Is China capable of crippling US CSF's in Chinese ses?

[Waylander]

But you have also to consider that you don't need a 3:1-5:1 advantage against the whole 600.000 men. You need numerical advantage at strongpoints in order too breech the defense and the defenders will be scattered all over Taiwan in order to defend critical points.

But I also think that 600.000 men might be too high especially if you don't have too much time to mobilize them.

For example west germany stated at the end of cold war to be able to field a maximum of nearly 1.5 million soldiers after complete buildup and that with a population of round about 65 million people and a standing army of close to 500.000 men.

So it could be possible that the real numbers of Taiwanese wartime defenders does not reaches 600.000 men.

 

[Rich]

I'd like to point out the mainland Chinese have done a remarkable job modernizing their conventional armed forces. I seriously doubt there is another people on the planet who could have come so far, in so short a time. And whether they have developed indigenously, purchased elsewhere, or outright stolen, the technology behind their systems... What matters is they have them! Its almost like we woke up one morning and discovered the Chinese are a force to be reckoned with.

However, if there was ever an op more difficult to pull off then I sure dont know about it. The synchronization of forces alone for an amphibious op like this is daunting to imagine. Then there has been mention about the success the Chinese had in Korea with hiding the movement of their infantry from the allies. That wont happen in 2007 or beyond due to the power of Intel gathering resources. There is an entire host of indicators that would tip us off far before such an attack, and not just sat photos.

Ive mentioned the possibility of American involvement. Thats a possibility they have to plan for, and it wouldn't come just from air craft carriers. Anderson AFB in Guam could operate a lot of heavy bombers as could Hickam in Hawaii. Kadena AFB in Okinawa is only bout 360 miles from Taiwan which means the Chinese would have to deal with that huge air base, which means they would have to directly take on the F-22, "and yes I suspect the Japanese would allow us to use the base".

So, this whole exercise is a multi-layered onion they would have to peel. It has nothing in common with their battle in Korea where they fought successfully using their superior numbers on a somewhat level technological playing field. Even worse they would be playing on a high tech playing field the USN actually created.

But the enormity of this Taiwan scenario, and my assessment they are incapable of pulling it off, doesn't mean I dont admire the Chinese. Because I do! And I admire the patience inherent in their culture. To them 10,20,30, years, or a lifetime, is nothing. They are in this thing for the long haul.

 

[goldenpanda]

Rich, but how many bases did you use against Iraq, against Serbia? And how many of those were subject to attack?

Over Taiwan you have just ONE base that'll give you a decent sortie rate. Granted the F22 is a very formidable aircraft--but it's putting a lot of eggs inside one vulnerable basket.

Yes you can get off on small scale stealthy missions using F22+B2 pair. But you cannot loiter over our air space. You only have JDAM's against fixed targets. Against a heavily defended target such a port, the JDAM will face up against point defense cannons which track both radar and IR.

In terms of invading Taiwan itself, my understanding is it will be one of the last things PRC attempts to do, given all other methods have failed. Considering the size and heavy equipment of the airborne army, I seriously think an airborne+special ops attack on a civilian airport will be used. There will also be special ops in cities and the eastern mountains. Yes the beaches will be quite tough, but remember we're coming ashore in 105mm amphibious tanks and IFV's--it isn't like the Normandy infantry waves anymore.

 

[goldenpanda]

The irony of your statements, is that you're comparing the J-10 with both aircraft that has an empty weight of just over 7000kg in one, and only under 6500kg on the other.

So how did the F16A go from 7000kg to 8700kg in the F16C?

About using the YF-17 for baseline, it seems they used less composites to save costs. The J10 being much pricier could very well be in 7xxx range.

 

[Transient]

You only have JDAM's against fixed targets.

And JASSMs, SLAM-ERs, JSOWs, SDBs. Want more?

Yes you can get off on small scale stealthy missions using F22+B2 pair.

How does 80 500lb JDAMs per B-2 sortie sound?

JDAM will face up against point defense cannons which track both radar and IR.

80 JDAMs coming from multiple vectors. Try shooting them down.

Yes the beaches will be quite tough, but remember we're coming ashore in 105mm amphibious tanks and IFV's

Their ships will have to survive getting to the disembarkation point first. Between homeport and that point lies subs, ships, planes and mines. Those IFVs and amphib tanks will also have to get past Taiwan's MLRS showers.

 

[Grand Danois]

Rich, but how many bases did you use against Iraq, against Serbia? And how many of those were subject to attack?

Over Taiwan you have just ONE base that'll give you a decent sortie rate. Granted the F22 is a very formidable aircraft--but it's putting a lot of eggs inside one vulnerable basket.

Yes you can get off on small scale stealthy missions using F22+B2 pair. But you cannot loiter over our air space. You only have JDAM's against fixed targets. Against a heavily defended target such a port, the JDAM will face up against point defense cannons which track both radar and IR.

In terms of invading Taiwan itself, my understanding is it will be one of the last things PRC attempts to do, given all other methods have failed. Considering the size and heavy equipment of the airborne army, I seriously think an airborne+special ops attack on a civilian airport will be used. There will also be special ops in cities and the eastern mountains. Yes the beaches will be quite tough, but remember we're coming ashore in 105mm amphibious tanks and IFV's--it isn't like the Normandy infantry waves anymore.

You will never be able to secure the airspace enough - even with air superiority.

These LHD's should be able to deliver LCAC's from beyond the horizon of most defences. And unlike the amphib tanks, the LCAC won't be as vulnerable to mines and getting MLRS-trapped on the shoreface, as they can move inland and unload.

http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/amphibious/lhd.asp

 

[Waylander]

Another problem could be dig in infantry with ATGMs and HMGs contesting the landing.

Air power and artillery has problems to get well prepared infantry with good fire positions and bunkers.
For sure the infantry is lost as soon as their lines are penetrated due to their bad tactical mobility and the lines will be breached sooner or later.

But they might buy Taiwan enough time to close in to the beachhead with additional artillery and a mech unit to crush the beachhead's defense with some heavy equipment (That reminds me of the threat some time ago about Taiwan needing a small but capable and modern mech force).

 

[Thumper]

Yes you can get off on small scale stealthy missions using F22+B2 pair. But you cannot loiter over our air space.

Want to bet they can. Your early warning radar will be knocked out by waves of cruise missiles launched by B1s, B52s and naval assets. B2s then go in with JDAMs for anything left. As someone said try shooting all of this down when it is coming in at once on multiple vectors.

B2s and F-22s then loiter at will over PRC. But in reality that is not necessary. The ROC is fully capable of holding out with just minimal support from Uncle Sam. Through all of your and Crobato's red herrings not once have any of you explained how you would get an effective fighting force to Taiwan and once there support it logistically for intense combat operations. Remember there are around 600,000 well armed and trained troops you have to defeat.

Oh I forgot! The PLA lives off the land. when they run out of ammunition they use rocks.

So anyway back to reality. The buildup is noticed and the ROC and Uncle start to marshal their forces. PLA foolishly launches an invasion attempt. ROC holds off invasion with minimal help from Uncle. The straits run red with the blood and debris of the sunken landing craft and dead PLA soldiers. Aircraft, mines, and artillery sink the ships by the dozens USAF interdiction missions degrade the ports and embarkation facilities so even fewer ships are loaded and the operation is slowed even more. A portion of the PRC army defends the beachhead and deals with whatever remnants make it ashore while the rest of the army guards the airfields against an airborne assault. The PLA tries several more waves but none are viable due to the logistical problems of crossing the straits. The "liberation" settles down into low level hostilities.

During this time the pacific fleet starts to enforce a blockade against the PRC. All her sea lines of communication are denied. She cannot import oil or other vial war material. The USAF makes the situation even worse by attacking military supplies, bases, ammo dumps and other military targets of opportunity. The PLAF is slowly ground down by the combination of ROCAF, USN Superhornets, the squadron or two of Raptors deployed in theater, and the destruction of many airfields via cruise missile attack.

Meanwhile at the UN. Public opinion would turn against the PRC. First she invades a sovereign nation that was a threat to no one. Second in attempt to overcome the resistance she has to attack an army that is dug in close proximity to civilian targets. Office buildings, highways, hospitals, bridges are all inadvertently hit with the resultant civilian casualties shown throughout the world.

China would be set back 50 years. For what? Invading another sovereign nation that is a threat (real or perceived) to no one.

Only an arrogant fool would think that the PRC would be even close to successful.

 

[Ths]

Thumper: Good post.

From a native of a nation with 1000 years of experience in invasions (we gave them up a couple of hundred years ago - to expensive).

Rule number 1 for a successfull invasion:

BE WELCOME WHERE YOU LAND.

Anybody entertaining ideas of invasion of Taiwan should study the invasion of Normandy very close:

1. It was just about the biggest military operation ever.

2. The raid on Dieppe was a disaster.

3. The invasion of Japan never got underway - every other option was preferrable.

4. Both Germany and Japan were worn down with 4-5 years of intensive warfare.

Even if we say that ROC isn't what it is cracked up to be and the PLA is better than the propaganda claims: An invasion of Taiwan won't work. Believe me: I take no pleasure in the prospect of a million dead Chinese bopping in the sea.
What I do fear is that China a some point will believe so much in their own rethoric that they will actually attempt such an operation.

 

[Todjaeger]

But you have also to consider that you don't need a 3:1-5:1 advantage against the whole 600.000 men. You need numerical advantage at strongpoints in order too breech the defense and the defenders will be scattered all over Taiwan in order to defend critical points.

But I also think that 600.000 men might be too high especially if you don't have too much time to mobilize them.

So it could be possible that the real numbers of Taiwanese wartime defenders does not reaches 600.000 men.

I took the numbers, as I mentioned, from Wiki, which claimed Taiwan has reserve forces of approx. 1.5 mil. I tend to get uncomfortable with claims of such a large reserve force to total population. A figure I think more reasonable would be total reserve forces approximately equal in number to active/regular forces.

Your assessment is very good and doctrinally correct. I'd put the real number at closer to 5:1 for the PRC to have a real chance at subduing the Island due to the unique geographical challenges and to account for attrition if the US/Allies get involved. Even then the logistical situation is daunting. The strait would literally be the lifeline of the PRC and if it was cut for any sustained period the invasion force would be torn apart. The quantity and types of materials necessary to sustain a 2 to 3 million man force would require sea transportation which requires sea control. Something the PRC cannot realistically do yet. A division in combat requires an enormous amount of support and its highly unlikely that China could support a force that size off of the mainland. This puts a serious limit on how many troops they could actually support during a massive attack. This means they would have to do it in phases and that seriously limits the number of men actually available. For example, a person running a store has 3 employees. The store runs 24/7. You would not have all 3 employees working simultaneously. You would have to do it in shifts.


DA

The number I was coming up with was for how many PRC troops would need to physically be in Taiwan. As Waylander said, a 3 (or 5) :1 ratio isn't needed in all areas, just the critical ones, but by the same token, that ratio should overall even out. While Taiwan can't realistically defend all areas, the PRC can't attack all areas either.

In coming up with an estimated number of troops needed, then it might be possible to extrapolate a number of other things from that. Namely, as DA mentioned, the logistical train needed to support the deployed troops. Other things which might be estimated is the PRC ability to meet the needed sea lift.

I believe Goldenpanda posted earlier in the thread that the PRC has approx. 25 (IIRC?) landing ships that can carry 250 troops each. If one were to assume that these were the only resources the PRC has to land troops, and that there were no losses for any reason, it would take all the vessels a total of 288 round trips to move the required number of personnel.

Another factor is what sort of attrition PRC forces would suffer, getting to Taiwan. If the PRC is likely to suffer 10% attrition to forces, prior to arriving in Taiwan, then an additional 180k+ troops are needed, at the time of launching the attack, in the general area. On the other hand, if the % of attrition is higher, perhaps 50%, then the PRC would need on hand approx. 3.6 mil in order to achieve the required numbers to succeed.

I could be mistaken, but I believe the required force and numbers would dwarf that of Operation Overlord (Invasion of Normandy), which is the largest amphibious invasion in history.

-Cheers

 

[goldenpanda]

Admin: Comments deleted. You don't need to publicise who you are not responding to. Ignore them if that is your choice - don't bring attention to it when all it will do is further the friction.

You will never be able to secure the airspace enough - even with air superiority.

are you talking about land based ASM's? I haven't seen those from Taiwan even tho it would make sense for them to get. It all will depend on how good the PRC air defense DD's and DG's are.

These LHD's should be able to deliver LCAC's from beyond the horizon of most defences. And unlike the amphib tanks, the LCAC won't be as vulnerable to mines and getting MLRS-trapped on the shoreface, as they can move inland and unload.
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/amphibious/lhd.asp

I always thought of those as toys against terrorist camps. They don't have any staying power in the water or on the beach. Taiwanese can easily block a clear path inland.

1. It was just about the biggest military operation ever.

2. The raid on Dieppe was a disaster.

3. The invasion of Japan never got underway - every other option was preferrable.

4. Both Germany and Japan were worn down with 4-5 years of intensive warfare.

these are all good points. Hey if invasion was easy we wouldn't have procrastinated for 50 years The current plan is to escalate slowly with the Taiwanese, to let their pain sink in. We're trying to not make it a life/death situation for them.

Did you know their military is more anti-independence even than the population? Their elite divisions have their traditions rooted in *Chinese patriotism*, with combat histories against Japanese and "commie bandits". Their ships are named after mainland cities, comm stations after our provinces. Abian is making a big deal about changing all the Chinese names to "de-sinafy" the armed forces. If Beijing had more balls they'd send a bomb to his bed

 

[Rich]

This is a fascinating discussion due to the complexity of the scenario and the clash of the systems involved, if such an event ever happened. Of course, and there's no need for me to say this, nobody in their right mind would ever "want" this conflict to happen. There would be a real possibility of the thing spinning out of control.

I dont think you can compare those two air wars to this Panda. The objectives are far different from each other. Our objective would simply be to keep the PLA out of Taiwan. And your talking about USAF, a branch I know intimately, and let me assure you we train to keep fighting even when under attack. I doubt any Chinese air craft would get even close enough to Kadena to even launch weapons, what with our AWACs and fighters. Sure you can launch IRBMs, and even a few might get thru. But we would keep fighting. Besides if you killed any Japanese civilians all of Asia would turn against you.

And no disrespect to the PLA, as I'm sure they would fight well and bravely, but there is also one other fact to think about. That is the PLA has no experience fighting a modern war. Certainly not a high-tech 21'century air, sea, land, and space, battle like this.

 

[Waylander]

On the one hand you are talking about slow escalation and on the other hand about surprise attack.

Slow escalation gives Taiwan the time to fully mobilize and dig in in their defense positions which is not favorable to an invasion.

 

[goldenpanda]

Someone mentioned ATGM's to oppose a tank landing. I wonder if there is an easy defense for amphibious tanks, like shooting up a water column in front of you!

About the number of troops needed, I'll just say once the sea lane is secure (how much ship attrition after normandy? zero?), and heavy armor is onshore, PLA considers the battle as good as won. Why? From the very start PLA believed it could handle USA in Korea, pitting peasant army against the most victorious power of WWII. Who else would have thought the same? PLA was right. In fact it has been right in just about every strategic decision since 1934. So I tend to believe when PLA says it can handle the Taiwanese army.

I'll just speculate on some possible reasons
- Taiwan's drafted army are not eager to destroy their own homeland
- Taiwan has no strategic depth. They have no room to regroup, no breathing space after any breakthrough.
- PLA has better equipment and air superiority (as a precondition to their even being in Taiwan)
- PLA will simply fight harder and tighter, given its combat history. Why *should* Taiwanese fighter any harder than, say, the Dutch against the Germans?

 

[goldenpanda]

On the one hand you are talking about slow escalation and on the other hand about surprise attack.

Slow escalation gives Taiwan the time to fully mobilize and dig in in their defense positions which is not favorable to an invasion.

You're right. The airborne plan is best done with surprise, in the middle of 747's landing with passengers. Doesn't mean it cannot be done however. An airfield is just a big space to drop troops. Taiwan has a lot of that to be defending them all against bombers and special ops attacks.

 

[crobato]

So how did the F16A go from 7000kg to 8700kg in the F16C?

The reason for that is the way the structure is beefed up. The F-16 is a true monoque, although most fighter designs are semi-monoque. In the former, the aircraft frame is literally built around the engine like a skin. In this sense, the stressing element becomes the skin itself. In the second, you have a spinal spar that becomes a strengthening structure.

When you strengthen the former, you need to strengthen all the spars of the entire tube, and that means adding considerable weight. In the latter, you only need to strengthen one structure the most, and that is the spine. Among semimonoques, the best examples are the MiG-21 and the Mirage 2000. Looking at the J-10, I would say the design is more likely a semi-monoque due to the fact it does appear to have a spinal structure, though its smaller on the single seater than it is on the double seater. And because their previous design and construction experience has also been traditionally on semi-monoques like the J-7.

About using the YF-17 for baseline, it seems they used less composites to save costs. The J10 being much pricier could very well be in 7xxx range.

Eventually using composites will save on cost. Alloy prices have gone up a lot these days. Takes time to machine an entire block of metal, whereas a composite component is something you just pour into a mold. Saves time and money once you have the process running in the long run.

For battlefield maintenance, metal is superior though. If you got damage, you only need to weld it shut. If its composite, you need to change the entire component. The ROC's IDF choose to use more metal than composite for that particular reason.

 

[Thumper]

I'll respond to replies which have some value, which does not include the two from Transient and Thumper.

Oh now you are breaking my heart. You mean you will respond only when it suits you because you cannot argue with facts.

The current plan is to escalate slowly with the Taiwanese, to let their pain sink in. We're trying to not make it a life/death situation for them.

Oh so now no attack without warning as in your earlier posts. You mean we get even more time to mobilize? Thanks, that makes this even easier.

Are you planning a blockade? How are you going to let their pain sink in? What PLA will simply fight harder and tighter, given its combat history. Why *should* Taiwanese fighter any harder than, say, the Dutch against the Germans?do you have that is capable of inflicting pain other than bombs and rockets to which numerous professional analysts on this board have pointed out to you that your adversary and her allies have far more effective bombs and rockets.

Hell if the criteria for responding to posts where that they be logical no one would be replying to you.

Taiwan has a lot of that to be defending them all against bombers and special ops attacks.

Actually if you use google earth you will see that there is less than a dozen airfields that would be suitable for an airhead. Several of those airfields are military and already garrisoned. How long would an expeditionary force last? How many 747 loads of troops and equipment could you send at once without arousing suspicion? I bet those few thousand troops are quickly surrounded and forced to surrender. I can just see it now on CNN. Two thousand PLA troops surrendering with the smoldering wreckage of a 747 and dozens of dead PLA troops in the background.

I'll just say once the sea lane is secure (how much ship attrition after Normandy? zero?), and heavy armor is onshore, PLA considers the battle as good as won.

And I believe in the tooth fairy. This is pure fantasy. How will you conduct the initial assault to get enough men and material intact onshore so that you don't get thrown into the sea. We already did the math on the number of transports the PRC has. Forget about it being tactically unlikely. It is a mathematical impossibility. Oh I forgot PRC is developing matter transporters. What even makes you think you can secure the sea lanes? Ever hear of airborne dropped mines, submarines and shore based artillery?

From the very start PLA believed it could handle USA in Korea, pitting peasant army against the most victorious power of WWII. Who else would have thought the same? PLA was right.

Wrong! After a surprise attack by 300,000 troops the 30,000 man 7th infantry division retreated. The PLA captured Seoul but where quickly expelled and pushed back to the 38th parallel once the 8th US army was reinforced. The only reason why the US forces did not go further was that the US did not want to further escalate the war. In fact not only was the PLA wrong, but much of the 300,000 troops where left dead in Korea.

PLA has better equipment and air superiority

Since when has the PLA established air superiority over Taiwan. Has a war started and no one told me?

PLA will simply fight harder and tighter, given its combat history. Why *should* Taiwanese fighter any harder than, say, the Dutch against the Germans?

What combat history? They got mauled by the US in Korea and lately the Vietnamese have sent the PLA home with it's tail between it's legs. The Dutch where poorly equipped and armed. The same cannot be said of the ROC army. They will fight for their homeland and way of life well enough. It is you the invaders I would wonder about.

The title of this thread should be changed to "How many years would China be set back if they attacked Taiwan"

 

[Transient]

Admin: Comments deleted. Both you and goldenpanda need to ignore each other and just continue the debate "in absentia"

 

[Tasman]

- PLA will simply fight harder and tighter, given its combat history. Why *should* Taiwanese fighter any harder than, say, the Dutch against the Germans?

I think this is a poor example Panda. The Dutch were overwhelmed by numerically and technically superior armoured forces, operating with complete air superiority. As well they had no allies able to provide more than token, if any, support. The German army just had to roll across the border, not launch the biggest amphibious operation since D Day and, possibly the biggest ever. I don't think the Dutch had any sensible option other than to capitulate.

Cheers

 

[tphuang]

So what, I do. It's a very useful tool and we use it operationally to great effect. If you aren't using it then you are missing out. The weights are simply references which is why I said within reason. It doesn't matter if a J-10 or Rafale wiki weight are off +/- 2%. Who gives a care. The point is that J-10 and ECD are similar in weight so lets not quibble over irrelevant minutia. In fact, most internet data/tech specs are just rough estimates with no context. Do you really believe a J-10 or F-16 does M2.0 operationally configured? Get over it. Bottom line is the J-10 is no ECD outside of physical appearance and roughly comparable weight. I dare you to prove otherwise.

it's off by more than 2%, it's totally wrong. The weight of J-10 by my estimation is around 7500 kg to 8000 kg. I base this on the size of weight of other fighters in plaaf like J-8II and JF-17. btw, we do know that J-10 ended up 27 kg below the designed weight despite using limited amount of composite.
According to news report on CCTV 7, J-10 can go mach 2.34. It can go mach2.0 in its standard A2A load.

With regard to the Su-30. To sum it up, its bigger. Its got superior sensors, weapons, engines and fuel to maintain an energy advantage over longer ranges. AT BEST, a J-10 might be roughly comparable to an F-16 blk 20/25 or IDF.

Assuming we are talking about mkk. Weapons, no. There is a reason why none of the indigenous plaaf planes (including J-11B) uses Russian AAMs. You should read the article by SD-10 (export version of PL-12) developer in 2002. Engines, they use the same engine. Fuel? J-10 sacrifices fuel capacity to be more maneuverable. So basically, su-30 is capable of more missions. Sensors? not with N-001VEP, it's not even a slotted array radar. Mind you, you can see MAWs on the latest plaaf planes, that's definitely not visible on mkk.

I was, and at the same time clearing up the difference between tactical ground targets and ASATs.

I was simply saying they have the ability to put IR seeker if they wish so.

Here is a hypothetical. If China was to submit a proposal for the Indian competition for 126 fighter, what would a downgraded Chinese platform look like and how would it compare to the competition - Gripen C/D, Super Hornet, late block F-16, Rafale, Eurofighter, MiG-35, etc.

Would a monkey system be competitive or would China have to submit the best it has?

China never exports the best it has. Look at KJ-2000, 052B/C, type 99, J-10
A good example is Iran. China was offering the export version F-8IIM, but Iran wanted the more advanced J-8F and got turned down. Other examples are like C-802 vs YJ-83, SD-10 vs PL-12. FT-2000 vs HQ-9

IMHO they will get proposed upgrades eventually... Your assessment that Hq-16/YJ-83 is superior to ESSM/HF-3 is based on what grounds?

considering the pace of PLAN improvement, eventually is just not good enough. As for HH-16/YJ-83 superior to ESSM/HF-3, I don't think I said that, there are other stuff involved like sensors, combat system. Which I think 054A being a new frigate will have advantage. But strictly speaking, I do think YJ-83, being the more proven missile and continuously imprvoing has the advantage over HF-3. For example, the air launched version of YJ-83 scored hits on 63 out of 64 launches by JH-7A regiment stationned in SSF. I don't think HF-3 can achieve that.

Only couple of Ludas and Jingweis? I bet that ROC would be happy if PLAN would be so confident...

what are you proposing then?

So forgive me if I'm not to convinced that PRC can destroy ROC defenses in the matter of days...

it doesn't have to destroy ROC defenses completely. It will just have to keep these units on the run constantly and not create too much problem. It just needs to constantly "bother" the units opposing the land. It just needs to damage enough airbases and keep enough SAM units on the run to achieve air superiority.

Anybody entertaining ideas of invasion of Taiwan should study the invasion of Normandy very close:

1. It was just about the biggest military operation ever.

2. The raid on Dieppe was a disaster.

3. The invasion of Japan never got underway - every other option was preferrable.

4. Both Germany and Japan were worn down with 4-5 years of intensive warfare.

it's interesting you mentionned this, because one of the scenarios against Taiwan doesn't involve any kind of invasion, but just to destroy all the power stations and cause the telecommunication to go down, so forth, you get the idea. So like, starve them out the contemporary way.