Catching Up: China’s Developing Military Power – Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2020/01/06/chinas-developing-military-power/ 25. Countering Anti-Access / Area Denial – Joint Air Power Competence Centre, https://www.japcc.org/articles/countering-anti-access-area-denial/ 26. PLA Stratagems for Establishing Wartime Electromagnetic …, https://jamestown.org/program/pla-stratagems-for-establishing-wartime-electromagnetic-dominance-an-analysis-of-the-winning-mechanisms-of-electronic-countermeasures/ 27. Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control Strategy – DoD, https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf 28. SPECIAL REPORT: Joint All-Domain Command, Control A Journey, Not a Destination, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2023/7/10/joint-all-domain-command-control-a-journey-not-a-destination 29. Resilient Communications: Synchronizing the U.S. Army’s Contested …, https://www.l3harris.com/newsroom/editorial/2023/08/resilient-communications-synchronizing-us-armys-contested-logistics 30. Path of greatest resilience – USAASC – Army.mil, https://asc.army.mil/web/path-of-greatest-resilience/ 31. MULTIPLE PATHS LEAD TO NETWORK RESILIENCY | Article | The United States Army, https://www.army.mil/article/281863/multiple_paths_lead_to_network_resiliency 32. Resilient Military Communication – AFWERX Challenge, https://afwerxchallenge.com/resilient-military-communication 33. Reimagining Contested Communications – Modern War Institute -, https://mwi.westpoint.edu/reimagining-contested-communications/ 34. Multi-Domain Task Forces – AUSA, https://www.ausa.org/sites/default/files/publications/SL-22-2-Multi-Domain-Task-Forces-A-Glimpse-at-the-Army-of-2035.pdf 35. Multi-Domain Effects Battalion: Space Integration and Effects in Multidomain Operations – Army University Press, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/March-2024/Multi-Domain-Effects-Battalion/ 36. Joint All-Domain Command and Control – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_All-Domain_Command_and_Control 37. Joint All-Domain Command and Control – JADC2 – SAIC, https://www.saic.com/what-we-do/mission-it/jadc2 38. Chief Digital and Artificial Intelligence Office > Initiatives > CJADC2, https://www.ai.mil/Initiatives/CJADC2/ 39. Political Warfare – Marine Corps University, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/MCU-Journal/JAMS-vol-11-no-1/Political-Warfare/ 40. PLA Artillery Technology Absorption, Force Levels and Capabilities …, https://seniorstoday.in/history/pla-artillery-technology-absorption-force-levels-and-capabilities 41. People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Rocket_Force 42. Long-range precision fires modernization a joint effort, Army tech leader says | Article, https://www.army.mil/article/210198/long_range_precision_fires_modernization_a_joint_effort_army_tech_leader_says 43. Attaining All-domain Control: China’s Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) Capabilities in the South China Sea – Pacific Forum, https://pacforum.org/publications/issues-insights-issues-and-insights-volume-25-wp-2-attaining-all-domain-control-chinas-anti-access-area-denial-a2-ad-capabilities-in-the-south-china-sea/ 44. Defense Primer: Army Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) | Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11409 45. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-1: The U.S. Army in Multi-Domain Operations 2028, https://adminpubs.tradoc.army.mil/pamphlets/TP525-3-1.pdf 46. What are the steps in dealing with an enemy that has artillery …, https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/us70p3/what_are_the_steps_in_dealing_with_an_enemy_that/ 47. Suppression of enemy air defenses – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_enemy_air_defenses 48. The Army’s Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) – Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF11797/IF11797.16.pdf 49. The Army’s Multi-Domain Task Force (MDTF) – DTIC, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/trecms/pdf/AD1225403.pdf 50. U.S. Army Long-Range Precision Fires: Background … – Congress.gov, https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R46721/R46721.2.pdf 51. The Impact of Base Politics on Long-Range Precision Fires – Army University Press, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/July-August-2021/Pazdzierski-LR-Precision-Fires/ 52. Lockheed Martin’s Long Range Precision Fires Solutions Increase Response Times and Enhance Effectiveness in High Threat Environments, https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2022/ausa-lockheed-martins-long-range-precision-fires-solutions.html 53. Army programs promote strength, agility of Long Range Precision Fires | Article – U.S. Army, https://www.army.mil/article/257137/army_programs_promote_strength_agility_of_long_range_precision_fires 54. Fires for Effect: 10 Questions about Army Long-Range Precision Fires in the Joint Fight, https://www.ausa.org/publications/fires-effect-10-questions-about-army-long-range-precision-fires-joint-fight 55. C2-Enabled Long-Range Precision Fires for the Army – Booz Allen, https://www.boozallen.com/insights/defense/c2-command-and-control/c2-enabled-long-range-precision-fires-for-the-army.html 56. China Readies Drone Swarms for Future War | CNA, https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2025/09/china-readies-drone-swarms-for-future-war 57. US Can’t Go for One-for-One Kills in Drone Warfare with China – Air & Space Forces Magazine, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-china-drone-warfare-one-for-one-kills/ 58. China’s land-based unmanned combat systems unveiled at V-Day parade, to support amphibious landing, urban warfare: expert – Global Times, https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202509/1342520.shtml 59. Countering the Swarm | CNAS, https://www.cnas.org/publications/reports/countering-the-swarm 60. CounterUAS | Anduril, https://www.anduril.com/capability/counter-uas/ 61. www.airandspaceforces.com, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us-china-drone-warfare-one-for-one-kills/#:~:text=The%20Pentagon%20has%20launched%20many,power%20Operational%20Responder%2C%20or%20THOR. 62. (U) CHINA: PLAA COMBINED-ARMS BRIGADE’S OFFENSIVE …, https://g2webcontent.z2.web.core.usgovcloudapi.net/OEE/China%20Landing%20Zone/PLAA-Combined-Arms-Brigade-Offensive-Operations-.pdf 63. People’s Liberation Army Ground Force – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Ground_Force 64. Sections of a PLA medium combined arms brigade. [ALBUM] : r/TankPorn – Reddit, https://www.reddit.com/r/TankPorn/comments/1k6o2zb/sections_of_a_pla_medium_combined_arms_brigade/ 65. China Military Studies Review – Marine Corps University, https://www.usmcu.edu/Outreach/Marine-Corps-University-Press/China-Military-Studies-Review/CMSR-2025-Adapting-to-Future-Wars/ 66. Army Publishes New Doctrine for Multi-Domain Operations – National Defense Magazine, https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2022/10/11/army-publishes-new-doctrine-for-multi-domain-operations

The doctrinal foundation of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) is undergoing a profound transformation, shifting from a focus on “informatized warfare” to the more advanced concept of “intelligentized warfare”. This evolution signals that any future land confrontation will not be a traditional attrition-based conflict but a dynamic contest between two opposing “system-of-systems”. The PLA’s overarching operational goal, encapsulated in the concept of “systems destruction warfare,” is not the piecemeal destruction of U.S. forces but the induction of catastrophic failure within the U.S. joint force’s operational architecture. This paradigm is predicated on the seamless integration of artificial intelligence (AI), big data analytics, and autonomous systems into every facet of military operations.

Under this new doctrine, “human-machine collaborative decision making” is expected to become the operational norm, with AI-enabled systems augmenting and accelerating the command and control process. Unmanned platforms are envisioned to take a central role in combat, with human operators receding from the front lines to supervisory and command positions. Victory in this intelligentized environment is defined not by territorial gain alone, but by achieving and maintaining decision superiority through faster information processing, superior situational awareness, and a compressed decision-making cycle. The battlespace itself is expanding beyond the traditional physical domains of land, sea, and air to encompass the virtual and cognitive realms, creating what PLA theorists term a “brain battlefield,” where the will to fight and the cognitive capacity of commanders are primary targets. A U.S. military commander must therefore anticipate a multi-domain conflict where the PLA will leverage asymmetric strategies designed to paralyze U.S. command and control, saturate defenses, sever logistical lifelines, and fracture political resolve before the main battle is ever joined.

I. PLA Strategy 1: Systems Destruction Warfare – Paralyzing the C5ISR Network

PLA Commander’s Intent

The primary objective of a PLA commander employing Systems Destruction Warfare is to achieve decisive operational advantage by blinding, deafening, and isolating U.S. forces at the outset of a conflict. The strategy is designed to induce systemic paralysis by targeting the Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance (C5ISR) network—the central nervous system of the U.S. joint force. This approach is the practical application of the PLA’s core operational concept of “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” (MDPW), which is explicitly intended to “identify key vulnerabilities in an adversary’s operational system and then to launch precision strikes against those vulnerabilities”. The ultimate goal is not merely to degrade U.S. capabilities but to trigger a cascading failure that causes the entire operational system to “collapse”. By severing the links between sensors, decision-makers, and shooters, the PLA aims to shatter the U.S. military’s ability to coordinate a coherent response, thereby seizing the initiative and dictating the terms of the engagement.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The execution of Systems Destruction Warfare relies on the tightly synchronized application of non-kinetic and kinetic effects across all domains. The conflict would likely commence with what can be termed an “invisible battle,” where decisive effects are achieved before the first missile impacts its target.

The initial salvo will be a non-kinetic onslaught. This will involve strategic and tactical cyber operations designed to penetrate and disrupt U.S. networks, corrupt critical data, and disable command systems. These cyber effects are not improvisational; they require extensive intelligence preparation of the battlespace and the pre-positioning of malicious code and access points, potentially years in advance of hostilities. Concurrently, the PLA Strategic Support Force (PLASSF) and other theater-level assets will unleash a barrage of electronic warfare (EW) attacks. These attacks will employ a range of ground-based, air, and potentially space-based platforms to jam satellite communications, deny access to the Global Positioning System (GPS), and disrupt the radar and communication systems upon which U.S. forces depend. The non-kinetic assault will extend into space, with counter-space operations targeting U.S. satellite constellations. These operations may range from reversible, non-kinetic effects like laser dazzling of optical sensors and jamming of uplinks and downlinks to kinetic attacks designed to permanently disable or destroy critical ISR, communication, and Position, Navigation, and Timing (PNT) satellites.

This multi-pronged non-kinetic attack will be seamlessly integrated with kinetic precision strikes. Using intelligence gathered over years, the PLA will employ its arsenal of long-range conventional ballistic and cruise missiles to physically destroy the key nodes of the U.S. C5ISR architecture. High-priority targets will include large, static, and difficult-to-disperse assets such as theater-level command headquarters, satellite ground stations, air operations centers, and critical undersea cable landing sites. The orchestration of this complex, multi-domain attack will be managed by the PLA’s own developing “intelligentized” command and control system. This system leverages AI and big data analytics to fuse intelligence from disparate sources, identify vulnerabilities in real-time, and coordinate cross-domain fires at a tempo designed to overwhelm U.S. defensive measures and decision-making processes. This is the essence of their doctrinal shift towards “intelligentized warfare,” where the speed and quality of decision-making, enabled by machine intelligence, becomes the decisive factor.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Resilient, Distributed C2 via JADC2

The U.S. response to the threat of Systems Destruction Warfare is predicated on a fundamental architectural shift: moving from a highly efficient but brittle centralized C2 structure to a distributed, resilient, and agile model. This new approach is embodied by the Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2) concept. JADC2 is not a single piece of hardware or software but rather a comprehensive approach to “sense, make sense, and act at all levels and phases of war, across all domains, and with partners, to deliver information advantage at the speed of relevance”. It represents the direct American doctrinal and technological counter to the PLA’s MDPW, acknowledging that the future of warfare lies in network-centric, data-driven operations.

The successful implementation of JADC2 relies on several key technological and tactical enablers. A primary line of effort is the move toward proliferated architectures, particularly in space. This involves transitioning from a reliance on a few large, expensive, and high-value satellites to deploying large constellations of smaller, cheaper, and more resilient Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites. The Space Development Agency’s National Defense Space Architecture is a prime example of this shift, aiming to create a layered network for communications and missile tracking that is far more difficult for an adversary to degrade. The strategic logic is to create a web of assets so numerous and redundant that attacking it becomes a “wasted and escalatory effort” for the adversary.

This proliferated hardware is supported by the development of resilient mesh networks. These networks are designed to be self-healing, capable of automatically rerouting data traffic when individual nodes or links are destroyed or jammed. This ensures that even in a degraded electromagnetic environment, essential command and targeting data can still reach the tactical edge. A key component of this is the development of gateways that can connect disparate legacy systems with modern networks, ensuring interoperability across the joint force. To manage the immense volume of data generated by this network, JADC2 heavily leverages AI and machine learning. These tools are not intended to replace human commanders but to serve as powerful decision-support aids, capable of rapidly sifting “through mountains of data” to identify emerging threats, correlate intelligence, and recommend optimal courses of action, thereby dramatically accelerating the commander’s decision-making cycle. Finally, this entire architecture is designed to empower commanders at the tactical edge. By pushing data processing and decision-making authority down to the lowest possible level, consistent with the philosophy of Mission Command, the joint force reduces its reliance on vulnerable, centralized headquarters and can continue to operate effectively even when communications with higher echelons are severed.

The fundamental contest in this domain is not merely a competition of technologies but a clash of decision-making cycles. The PLA’s concepts of “intelligentized warfare” and “systems destruction” are explicitly designed to attack and shatter the U.S. military’s OODA loop (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act). They seek to create so much chaos and uncertainty in the information environment that U.S. commanders are paralyzed, unable to form a coherent picture of the battlefield or direct their forces effectively. JADC2 represents the U.S. effort to construct a faster, more robust, and more resilient OODA loop that can function and adapt under the extreme duress of a multi-domain assault. The initial phase of any conflict will therefore be a high-stakes race. The PLA will attempt to achieve systemic paralysis of the U.S. C5ISR network faster than the U.S. can reconfigure its distributed network and adapt its decision-making processes. The victor in this “decision race” will seize an advantage that may prove decisive for the remainder of the conflict, demonstrating the true meaning of the PLA’s concept of the “brain battlefield”.

II. PLA Strategy 2: Multi-Domain A2/AD Saturation – Creating an Impenetrable Fortress

PLA Commander’s Intent

The PLA commander’s intent behind the Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) strategy is twofold: first, to deter U.S. intervention in a regional crisis, and second, failing deterrence, to make such an intervention prohibitively costly in terms of assets and personnel. The strategy is designed to create a layered, multi-domain fortress around China’s periphery. The “anti-access” (A2) component employs long-range capabilities to prevent U.S. forces from entering the operational area, primarily targeting carrier strike groups and forward air bases. The “area denial” (AD) component uses shorter-range systems to severely restrict the freedom of action of any U.S. forces that manage to penetrate the outer layers. This strategy is a direct and deliberate challenge to the foundational tenets of U.S. power projection, which has historically relied on the ability to establish and maintain air and maritime supremacy through the deployment of aircraft carriers and the use of large, forward-deployed bases.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA’s A2/AD strategy is built upon a massive and increasingly sophisticated arsenal of conventional missile systems, designed to saturate U.S. and allied defenses through sheer volume and technological complexity. The cornerstone of the anti-access layer is a formidable family of Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles (ASBMs). This includes the DF-21D, famously dubbed the “carrier killer,” and the longer-range DF-26, which has the reach to threaten key U.S. facilities in Guam, earning it the moniker “Guam killer”. These weapons are designed to hold high-value naval assets at risk from distances exceeding 1,500 kilometers. This threat is compounded by the introduction of hypersonic weapons, such as the DF-17 hypersonic glide vehicle and the rumored YJ-21 air-launched ballistic missile. The extreme speed and unpredictable flight paths of these systems present a severe challenge to current U.S. missile defense capabilities, drastically shortening reaction times and complicating intercept solutions.

This long-range ballistic missile threat is complemented by a vast and diverse inventory of Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs). Systems like the supersonic YJ-12 and the subsonic YJ-18 can be launched from a wide array of platforms, creating a multi-axis, high-volume threat that is difficult to defend against. These platforms include mobile land-based launchers that employ “hit and run” tactics—firing a salvo before retreating to hardened underground facilities to reload—as well as modern naval surface combatants like the Type 055 destroyer, a large fleet of conventional and nuclear submarines, and long-range bombers such as the H-6K.

To control the air domain, the PLA has constructed a dense and overlapping Integrated Air Defense System (IADS). This system layers long-range Russian-made S-400 and domestically produced HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) with medium- and short-range systems, all networked with an array of early warning radars. This ground-based network is integrated with the PLA Air Force’s growing fleet of advanced fighter aircraft, including the J-20 stealth fighter, to create a formidable no-fly zone. The entire A2/AD architecture is further supported by a growing naval presence, including a large surface fleet and an expanding network of militarized artificial islands in the South China Sea, which serve as persistent sensor outposts, airfields, and missile bases, extending the reach and resilience of the A2/AD network.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Disintegrate the A2/AD System from Within

The U.S. strategic response to the PLA’s A2/AD challenge has evolved beyond the concept of a costly frontal assault to “punch through” the defensive bubble. The current approach is more nuanced, seeking to “invert” the A2/AD concept itself. This involves proactively deploying a distributed, resilient, and lethal network of U.S. sensors and shooters inside the contested zone. The objective is not to breach the wall, but to methodically dismantle it from within by targeting the critical nodes and dependencies of the PLA’s kill chain. This strategy aims to turn the PLA’s highly networked system into a liability by severing the connections between its sensors and its shooters.

This counter-strategy is enabled by several key operational concepts and technologies. The concept of “Stand-In Forces” envisions the forward deployment of small, mobile, low-signature, and relatively low-cost Marine Corps and Army units within the first island chain. These forces, equipped with their own sensors and long-range precision fires, can survive within the enemy’s weapons engagement zone. From these forward positions, they can provide critical targeting data for long-range strikes launched from outside the theater, conduct their own anti-ship and anti-air attacks, and generally complicate the PLA’s targeting problem, forcing the adversary to expend significant resources to find and eliminate them.

These Stand-In Forces will be a key component of a broader joint fires network that includes new ground-launched systems like the Army’s Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) and the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW). By deploying these systems on allied territory, the U.S. can hold key PLA A2/AD assets—such as airfields, ports, command centers, and sensor sites—at risk from dispersed and survivable land-based positions. The deep-strike mission will also rely heavily on undersea and air dominance. U.S. nuclear-powered submarines and advanced stealth aircraft, such as the F-35 and the future B-21 bomber, are critical penetrating ISR and strike platforms capable of operating within the most heavily defended areas to hunt down and destroy mobile missile launchers, air defense systems, and naval vessels.

To ensure the survivability of U.S. airpower, the Air Force is implementing the concept of Agile Combat Employment (ACE). ACE involves dispersing air assets away from large, vulnerable main operating bases to a network of smaller, more austere airfields across the theater. By moving and operating unpredictably, ACE complicates the PLA’s targeting calculus and increases the resilience of U.S. combat airpower, allowing it to continue generating sorties even after initial attacks.

The PLA’s A2/AD capability should not be viewed as a monolithic, impenetrable barrier, but rather as a highly complex, networked “system-of-systems.” Its greatest strength—the tight integration of sensors, command nodes, and weapons platforms—is simultaneously its greatest vulnerability. A successful U.S. counter-strategy, therefore, is contingent on the ability to execute “kill-chain decomposition.” The effectiveness of a weapon like the DF-21D is entirely dependent on a robust and uninterrupted C3ISR architecture to find, fix, track, target, and engage a moving U.S. aircraft carrier. This kill chain is a sequence of dependencies: satellites, over-the-horizon radars, maritime patrol aircraft, and other sensors must detect the target; data must be relayed to a command center for processing; and targeting information must be transmitted to the missile launcher. Instead of attempting the difficult and costly task of intercepting hundreds of incoming missiles, a more effective approach is to attack the “eyes” and “nerves” of the system. By employing a combination of stealth platforms, cyber attacks, electronic warfare, and distributed precision fires to blind the PLA’s radars, jam its data links, and destroy its command nodes, the U.S. can sever the critical connections between sensors and shooters. This approach renders the PLA’s vast and expensive missile arsenal effectively blind and incapable of striking mobile, high-value targets. The contest, therefore, is not a simple matter of missile versus missile defense; it is a comprehensive, multi-domain campaign to systematically disintegrate the PLA’s kill web.

III. PLA Strategy 3: Unmanned Swarm Offensive – Overwhelming with Asymmetric Mass

PLA Commander’s Intent

A PLA commander will employ unmanned swarm offensives with the intent to saturate and overwhelm the technologically superior, but often numerically inferior, defensive systems of U.S. forces. The PLA is aggressively pursuing the development of a “true swarm” capability, leveraging large quantities of low-cost, attritable, and increasingly autonomous unmanned systems (UxS). The core strategic logic is to invert the traditional cost-imposition ratio. By forcing the U.S. to expend expensive, high-end interceptors (such as a Standard Missile-6, costing several million dollars) to destroy cheap, mass-produced drones (costing only thousands of dollars), the PLA can deplete U.S. magazines and achieve battlefield effects at a fraction of the cost. This strategy reflects a significant doctrinal shift within the PLA, moving from “a human-centric fighting force with unmanned systems in support, to a force centered on unmanned systems with humans in support”.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA’s swarm capabilities are rapidly advancing from theoretical concepts to tested operational systems. State-owned defense contractors have demonstrated systems capable of deploying swarms of up to 200 fixed-wing drones at a time from a single ground-based launch vehicle. Furthermore, the PLA is developing aerial deployment methods, including the concept of a “drone mothership” like the Jiu Tian SS-UAV, a large unmanned aircraft designed to carry and release a hundred or more smaller loitering munitions or ISR drones from within the battlespace.

These swarms will be integrated with manned platforms through Manned-Unmanned Teaming (MUM-T) concepts. For example, the two-seat variant of the J-20 stealth fighter, the J-20S, is believed to be optimized for mission management and the control of “loyal wingman” drones, which would fly alongside the manned aircraft to extend sensor range, carry additional munitions, or act as decoys. The application of these swarms is envisioned to be multi-domain. The PLA is actively exercising with drone swarms in scenarios relevant to a Taiwan conflict, including amphibious landings, island-blocking operations, and complex urban warfare. These exercises involve not only unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) but also unmanned surface vessels (USVs) and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs), referred to as “robot wolves” in PLA media.

The effectiveness of these swarms will be magnified by increasing levels of AI-enabled autonomy. While the precise degree of autonomy currently achieved remains a subject of analysis, the PLA’s research and development efforts are clearly focused on this area. The PLA is exploring the use of reinforcement learning and other AI techniques to enable swarms to coordinate their actions, dynamically re-task themselves in response to battlefield events, and exhibit emergent behaviors without requiring constant, direct human control. These intelligent swarms will be employed for a variety of missions, including persistent ISR, electronic attack, acting as decoys to confuse air defense systems, and conducting coordinated kinetic strikes against land and sea targets.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Scalable, Layered Counter-UAS Defense and Offensive Swarming

The United States cannot win a conflict against drone swarms by engaging in a one-for-one kinetic exchange; such an approach is economically unsustainable. The U.S. counter-strategy must therefore be based on a scalable, layered defense-in-depth that prioritizes low-cost-per-shot effectors, while simultaneously embracing the logic of asymmetric mass through initiatives like Replicator to turn the swarm dilemma back on the adversary.

A robust counter-swarm defense requires a layered approach around high-value assets, integrating multiple kill mechanisms to create a resilient defensive screen. The outer layer of this defense will consist of electronic warfare systems designed to jam the command-and-control links and GPS signals that less-autonomous swarms rely upon for navigation and coordination. The next layer will increasingly be composed of directed energy weapons. High-energy lasers and high-power microwave systems offer the promise of deep magazines and a near-zero cost-per-shot, making them ideal for engaging large numbers of incoming drones. For swarm elements that penetrate these initial layers, the defense will rely on a mix of kinetic interceptors, ranging from traditional air defense systems to more novel, low-cost interceptors (such as the Coyote system), all guided by AI-driven fire control systems capable of tracking and prioritizing hundreds of targets simultaneously.

However, a purely defensive posture is insufficient. The U.S. must also develop its own offensive swarm capabilities. The Department of Defense’s Replicator initiative is a direct response to this imperative. It is a signature effort to field “thousands of cheap autonomous drones across all domains”—including loitering munitions, ISR quadcopters, and unmanned surface and undersea vehicles—within an accelerated 18-to-24-month timeframe. The strategic goal of Replicator is not just to defend against PLA swarms but to impose the same targeting and cost-imposition dilemmas on them. By developing our own “attritable autonomous systems,” the U.S. can saturate PLA defenses, conduct distributed ISR, and execute precision strikes at scale, thereby neutralizing the PLA’s asymmetric advantage.

Underpinning both defensive and offensive swarm operations is the critical role of artificial intelligence. Defensively, AI algorithms are essential for analyzing sensor data from multiple sources to distinguish between potentially thousands of individual swarm elements, differentiate high-value targets (like a command-and-control drone) from simple sensors, prioritize threats, and automate engagement sequences at machine speed. Offensively, AI is the key to enabling U.S. swarms to operate with the level of coordinated autonomy needed to be effective in a complex and contested environment.

The emergence of drone swarm warfare signals a fundamental change in the character of modern conflict. It marks a shift away from a decades-long focus on exquisite, high-cost, and survivable platforms toward a new paradigm where mass, autonomy, and attritability become decisive attributes. This presents not just a tactical or technological challenge, but a profound industrial and economic one. The PLA is explicitly developing drone swarms to leverage an “asymmetric advantage” rooted in economics: a $10,000 drone can potentially disable a multi-billion-dollar warship or force the expenditure of a multi-million-dollar interceptor missile, a cost-exchange ratio that is unsustainable for the U.S. in a protracted conflict. The Replicator initiative is a direct acknowledgment of this economic reality. It represents a strategic admission that the U.S. cannot win this competition simply by building better and more expensive defenses; it must also compete and win in the game of “mass.” This requires a significant transformation of the U.S. defense industrial base, which has long been optimized for producing small numbers of highly complex and expensive systems. The future security environment will demand the ability to design, build, and deploy thousands of cheap, “good enough,” and autonomous systems at industrial scale and speed. In the long run, the nation that develops the more agile and scalable manufacturing and software development ecosystem will likely hold the decisive advantage in the era of swarm warfare.

IV. PLA Strategy 4: Logistics Interdiction and Strangulation – Severing the Lifelines

PLA Commander’s Intent

A PLA commander will seek to exploit what is arguably the U.S. military’s most significant strategic vulnerability in a potential Indo-Pacific conflict: the “tyranny of distance”. The PLA’s strategy for logistics interdiction is designed to attack and sever the long, fragile trans-Pacific supply chains and target the large, centralized logistical hubs upon which U.S. forces depend. The commander’s intent is to prevent the initial deployment and subsequent sustainment of U.S. forces in a protracted conflict, thereby causing a logistical collapse that renders forward-deployed units unable to fight effectively. By strangling the flow of fuel, munitions, spare parts, and personnel, the PLA aims to win a war of exhaustion, making it impossible for the U.S. to maintain a credible combat presence in the theater.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA will employ a multi-domain approach to interdict U.S. logistics. Kinetic strikes will form a major component of this strategy. The same long-range conventional missile arsenal developed for the A2/AD mission, particularly systems like the DF-26, will be used to target critical logistical nodes that represent concentrated points of failure. High-priority targets will include major ports such as those in Guam and Yokosuka, Japan, key airfields like Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, and large-scale fuel and munitions storage facilities. These strikes are designed to destroy infrastructure, disrupt operations, and create bottlenecks that paralyze the entire sustainment network.

Beyond fixed infrastructure, the PLA will actively target the sea and air lines of communication (SLOCs and ALOCs) that connect the U.S. mainland to the theater of operations. The PLA Navy’s large and growing fleet of conventional and nuclear-powered submarines will be tasked with hunting and sinking vulnerable military sealift and airlift vessels transiting the vast Pacific Ocean. This threat will be augmented by the potential use of naval mines to close off strategic chokepoints and harbor entrances, as well as long-range anti-ship missiles launched from aircraft and surface ships to hold transport vessels at risk from extreme distances.

The kinetic campaign will be complemented by non-kinetic attacks. The PLA will conduct sophisticated cyber attacks targeting the complex web of software and databases that manage the global U.S. logistics enterprise. By targeting Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems, order management software, and transportation databases, the PLA can sow chaos, corrupt data, and introduce crippling delays, effectively disrupting the highly efficient “just-in-time” delivery model upon which the U.S. military has come to rely. In addition, the potential use of PLA special operations forces (SOF) for reconnaissance, sabotage, and subversion against logistical infrastructure and supply chains within allied and partner nations cannot be discounted.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Contested Logistics and Distributed Sustainment

The U.S. military is responding to this threat by acknowledging a new reality: logistics is no longer a benign, rear-area function but a deeply contested warfighting domain. The counter-strategy involves a fundamental paradigm shift away from the hub-and-spoke logistical model, which was optimized for efficiency in a permissive environment, to a new model of distributed sustainment that is optimized for resilience and effectiveness under persistent, multi-domain attack.

The core tenet of this new approach is distributed logistics. This involves breaking up massive, consolidated depots of fuel, munitions, and other supplies—such as the now-decommissioning Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility—and dispersing these stocks across a wide network of smaller, hardened, and geographically separated locations throughout the Indo-Pacific theater. This dispersal greatly complicates the PLA’s targeting problem, as there is no longer a single point of failure whose destruction could cripple U.S. operations. This strategy is coupled with an increased emphasis on pre-positioning critical supplies forward within the theater. By staging larger quantities of fuel, munitions, spare parts, and medical supplies in-theater before a conflict begins, the U.S. can reduce its immediate reliance on vulnerable trans-oceanic sealift during the initial, most intense phase of hostilities.

The concept of Agile Combat Employment (ACE) is as much a logistical strategy as it is an airpower one. ACE necessitates the pre-positioning of fuel, munitions, and support equipment at a network of austere airfields. It also drives the development of multi-capable Airmen who are trained to perform multiple functions—such as refueling, re-arming, and basic maintenance—allowing aircraft to operate from dispersed locations with a minimal logistical footprint and breaking the dependence on large, vulnerable main operating bases. To connect these dispersed nodes, the U.S. is investing in its intra-theater lift capabilities. This includes increasing the number and operational readiness of Army watercraft and other joint sealift assets that can move critical supplies between islands and coastal areas within the theater, providing a more resilient and redundant transportation network that is less susceptible to single-point interdiction.

Crucially, this entire strategy of distributed sustainment is dependent on deep integration with allies and partners. The U.S. is actively working to develop the necessary legal and logistical agreements with key allies like Japan, Australia, and the Philippines to leverage their ports, airfields, and industrial capacity for sustainment operations. This creates a more robust, multi-faceted, and resilient logistics network that is far more difficult for the PLA to disrupt.

The PLA’s strategic focus on logistics interdiction forces the U.S. military to re-learn the central lesson of the Pacific Campaign in World War II: logistics, not tactics, is the ultimate pacing factor in a conflict across the vast distances of the Indo-Pacific. This reality necessitates a “whole-of-government” approach to national security. For decades, the U.S. military has operated with the luxury of secure supply lines and uncontested logistical hubs, which fostered a culture of efficiency-based, “just-in-time” logistics. The PLA’s A2/AD and long-range strike capabilities directly threaten this entire model. The U.S. response—encapsulated in the concept of Contested Logistics—is a deliberate shift toward a resilience-based, “just-in-case” model. However, this model cannot be implemented unilaterally. Dispersing supplies requires physical locations to place them, which elevates the role of diplomacy to a critical warfighting enabler. The operational success of distributed logistics is therefore entirely contingent on securing the necessary basing, access, and overflight agreements with partners throughout the Indo-Pacific. In this new strategic environment, the strength of the U.S. logistical posture is inextricably linked to the strength of its alliances. A failure in diplomacy could precipitate a catastrophic failure in logistics, rendering the U.S. military unable to sustain a high-intensity fight.

V. PLA Strategy 5: Political Warfare and Cognitive Dominance – Winning Before the Fight

PLA Commander’s Intent

The PLA commander’s application of political warfare is guided by the ultimate strategic objective of shaping the operational environment to achieve victory before a major kinetic battle is fought, or, failing that, to ensure that any such battle is contested on terms that are overwhelmingly favorable to China. This approach is the modern operationalization of Sun Tzu’s timeless maxim of “subduing the enemy without fighting”. The intent is to attack the sources of U.S. strength that lie outside the purely military domain: its domestic political will, the cohesion of its international alliances, and the morale and psychological resilience of its service members. By targeting these cognitive and political centers of gravity, the PLA aims to paralyze U.S. decision-making, deter intervention, and undermine the U.S. will to sustain a conflict.

Key Capabilities and Tactics

The PLA’s primary tool for this strategy is its “Three Warfares” doctrine, which mandates the integrated application of public opinion warfare, psychological warfare, and legal warfare. These are not separate or ad hoc efforts but a coordinated, centrally directed campaign to dominate the information and cognitive environments.

Public Opinion (Media) Warfare is aimed at seizing control of the dominant narrative. The PLA will leverage its global, state-controlled media apparatus, sophisticated social media operations involving bots and paid influencers, and co-opted voices in international media and academia to shape perceptions of a crisis. In a conflict scenario, this will involve flooding the information space with disinformation designed to portray the U.S. as the aggressor, justify China’s actions, and amplify any U.S. setbacks or casualties to erode public and political support for the war effort at home and abroad.

Psychological Warfare directly targets the morale and cognitive state of U.S. military personnel, their families, and the civilian populations of the U.S. and its allies. Tactics will include tailored propaganda disseminated through social media, showcasing the PLA’s advanced military capabilities (e.g., videos of hypersonic missile tests) to create a sense of technological overmatch and futility, and exploiting existing societal, political, and racial divisions within the U.S. to sow discord, incite unrest, and distract national leadership. The objective is to fracture American confidence in their government, their military, and each other.

Legal Warfare (Lawfare) involves the manipulation of international and domestic legal frameworks to legitimize PLA actions while constraining U.S. operational freedom. For example, in a Taiwan scenario, China might declare a “quarantine” or a customs enforcement zone rather than a military blockade, using its coast guard and maritime militia to enforce it. This is designed to create ambiguity, frame any U.S. military response as an illegal act of aggression against “civilian” law enforcement, and generate legal and political debates within the international community that slow or prevent a decisive U.S. intervention. By operating in this “gray zone” below the clear threshold of armed conflict, the PLA uses lawfare to seize the initiative and dare the U.S. to be the one to escalate to overt kinetic action.

U.S. Counter-Strategy: Narrative Competition and Psychological Resilience

The U.S. must recognize that the information domain is not a supporting effort but a central and decisive battlefield. The counter-strategy must be proactive, seeking to seize the initiative in the narrative space, inoculate friendly populations and forces against manipulation, and maintain the cohesion of its alliances and the resolve of its people.

A core component of this counter-strategy is Proactive Strategic Communications. The U.S. and its allies must develop and disseminate a clear, consistent, and fact-based narrative about the nature of the PLA threat and U.S. intentions before a crisis erupts. This effort must be sustained and synchronized across all elements of national power. A key tactic to support this is a “declassify and disclose” approach to intelligence. By rapidly and publicly releasing intelligence that exposes PLA preparations for aggression, false flag operations, disinformation campaigns, or violations of international law, the U.S. can preemptively strip PLA narratives of their credibility and seize the initiative in the information environment.

To operationalize this, the U.S. military must field integrated Information Operations Task Forces. These task forces should bring together capabilities from cyber operations, psychological operations (PSYOP), and public affairs to actively contest the information space on a 24/7 basis. Their mission would be to identify and counter PLA propaganda and disinformation in near real-time and to amplify truthful narratives through all available channels, targeting audiences both at home and abroad. This effort cannot be successful if conducted unilaterally. Close synchronization with allies and partners is essential to present a united international front, jointly attribute and condemn PLA malign activities, and reinforce a shared narrative based on the principles of international law and a free and open global order.

Finally, the U.S. must invest heavily in the psychological resilience of its forces and their families. This requires robust training programs that educate service members on how to identify and counter enemy propaganda and influence operations. It also demands the strengthening of support networks for military families, who will be a primary target of PLA psychological operations designed to create anxiety and pressure on their deployed loved ones.

The “Three Warfares” doctrine is not a separate line of effort for the PLA; it is the strategic connective tissue that binds together all of its other military strategies. It prepares the political and psychological battlespace for kinetic action and is used to exploit the effects of that action. For instance, in a Taiwan contingency, lawfare is used to frame a blockade as a “quarantine,” creating legal ambiguity. Simultaneously, media warfare floods global channels with narratives of Taiwanese provocations and U.S. interference, while psychological warfare targets U.S. and allied populations with messages emphasizing the high human and economic costs of intervention. This coordinated campaign is designed to create hesitation, doubt, and division among U.S. policymakers and international partners, thereby delaying a coherent and timely response. This delay is the critical window of opportunity the PLA needs to achieve its kinetic objectives before the U.S. can effectively project power into the theater. Therefore, countering the “Three Warfares” is not an abstract intellectual exercise; it is an operational imperative. A failure to compete and win in this cognitive domain could lead to a strategic defeat, regardless of the tactical outcomes on the physical battlefield. It is a fight to preserve the political and psychological freedom of action necessary to execute all other military counter-strategies. Failure here could mean U.S. forces arrive too late, or not at all.

Conclusion: The Imperative of Adaptation and Decision Superiority

The analysis of the PLA’s top five asymmetric strategies reveals a coherent and holistic approach to modern conflict designed to exploit perceived U.S. vulnerabilities. The PLA’s warfighting philosophy is not focused on a linear, attrition-based campaign but on a multi-domain, system-level assault targeting the entire U.S. operational architecture—from its space-based assets and C5ISR networks to its trans-oceanic supply lines and, ultimately, its national political will. This comprehensive threat demands an equally comprehensive and adaptive response from the United States and its allies.

A common thread runs through all the necessary U.S. counter-strategies. Concepts such as Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2), Distributed Logistics, Agile Combat Employment (ACE), and the Replicator initiative all represent a fundamental shift away from the centralized, optimized, and often brittle force posture of the post-Cold War era. The new imperative is to build a force that is more distributed, resilient, agile, and capable of sustained operations under persistent attack. This transformation is not merely technological; it is doctrinal, organizational, and cultural. It requires empowering commanders at the tactical edge, fostering deeper interoperability with allies, and re-engineering the defense industrial base to produce not only exquisite platforms but also attritable mass.

In the emerging era of “intelligentized warfare,” where human-machine collaboration and AI-enabled decision-making will be central, the ultimate asymmetric advantage will not reside in the superior performance of any single platform or weapon system. Instead, victory will belong to the side that can most effectively sense, understand, decide, and act within the adversary’s decision-making cycle. The contest with the PLA is, at its core, a contest for decision superiority. The imperative for the U.S. joint force is clear: it must continue to adapt with urgency, embracing a new paradigm of distributed operations and resilient networking to ensure it can out-think, out-decide, and out-pace any adversary under the immense pressures of a multi-domain, cognitively-contested conflict.

If you find this post useful, please share the link on Facebook, with your friends, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email me at in**@*********ps.com. Please note that for links to other websites, we are only paid if there is an affiliate program such as Avantlink, Impact, Amazon and eBay and only if you purchase something. If you’d like to directly contribute towards our continued reporting, please visit our funding page.

Sources Used

1. PLA’s Perception about the Impact of AI on Military Affairs* – IIDA …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.nids.mod.go.jp/english/publication/security/pdf/2022/01/04.pdf
2. The Path to China’s Intelligentized Warfare: Converging on the Metaverse Battlefield – The Cyber Defense Review, accessed October 3, 2025, https://cyberdefensereview.army.mil/Portals/6/Documents/2024-Fall/Baughman_CDRV9N3-Fall-2024.pdf
3. China’s New “Multi-Domain Precision Warfare” Operational Concept “Mirrors” US Strategy, accessed October 3, 2025, https://warriormaven.com/news/china/chinas-new-multi-domain-precision-warfare-operational-concept-completely-mirrors-us-strategy
4. China developing own version of JADC2 to counter US – C4ISRNet, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.c4isrnet.com/battlefield-tech/it-networks/2023/01/05/china-developing-own-version-of-jadc2-to-counter-us/
5. China’s Military Employment of Artificial Intelligence and Its Security …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.iar-gwu.org/print-archive/blog-post-title-four-xgtap
6. The Invisible Battle: Synchronizing Non-Kinetic Effects in Modern Warfare – SLDinfo.com, accessed October 3, 2025, https://sldinfo.com/2025/09/the-invisible-battle-synchronizing-non-kinetic-effects-in-modern-warfare/
7. Anti-access/area denial – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-access/area_denial
8. China’s Anti-Access/Area-Denial Strategy – TDHJ.org, accessed October 3, 2025, https://tdhj.org/blog/post/china-a2ad-strategy/
9. New Domain Forces And Combat Capabilities In Chinese Military Thinking – tradoc g2, accessed October 3, 2025, https://oe.tradoc.army.mil/product/new-domain-forces-and-combat-capabilities-in-chinese-military-thinking/
10. PLA Counterspace Command and Control – Air University, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CASI/documents/Research/PLASSF/2023-12-11%20Counterspace-%20web%20version.pdf
11. China’s A2/AD strategy – Fly a jet fighter, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.flyajetfighter.com/chinas-a2-ad-strategy/
12. Summary of the Joint All-Domain Command and Control … – DoD, accessed October 3, 2025, https://media.defense.gov/2022/Mar/17/2002958406/-1/-1/1/SUMMARY-OF-THE-JOINT-ALL-DOMAIN-COMMAND-AND-CONTROL-STRATEGY.pdf
13. www.gao.gov, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105495#:~:text=Joint%20All%2DDomain%20Command%20and,%2C%20sea%2C%20and%20cyber%20domains.
14. In Final Speech, Hicks Touts Work to Thwart China’s A2/AD Strategy, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airandspaceforces.com/hicks-pentagon-changes-china-a2-ad-strategy/
15. Joint All-Domain Command and Control – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_All-Domain_Command_and_Control
16. Agile Combat Employment – Joint Air Power Competence Centre, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.japcc.org/articles/agile-combat-employment/
17. People’s Liberation Army Navy Coastal Defense Force – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Liberation_Army_Navy_Coastal_Defense_Force
18. China’s New J-20A Stealth Fighter Has a Message for Any Air Force on Earth, accessed October 3, 2025, https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/chinas-new-j-20a-stealth-fighter-has-a-message-for-any-air-force-on-earth/
19. Dilemmas of Deterrence: The United States’ Smart New Strategy Has Six Daunting Trade-Offs | American Enterprise Institute, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.aei.org/research-products/journal-publication/dilemmas-of-deterrence-the-united-states-smart-new-strategy-has-six-daunting-trade-offs/
20. Distributed Logistics and Deterrence, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2025/Distributed-Logistics/
21. The Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier: An American Response to the Chinese Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD) Challenge – DTIC, accessed October 3, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1023223.pdf
22. China Readies Drone Swarms for Future War | CNA, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.cna.org/our-media/indepth/2025/09/china-readies-drone-swarms-for-future-war
23. PLA CONCEPTS OF UAV SWARMS AND MANNED/UNMANNED …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/CASI/Display/Article/4147751/pla-concepts-of-uav-swarms-and-mannedunmanned-teaming/
24. Drone Swarming Tactics Using Reinforcement Learning and Policy Optimization – DTIC, accessed October 3, 2025, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1149672
25. Sustainment Challenges in the Indo-Pacific Theater | Article | The …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.army.mil/article/277259/sustainment_challenges_in_the_indo_pacific_theater
26. 8 Strategies to Build A Disruption-Proof Supply Chain – FreightPOP, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.freightpop.com/8-strategies-to-build-a-disruption-proof-supply-chain
27. Supply Chain Challenges and How to Proactively Combat Them, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.amu.apus.edu/area-of-study/business-administration-and-management/resources/supply-chain-challenges/
28. Sustaining U.S. Army Operations in the Indo-Pacific: Potential Roles of Allies and Partners – RAND, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RRA2400/RRA2434-3/RAND_RRA2434-3.pdf
29. Three warfares – Wikipedia, accessed October 3, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_warfares
30. Political Warfare against Intervention Forces > Air University (AU …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/JIPA/Display/Article/4167178/political-warfare-against-intervention-forces/
31. Information at War: From China’s Three Warfares to NATO’s …, accessed October 3, 2025, https://www.prosperity.com/media-publications/information-at-war-from-chinas-three-warfares-to-natos-narratives/