The political "leaders" have had the wrong paymasters for too many years. Even if only a majority of the minority have been elite captured, that will be enough to gum up the works. To Aviation Skeptic's listed options, gumming up the works takes "win fast" off the table as it promotes "don't fight". This, of course, make the remaining two options more plausible.
Talk of a Chinese economic and demographic house of cards is wishful thinking. Sure, they have problems. But the CCP still has lots of people and lots of industrial and material resources left to burn.
And if necessary, the CCP will burn those Chinese people and those industrial and material resources in order to keep itself in power and to keep its long-term goal of Chinese world domination on track.
Concur. We vastly underestimate the military power and acceptance of loss if we measure them by democratic standards. My evidence? The cannon fodder Russian losses in Ukraine.
You're spot on! The acceptance of loss... We've already seen it in Korea, Vietnam, and, in a different way, in Afghanistan. These types of regimes have no problem putting people through the meat grinder and waiting for the United States to get bored, even if they win tactically, which also remains to be seen. May God help us.
I think it is right - we need to stop thinking about what they are going to do to us and start thinking about what we are going to do to them, to paraphrase Grant talking to his generals about Bobby Lee during the Richmond Campaign. I would add to this we need to really put a hitch in their giddy up by staging several Army groups in South Korea and, if things kick off, we immediately head for the Yalu.
Hit the NK nuke sites, artillery emplacements, and invade NK with a particular focus on a decapitation strike on Pyongyang. This is the surest land route to threaten China and will certainly distract them - also takes NK off the map on our flank as a worry. It has always been a question as to whether SK would participate in a war against China, given their worries about NK, so this gets them in the game immediately and activates all those bases against NE China....spreads out China's missile burden, too.
For anyone with the willies about international law and declaring war - we are still at war with North Korea. They are allied with China and, if this kicks off, will have to be dealt with one way or another. If we leave them on our flank and leave the initiative with them and China, then China IS losing at some point, then China can activate NK to try to distract US at some point.
I might advocate for taking out a large hydro dam or something. We could probably do it, however, dealing with the response in the nuclear / technological / internet is another factor that history really doesn't provide us much insight to go on. We take out a dam, they take out the internet...perhaps ChatGPT can provide insight on first, second, ad infinitum effects as they might...cascade.
Well, Obama fixed that by continuing the long range Dem plan to transfer ICANN from our control back before Trump's first term. However, it is a decentralized "network of networks" and I think we've built some redundancy into that system. There is the old concept of the Wilderness of Mirrors in intelligence - you got access, but did they LET you have access, is it a trap, are they watching, is the plan/specifications for the airplane you downloaded real or slightly altered to introduce flaws if you copy it? So, I don't think it is that easy for China to gauge how surely they can make that happen.
Blowing up a dam, however, is real world - it is there, or it is gone and you know it is done. I think that, given the practical results, this would be an option bordering on a nuclear strike given the casualties...but always an option if you go to unrestricted warfare in the crunch.
But as they say, once you enter a war it takes on its own dynamics and momentum. As attributed to Maj. General Stanislaw Sosabowski in Operation Market Garden (A Bridge Too Far), "When one man says to another, 'I know what let's do today, let's play the war game'... everybody dies."
CDR Sal, your analogy of the machine gun, barbed wire, and dead zone impacts is...disturbingly accurate. If we fight in the Pacific, hard to see us not going to nu...er, strategic options for all the tyranny of distance, enemy home game, and preferred munition magazine depth and delivery platform numbers lack you accurately cite. Win fast, lose, go nuclear, or don't fight seem to be the options. Growing increasingly uncomfortable with China's economic, demographic, and civil unrest woes. The prospect of a "short victorious war" is a pattern of human behavior often repeated throughout history as a means of a tottering government trying to shore up its crumbling foundation. Fingers crossed, as we seem to be forced to consider "least bad options" in many scenarios.
Anyone know a shipyard in CONUS that can actually work on them? NNSY perhaps, but think they are a bit busy at the moment? Pascagoula? Bath? Asking for a friend...who used to produce powder bags for some old guns or something...
Bayonne, nns, norfolk, might restore roosevelt road in some far off future, philly, maybe Vigor Portland, Bremerton, Pearl, Yokosuka. Battleships are easy, CVNs are real hard.
The Iowa Class isn't coming back, for a variety of reasons. But the topic does raise an important question.
What is the future role of passive armor of various types in modern naval warfare? Especially against the threat of high-volume aerial, surface, and subsurface drone attacks?
We will eventually have kilowatt-class and megawatt-class lasers, and high-power microwave defensive weapons.
But what happens next when a drone still manages to get through the outer layers of defense?
As I recall, the curator of New Jersey did a video on getting her operational, and estimated it would require "1 year, $1B minimum". And that was ignoring the ammo for the 16" and 5" guns, not to mention barrel liners and other specialized parts. And bringing back enough retired sailors to train a new generation on her archaic systems. Before any modernization upgrades.
Regarding lasers... I wouldn't count on them too much. Based on personal experience with industrial lasers, they're fragile, sensitive, have extreme power and cooling requirements, and very limited range. For one thing, firing lasers at sea level means fighting the atmosphere, wasting power. For another, lasers are not "beams" -- they're *cones*, requiring adaptive optics to adjust the focus of the beam to the range-to-target. And the longer the effective range you want, the bigger the final mirror (probably not a lens) has to be -- *meters* in diameter may be required to achieve useful spot size on target.
And that final mirror has be held incredibly stably on a moving target, while changing focus, and dealing with all the myriad vibration issues of a ship. This is part of what killed the Airborne Laser. And if you can't put enough power on a small enough spot on the target, you either have to seriously up your beam power, or seriously increase your dwell time ("impulse kill" vs "burn kill").
For those who enjoy rabbit holes, the Project Rho website is a handy clearinghouse for (among other things) all the nasty details on beam weapons. Mostly in a space-based context, but the rules of optics don't change.
Regarding the Iowa Class, the entire support infrastructure for the class was scrapped between 2006 and 2011, including the spare 16-inch barrels and liners. All of it is gone.
As for lasers, placing a megawatt-class laser aboard a warship is a daunting task, no question about it. Even placing combat-effective kilowatt-class lasers aboard a warship has its challenges.
A megawatt laser's optical turret must be placed at a height well above the waterline. And the warship must have a means of keeping itself 'reasonably' stable when firing its lasers -- tough to do when the optical mirrors are at a height well above the main deck.
A warship carrying megawatt-class lasers must also include the capability to replace its optics at sea, because those optics will be consumed in the course of a prolonged engagement.
IMHO, if a megawatt-class multi-spectral beam laser is to be placed aboard a surface combatant or aboard a large auxiliary, it cannot be retrofitted. The vessel itself must be designed from the keel up to carry such a weapon.
By the time all the work was done to bring the Iowa Class back into service -- reworking all four ships from the keel up, reestablishing and expanding the logistics support infrastructure -- we might as well have designed a large 21st Century laser battlecruiser with all the right armor in all the right places.
But before we built that 21st Century laser battlecruiser with all the right armor in all the right places -- among a number of other things such a vessel would require -- we would have to have reasonable confidence that the money we spent on it would deliver the 21st Century combat performance we need from it.
Operate the engines, man the heavy guns. I'm a GM, and the use of 16"/50 rifles is a lost art, as is 5"/38.
We just don't have the technicians and parts around anymore for them. We have six ships that remain with oil-fired steam plants in the Navy. Four more are in commission, but have MSC personnel in the Engineering Department.
Missile barges. Able to fire long range guided missiles from well beyond the FEBA.
A 100k ton commercial container ship requires a crew of perhaps 20 to 30. Not 200-300, or 5000 for a CVN. And as long as NAVSEA doesn't get a chance to 'improve' them like the Constellation-class, they could be purchased commercially, modified using kits in commercial yards, and and loaded. We could even use smaller OSV vessels (80-100 meters) with crews of a dozen.
You can use a container crane to load an OSV or FSV. Get hold of container feeders and keep them back and defended offloading the missile boxes to the smaller ships with their own cranes.
Yeah, it has problems, just like everything else. But its like switching to VLS. We did it and it was a big effort to get a better way of doing things. Now we need a better way of doing things again and it will be a big effort.
You would want at least a small marine detachment to provide security from a pirates or hostile non-pirates in small craft. You don't need a huge unit, but it's a lot better to notice attackers and engage them before they get a squad on board the ship or start delivering accurate 35mm automatic grenade launcher fire at the bridge.
At what point do you go nuclear? My analogy has been a weak obese cop facing a muscular thug. Will the cop let the thug beat him to death without using his sidearm because the thug doesn't have one or does his decision to use deadly force become accelerated?
It would be very foolish to use nukes defending Taiwan. It is what it is. Taiwan hasn't sufficiently invested in its own defense, we're going to risk the US?
I don't even think the PRC will attack US forces when taking Taiwan unless they're fired upon first or attempt to run a blockade.
PRC will use hybrid warfare, blockade and subvert.
My concern is Taiwan going nuclear by themselves, and the rest of the world getting the blame for it.
Because there is no reason that Taiwan, S. Korea, or Japan cannot have a secret nuclear weapons program. In fact, I'd be more surprised by the absence of such a program than admission of it.
China's whole point is to take Taiwan. So we need to produce a great number of systems that make the waters of the First Island Chain incredibly lethal to their shipping. If those systems can be deployed from SSN in the Philippine Sea, so much the better. A cheap anti-shipping heavyweight torpedo married to a quiet USV, perhaps. Mines, mines, and more mines. Make them practice ASW and minesweeping. Make them fear the water.
As you have pointed out several times before, Sal, State has been asleep at the switch for a number of years. And that’s being generous about their motives. Without allies and alternate bases, the trip from Wake to Luzon is awfully empty, not to mention being bereft of logistics support locations.
(2) enlist some serious allies to China's south, rather than just from the eastern seas Both Vietnam and India have proven past antagonism towards China that could/should be encouraged as new allies in the fight. India has very large armed forces to contribute.
(3) hit em where they aint lookin.
Modern, fully rigid, stealthy AIRSHIPS......can "land" forces anywhere....from any direction.
no worries about mines, torpedoes, shorelines, mountain ranges, distance. No need for even simple cleared runways to operate from.....an adequately sized empty field will serve.
DARPA "Walrus" was supposed to create modern airships to carry upwards of 500 ton payloads, 12,000 miles, and deliver a full "Army fighting unit" directly from "fort to fight"; in 72 hours.
okay, enlarge that vision. create a large fleet of such craft, say, 60 or so. two years to field the first two of that fleet, two years to field the rest. (historical precedent)
it can be done. It should be done. Airships are a historical NAVY thing.....
They are lighter-than-air, but powered. Think of a much larger Goodyear blimp, but also having some aerodynamic lift to supplement control and buoyancy.
Sure. And as soon as you can carry enough fuel, to push those airframes through the headwinds, we can discuss it as a viable alternative.
Not only don't we have such a demonstrator, we don't even (as far as I know) have a drawing of a viable candidate for such. Chanting "Airship, Airship!" doesn't count.
They did it all the time. There was a transatlantic airship service prior to the Hindenburg explosion. We flew blimps during WWII for ASW off the East and West coasts and for convoys. Crashes in storms (in the Midwest, mostly) put an end to it, but the newer craft are made differently. They just change altitude if the wind at a particular altitude presents a problem...and the current iterations of Hybrid Airships can go really high. We also use aerostats for a variety of ISR, weather, border surveillance, etc. right now.
The WALRUS program was well matured and there are various designs around the world, and the HAV 304 was tested by the Army. You can refer to this site for one design, which is pretty similar to the WALRUS design. https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/
Be that as it may, you can educate yourself on the performance of hybrid airships. They are what they are - and have their pluses and minuses in operations just like anything else. Airlander 10 (HAV 304), for example, is designed to handle winds up to 30 knots during takeoff and landing...but that is an operational limitation. But there are platforms with unique capabilities that provide such an advantage that they overcome potential negatives. They can carry more weight, more economically, and can stay on station much longer than other platforms.
Due to the weight they can carry, they could carry equipment for land forces to land in austere environments (WALRUS concept) or they could carry ISR, C4/data links, and/or weapons. If they are equipped for stratospheric flight (winds are more stable, too) they can literally drop dead weight guided tungsten poles (somewhat like the Rods from Gods concept) with enough kinetic force to cause considerable damage. They could also carry powered guided weapons that could reach some pretty impressive ranges from that altitude while conserving fuel as in Rapid Dragon (but a larger payload). They are also easier to operate as unmanned or minimally manned platforms.
So they aren't just a throw up your hands and say, "Oh, that won't work" technology. They've worked in the past and been used. They've evolved and overcome many technical limitations. They present a unique set of operational capabilities that could be employed.
I am no special pleader for them...my major factor would be cost and time to build. We don't need ANOTHER program that acquisition and procurement can screw up with more drain on the budget. But cheap and fast to fill a gap...sure, I'm interested.
" They just change altitude if the wind at a particular altitude presents a problem"
Do not forget that those airships won't be alone up there in that "long delirious burning blue". I doubt that airships can share the same flight routes as 500 mph jet aircraft. Or the same airports.
I've piloted C130's from the West Coast (mostly VNY) to HNL and back maybe 50 times (Thanks 146 AW, California Air Guard!).
We ALWAYS had headwinds from 26,000 down to the surface headed westbound, and tailwinds coming back. Except when the naviguesser wanted to try pressure pattern navigation. Then we had headwinds both ways.
I see your point, Sir. Can certainly be done. only 8,200 miles 'twixt Diego and Nam. back in 1957, Navy blimp "snowbird" flew 9,440 miles, unrefueled. of course, that was in a non-rigid airship (blimp) doing only about 55 mph. DARPA's aim was to create airships capable of 166mph. bit of a reach, but also do-able. with that kind of power, prevailing winds are less of a concern at any time. get rid of the "non-rigid" blimp type of craft and build something solid and robust with a fully rigid hull..........it's something we CAN do, and should.
Yes, the Snowbird (ZPG-2) flew downwind. From Massachusetts to Portugal then Morocco, then back across the South Atlantic to the Cape Verde Islands then to the Caribbean, landing at Key West. Rather the route that ships in the age of sail followed.
Which kind of proves my point. Having to fly downwind.
Now, if we were in (say) Karachi, Pakistan and wanted to get to Taiwan (and didn't care about the Himalayas in the way) an airship might be the way to go. Unfortunately, we fight the battles we must, not the battles we wish.
No offense to the porch, but given our infrastructure vulnerability, overall material readiness combined with lack of assets, and Congressional climate?
We will keep Korea and Japan as allies only after great loss. Taiwan will probably fall quickly due to a long established and thoroughly embedded fifth column in their government and military.
Everything south will become Chinese vassals or client states to some extent or another. Guam might or might not remain as a US territory. Australia might become Finlandized to some extent like New Zealand. (I'd be happy to be wrong.)
The optimistic scenario is they take Taiwan without much of a fight from Taiwan and without firing on US forces, and that this galvanizes the region into preparedness and mutual alliances which deters further Chinese aggression.
As you say, the Fifth Column plus lack of defense spending plus Taiwan's ambivalence about fighting makes fighting for Taiwan a tough sell. I don't think they're like Ukrainians. Still, it's gonna be a shame to watch a democracy fall.
Nothing pisses away deterrence and containment more than getting your ass kicked.
And as Sal's post says, that's what the USA would be facing now and in the next few years, barring a massive increase in Taiwan defenses, US naval shipbuilding and weapons stocks.
Better to fortify Japan, the Philippines, S. Korea and Vietnam.
You also can't overestimate the willingness of the American people to fight that fight. A draft? Unthinkable now, partly because of right-libertarian philosophy and partly because of leftist alienation.
I would venture to say one can not "underestimate" the willingness of the American people to fight (on the ground, with actual people) west of Hawaii but many people are prone to "overestimate" the same.
... understanding that we agree and I think you meant "should not" as opposed to "can not"
Here is the text of a speech given by former Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, at the UK - Ukraine Defence Tech Forum on April 25, 2025:
"The evolving nature of warfare has redefined the fundamental principles of global security: the Ukrainian experience and the emerging world order."
This is the most important point I draw from the speech:
------------------------
" ..... In conclusion, the revolution in military technology based on unmanned systems and artificial intelligence has completely changed the nature of war and is provoking it to evolve. So the speed of innovation implementation directly increases a state's ability to achieve victory in war.
Presumably, in the future high-tech war the winner will be the one who adapts to the technological conditions of the battlefield faster than the enemy. The side that is the first to make the transition to a different military-technological order systematically and qualitatively will have an unconditional strategic advantage and impose its will on the other side.
As long as the enemy has the resources, forces, and means to strike at our territory and attempt offensive actions, he will do so. This is a war of attrition. ......."
----------------------
The outcome of a war of attrition in the Western Pacific with the PRC will be determined by which side has the most human resources, the most technological resources, the most material resources, and the best ability to achieve a fast speed of innovation implementation.
" ..... In conclusion, the revolution in military technology based on unmanned systems and artificial intelligence has completely changed the nature of war and is provoking it to evolve. So the speed of innovation implementation directly increases a state's ability to achieve victory in war."
Zaluzhnyi's commentary certainly applies to land warfare as it is being conducted in the Russia-Ukraine war.
But do these land warfare developments necessarily apply to a war at sea between the US and the PRC inside and/or between the first and third island chains?
We have not seen much discussion in the military blogosphere concerning just how these recent trends in drone warfare would impact the way a large-scale combat engagement might be conducted at sea.
***shiver***, Mr. Brim, "human resources". But won't the DEI, feelz group-think imbedded in HR's department in every aspect of our side just muck it all up, skipping along tripping the light fantastic to an ops-normal date with doom? I like to think that getting triggered is a survival trait, but I sometimes think it just makes me annoying. Sorry.
We're playing checkers and the CCP is playing Go. We all need to reread chapter six of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. It's all about weak points, strong points, and the dispersion/concentration of forces. It seems likely that our Navy won't be able to go hi-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle into a swarm of missiles and drones, so we should instead hit targets the CCP isn't defending in ways they aren't expecting. Sucker punch them.
A few quotes from Sun Tzu:
"Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us."
"An army may march great distances without distress, if it marches through country where the enemy is not. You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended.You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked."
"Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack."
Ask yourself what and who the CCP fears most, and where that frightening boogeyman is.
Exactly. Cut deals with the countiries in their debt traps to take an offer and cut off their supplies. If they don’t bite, are their internal forces which might acheive the goal via insurgency? Same with Tibet and Uighurs. Feed them what they need to fight.
In 1941 Japan's hope was that the U.S. Navy would charge toward the Philippines in mass, in order to be attrited along the way then defeated in a single decisive battle. If we would make that mistake now and do a Charge of the Light Brigade with the U.S. fleet, then we deserve to live in a Chinese world. Strategically (which we seem incapable of grasping), Taiwan cannot be relieved or resupplied if China decides to invade. They will have to fight on their own, which unfortunately they seem to have little interest in doing as they love to buy weapons suitable only for a nice parade (we need to look in the mirror on this, too). Instead of looking at China's island chains, whose little outposts would be nothing but troops huddled in bunkers with their fingers in their ears if we bought our own medium range missiles, instead let's look at a map in reverse and see China in the Pacific encircled by geographic choke points. Blockaded by low cost mines delivered by unmanned drones and gradually attrited by submarines and cruise missiles from long range bombers flying from bases that are not Kadena or Guam (which would be on fire anyway). The rest of their expensive bases around the world totally isolated from resupply and left to die on the vine or be picked off one by one. When Chinese factories shut down, those unemployed workers will create a revolutionary insurgency that will not require any help from our Green Berets.
Seconded. There are all sorts of plans, strategies, and concepts to avoid getting hit by all those Chinese anti-ship missiles but they do mean you have to get lucky *a lot.* And if you're taking out space assets en masse to do this (not saying they are, just that's one obvious counter), then you risk a very bad escalation ladder spiral. Like you say, a distant blockade, much like the RN ended up with re Germany after losing a pile of ships in the North Sea in 1914, is the safer, more effective strategy. Defending Taiwan is a lot like trying to defend the Philippines in early 1942 - really isn't going to happen - and while I get trying to convince the CCP we'll do that for its deterrence value, I really hope we don't actually try it. Indeed, even if Taiwan rolls over, we could still implement a blockade strategy (though given our poor luck with Russian sanctions to date), even that might not work. On the plus side, we'd avoid nuclear annihilation, which is a plus.
A logical CoA from the Chinese is to destroy all the LEO sats and then start selectively punching out Geo sats that the US depends on for C&C. Can the US even fight just using HF radio any more?
Neither side would say anything. All the LEO says would just go dark, each side would accuse the other, and both would be correct. Escalatory? Yes. But logic suggests whoever loses sats first, loses the war, so whoever falls behind will by necessity conduct space denial ops. Unclear where that ends.
The only reason for a besieged garrison to keep fighting is if they think a relief force is on the way. Taiwan simply isn't going to "fight on their own" if they don't think we're riding to the rescue.
The political "leaders" have been in the wrong job for years.
The political "leaders" have had the wrong paymasters for too many years. Even if only a majority of the minority have been elite captured, that will be enough to gum up the works. To Aviation Skeptic's listed options, gumming up the works takes "win fast" off the table as it promotes "don't fight". This, of course, make the remaining two options more plausible.
We can only hope their economic house of cards and poor demographics collapse prior to their need to choose aggression.
Talk of a Chinese economic and demographic house of cards is wishful thinking. Sure, they have problems. But the CCP still has lots of people and lots of industrial and material resources left to burn.
And if necessary, the CCP will burn those Chinese people and those industrial and material resources in order to keep itself in power and to keep its long-term goal of Chinese world domination on track.
Concur. We vastly underestimate the military power and acceptance of loss if we measure them by democratic standards. My evidence? The cannon fodder Russian losses in Ukraine.
You're spot on! The acceptance of loss... We've already seen it in Korea, Vietnam, and, in a different way, in Afghanistan. These types of regimes have no problem putting people through the meat grinder and waiting for the United States to get bored, even if they win tactically, which also remains to be seen. May God help us.
Why not hasten that collapse, and thus keep the CCP so busy watching its back that it can't lash out toward us or Taiwan?
"The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." – Sun Tzu
Correct, and the CCP has done exactly that.
There was a great article back in USNI in 2022 - https://blog.usni.org/posts/2022/09/16/given-chinas-a2ad-capabilities-how-would-the-united-states-defend-taiwan
I think it is right - we need to stop thinking about what they are going to do to us and start thinking about what we are going to do to them, to paraphrase Grant talking to his generals about Bobby Lee during the Richmond Campaign. I would add to this we need to really put a hitch in their giddy up by staging several Army groups in South Korea and, if things kick off, we immediately head for the Yalu.
Hit the NK nuke sites, artillery emplacements, and invade NK with a particular focus on a decapitation strike on Pyongyang. This is the surest land route to threaten China and will certainly distract them - also takes NK off the map on our flank as a worry. It has always been a question as to whether SK would participate in a war against China, given their worries about NK, so this gets them in the game immediately and activates all those bases against NE China....spreads out China's missile burden, too.
For anyone with the willies about international law and declaring war - we are still at war with North Korea. They are allied with China and, if this kicks off, will have to be dealt with one way or another. If we leave them on our flank and leave the initiative with them and China, then China IS losing at some point, then China can activate NK to try to distract US at some point.
I might advocate for taking out a large hydro dam or something. We could probably do it, however, dealing with the response in the nuclear / technological / internet is another factor that history really doesn't provide us much insight to go on. We take out a dam, they take out the internet...perhaps ChatGPT can provide insight on first, second, ad infinitum effects as they might...cascade.
Well, Obama fixed that by continuing the long range Dem plan to transfer ICANN from our control back before Trump's first term. However, it is a decentralized "network of networks" and I think we've built some redundancy into that system. There is the old concept of the Wilderness of Mirrors in intelligence - you got access, but did they LET you have access, is it a trap, are they watching, is the plan/specifications for the airplane you downloaded real or slightly altered to introduce flaws if you copy it? So, I don't think it is that easy for China to gauge how surely they can make that happen.
Blowing up a dam, however, is real world - it is there, or it is gone and you know it is done. I think that, given the practical results, this would be an option bordering on a nuclear strike given the casualties...but always an option if you go to unrestricted warfare in the crunch.
But as they say, once you enter a war it takes on its own dynamics and momentum. As attributed to Maj. General Stanislaw Sosabowski in Operation Market Garden (A Bridge Too Far), "When one man says to another, 'I know what let's do today, let's play the war game'... everybody dies."
CDR Sal, your analogy of the machine gun, barbed wire, and dead zone impacts is...disturbingly accurate. If we fight in the Pacific, hard to see us not going to nu...er, strategic options for all the tyranny of distance, enemy home game, and preferred munition magazine depth and delivery platform numbers lack you accurately cite. Win fast, lose, go nuclear, or don't fight seem to be the options. Growing increasingly uncomfortable with China's economic, demographic, and civil unrest woes. The prospect of a "short victorious war" is a pattern of human behavior often repeated throughout history as a means of a tottering government trying to shore up its crumbling foundation. Fingers crossed, as we seem to be forced to consider "least bad options" in many scenarios.
I’ll bet, before too long, we will see the WISCONSIN and IOWA being updated. BTW….anyone know how to start their engines???
Anyone know a shipyard in CONUS that can actually work on them? NNSY perhaps, but think they are a bit busy at the moment? Pascagoula? Bath? Asking for a friend...who used to produce powder bags for some old guns or something...
The NEW JERSEY has been pretty well taken care of. I’ll bet they know!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI_6nUwnb2g&t=10s
Not looking too good. First thing would be getting them into a drydock to remove the blanking plates over the sea chests
But, no ammo, no replacement parts for the big guns including barrel liners, Radars are antiques.
Bayonne, nns, norfolk, might restore roosevelt road in some far off future, philly, maybe Vigor Portland, Bremerton, Pearl, Yokosuka. Battleships are easy, CVNs are real hard.
The Iowa Class isn't coming back, for a variety of reasons. But the topic does raise an important question.
What is the future role of passive armor of various types in modern naval warfare? Especially against the threat of high-volume aerial, surface, and subsurface drone attacks?
We will eventually have kilowatt-class and megawatt-class lasers, and high-power microwave defensive weapons.
But what happens next when a drone still manages to get through the outer layers of defense?
The biggest battleship can have her keel snapped by a torpedo, mine, or exploding UUV.
As I recall, the curator of New Jersey did a video on getting her operational, and estimated it would require "1 year, $1B minimum". And that was ignoring the ammo for the 16" and 5" guns, not to mention barrel liners and other specialized parts. And bringing back enough retired sailors to train a new generation on her archaic systems. Before any modernization upgrades.
Regarding lasers... I wouldn't count on them too much. Based on personal experience with industrial lasers, they're fragile, sensitive, have extreme power and cooling requirements, and very limited range. For one thing, firing lasers at sea level means fighting the atmosphere, wasting power. For another, lasers are not "beams" -- they're *cones*, requiring adaptive optics to adjust the focus of the beam to the range-to-target. And the longer the effective range you want, the bigger the final mirror (probably not a lens) has to be -- *meters* in diameter may be required to achieve useful spot size on target.
And that final mirror has be held incredibly stably on a moving target, while changing focus, and dealing with all the myriad vibration issues of a ship. This is part of what killed the Airborne Laser. And if you can't put enough power on a small enough spot on the target, you either have to seriously up your beam power, or seriously increase your dwell time ("impulse kill" vs "burn kill").
For those who enjoy rabbit holes, the Project Rho website is a handy clearinghouse for (among other things) all the nasty details on beam weapons. Mostly in a space-based context, but the rules of optics don't change.
Regarding the Iowa Class, the entire support infrastructure for the class was scrapped between 2006 and 2011, including the spare 16-inch barrels and liners. All of it is gone.
As for lasers, placing a megawatt-class laser aboard a warship is a daunting task, no question about it. Even placing combat-effective kilowatt-class lasers aboard a warship has its challenges.
A megawatt laser's optical turret must be placed at a height well above the waterline. And the warship must have a means of keeping itself 'reasonably' stable when firing its lasers -- tough to do when the optical mirrors are at a height well above the main deck.
A warship carrying megawatt-class lasers must also include the capability to replace its optics at sea, because those optics will be consumed in the course of a prolonged engagement.
IMHO, if a megawatt-class multi-spectral beam laser is to be placed aboard a surface combatant or aboard a large auxiliary, it cannot be retrofitted. The vessel itself must be designed from the keel up to carry such a weapon.
Such power cannot be added to an Iowa-class, thanks to the very reason the Iowa class ships are touted for the job: The armor.
By the time all the work was done to bring the Iowa Class back into service -- reworking all four ships from the keel up, reestablishing and expanding the logistics support infrastructure -- we might as well have designed a large 21st Century laser battlecruiser with all the right armor in all the right places.
But before we built that 21st Century laser battlecruiser with all the right armor in all the right places -- among a number of other things such a vessel would require -- we would have to have reasonable confidence that the money we spent on it would deliver the 21st Century combat performance we need from it.
Considering how well NAVSEA has done in this century overall, we're doomed.
I feel microwave weapons are being ignored for their being less tangible to the unimaginative.
Not a chance. Keep your eye set to the future. Small, cheap, many. Like an extinction event. Cockroaches and rats.
Operate the engines, man the heavy guns. I'm a GM, and the use of 16"/50 rifles is a lost art, as is 5"/38.
We just don't have the technicians and parts around anymore for them. We have six ships that remain with oil-fired steam plants in the Navy. Four more are in commission, but have MSC personnel in the Engineering Department.
So more missile production lines, and minimum manning ships with a lot of fuel and missiles (Sturmtruppen ships)?
Missile barges. Able to fire long range guided missiles from well beyond the FEBA.
A 100k ton commercial container ship requires a crew of perhaps 20 to 30. Not 200-300, or 5000 for a CVN. And as long as NAVSEA doesn't get a chance to 'improve' them like the Constellation-class, they could be purchased commercially, modified using kits in commercial yards, and and loaded. We could even use smaller OSV vessels (80-100 meters) with crews of a dozen.
Except we don't; have anything to load them with.
You can use a container crane to load an OSV or FSV. Get hold of container feeders and keep them back and defended offloading the missile boxes to the smaller ships with their own cranes.
My understanding is that the warships cannot reload VLS cells except in protected waters, ideally alongside a wharf or pier or jetty.
But it's a moot point, since we don't have the missiles.
I am talking mk 70 launchers all the way.
OK.
How many do we have unallocated?
How many can we build in say 3 months?
How many missiles can we put in them in 3 months?
Yeah, it has problems, just like everything else. But its like switching to VLS. We did it and it was a big effort to get a better way of doing things. Now we need a better way of doing things again and it will be a big effort.
You would want at least a small marine detachment to provide security from a pirates or hostile non-pirates in small craft. You don't need a huge unit, but it's a lot better to notice attackers and engage them before they get a squad on board the ship or start delivering accurate 35mm automatic grenade launcher fire at the bridge.
At what point do you go nuclear? My analogy has been a weak obese cop facing a muscular thug. Will the cop let the thug beat him to death without using his sidearm because the thug doesn't have one or does his decision to use deadly force become accelerated?
a cop needs to be confident before wading in, lose a fight might mean your death.
losing to the CCP, very very bad
It would be very foolish to use nukes defending Taiwan. It is what it is. Taiwan hasn't sufficiently invested in its own defense, we're going to risk the US?
I don't even think the PRC will attack US forces when taking Taiwan unless they're fired upon first or attempt to run a blockade.
PRC will use hybrid warfare, blockade and subvert.
My concern is Taiwan going nuclear by themselves, and the rest of the world getting the blame for it.
Because there is no reason that Taiwan, S. Korea, or Japan cannot have a secret nuclear weapons program. In fact, I'd be more surprised by the absence of such a program than admission of it.
I'm sure Japan is at least one screwdriver turn away from having a nuclear weapon.
To latch the battery compartment, after they pull the little plastic tab out?
I agree!
Overmatch is a solution if you don't feel like fighting...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YyBtMxZgQs
Strategic DOD civilian leadership
China's whole point is to take Taiwan. So we need to produce a great number of systems that make the waters of the First Island Chain incredibly lethal to their shipping. If those systems can be deployed from SSN in the Philippine Sea, so much the better. A cheap anti-shipping heavyweight torpedo married to a quiet USV, perhaps. Mines, mines, and more mines. Make them practice ASW and minesweeping. Make them fear the water.
or lay siege to it
Wouldn't be the first siege within a siege.
As you have pointed out several times before, Sal, State has been asleep at the switch for a number of years. And that’s being generous about their motives. Without allies and alternate bases, the trip from Wake to Luzon is awfully empty, not to mention being bereft of logistics support locations.
(1) Get serious
(2) enlist some serious allies to China's south, rather than just from the eastern seas Both Vietnam and India have proven past antagonism towards China that could/should be encouraged as new allies in the fight. India has very large armed forces to contribute.
(3) hit em where they aint lookin.
Modern, fully rigid, stealthy AIRSHIPS......can "land" forces anywhere....from any direction.
no worries about mines, torpedoes, shorelines, mountain ranges, distance. No need for even simple cleared runways to operate from.....an adequately sized empty field will serve.
DARPA "Walrus" was supposed to create modern airships to carry upwards of 500 ton payloads, 12,000 miles, and deliver a full "Army fighting unit" directly from "fort to fight"; in 72 hours.
okay, enlarge that vision. create a large fleet of such craft, say, 60 or so. two years to field the first two of that fleet, two years to field the rest. (historical precedent)
it can be done. It should be done. Airships are a historical NAVY thing.....
As soon as an airship can fly from San Diego to (say) Vietnam, we'll talk. After all, which way to the prevailing winds blow across the Pacific ocean?
They are lighter-than-air, but powered. Think of a much larger Goodyear blimp, but also having some aerodynamic lift to supplement control and buoyancy.
Sure. And as soon as you can carry enough fuel, to push those airframes through the headwinds, we can discuss it as a viable alternative.
Not only don't we have such a demonstrator, we don't even (as far as I know) have a drawing of a viable candidate for such. Chanting "Airship, Airship!" doesn't count.
They did it all the time. There was a transatlantic airship service prior to the Hindenburg explosion. We flew blimps during WWII for ASW off the East and West coasts and for convoys. Crashes in storms (in the Midwest, mostly) put an end to it, but the newer craft are made differently. They just change altitude if the wind at a particular altitude presents a problem...and the current iterations of Hybrid Airships can go really high. We also use aerostats for a variety of ISR, weather, border surveillance, etc. right now.
The WALRUS program was well matured and there are various designs around the world, and the HAV 304 was tested by the Army. You can refer to this site for one design, which is pretty similar to the WALRUS design. https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/
The transatlantic airship service was noted for only running a few months in the summer, and having many delayed flights because of weather.
B52 navigators were known for having 270/100 scratched onto the slides of their E6B computers. The default wind estimate.
Now, as I said, build it and maybe we will come.
Be that as it may, you can educate yourself on the performance of hybrid airships. They are what they are - and have their pluses and minuses in operations just like anything else. Airlander 10 (HAV 304), for example, is designed to handle winds up to 30 knots during takeoff and landing...but that is an operational limitation. But there are platforms with unique capabilities that provide such an advantage that they overcome potential negatives. They can carry more weight, more economically, and can stay on station much longer than other platforms.
Due to the weight they can carry, they could carry equipment for land forces to land in austere environments (WALRUS concept) or they could carry ISR, C4/data links, and/or weapons. If they are equipped for stratospheric flight (winds are more stable, too) they can literally drop dead weight guided tungsten poles (somewhat like the Rods from Gods concept) with enough kinetic force to cause considerable damage. They could also carry powered guided weapons that could reach some pretty impressive ranges from that altitude while conserving fuel as in Rapid Dragon (but a larger payload). They are also easier to operate as unmanned or minimally manned platforms.
So they aren't just a throw up your hands and say, "Oh, that won't work" technology. They've worked in the past and been used. They've evolved and overcome many technical limitations. They present a unique set of operational capabilities that could be employed.
I am no special pleader for them...my major factor would be cost and time to build. We don't need ANOTHER program that acquisition and procurement can screw up with more drain on the budget. But cheap and fast to fill a gap...sure, I'm interested.
" They just change altitude if the wind at a particular altitude presents a problem"
Do not forget that those airships won't be alone up there in that "long delirious burning blue". I doubt that airships can share the same flight routes as 500 mph jet aircraft. Or the same airports.
I've piloted C130's from the West Coast (mostly VNY) to HNL and back maybe 50 times (Thanks 146 AW, California Air Guard!).
We ALWAYS had headwinds from 26,000 down to the surface headed westbound, and tailwinds coming back. Except when the naviguesser wanted to try pressure pattern navigation. Then we had headwinds both ways.
I see your point, Sir. Can certainly be done. only 8,200 miles 'twixt Diego and Nam. back in 1957, Navy blimp "snowbird" flew 9,440 miles, unrefueled. of course, that was in a non-rigid airship (blimp) doing only about 55 mph. DARPA's aim was to create airships capable of 166mph. bit of a reach, but also do-able. with that kind of power, prevailing winds are less of a concern at any time. get rid of the "non-rigid" blimp type of craft and build something solid and robust with a fully rigid hull..........it's something we CAN do, and should.
Yes, the Snowbird (ZPG-2) flew downwind. From Massachusetts to Portugal then Morocco, then back across the South Atlantic to the Cape Verde Islands then to the Caribbean, landing at Key West. Rather the route that ships in the age of sail followed.
Which kind of proves my point. Having to fly downwind.
Now, if we were in (say) Karachi, Pakistan and wanted to get to Taiwan (and didn't care about the Himalayas in the way) an airship might be the way to go. Unfortunately, we fight the battles we must, not the battles we wish.
No offense to the porch, but given our infrastructure vulnerability, overall material readiness combined with lack of assets, and Congressional climate?
We will keep Korea and Japan as allies only after great loss. Taiwan will probably fall quickly due to a long established and thoroughly embedded fifth column in their government and military.
Everything south will become Chinese vassals or client states to some extent or another. Guam might or might not remain as a US territory. Australia might become Finlandized to some extent like New Zealand. (I'd be happy to be wrong.)
The optimistic scenario is they take Taiwan without much of a fight from Taiwan and without firing on US forces, and that this galvanizes the region into preparedness and mutual alliances which deters further Chinese aggression.
As you say, the Fifth Column plus lack of defense spending plus Taiwan's ambivalence about fighting makes fighting for Taiwan a tough sell. I don't think they're like Ukrainians. Still, it's gonna be a shame to watch a democracy fall.
Not sure they're all that ambivalent.
I'm sure there are many brave fighters there, I hope you're right, but where's the preparation as a percentage of GDP?
I doubt they're over 3% if even that high.
This pisses deterrence and containment strategies right out the window.
Nothing pisses away deterrence and containment more than getting your ass kicked.
And as Sal's post says, that's what the USA would be facing now and in the next few years, barring a massive increase in Taiwan defenses, US naval shipbuilding and weapons stocks.
Better to fortify Japan, the Philippines, S. Korea and Vietnam.
You also can't overestimate the willingness of the American people to fight that fight. A draft? Unthinkable now, partly because of right-libertarian philosophy and partly because of leftist alienation.
Fortify India as well. Unfortunately their government is as corrupt as the CCP.
I would venture to say one can not "underestimate" the willingness of the American people to fight (on the ground, with actual people) west of Hawaii but many people are prone to "overestimate" the same.
... understanding that we agree and I think you meant "should not" as opposed to "can not"
US pissed deterrence away long ago when we got rid of our industrial base.
Makes ya' wish they had a nuke or two squirreled away.
we certainly are heading towards bad times in the pacific
Here is the text of a speech given by former Commander-in-Chief of Ukraine, Valerii Zaluzhnyi, at the UK - Ukraine Defence Tech Forum on April 25, 2025:
"The evolving nature of warfare has redefined the fundamental principles of global security: the Ukrainian experience and the emerging world order."
https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/columns/2025/04/25/7509135/
This is the most important point I draw from the speech:
------------------------
" ..... In conclusion, the revolution in military technology based on unmanned systems and artificial intelligence has completely changed the nature of war and is provoking it to evolve. So the speed of innovation implementation directly increases a state's ability to achieve victory in war.
Presumably, in the future high-tech war the winner will be the one who adapts to the technological conditions of the battlefield faster than the enemy. The side that is the first to make the transition to a different military-technological order systematically and qualitatively will have an unconditional strategic advantage and impose its will on the other side.
As long as the enemy has the resources, forces, and means to strike at our territory and attempt offensive actions, he will do so. This is a war of attrition. ......."
----------------------
The outcome of a war of attrition in the Western Pacific with the PRC will be determined by which side has the most human resources, the most technological resources, the most material resources, and the best ability to achieve a fast speed of innovation implementation.
" ..... In conclusion, the revolution in military technology based on unmanned systems and artificial intelligence has completely changed the nature of war and is provoking it to evolve. So the speed of innovation implementation directly increases a state's ability to achieve victory in war."
Arthur C. Clarke has joined the thread.
Zaluzhnyi's commentary certainly applies to land warfare as it is being conducted in the Russia-Ukraine war.
But do these land warfare developments necessarily apply to a war at sea between the US and the PRC inside and/or between the first and third island chains?
We have not seen much discussion in the military blogosphere concerning just how these recent trends in drone warfare would impact the way a large-scale combat engagement might be conducted at sea.
***shiver***, Mr. Brim, "human resources". But won't the DEI, feelz group-think imbedded in HR's department in every aspect of our side just muck it all up, skipping along tripping the light fantastic to an ops-normal date with doom? I like to think that getting triggered is a survival trait, but I sometimes think it just makes me annoying. Sorry.
Luckily China isn't the largest manufacturer in the world, or the worlds largest drone manufacturer. Oh, sorry, they are.
Why fight on the enemy's chosen turf?
We're playing checkers and the CCP is playing Go. We all need to reread chapter six of "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. It's all about weak points, strong points, and the dispersion/concentration of forces. It seems likely that our Navy won't be able to go hi-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle into a swarm of missiles and drones, so we should instead hit targets the CCP isn't defending in ways they aren't expecting. Sucker punch them.
A few quotes from Sun Tzu:
"Numerical weakness comes from having to prepare against possible attacks; numerical strength, from compelling our adversary to make these preparations against us."
"An army may march great distances without distress, if it marches through country where the enemy is not. You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended.You can ensure the safety of your defense if you only hold positions that cannot be attacked."
"Hence that general is skillful in attack whose opponent does not know what to defend; and he is skillful in defense whose opponent does not know what to attack."
Ask yourself what and who the CCP fears most, and where that frightening boogeyman is.
ccp tankers
Exactly. Cut deals with the countiries in their debt traps to take an offer and cut off their supplies. If they don’t bite, are their internal forces which might acheive the goal via insurgency? Same with Tibet and Uighurs. Feed them what they need to fight.
Smuggle Bibles into China. Nothing leavens quite like God’s word.
No need to go through the trouble of smuggling – your Bibles are produced by China.
https://www.thinkchina.sg/society/worlds-largest-bible-printer-hails-atheist-china
And Trump's Bible as well.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/thousands-of-trump-bibles-were-printed-in-china-as-he-campaigned-against-trade-practices
" You can be sure of succeeding in your attacks if you only attack places which are undefended."
Or, as the great American strategist "Wee Willie" Keeler said;
"Hit 'em where they ain't".
https://www.baseball-almanac.com/dictionary-term.php?term=hit+%5C%27em+where+they+ain%5C%27t
In 1941 Japan's hope was that the U.S. Navy would charge toward the Philippines in mass, in order to be attrited along the way then defeated in a single decisive battle. If we would make that mistake now and do a Charge of the Light Brigade with the U.S. fleet, then we deserve to live in a Chinese world. Strategically (which we seem incapable of grasping), Taiwan cannot be relieved or resupplied if China decides to invade. They will have to fight on their own, which unfortunately they seem to have little interest in doing as they love to buy weapons suitable only for a nice parade (we need to look in the mirror on this, too). Instead of looking at China's island chains, whose little outposts would be nothing but troops huddled in bunkers with their fingers in their ears if we bought our own medium range missiles, instead let's look at a map in reverse and see China in the Pacific encircled by geographic choke points. Blockaded by low cost mines delivered by unmanned drones and gradually attrited by submarines and cruise missiles from long range bombers flying from bases that are not Kadena or Guam (which would be on fire anyway). The rest of their expensive bases around the world totally isolated from resupply and left to die on the vine or be picked off one by one. When Chinese factories shut down, those unemployed workers will create a revolutionary insurgency that will not require any help from our Green Berets.
You sound like someone who's read Sun Tzu. 👍
Yes, and wrote a novel about an American in China when war breaks out.
https://www.amazon.com/Darkness-Under-Heaven-Historical-Espionage-ebook/dp/B09TZHQB9Y/ref=sr_1_1?crid=13VQS5BC4X76H&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.nSuoh0vJPDczPOfVYQYiB6pURZ3lhN5ZhUWEEgc0nEA.kAfKz3lEZwyjNc2LJtamWa4HEg-4wmXA53otX3Zg2zY&dib_tag=se&keywords=darkness+under+heaven+william+christie&qid=1747151192&sprefix=darkness+under+heaven+william+christie%2Caps%2C95&sr=8-1
I've read your novel. Good scenario building and interesting plot.
Seconded. There are all sorts of plans, strategies, and concepts to avoid getting hit by all those Chinese anti-ship missiles but they do mean you have to get lucky *a lot.* And if you're taking out space assets en masse to do this (not saying they are, just that's one obvious counter), then you risk a very bad escalation ladder spiral. Like you say, a distant blockade, much like the RN ended up with re Germany after losing a pile of ships in the North Sea in 1914, is the safer, more effective strategy. Defending Taiwan is a lot like trying to defend the Philippines in early 1942 - really isn't going to happen - and while I get trying to convince the CCP we'll do that for its deterrence value, I really hope we don't actually try it. Indeed, even if Taiwan rolls over, we could still implement a blockade strategy (though given our poor luck with Russian sanctions to date), even that might not work. On the plus side, we'd avoid nuclear annihilation, which is a plus.
A logical CoA from the Chinese is to destroy all the LEO sats and then start selectively punching out Geo sats that the US depends on for C&C. Can the US even fight just using HF radio any more?
That strategy comes with a very, VERY large escalation risk.
Yes. It will piss off the entire world. It is less escalatory than hitting the George Washington CBG with a nuke.
Neither side would say anything. All the LEO says would just go dark, each side would accuse the other, and both would be correct. Escalatory? Yes. But logic suggests whoever loses sats first, loses the war, so whoever falls behind will by necessity conduct space denial ops. Unclear where that ends.
Don’t only look at water. They certainly don’t. cut pipelines, railroads etc
The only reason for a besieged garrison to keep fighting is if they think a relief force is on the way. Taiwan simply isn't going to "fight on their own" if they don't think we're riding to the rescue.
Taiwan will sue for unification as soon as we lose a CVN and pull back to Hawaii.
If we can. Imagine how easy it would be to close (at least temporarily - for several weeks) the entrance channel to Pearl Harbor.
Consider the disruption collapsing two sections of a bridge did to the Port of Baltimore.