ISO containers that hold VLS cells...modified large container carriers that have tens if not hundreds of ISO containers on the main deck...then you get rapid cell deployment and a much easier way for reload by just swapping the ISO off and on the deck.
Make these the primary cell carriers. Have a large citadel towards the end of the ship that has plenty of space to hold radars and so on. Big hangar space for two or three helis. And the front is just acres of ISO space. Low crewing. Not high speed...just play tortoise to get to the fight.
It might be hard to sink a large ship, but it is easy to find and disable. The other approach is small and many. 2 containers on a NOMARS, 4 on an MUSV.
With respect, CFR are unashamed China apologists, couching their support of the CCP in bland, unconfrontational language.
The assessment you linked is EXCELLENT propaganda. It LOOKS like a critical analysis, uses all the right buzz words and history references, has pretty pictures and ALMOST manages to come across as coherent military analysis.
In short, it accomplishes it's goal, which is to convince people who DON'T understand these issues at depth that this is far too hard and China won't do it.
In short, the purpose of that article is to give political cover to Taiwanese and US politicians who seek to avoid investing in the military forces necessary to defeat China IF they make the attempt (and so DETER them from making the attempt)
Now, how can I say that? I will proceed to take apart the 'assertions' in the article, one by one.
These are not necessarily in the order in which they are presented in the article, but rather in the order in which I find them as I scroll back through after my first full read.
1) This nugget is nestled right in the center, and is fundamentally the lie upon which much of the entire analysis is based.
"The D-Day operation in World War II was the largest amphibious invasion in military history, involving seven thousand ships ..... 850,000 troops landed on the beaches of Normandy to liberate France. A Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan would likely have to dwarf D-Day in scale."
This is absolute nonsense. The idea that to conquer Taiwan, that China would need MORE forces than the allies needed to drive Germany out of France?
All of Taiwan is the size of the Normandy peninsula. As CFR did helpfully point out, Taiwan is heavily mountain and urban terrain.
But they (and many others) continue to willfully ignore what that means for military operations on Taiwan.
It will NOT be a mechanized maneuver army! There is NO NEED for heavy armored and mechanized columns, and hundred mile long supply lines when the entire island is barely 100 miles long and No One will be fighting in the interior.
Taiwan's active military force is nearly 80% conscript based, and is only about 225,000 strong.
Furthermore, The Taiwanese, in a fit of stupidity, reduced the conscription period to FOUR MONTHS in 2011. That means those conscripts, who go on to form the reserve, have SHIT for training, and are FAR less capable than Chinese troops.
2) This is closely tied to the first, and is buried (of course) at the very end of the analysis
"Still, the Taiwanese people’s will to fight and resist will likely prove more decisive than mountains, ports, roads, or the ocean. If China conducts the operation with little opposition, it can probably navigate and overcome those obstacles. However, if confronted with millions of people determined to repel an invasion, China will face a much tougher task."
This should be at the very beginning of the article, and should have extensive explanation, because THIS IS the crux of the question about whether or not China will attempt an invasion.
Taiwan is a relatively small island and 90% of the population lives in the cities. Taiwan's population are divided on the subject of reunification and very much not eager to see their cities reduced to rubble.
The population of Taiwan IS the strategic terrain, and there are VERY good reasons to believe the Taiwanese government would surrender, seek terms or collapse the moment Chinese troops enter the cities.
3) Later in the analysis they spend a lot of time talking about how terrible and hard urban combat is for military forces. That is very true.
"To conquer Taiwan, China would therefore be forced into urban combat, fighting street by street."
It's EVEN MORE TERRIBLE and hard for the civilians in those urban centers. Taiwan is not Fallujah. It's not a 2 story mud-brick collection of hovels with a population that are used to being abused and bombed.
Now, does that mean the Taiwanese people WILL collapse or surrender? Certainly not.
But it DOES mean there is a substantial chance it could occur and what you or I happen to think of that chance has diddly to do with whether or Not China will take that chance. It has EVERYTHING to do with what the CHINESE think is likely to happen, even if their analysis is flawed.
A missile and shipping blockade, followed by a threat of invasion? What are the chances Taiwan holds out until the first Chinese troops reach a major city and then folds. I'd say they are at least 50/50.
4) Now, let's get into their advanced E-3 level tactical analysis.
"Due to the shallow water, China would have to anchor ships far from Taiwan’s coast and move equipment to the shores slowly, making the ships vulnerable to Taiwanese missiles and artillery."
Accompanied by that wonderful infographic showing the poor LHA's having to hover 1 mile off-shore. Oh no's, what ever will they do?
Whoever developed that never spent a day in their life working amphibious assault planning, never read a single book on the subject.
The major surface vessels of an amphibious assault force ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO APPROACH THE SHORE UNTIL AFTER IT IS CAPTURED BY THE LANDING FORCE.
That's what the amphibious assault vehicles (Type-05's, far better than ours) are for, as well as LST's and other shallow water craft.
This 1 comment, by itself, was sufficiently ignorant as to cast severe credibility doubt on the entire article, by itself.
More importantly, the error in this particular analysis flips on it's head the entire assessment of the defensibility of Taiwan's coastline. Far from being impenetrable because of shallow water, ALL of those beaches are HIGHLY vulnerable to amphibious assault.
As for the assessment that they will be vulnerable to Taiwanese missiles while moving ashore, well, DUH! That's the point of pre-landing fires. ANY Chinese invasion plan will be predicated on having suppressed Taiwan's shore based missile fires to allow those vessels to approach, and while Taiwan may have a lot of missiles, China has a WHOLE LOT more.
Oh, and that photograph of Taiwan's beaches, showing all the anti-landing barriers? That's a tiny ROC owned island just off-shore from mainland China. The Taiwanese have NOT built up defenses like those on their major beaches on Taiwan proper, because those are the beaches the Chinese tourists pay to come swim on.
5) last one, or I'll be here all night. This little gem.
"Driven by the political objective of establishing full control over Taiwan, China would need to seize control of Taiwan’s capital of Taipei."
Accompanied by the wonderful infographic showing Taipei at the center of impenetrable mountains that make Mordor look like a walk in the park - and of course most readers will miss the fine print at the top of said infographic that says "Elevation is exaggerated".
But let's assume for a moment that our CFR friends Mordor/Taipei is accurate...
Again, the goal is to coerce Taiwanese submission.
When you are an authoritarian state like China, unconcerned with the feelings of Western governments on the subject of human rights, you don't send troops fighting tooth and nail into urban centers because they are trying to avoid civilian casualties.
You use artillery, and now that Urban fortress becomes a cauldron of fire and no escape.
And you proceed to level 1 block at a time, with your troops casually advancing into the city as it is destroyed, until the Taiwanese fold.
Anyone who thinks the Chinese have not already planned for that is a fool who should not be engaged in serious military thinking or writing...
...and that includes every swinging dick at the CFR associated with this pathetic drivel excuse for Chinese PROPGANDA.
The Chinese have already shown invasion is no longer needed. A few months of blockade is needed. How much diesel and food does Taiwan have stockpiled. Not enough... Mainland China will just
keep conducting "live fire maneuvers" around the island keeping and shipping away. China playa the long game always.
I think this is more likely than not, but I think that to close the deal, the Chinese need to present a credible threat of being able to conduct an invasion.
I think the Taiwanese COULD weather a blockade, especially if the US supports them in defending against the blockade, and I think Taiwan would give it a go, if they felt they could deter or defeat an actual invasion.
So China needs to present a capable and credible threat of conducting that invasion.
Taiwan's needs, then, are to weather a blockade (air and missile defense) and present a credible capacity to withstand a seaborne invasion, meaning shore-based defenses and short-range air defense.
Last year I would agree but the difficulties the USN is haveing in the Red Sea I am certain are making some folks in Taiwan nervous.
Big element of any naval power is appearence of credibility and ability to sustain support over a period of time. Mainland China is close and has far shorter logistic. Strikes to take these out on the mainland are problematic at best.
Totally agree. By failing to deal strongly with the Houthi threat, we are absolutely making China salivate like a wolf who has realized the elk is weak and sick.
1 caveat to that, however.
Prior to the current shindig in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, there had not been, to my knowledge, a single instance of an anti-ship cruise missile or anti-ship ballistic missile fired in anger being downed by anti-ship missile defense systems (anti-missile missiles)
EDIT: Actually the USS Mason shot down several ASCM from the Houthi's in 2016, but that may be the only previous successful use.
We have now shot down a LOT of them. That is both improving our algorithm's and forcing the Chinese to re-calculate their assessment of our ability to interdict their missiles.
I am interested in what sort of lessons we are learning out of the incidents in the gulf. How are the Houthi's tracking targets? Why can't we hit C&C? I suppose wires could be laid in a manner we can't detect, but, our surveillance over launch areas has to be pretty good.
Are we shooting when they pop their heads up? If an adversary loses skilled personnel with every launch how long can they keep launching?
Because Biden is not serious. The Houthi targeting is coming from the Iranian intelligence vessel we all know is floating out there.
A serious response would be to sink it.
They gave the Houthi 12 hours warning on the first strikes, leaked to the media.
This isn't hard to understand. Jake Sullivan is an Iran symp. He's staked his entire career on rapprochement with a country that preaches our destruction, because 'he doesn't think they really mean it.'
Ergo, Biden and Co. will NEVER take a serious response against Iran OR any of her proxies that would threaten to derail what Sullivan feels is most critical - the Iran deal and creation of alternate power-centers in the middle east centered on Tehran.
Biden is CLUELESS on national security. ALL of the administrations national security policy comes from Sullivan - the NSA.
And Sullivan is a coward, in the purest sense of the word.
Why do they need an Iranian intelligence vessel? I live near a port. When I see lights at night that interest me, I go to the "Marine Tracker" website. They give me name, location, photos, course, speed and destination.
Before I posted this I went to the website and looked at the Red Sea. The free tracker won't give me precise location or course and speed, but, for $19 a month I could buy that data. Why do they need a ship when everything you need is on the internet? With precise position, and course and speed, wouldn't it be easy to program a launch with a ten minute delay? I'd think a paper chart would be all you need. Ten minutes would give a launcher's crew time to escape the retaliatory strike on the launcher. The birds must have targeting radars that could be switched on after a set flight distance.
Are the US/allied warships positions and course/speed available from those data sets?
Don't think so.
The Houthi's, and the Iranian's, know that we have a fairly good chance of shooting down their missiles.
Hitting cargo ships isn't hard.
Shooting at cargo ships with salvos timed to our defensive assets being in the least optimal position for a successful defense is part of their strategy.
Ask yourself. How have they been able to hit ANY ships at all with our fleet assets out there defending them? We know our missiles are working now - which BTW is the only really good lesson out of this whole thing.
Just because the Houthi's are savages using older tech does not mean they are not capable of coordinated planning and strategy.
Missile warfare is not just knowing where your target will be. It also involves understanding your enemies defensive capability and working to place it under the maximum possible strain in order that SOME of your missiles will get through.
This is the ONLY plausible explanation for the successful hits they have had already.
And there is simply NO way they could do THAT without accurate plot/position/speed/course information for our Naval assets in theatre to defend against them.
This is fundamentally how naval missile warfare works now. We figure out the area of the enemy vessels, as well as their defensive capacity (how many air-defense missiles do they likely have, how fast can they volley them) and then we launch multiple different types of anti-ship missiles, from multiple locations, flying divergent paths to the targets (anticipated) location so that the entire salvo will arrive as close to simultaneously as possible.
And the salvo will be designed so that it has a % probability of overmatch to the enemies defensive capability within the time-frame of arrival.
THAT is the role the Iranian vessel is fulfilling. There is simply zero chance the Houthi's would be having as much success as they are absent real-time intel.
It is the modern day equivalent to a PBY Catalina reporting on the position of the enemy fleet.
Been thinking about that ship. It would be nice if we could gray zone they daylights out of it. Water drops from air. Hoses from patrol ships we don't possess along with some not so gentle nudging. Some LRAD action or blasting music at them 24/7/365 with spotlights so they stay blind if they look out at night.
We seem to have a generation that didn't run into enough bullies in childhood. They fold when you turn their tactics back on them.
Sal, listening the MidRats podcast recording, and a couple of points I think are worth adding to the conversation.
The Biden admin national security policy is driven by Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor. Blinken is 2nd fiddle (though for what it's worth, Blinken and Sullivan are co-equally incompetent)
Sullivan is THE AUTHOR of the JCPA, otherwise known as the Iran Deal. He is the absolute definition of the elite liberal incapable of viewing their adversaries through their adversaries frame of reference.
Sullivan is NOT trying to prevent Iran from getting Nukes. From the start, the JCPA was designed, when reading for comprehension, to ENSURE Iran eventually DOES get nukes.
Sullivan's mindset is that a nuclear Iran would serve as a balance to Israel and create balance and hence peace.
Because he is singularly incapable of believing that Iran would pre-emptively USE a nuclear weapon. He sees world leaders as using comparable logic to his own, ie.., rational. He does not take religious extremism from leaders as serious threat because he cannot imagine a rational national leader actually believing those things.
So, you are right, Sullivan and Blinken are extremely unlikely to allow the administration to respond in any way that is actually meaningful deterrent or actually destroy Houthi capability.
Another thought, you both discussed the feasibility of the continued program of shooting down Houthi missiles, and the challenges faced by magazine capacity.
I was reading over the weekend on another military blog, and there was a categorical statement (which I do not have the knowledge to refute) that we currently do not have the missile STORES to replenish our magazines.
The idea that, even if we could rapidly develop improvised Magazine/Arsenal ships, we don't have enough SM-2/SM-6/ESSM/LRASM/NSM etc.. to fill those cells if we could deploy them.
I would ask then, if you could focus a future Midrats episode on a guest who can speak with expertise to the question of missile production capacity and inventory?
We spend a lot of ink and keystrokes discussing how to get more missile cells afloat where they are needed, because we are focusing on the end of the logistic chain, ie.. how to replenish missiles in the fleet, and trying to keep the Burke's in the fight.
But what if we don't have enough of those missiles in the first place? What if we simply can't produce them fast enough.
Not to mention the fact that our low-rate of production on these systems is a major contributing factor to their spiraling cost. We have now reached the point where ESSM are costing in excess of $1M per missile, and the larger missiles are even more expensive.
That means, even if we could produce a cost effective Arsenal ship with 200 - 300 cells, for $200-$300 million, that ship would cost ANOTHER $200 - $300 million PER RELOAD.
So, My suggestion, which has nothing to do with hulls and sailors, is that the US needs a NATIONAL MISSILE CONSORTIUM.
We need a defense industry group to take over PRODUCTION of ALL non-nuclear missiles.
All the defense players can keep making money, but if they want their missiles in the inventory, they MUST sell the rights to the government for the Consortium to license produce those missiles.
We need some 'angel investors', ie.. national security serious billionaires, to invest several hundred million dollars in a new, massive, missile production facility, built from day-1 to have the capability to produce 100% of the theoretical maximum volume of missiles the entire US defense complex would need to successfully deter and/or defeat all of our opponents.
And the pressure on the defense giants to allow that, to take a smaller profit percentage per missile based on license building.
We've seen how problematic our production of artillery munitions has been based on Ukraine.
We need to pre-emptively recognize the same problem probably exists, to a much greater degree, with all of our high tech missiles.
OK, I don't know why I didn't realize this before, but in case any of you didn't know, the US Navy is entirely dependent on ONE defense contractor for 90%+ of these missiles.
Boeing makes the Harpoon (which was not listed). Lockheed makes the LRASM (and JASM from whence it was derived.
EVERYTHING else on that list + all current versions of Tomahawk and the SM-3 (BMD) are ALL produced by Raytheon.
I think we need to have a sit down with the CEO of Raytheon and say "WTF - over"?
Either your a US company with skin in the game on the US NOT losing the next major war to China, or your just another multinational corporation beholden to nothing but the almighty $.
But if that latter is the case, there is a strong argument for the nationalization of all missile production capacity from Raytheon and Lockheed and Boeing.
Oh, and Lockheed makes nearly all the VLS launchers (Raytheon and BAE make the angled deck launchers)
Somebody in Congress needs to tighten the screws on this. Raytheon needs to QUADRUPLE production capacity and reduce costs-per-unit by a comparable amount.
And yeah, that means Congress needs to pony up the $ to ensure that capacity can be purchased, but if I were the CEO of Raytheon, I'd be calculating how much my golden parachute would be worth if China wins the next major conflict because the US either couldn't build enough, or couldn't buy enough, missiles.
That opportunity cost should probably be reflected in an industry decision to expand capacity even without additional promises of purchase.
We need flexibility in integrating our missiles. I think that is the opening Lockheed sees with PAC-3 MSE for Mk 41. Their production rate exceeds that planned for SM-6.
One reason I'd like to have ER-GMLRS quad packed. I just don't see how that couldn't find some use in anything close to an amphibious operation.
The CEO of Raytheon is on record in saying that his company is dependent on China to build their products.
There will be no war with China. It’s all theatre for the masses while the globalist politicians, ceos and billionaires have long ago sold the US out. The people just don’t know about it enough yet. Although if Trump wins in a landslide that could be an indication that the people are waking up.
Also, I have to share this note I just picked up on another site. The White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, made the following comment in response to the loss of our 3 service personnel in Jordan.
"What I will say, our deepest condolences, obviously our deepest condolences go out, and our heartfelt condolences go out to the families who lost, uh, three, three brave- uh- three brave- uh three brave-va-va- THREE folks who are military folks who are brave who are always fighting and are fighting on behalf of, uh, this administration, the American people obviously moreso, more importantly."
Read that twice. She said our 'folks' died "fighting on behalf of this ADMINISTRATION".
This is how Biden's inner circle thinks of the military. They see them as servants of the administration.
How much do we think these decisions such as the LNG terminal and others, are TRULY driven by a short-sighted 'pandering' to the climate change zealots, versus driven by an actual, rational desire to sell-out US national security interests to China?
Given the amount of money we've seen evidence was transferred from CCP owned or connected entities to Hunter and Joseph Biden, it would not surprise me in the slightest if these geniuses had 'rationalized' weakening the US as 'pursuing peace and climate justice', while being happy to pocket the millions they received in return.
You are touching on some things that interest me, but, I don't think your mind reading is correct.
You're also being unfairly hard on the spokesperson. It seems obvious to me that she started her sentence ready to say, "three brave soldiers," but then remembered she didn't remember exactly what branch the poor fellows were in. It would be insulting to call a soldier an airman, or marine. Public speaking is hard.
the mistake on folks is minor. But it demonstrates lack of preparedness and general competence issues we've seen from her since the start. Taking questions from the media is not a "gotcha" moment for her, it's her JOB.
The one subject she KNEW she would be speaking about, was the deaths of 3 American service personnel.
Ergo, the reference to folks speaks to either A) Indifference or B) complete lack of preparedness. Either way, not a good look.
But the bigger issue, for me, was the end of the comment.
Saying they are serving "the administration" before correcting the Freudian slip and saying "the American people", is to me, peeling back the truth and what they are really thinking.
With respect to the discussions about Arsenal ships / Magazine ships...
YES, build the "loyal Wingman" as the ULTIMATE design for more cells...
But in the interim, we cannot perpetually be saying "we can deter China in 5 years"
We need something YESTERDAY.
We need CREWED magazine/arsenal ships. These can be built in MONTHS by converting existing fast crew boats or fast mono-hull RoPax ferries. They would require minimal crew.
BAE makes DECK MOUNT VLS cells, angled launch. These can be literally strapped down to the deck of fast crew boats to create a fast, interim solution with a crew of 10 and 30-40 cells
350' Mono-hull ro-pax ferries can move 35 knots, and have about 2,500 TONS worth of unused gross tonnage, and the interior is a giant open space. Cutting the superstructure down to allow for multiple Ticonderoga sized VLS magazines of 64 cells each would be child's play.
A 64 'strike' cell VLS magazine, WITH 2" steel plate armor on EVERY side (including under it) AND the needed supporting electrical generator capacity and HVAC/plumbing, weighs in at under 400 tons.
A mono-hull fast ropax ferry could mount FIVE of those magazines, and still have tonnage to spare on massively increased fuel bunkers + a trio of Phalanx CIWS and some Mk38 gun mounts for close defense.
There are at least 3 of those ferries for sale right now on Apollo Duck for between 2 and 10 million a piece.
Those converted boats could be done in a year, at a cost of about $150 million a copy (not counting the missile load).
This gets into how much gear on retired ships can be quickly recycled. The production pace is set by the gear as much as the shipbuilding. We do need to be looking at getting gear that can work on ships hat can work.
Folks on the board get mad when I point this out...but...adversaries understand how politucal appearence is a weapon to. The Chinese blockade...thats not a blockade but an "excercise" posted with all legal notice to mariners. The chinese planers on the mainland think loooong term and Taiwan is not going anywhere.
Find M/V Bashad and teh frigate Alborz, drop 1-2 2000lb Quicksinks, break it in half, send them to Davy Jones locker. Message sent, away from the eyes of the press and know-nothing public.
If learning comprehension is not exhibited, repeat on the next largest ships in the IRGC Navy
Enjoyed the latest Mideast Free for all but I think you may have been overly concerned the impact of the Biden pause on approval of new LNG export terminals during the current decade (2030s may be a different issue).
The latest FERC data on operating, under construction, approved but not under construction, and proposed is at the link above. Current LNG export terminal capacity 14.43 Bcfd (billion cubic feet per day) (see first slide). There are 7 terminals under construction with a total approved capacity of 17.47 Bcfd with the first of these starting operation late in 2024. So there is enough new capacity under construction to more than double LNG export capacity. Also, 13.197 Bcfd of capacity has been approved but not yet started construction (see second slide). The third slide shows projects totaling 8.58 Bcfd that have been proposed or are in pre-filing with FERC. I think that these are the projects that are subject to the Biden pause in approval. Given that the US export capacity will double in the next few years from the projects under construction, taking a pause to assess what sustainable production of natural gas in the 2030s may be an appropriate action.
See the article linked below for an overview on the increases in export capacity coming online from approved projects.
ISO containers that hold VLS cells...modified large container carriers that have tens if not hundreds of ISO containers on the main deck...then you get rapid cell deployment and a much easier way for reload by just swapping the ISO off and on the deck.
Make these the primary cell carriers. Have a large citadel towards the end of the ship that has plenty of space to hold radars and so on. Big hangar space for two or three helis. And the front is just acres of ISO space. Low crewing. Not high speed...just play tortoise to get to the fight.
It might be hard to sink a large ship, but it is easy to find and disable. The other approach is small and many. 2 containers on a NOMARS, 4 on an MUSV.
ugghhh AI images.
Why China would struggle to invade Taiwan.
https://www.cfr.org/article/why-china-would-struggle-invade-taiwan?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Biden+Pauses+New+Liquefied+Natural+Gas+Exports&utm_campaign=Biden+Pauses+New+Liquefied+Natural+Gas+Exports
With respect, CFR are unashamed China apologists, couching their support of the CCP in bland, unconfrontational language.
The assessment you linked is EXCELLENT propaganda. It LOOKS like a critical analysis, uses all the right buzz words and history references, has pretty pictures and ALMOST manages to come across as coherent military analysis.
In short, it accomplishes it's goal, which is to convince people who DON'T understand these issues at depth that this is far too hard and China won't do it.
In short, the purpose of that article is to give political cover to Taiwanese and US politicians who seek to avoid investing in the military forces necessary to defeat China IF they make the attempt (and so DETER them from making the attempt)
Now, how can I say that? I will proceed to take apart the 'assertions' in the article, one by one.
These are not necessarily in the order in which they are presented in the article, but rather in the order in which I find them as I scroll back through after my first full read.
1) This nugget is nestled right in the center, and is fundamentally the lie upon which much of the entire analysis is based.
"The D-Day operation in World War II was the largest amphibious invasion in military history, involving seven thousand ships ..... 850,000 troops landed on the beaches of Normandy to liberate France. A Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan would likely have to dwarf D-Day in scale."
This is absolute nonsense. The idea that to conquer Taiwan, that China would need MORE forces than the allies needed to drive Germany out of France?
All of Taiwan is the size of the Normandy peninsula. As CFR did helpfully point out, Taiwan is heavily mountain and urban terrain.
But they (and many others) continue to willfully ignore what that means for military operations on Taiwan.
It will NOT be a mechanized maneuver army! There is NO NEED for heavy armored and mechanized columns, and hundred mile long supply lines when the entire island is barely 100 miles long and No One will be fighting in the interior.
Taiwan's active military force is nearly 80% conscript based, and is only about 225,000 strong.
Furthermore, The Taiwanese, in a fit of stupidity, reduced the conscription period to FOUR MONTHS in 2011. That means those conscripts, who go on to form the reserve, have SHIT for training, and are FAR less capable than Chinese troops.
2) This is closely tied to the first, and is buried (of course) at the very end of the analysis
"Still, the Taiwanese people’s will to fight and resist will likely prove more decisive than mountains, ports, roads, or the ocean. If China conducts the operation with little opposition, it can probably navigate and overcome those obstacles. However, if confronted with millions of people determined to repel an invasion, China will face a much tougher task."
This should be at the very beginning of the article, and should have extensive explanation, because THIS IS the crux of the question about whether or not China will attempt an invasion.
Taiwan is a relatively small island and 90% of the population lives in the cities. Taiwan's population are divided on the subject of reunification and very much not eager to see their cities reduced to rubble.
The population of Taiwan IS the strategic terrain, and there are VERY good reasons to believe the Taiwanese government would surrender, seek terms or collapse the moment Chinese troops enter the cities.
3) Later in the analysis they spend a lot of time talking about how terrible and hard urban combat is for military forces. That is very true.
"To conquer Taiwan, China would therefore be forced into urban combat, fighting street by street."
It's EVEN MORE TERRIBLE and hard for the civilians in those urban centers. Taiwan is not Fallujah. It's not a 2 story mud-brick collection of hovels with a population that are used to being abused and bombed.
Now, does that mean the Taiwanese people WILL collapse or surrender? Certainly not.
But it DOES mean there is a substantial chance it could occur and what you or I happen to think of that chance has diddly to do with whether or Not China will take that chance. It has EVERYTHING to do with what the CHINESE think is likely to happen, even if their analysis is flawed.
A missile and shipping blockade, followed by a threat of invasion? What are the chances Taiwan holds out until the first Chinese troops reach a major city and then folds. I'd say they are at least 50/50.
4) Now, let's get into their advanced E-3 level tactical analysis.
"Due to the shallow water, China would have to anchor ships far from Taiwan’s coast and move equipment to the shores slowly, making the ships vulnerable to Taiwanese missiles and artillery."
Accompanied by that wonderful infographic showing the poor LHA's having to hover 1 mile off-shore. Oh no's, what ever will they do?
Whoever developed that never spent a day in their life working amphibious assault planning, never read a single book on the subject.
The major surface vessels of an amphibious assault force ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO APPROACH THE SHORE UNTIL AFTER IT IS CAPTURED BY THE LANDING FORCE.
That's what the amphibious assault vehicles (Type-05's, far better than ours) are for, as well as LST's and other shallow water craft.
This 1 comment, by itself, was sufficiently ignorant as to cast severe credibility doubt on the entire article, by itself.
More importantly, the error in this particular analysis flips on it's head the entire assessment of the defensibility of Taiwan's coastline. Far from being impenetrable because of shallow water, ALL of those beaches are HIGHLY vulnerable to amphibious assault.
As for the assessment that they will be vulnerable to Taiwanese missiles while moving ashore, well, DUH! That's the point of pre-landing fires. ANY Chinese invasion plan will be predicated on having suppressed Taiwan's shore based missile fires to allow those vessels to approach, and while Taiwan may have a lot of missiles, China has a WHOLE LOT more.
Oh, and that photograph of Taiwan's beaches, showing all the anti-landing barriers? That's a tiny ROC owned island just off-shore from mainland China. The Taiwanese have NOT built up defenses like those on their major beaches on Taiwan proper, because those are the beaches the Chinese tourists pay to come swim on.
5) last one, or I'll be here all night. This little gem.
"Driven by the political objective of establishing full control over Taiwan, China would need to seize control of Taiwan’s capital of Taipei."
Accompanied by the wonderful infographic showing Taipei at the center of impenetrable mountains that make Mordor look like a walk in the park - and of course most readers will miss the fine print at the top of said infographic that says "Elevation is exaggerated".
But let's assume for a moment that our CFR friends Mordor/Taipei is accurate...
Again, the goal is to coerce Taiwanese submission.
When you are an authoritarian state like China, unconcerned with the feelings of Western governments on the subject of human rights, you don't send troops fighting tooth and nail into urban centers because they are trying to avoid civilian casualties.
You use artillery, and now that Urban fortress becomes a cauldron of fire and no escape.
And you proceed to level 1 block at a time, with your troops casually advancing into the city as it is destroyed, until the Taiwanese fold.
Anyone who thinks the Chinese have not already planned for that is a fool who should not be engaged in serious military thinking or writing...
...and that includes every swinging dick at the CFR associated with this pathetic drivel excuse for Chinese PROPGANDA.
"And that's all I have to say about that."
-Forest Gump
The Chinese have already shown invasion is no longer needed. A few months of blockade is needed. How much diesel and food does Taiwan have stockpiled. Not enough... Mainland China will just
keep conducting "live fire maneuvers" around the island keeping and shipping away. China playa the long game always.
I think this is more likely than not, but I think that to close the deal, the Chinese need to present a credible threat of being able to conduct an invasion.
I think the Taiwanese COULD weather a blockade, especially if the US supports them in defending against the blockade, and I think Taiwan would give it a go, if they felt they could deter or defeat an actual invasion.
So China needs to present a capable and credible threat of conducting that invasion.
Taiwan's needs, then, are to weather a blockade (air and missile defense) and present a credible capacity to withstand a seaborne invasion, meaning shore-based defenses and short-range air defense.
Last year I would agree but the difficulties the USN is haveing in the Red Sea I am certain are making some folks in Taiwan nervous.
Big element of any naval power is appearence of credibility and ability to sustain support over a period of time. Mainland China is close and has far shorter logistic. Strikes to take these out on the mainland are problematic at best.
Totally agree. By failing to deal strongly with the Houthi threat, we are absolutely making China salivate like a wolf who has realized the elk is weak and sick.
1 caveat to that, however.
Prior to the current shindig in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, there had not been, to my knowledge, a single instance of an anti-ship cruise missile or anti-ship ballistic missile fired in anger being downed by anti-ship missile defense systems (anti-missile missiles)
EDIT: Actually the USS Mason shot down several ASCM from the Houthi's in 2016, but that may be the only previous successful use.
We have now shot down a LOT of them. That is both improving our algorithm's and forcing the Chinese to re-calculate their assessment of our ability to interdict their missiles.
They are testing the strategy in the Red and Black Sea via vassals currently.
I am interested in what sort of lessons we are learning out of the incidents in the gulf. How are the Houthi's tracking targets? Why can't we hit C&C? I suppose wires could be laid in a manner we can't detect, but, our surveillance over launch areas has to be pretty good.
Are we shooting when they pop their heads up? If an adversary loses skilled personnel with every launch how long can they keep launching?
Because Biden is not serious. The Houthi targeting is coming from the Iranian intelligence vessel we all know is floating out there.
A serious response would be to sink it.
They gave the Houthi 12 hours warning on the first strikes, leaked to the media.
This isn't hard to understand. Jake Sullivan is an Iran symp. He's staked his entire career on rapprochement with a country that preaches our destruction, because 'he doesn't think they really mean it.'
Ergo, Biden and Co. will NEVER take a serious response against Iran OR any of her proxies that would threaten to derail what Sullivan feels is most critical - the Iran deal and creation of alternate power-centers in the middle east centered on Tehran.
Biden is CLUELESS on national security. ALL of the administrations national security policy comes from Sullivan - the NSA.
And Sullivan is a coward, in the purest sense of the word.
Why do they need an Iranian intelligence vessel? I live near a port. When I see lights at night that interest me, I go to the "Marine Tracker" website. They give me name, location, photos, course, speed and destination.
Before I posted this I went to the website and looked at the Red Sea. The free tracker won't give me precise location or course and speed, but, for $19 a month I could buy that data. Why do they need a ship when everything you need is on the internet? With precise position, and course and speed, wouldn't it be easy to program a launch with a ten minute delay? I'd think a paper chart would be all you need. Ten minutes would give a launcher's crew time to escape the retaliatory strike on the launcher. The birds must have targeting radars that could be switched on after a set flight distance.
Are the US/allied warships positions and course/speed available from those data sets?
Don't think so.
The Houthi's, and the Iranian's, know that we have a fairly good chance of shooting down their missiles.
Hitting cargo ships isn't hard.
Shooting at cargo ships with salvos timed to our defensive assets being in the least optimal position for a successful defense is part of their strategy.
Ask yourself. How have they been able to hit ANY ships at all with our fleet assets out there defending them? We know our missiles are working now - which BTW is the only really good lesson out of this whole thing.
Just because the Houthi's are savages using older tech does not mean they are not capable of coordinated planning and strategy.
Missile warfare is not just knowing where your target will be. It also involves understanding your enemies defensive capability and working to place it under the maximum possible strain in order that SOME of your missiles will get through.
This is the ONLY plausible explanation for the successful hits they have had already.
And there is simply NO way they could do THAT without accurate plot/position/speed/course information for our Naval assets in theatre to defend against them.
This is fundamentally how naval missile warfare works now. We figure out the area of the enemy vessels, as well as their defensive capacity (how many air-defense missiles do they likely have, how fast can they volley them) and then we launch multiple different types of anti-ship missiles, from multiple locations, flying divergent paths to the targets (anticipated) location so that the entire salvo will arrive as close to simultaneously as possible.
And the salvo will be designed so that it has a % probability of overmatch to the enemies defensive capability within the time-frame of arrival.
THAT is the role the Iranian vessel is fulfilling. There is simply zero chance the Houthi's would be having as much success as they are absent real-time intel.
It is the modern day equivalent to a PBY Catalina reporting on the position of the enemy fleet.
Why send a SPY-6 to fight a fire and rescue sailors? Why send it sub hunt?
Been thinking about that ship. It would be nice if we could gray zone they daylights out of it. Water drops from air. Hoses from patrol ships we don't possess along with some not so gentle nudging. Some LRAD action or blasting music at them 24/7/365 with spotlights so they stay blind if they look out at night.
We seem to have a generation that didn't run into enough bullies in childhood. They fold when you turn their tactics back on them.
Sal, listening the MidRats podcast recording, and a couple of points I think are worth adding to the conversation.
The Biden admin national security policy is driven by Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor. Blinken is 2nd fiddle (though for what it's worth, Blinken and Sullivan are co-equally incompetent)
Sullivan is THE AUTHOR of the JCPA, otherwise known as the Iran Deal. He is the absolute definition of the elite liberal incapable of viewing their adversaries through their adversaries frame of reference.
Sullivan is NOT trying to prevent Iran from getting Nukes. From the start, the JCPA was designed, when reading for comprehension, to ENSURE Iran eventually DOES get nukes.
Sullivan's mindset is that a nuclear Iran would serve as a balance to Israel and create balance and hence peace.
Because he is singularly incapable of believing that Iran would pre-emptively USE a nuclear weapon. He sees world leaders as using comparable logic to his own, ie.., rational. He does not take religious extremism from leaders as serious threat because he cannot imagine a rational national leader actually believing those things.
So, you are right, Sullivan and Blinken are extremely unlikely to allow the administration to respond in any way that is actually meaningful deterrent or actually destroy Houthi capability.
Another thought, you both discussed the feasibility of the continued program of shooting down Houthi missiles, and the challenges faced by magazine capacity.
I was reading over the weekend on another military blog, and there was a categorical statement (which I do not have the knowledge to refute) that we currently do not have the missile STORES to replenish our magazines.
The idea that, even if we could rapidly develop improvised Magazine/Arsenal ships, we don't have enough SM-2/SM-6/ESSM/LRASM/NSM etc.. to fill those cells if we could deploy them.
I would ask then, if you could focus a future Midrats episode on a guest who can speak with expertise to the question of missile production capacity and inventory?
We spend a lot of ink and keystrokes discussing how to get more missile cells afloat where they are needed, because we are focusing on the end of the logistic chain, ie.. how to replenish missiles in the fleet, and trying to keep the Burke's in the fight.
But what if we don't have enough of those missiles in the first place? What if we simply can't produce them fast enough.
Not to mention the fact that our low-rate of production on these systems is a major contributing factor to their spiraling cost. We have now reached the point where ESSM are costing in excess of $1M per missile, and the larger missiles are even more expensive.
That means, even if we could produce a cost effective Arsenal ship with 200 - 300 cells, for $200-$300 million, that ship would cost ANOTHER $200 - $300 million PER RELOAD.
So, My suggestion, which has nothing to do with hulls and sailors, is that the US needs a NATIONAL MISSILE CONSORTIUM.
We need a defense industry group to take over PRODUCTION of ALL non-nuclear missiles.
All the defense players can keep making money, but if they want their missiles in the inventory, they MUST sell the rights to the government for the Consortium to license produce those missiles.
We need some 'angel investors', ie.. national security serious billionaires, to invest several hundred million dollars in a new, massive, missile production facility, built from day-1 to have the capability to produce 100% of the theoretical maximum volume of missiles the entire US defense complex would need to successfully deter and/or defeat all of our opponents.
And the pressure on the defense giants to allow that, to take a smaller profit percentage per missile based on license building.
We've seen how problematic our production of artillery munitions has been based on Ukraine.
We need to pre-emptively recognize the same problem probably exists, to a much greater degree, with all of our high tech missiles.
OK, I don't know why I didn't realize this before, but in case any of you didn't know, the US Navy is entirely dependent on ONE defense contractor for 90%+ of these missiles.
Boeing makes the Harpoon (which was not listed). Lockheed makes the LRASM (and JASM from whence it was derived.
EVERYTHING else on that list + all current versions of Tomahawk and the SM-3 (BMD) are ALL produced by Raytheon.
I think we need to have a sit down with the CEO of Raytheon and say "WTF - over"?
Either your a US company with skin in the game on the US NOT losing the next major war to China, or your just another multinational corporation beholden to nothing but the almighty $.
But if that latter is the case, there is a strong argument for the nationalization of all missile production capacity from Raytheon and Lockheed and Boeing.
Oh, and Lockheed makes nearly all the VLS launchers (Raytheon and BAE make the angled deck launchers)
Somebody in Congress needs to tighten the screws on this. Raytheon needs to QUADRUPLE production capacity and reduce costs-per-unit by a comparable amount.
And yeah, that means Congress needs to pony up the $ to ensure that capacity can be purchased, but if I were the CEO of Raytheon, I'd be calculating how much my golden parachute would be worth if China wins the next major conflict because the US either couldn't build enough, or couldn't buy enough, missiles.
That opportunity cost should probably be reflected in an industry decision to expand capacity even without additional promises of purchase.
We need flexibility in integrating our missiles. I think that is the opening Lockheed sees with PAC-3 MSE for Mk 41. Their production rate exceeds that planned for SM-6.
One reason I'd like to have ER-GMLRS quad packed. I just don't see how that couldn't find some use in anything close to an amphibious operation.
I’m reminded of the life of Dahlgren. He served in a navy that built its own weapons and ammunition. Why can’t the USN build a missile?
The CEO of Raytheon is on record in saying that his company is dependent on China to build their products.
There will be no war with China. It’s all theatre for the masses while the globalist politicians, ceos and billionaires have long ago sold the US out. The people just don’t know about it enough yet. Although if Trump wins in a landslide that could be an indication that the people are waking up.
Also, I have to share this note I just picked up on another site. The White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, made the following comment in response to the loss of our 3 service personnel in Jordan.
"What I will say, our deepest condolences, obviously our deepest condolences go out, and our heartfelt condolences go out to the families who lost, uh, three, three brave- uh- three brave- uh three brave-va-va- THREE folks who are military folks who are brave who are always fighting and are fighting on behalf of, uh, this administration, the American people obviously moreso, more importantly."
Read that twice. She said our 'folks' died "fighting on behalf of this ADMINISTRATION".
This is how Biden's inner circle thinks of the military. They see them as servants of the administration.
Go watch the video, it's telling.
https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1751978216535781849
Biden is surrounded by some of the most incompetent people I have ever seen in government.
That would be a tall feat. Still, all the oomph they might have had is plainly lacking since Oct. 7.
How much do we think these decisions such as the LNG terminal and others, are TRULY driven by a short-sighted 'pandering' to the climate change zealots, versus driven by an actual, rational desire to sell-out US national security interests to China?
Given the amount of money we've seen evidence was transferred from CCP owned or connected entities to Hunter and Joseph Biden, it would not surprise me in the slightest if these geniuses had 'rationalized' weakening the US as 'pursuing peace and climate justice', while being happy to pocket the millions they received in return.
You are touching on some things that interest me, but, I don't think your mind reading is correct.
You're also being unfairly hard on the spokesperson. It seems obvious to me that she started her sentence ready to say, "three brave soldiers," but then remembered she didn't remember exactly what branch the poor fellows were in. It would be insulting to call a soldier an airman, or marine. Public speaking is hard.
the mistake on folks is minor. But it demonstrates lack of preparedness and general competence issues we've seen from her since the start. Taking questions from the media is not a "gotcha" moment for her, it's her JOB.
The one subject she KNEW she would be speaking about, was the deaths of 3 American service personnel.
Ergo, the reference to folks speaks to either A) Indifference or B) complete lack of preparedness. Either way, not a good look.
But the bigger issue, for me, was the end of the comment.
Saying they are serving "the administration" before correcting the Freudian slip and saying "the American people", is to me, peeling back the truth and what they are really thinking.
She has a limited vocabulary, ergo her fallback usage of 'folks'
With respect to the discussions about Arsenal ships / Magazine ships...
YES, build the "loyal Wingman" as the ULTIMATE design for more cells...
But in the interim, we cannot perpetually be saying "we can deter China in 5 years"
We need something YESTERDAY.
We need CREWED magazine/arsenal ships. These can be built in MONTHS by converting existing fast crew boats or fast mono-hull RoPax ferries. They would require minimal crew.
BAE makes DECK MOUNT VLS cells, angled launch. These can be literally strapped down to the deck of fast crew boats to create a fast, interim solution with a crew of 10 and 30-40 cells
350' Mono-hull ro-pax ferries can move 35 knots, and have about 2,500 TONS worth of unused gross tonnage, and the interior is a giant open space. Cutting the superstructure down to allow for multiple Ticonderoga sized VLS magazines of 64 cells each would be child's play.
A 64 'strike' cell VLS magazine, WITH 2" steel plate armor on EVERY side (including under it) AND the needed supporting electrical generator capacity and HVAC/plumbing, weighs in at under 400 tons.
A mono-hull fast ropax ferry could mount FIVE of those magazines, and still have tonnage to spare on massively increased fuel bunkers + a trio of Phalanx CIWS and some Mk38 gun mounts for close defense.
There are at least 3 of those ferries for sale right now on Apollo Duck for between 2 and 10 million a piece.
Those converted boats could be done in a year, at a cost of about $150 million a copy (not counting the missile load).
This gets into how much gear on retired ships can be quickly recycled. The production pace is set by the gear as much as the shipbuilding. We do need to be looking at getting gear that can work on ships hat can work.
So, how many Tico's have been parked, never to be manned again?
Every one of those = 2x 64 cell Magazines that could be pulled out and plugged into a new vessel.
not to mention the CIWS and other systems that could be re-purposed.
If the Navy insists on parking Tico's to be scrapped, we could build out arsenal ships for pennies based on repurposing materials on just the Tico's.
Folks on the board get mad when I point this out...but...adversaries understand how politucal appearence is a weapon to. The Chinese blockade...thats not a blockade but an "excercise" posted with all legal notice to mariners. The chinese planers on the mainland think loooong term and Taiwan is not going anywhere.
Find M/V Bashad and teh frigate Alborz, drop 1-2 2000lb Quicksinks, break it in half, send them to Davy Jones locker. Message sent, away from the eyes of the press and know-nothing public.
If learning comprehension is not exhibited, repeat on the next largest ships in the IRGC Navy
Enjoyed the latest Mideast Free for all but I think you may have been overly concerned the impact of the Biden pause on approval of new LNG export terminals during the current decade (2030s may be a different issue).
https://www.ferc.gov/media/us-lng-export-terminals-existing-approved-not-yet-built-and-proposed
The latest FERC data on operating, under construction, approved but not under construction, and proposed is at the link above. Current LNG export terminal capacity 14.43 Bcfd (billion cubic feet per day) (see first slide). There are 7 terminals under construction with a total approved capacity of 17.47 Bcfd with the first of these starting operation late in 2024. So there is enough new capacity under construction to more than double LNG export capacity. Also, 13.197 Bcfd of capacity has been approved but not yet started construction (see second slide). The third slide shows projects totaling 8.58 Bcfd that have been proposed or are in pre-filing with FERC. I think that these are the projects that are subject to the Biden pause in approval. Given that the US export capacity will double in the next few years from the projects under construction, taking a pause to assess what sustainable production of natural gas in the 2030s may be an appropriate action.
See the article linked below for an overview on the increases in export capacity coming online from approved projects.
https://www.hklaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/01/biden-administration-freezes-lng-export-approvals#:~:text=The%20Biden%20Administration%20on%20Jan,the%20underlying%20analyses%20for%20authorizations.
Sorry, I missed that my spelling checker changed Midrats to Mideast.