Rapid Dragon currently deploys cruise missiles with an open source range of 500 to 1200 miles. No reason a long range Quickstrike couldn't be developed. You'd want that kind of standoff for bombers anyway. 40 miles is skimpy when considering the SAM and PL-15 envelope.
Almost 20 years ago at a major "COM' while on an IA, I was the ONLY Navy guy they could get their hands on and I got stuck working on a 4 digit OPLAN.. and I brought up this exact subject (I am a ASW Helo guy by trade mind you) Nobody else in the planning team had thought of it and it wasn't in there before. They were incredulous in fact and definitely liked the idea. I don't know if they final product got any of my ideas or not but some of us do know how effective it is. You need only have a viable capability to do it for it to be a threat that must be addressed. I sure hope someone on the PACOM staff reads these and takes heed. We must also be wary that our potential enemies could also do this to us on our sea approaches to our major bases and create a massive problem. One more factoid.. we lost a lot of ships in Korea to mines.
I will say that I think PACOM lost an opportunity for marketing when the Indian Ocean was added to their portfolio by calling the command INDOPACOM instead of my preferred PAINCOM.
I attended a classified threat brief that included mines before Desert Storm. Very good informative and an eye-opening. Realized I had been in the dark about mines as an RD/OS/EW, ESWS/SWO and then as an LDO LT CICO Officer on an Aegis Cruiser. The info was very good but as time went on, I realized the info was not enough as I was also lookout training officer. We had virtually no training material for the lookouts and the Lamps MK III's who were airborne from sunrise to sunset looking for mines dead ahead. Interest in mines and more training spiked after Princeton and Tripoli found their mines the hard way. Sure, I got the brief before we left CONUS. But I didn't clamor for training materials. Should have, but didn't. Pictures would have helped. Mostly, the training I provided was cheer-leading and visiting often with the lookouts to keep them pumped up and enthused. Being up in the north part of the Persian Gulf for the duration sure had us hankering for more info and training aids on mines. Nothing was forthcoming. Things could have been infinitely worse in that war. The Iraqi's only let loose old WWII floating mines from the vicinity of Kuwait/Iraq, and those were postulated to go where a predictable current would carry them...coastwise for the most part. Mines...things that go BUMP in the night (or day). ***shiver*** I hope the CDR's post gets attention in DC.
Are the floating mines neutrally buoyant at some depth? I assume they aren't just bobbing around on the surface to get plinked at by SCAT teams. Some type of subsurface floating mine that can be emplaced with artillery would be an interesting bit of kit. Or using rocket artillery of some type to emplace them. I'm sort of skeptical about it being very practical to use airpower for that, in such a contested environment.
Best recollection from memory and sketchy intel those floating mines back in 1991 were all ancient Soviet floaters, bobbing on the surface. Even so, very hard to find. We had a 4 man EOD aboard to deal with them but we never spotted any. More important, through vigilance, we never hit any.
It's funny that you mention Gallipoli--half the reason that there was a landing there was because the Franco-British fleet that was supposed to push through the Dardanelles and open up the Bosphorus kept having to deal with minefields, and the admirals wanted the shore batteries cleared so the minesweepers could do their jobs.
Yeah that and the cheeky laying a minefield covertly in the spot where they saw all the BBs corpen to disengage in the previous two sorties. Whoops. What did they lose, like 3 BBs in 30 minutes? To mines. Ouch.
A 100+ mile amphibious landing against a fortified island seems inconceivable.
A missile attack by China on critical infrastructure - electricity, water, ports, airports, etc. combined with a blockade seems more realistic. Let Taiwan starve until it surrenders.
Taiwan could proclaim a scorched earth strategy. China can take the island but all it would get is a pile of debris. Oh, and by the way Taiwan can threaten to take out some of China's infrastructure, too beginning with that lovely dam complex.
Sun Tzu wrote that wars cost a lot of silver and China may not be willing to pay the price.
If we and the Taiwanese did deploy a nice thick mine barrier, the PLAN would have to ask itself how many of its captains would be willing to repeat Admiral Farragut's words, "Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!" Another, less famous quote from the Admiral is "The best defense is a well-directed fire from your own guns."
My wife’s boyfriend, before meeting me and my wondrousness, was an Army officer. His comment to her was that if you don’t stand on it, you don’t own it. Infantry remains the queen of battle.
“A 100+ mile amphibious landing against a fortified island seems inconceivable.”
We routinely invaded fortified islands from much farther away than that in WW2. For example, to invade Okinawa,
“ For the assault echelon alone, about 183,000 troops and 747,000 measurement tons of cargo were loaded into over 430 assault transports and landing ships at 11 different ports, from Seattle to Leyte, a distance of 6,000 miles.”
I doubt that Taiwan would ever embrace a scorched earth policy. Though the West might consider it if Taiwan seems to willing to cave in after we become engaged.
I think a blockade is even less realistic. At least with an all out assault you're rolling the dice that speed, aggression, surprise and overwhelming firepower can pay off for you. If the PLAN executed a blockade, then the USN immediately says 'no, you' and plays the Uno reverse and blockades *them* with distant maritime intervention which they have very few if any good answers for. They know we can do that, which is why their focus is on an assault and hopefully changing the facts on the ground fast enough that we can't strangle them out at the straits.
🤣 Nobody needs "history lessons" from an American who thinks he won the Vietnam War. One supposes you think spending Billions of dollars and 20 years to replace the Taliban with a better-armed Taliban was also a "win". Seek therapy for your hubris...this is why you were defeated in Ukraine, and why China will mop the floor with you, if push comes to shove.
OK. Nit-picky but true. There were enough Viet Cong left after the war that the North Vietnamese felt a need to abuse them the worst of anyone in the south. Can't have any competition, you know....
Probably should have left out "mad dog" as unintended slight. Always better to stick with the invidious, amorphous "leftists" and their inevitable handmaidens, the traitorous Democrats-good for any evil doppelganger excuse. Better yet, stick with the actual topic of mine warfare.
In 1975? You are aware there were no American forces in Vietnam in 1975, right? Hard to lose a war you aren't even invited to. Even the Vietnamese consider the post-easter offensive phase a totally different war. Maybe brush up on the very basic timeline of that conflict.
Are you unaware of your government's "One China" policy?
Are you unaware that the "government" of Taiwan believes that *they* are the legitimate rulers of all of China?
Taiwan is a province of China, in the same way that Texas is a state in the USA. Would you approve of China basing troops in Texas in support of a "Texit" break from the US?
Get a fucking grip on reality and grasp that it's not USA's business to get involved, and understand that your peril for doing so is larger than you imagine.
Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China in exile. The US has no troops in the Republic of China adn for strategic reasons, the US has an interest in keeping the ROC in existence. You need to take your own advice.
The CCP is not the legitimate government of China. Never was and never will be.
Trump is getting his "directions" today! Yemen needs attention.
The de facto government in Taipei calls themselves RoC!
The de facto government in Beijing calls themselves the PRC.
The de facto government in DC is on a leash that has no hold from Taiwan.
One China. In the days before Obama the US government interactions with Taipei were through a cultural "exchange" loosely affiliated with the government in Taipei. Hard to sell F-16's through the cultural exchange....
Note in relations between nuclear powers nothing is de jure, as the strategic force creates the facts.
While the U.S. does not have an official military base in Taiwan, there are reportedly around 500 U.S. military personnel stationed there, according to a retired U.S. Navy admiral's public testimony. This is a significant increase from previous disclosures. Your info seems out of date, and, at any rate, after the sad efforts of the USN in the Red Sea to thwart Yemen, the poorest nation on earth, USA has zero chance of deterring China in their own front yard.
If The Pentagon is afraid to risk carriers in the Red Sea due to AnsarAllah's relatively feeble arsenal, why do you imagine that USN will dare to confront China off their own coast?
I'd be surprised if the carrier groups even set sail due to Chinese sabotage of POL, food, water and other staples before they can leave port. Wasn't so long ago one of your ships was burned down at the quay through such methods, no?
Whatever war you imagine, guaranteed, that is not the war China will give you..hubris isn't your ally.
Part of what you do not understand is the CCP is changing as I type. The day is coming when communism will be behind them, look to the future, build your own world and let theirs be. My final request to a good man who should be my friend.
Communists are known for appearing to change when they really aren't. The CCP is no different. The CCP is a threat to her neighbors and that makes her a threat to us. Helping the ROC fend off Xi's brutal regime is the right thing to do.
I like how until the late 1990s the official doctrinal goal of the ROC armed forces was invasion and liberation of mainland China. That's confidence right there.
There's a lot of "tut, tut, pooh pooh" act of war, international law of the sea and warfare and such" arguments against this. To which I say, "bollocks", I like it. Besides the unsexiness of the decision to do it, my main concern is...do we even have the internal industrial capacity to do it? Also, drones (aerial and subsurface) definitely seems the way to go, as our tactical weapons platforms are in short supply and will be overtasked. Unless things have changed, doing this at scale is a minimum five year effort...with a LOT of senior officer driving it VERY hard. Calling SECDEF...
As noted in the embedded video, the need is to "procure, maintain, and deploy" a weapon. Currently our Tiffany-fragile CONOPS are supported by a Tiffany-fragile logistics chain. Yoo-hoo, SECDEF?
There is a lot of American DNA in their new sub. Burke’s like the Kidd’s will eat a disproportionate amount of their budget. Their is actually an episode of The West Wing about this. Their portrayal was relatively accurate. If Connie succeeds it might do something for them. Their safe bet would be if they could seing French FTIs to replace their Lafayette. Use the Greek version.
Me neither. I’d give then a variant of the Saudi frigates which are very different ships. Not unlike how Connie isn’t a Fremm. Chines removed, higher displacement, bow thruster. All before a totally different set of combat systems.
Wild...USN utterly bitchslapped and sent running by destitute AnsarAllah in the Red Sea, and you *still* imagine that you can deter China in their own backyard 🤔
Velociraver I looked at your page. Your input in this instance is counterproductive. These men you argue with are US vets and servicemen. Recommend you stay the hell out of it. And fuck Hamas.
If Hamas keeps beating the IDF at this rate, by the time they run out of Gazans to throw into the fight the Israelis will have lost a brigade of troops.
You might want to look at Rough Rider more critically. Multiple CSGs went into about the most disadvantageous searoom, under full and constant fire control quality surveillance, with very little room to maneuver, and basically face-tanked hundreds of saturation attacks with multi-layered simultaneous time-on-target threats, ASCMs, Drones, ASBMs, you name it. And did that for months. And none were hit.
If you don't realize part of Rough Rider was to see exactly how survivable the CSGs are in a bad neighborhood, I don't know what to tell you.
Oh yes, so survivable that they expended their magazine depth in no time, were forced to take evasive maneuvers, and lost at least three aircraft with no appreciable effect on their purported mission. They were withdrawn in a panic and an agreement reached with AnsarAllah out of fear of losing US sailors and ships..extrapolate that to a fight on China's doorstep, and imagine how long those VLS tubes will last against drone swarms, ASMs, and hypersonics. A CSG simply doesn't have enough tubes to survive in that environment, if it manages to leave the quay and complete the journey unhindered.
The only reason for the US to defend Taiwan from the Chinese is to preserve the investments of multinational corporations. That's it and that's all. It's a whole lot like China defending Cuba against us.
Here's my thought:
Not one US dollar.
Not a single American life.
Not one bullet, bomb, or missile.
The Chinese couldn't hurt the common citizens, currently they are slave labor under global elites.
If I was President Trump, war over Taiwan would be the last thing on my mind.
"The only reason for the US to defend Taiwan from the Chinese is to preserve the investments of multinational corporations. That's it and that's all. It's a whole lot like China defending Cuba against us."
Nopity, nope, nope! You have no idea of what is at stake.
I know precisely what is at stake...the chip manufacturing capacity will be, OMG, Chinese! The people, the people, their businesses, seized! Blood in the streets! The only things left are heavy industry, owned by multinationals!!
Taiwan was China when Chiang kai-Shek fled there with the Chinese national Treasury in 1949. I learned this in civics class in 1967.
Leftists are neocons, always in favor of war. Like in Ukraine. My position is based on common sense; I am totally uninterested in defending a Chinese island that corporate elites have exploited for my entire lifetime. Defending means sending troops, absorbing personnel and losses of ships and planes, as well as a guarantee of domestic attacks on our homeland. For the first time since mechanized war has become reality, the United States is a direct target, over of all things, Taiwan?? For corporate elites??
One might imagine the PRC building a rather substantial naval base on the eastern side of the ROC which makes things rather interesting given what lies off the east coast of Taiwan - a bathymetry that resembles nothing like The Strait. A lot of open and deep - deep - water; not bottled up like the ECS and SCS. Not a situation that I would imagine the Navy would relish dealing with.
Our infrastructure and defense will be just fine without any multinational corporations. You are balancing lost lives of American servicemen against that. I’m sorry, I just won’t have it.
Not one. None. Nobody!
The cost of those chip factories will be far less than the cost of retention of Taiwanese assets. And that does happen to be something we’re working on. That’s where your strategy belongs, brother.
The geography, in case you haven't noticed, is two hundred miles off the coast of mainland China. These people claim it, it’s on the other side of the world, and it Does Not Have to Matter.
And if you think the continental United States will not be attacked in a full-on war with China, I think you’d better take a closer look at what China has ready right now.
I had a similar thought. Why not a GLSDB-based mine? I don’t know if a 250-pound bomb is enough (I’m guessing not); but, if so, let the Taiwanese chuck a bunch of them from shore to around 90-something miles out.
Even a 60 lb charge like from a 155mm going off in your shafting is going to really put a damper on your whole outing. Would need some way to stay neutrally buoyant and listen for a 60 hz or whatever tonal and then swim toward it when the return was high enough. Would not, I think, be that hard to build honestly.
So say we all, as the expression goes. It is frustrating that sea mines are under-appreciated in pursuit of small numbers of super weapons.
But ... stranding the PLA ashore on Taiwan isn't enough. If China engineers a ceasefire despite difficulties with supplies they will dig in, reinforce, and resume the offensive in a year. Or two. Or a decade. Lather, rinse, repeat. That has been part of my frustration with publicly discussed wargames. Everyone seems to assume that if China doesn't capture Taipei by the end of the scenario, that is scored as a Chinese defeat.
The small Taiwanese army will need to drive the PLA into the sea to truly win the war. And it might require U.S. Army help if the Navy and Air Force can get sufficient forces there and sustain them--perhaps in the face of Chinese naval mines.
Quickstrike-ER could sow enough doubt in the Strait to stall follow-on waves and give allied fires time to work. However, I wonder if this would incentivize more preemptive PLA strikes against Taiwan and U.S. air bases. If you're interested, I've previously written about the PLA's logic and planning for long-range fires: https://ordersandobservations.substack.com/p/how-does-the-pla-plan-missile-strikes
Rapid Dragon needs a minelaying module.
Because HQ-9s can't shoot them down from 300km away? What use will they be, really?
Rapid Dragon currently deploys cruise missiles with an open source range of 500 to 1200 miles. No reason a long range Quickstrike couldn't be developed. You'd want that kind of standoff for bombers anyway. 40 miles is skimpy when considering the SAM and PL-15 envelope.
Sal, Sal, Sal…here you go talking common sense again. When will you ever learn, lad? ;)
Cut him some slack. It's genetic and he has no ability to resist.
Almost 20 years ago at a major "COM' while on an IA, I was the ONLY Navy guy they could get their hands on and I got stuck working on a 4 digit OPLAN.. and I brought up this exact subject (I am a ASW Helo guy by trade mind you) Nobody else in the planning team had thought of it and it wasn't in there before. They were incredulous in fact and definitely liked the idea. I don't know if they final product got any of my ideas or not but some of us do know how effective it is. You need only have a viable capability to do it for it to be a threat that must be addressed. I sure hope someone on the PACOM staff reads these and takes heed. We must also be wary that our potential enemies could also do this to us on our sea approaches to our major bases and create a massive problem. One more factoid.. we lost a lot of ships in Korea to mines.
I will say that I think PACOM lost an opportunity for marketing when the Indian Ocean was added to their portfolio by calling the command INDOPACOM instead of my preferred PAINCOM.
Nobody ever picks up my brilliant acronyms.
...of interest SUBPAC owns the mining mission now
I always felt like the head in the sand attitude against mines was borne out by being scared of wide spread mine arms race.
Understandable but do we know there already isn't a mine arms race? Do we know what Russia and China are doing with mines?
yes this is tracked, an interesting subject
I attended a classified threat brief that included mines before Desert Storm. Very good informative and an eye-opening. Realized I had been in the dark about mines as an RD/OS/EW, ESWS/SWO and then as an LDO LT CICO Officer on an Aegis Cruiser. The info was very good but as time went on, I realized the info was not enough as I was also lookout training officer. We had virtually no training material for the lookouts and the Lamps MK III's who were airborne from sunrise to sunset looking for mines dead ahead. Interest in mines and more training spiked after Princeton and Tripoli found their mines the hard way. Sure, I got the brief before we left CONUS. But I didn't clamor for training materials. Should have, but didn't. Pictures would have helped. Mostly, the training I provided was cheer-leading and visiting often with the lookouts to keep them pumped up and enthused. Being up in the north part of the Persian Gulf for the duration sure had us hankering for more info and training aids on mines. Nothing was forthcoming. Things could have been infinitely worse in that war. The Iraqi's only let loose old WWII floating mines from the vicinity of Kuwait/Iraq, and those were postulated to go where a predictable current would carry them...coastwise for the most part. Mines...things that go BUMP in the night (or day). ***shiver*** I hope the CDR's post gets attention in DC.
every dead, floating sheep looked like a mine... this was a very busy time indeed.
Are the floating mines neutrally buoyant at some depth? I assume they aren't just bobbing around on the surface to get plinked at by SCAT teams. Some type of subsurface floating mine that can be emplaced with artillery would be an interesting bit of kit. Or using rocket artillery of some type to emplace them. I'm sort of skeptical about it being very practical to use airpower for that, in such a contested environment.
Best recollection from memory and sketchy intel those floating mines back in 1991 were all ancient Soviet floaters, bobbing on the surface. Even so, very hard to find. We had a 4 man EOD aboard to deal with them but we never spotted any. More important, through vigilance, we never hit any.
It's funny that you mention Gallipoli--half the reason that there was a landing there was because the Franco-British fleet that was supposed to push through the Dardanelles and open up the Bosphorus kept having to deal with minefields, and the admirals wanted the shore batteries cleared so the minesweepers could do their jobs.
The Turks also had land-based torpedo batteries. Something the Taiwanese could do, too.
Tom, Check our Dr. Timothy Choi's master's thesis work from a decade ago on the success of the Ottoman's with mine warfare.
https://ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu/journals/jomass/v15i3/f_0031520_25568.pdf
Yeah that and the cheeky laying a minefield covertly in the spot where they saw all the BBs corpen to disengage in the previous two sorties. Whoops. What did they lose, like 3 BBs in 30 minutes? To mines. Ouch.
and of course UUVs can lay mines
Anduril brags about theirs; they should be asked for a few demos.
My thought exactly.
Can mines be placed via drone?
Seems to be the quickest bang for the buck. (Pun intended).
A 100+ mile amphibious landing against a fortified island seems inconceivable.
A missile attack by China on critical infrastructure - electricity, water, ports, airports, etc. combined with a blockade seems more realistic. Let Taiwan starve until it surrenders.
Taiwan could proclaim a scorched earth strategy. China can take the island but all it would get is a pile of debris. Oh, and by the way Taiwan can threaten to take out some of China's infrastructure, too beginning with that lovely dam complex.
Sun Tzu wrote that wars cost a lot of silver and China may not be willing to pay the price.
If we and the Taiwanese did deploy a nice thick mine barrier, the PLAN would have to ask itself how many of its captains would be willing to repeat Admiral Farragut's words, "Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!" Another, less famous quote from the Admiral is "The best defense is a well-directed fire from your own guns."
Nothing against minefields or artillery.
But neither are of much use against drones, missiles and planes.
none of which alone allows you to take the ground.
My wife’s boyfriend, before meeting me and my wondrousness, was an Army officer. His comment to her was that if you don’t stand on it, you don’t own it. Infantry remains the queen of battle.
While artillery remains the king of battle. And we all know what the king does to the queen....
(Look, *someone* had to complete the joke! You were ALL thinking it, don't look at me that way!)
Jokes aside, he wasn't wrong.
“A 100+ mile amphibious landing against a fortified island seems inconceivable.”
We routinely invaded fortified islands from much farther away than that in WW2. For example, to invade Okinawa,
“ For the assault echelon alone, about 183,000 troops and 747,000 measurement tons of cargo were loaded into over 430 assault transports and landing ships at 11 different ports, from Seattle to Leyte, a distance of 6,000 miles.”
Maybe? But show me the battleships.
They came from Ulithi, 1,200 miles away.
Taiwan is a big island.
Leyte and Luzon were big islands.
We could have taken Taiwan in 1944 from much farther away than across the Strait.
Nothing like being an armchair admiral. Everything is so easy.
I doubt that Taiwan would ever embrace a scorched earth policy. Though the West might consider it if Taiwan seems to willing to cave in after we become engaged.
I think a blockade is even less realistic. At least with an all out assault you're rolling the dice that speed, aggression, surprise and overwhelming firepower can pay off for you. If the PLAN executed a blockade, then the USN immediately says 'no, you' and plays the Uno reverse and blockades *them* with distant maritime intervention which they have very few if any good answers for. They know we can do that, which is why their focus is on an assault and hopefully changing the facts on the ground fast enough that we can't strangle them out at the straits.
Mainland China was humiliated by Vietnam in 1979.
Since then the 富二代 (young princes) have only gotten worse, more self-indulgent.
Best for the world to assume PRC is useless, than to act and remove all doubt.
In the same way that USA was humiliated by Vietnam in 1975? Or by Afghanistan? Or Iran?
Interesting 🤣
No, not at all.
America destroyed the "viet cong" entirely, in the failed totalitarian "Tet" offensive.
It was democrats here that pulled out.
Always glad to offer history lessons to victims of teachers' unions.
Equally glad to debunk mad-dog leftist lies.
🤣 Nobody needs "history lessons" from an American who thinks he won the Vietnam War. One supposes you think spending Billions of dollars and 20 years to replace the Taliban with a better-armed Taliban was also a "win". Seek therapy for your hubris...this is why you were defeated in Ukraine, and why China will mop the floor with you, if push comes to shove.
You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts.
PRC will fall apart well before any shoving arises.
Now if you want the last word, just admit your neediness and I will let you have it.
Otherwise, posting again will confirm your weakness.
I sense a reading comprehension problem. Arvantis said the Viet Cong was destroyed. That's verifiably true. He did not say we won the war.
" That's verifiably true."
Au contraire, mon frere. Substantially weakened, but not destroyed.
OK. Nit-picky but true. There were enough Viet Cong left after the war that the North Vietnamese felt a need to abuse them the worst of anyone in the south. Can't have any competition, you know....
Probably should have left out "mad dog" as unintended slight. Always better to stick with the invidious, amorphous "leftists" and their inevitable handmaidens, the traitorous Democrats-good for any evil doppelganger excuse. Better yet, stick with the actual topic of mine warfare.
True.
But it's hard to remain entirely above the fray with emotional leftists.
"America destroyed the "viet cong" entirely, "
Not entirely. And we certainly did not destroy the NVA.
In 1975? You are aware there were no American forces in Vietnam in 1975, right? Hard to lose a war you aren't even invited to. Even the Vietnamese consider the post-easter offensive phase a totally different war. Maybe brush up on the very basic timeline of that conflict.
Are you unaware of your government's "One China" policy?
Are you unaware that the "government" of Taiwan believes that *they* are the legitimate rulers of all of China?
Taiwan is a province of China, in the same way that Texas is a state in the USA. Would you approve of China basing troops in Texas in support of a "Texit" break from the US?
Get a fucking grip on reality and grasp that it's not USA's business to get involved, and understand that your peril for doing so is larger than you imagine.
Taipei is the capital of the Republic of China in exile. The US has no troops in the Republic of China adn for strategic reasons, the US has an interest in keeping the ROC in existence. You need to take your own advice.
The CCP is not the legitimate government of China. Never was and never will be.
Trump is getting his "directions" today! Yemen needs attention.
The de facto government in Taipei calls themselves RoC!
The de facto government in Beijing calls themselves the PRC.
The de facto government in DC is on a leash that has no hold from Taiwan.
One China. In the days before Obama the US government interactions with Taipei were through a cultural "exchange" loosely affiliated with the government in Taipei. Hard to sell F-16's through the cultural exchange....
Note in relations between nuclear powers nothing is de jure, as the strategic force creates the facts.
That last line is a silly claim. There is nothing legit about the CCP's regime.
While the U.S. does not have an official military base in Taiwan, there are reportedly around 500 U.S. military personnel stationed there, according to a retired U.S. Navy admiral's public testimony. This is a significant increase from previous disclosures. Your info seems out of date, and, at any rate, after the sad efforts of the USN in the Red Sea to thwart Yemen, the poorest nation on earth, USA has zero chance of deterring China in their own front yard.
We'll see.
If The Pentagon is afraid to risk carriers in the Red Sea due to AnsarAllah's relatively feeble arsenal, why do you imagine that USN will dare to confront China off their own coast?
I'd be surprised if the carrier groups even set sail due to Chinese sabotage of POL, food, water and other staples before they can leave port. Wasn't so long ago one of your ships was burned down at the quay through such methods, no?
Whatever war you imagine, guaranteed, that is not the war China will give you..hubris isn't your ally.
You're presenting speculation as fact.
If you think it's only "speculation", even after losing one vessel already, then you clearly haven't read any Chinese defense papers, or even Sun Tzu.
Good luck in the SCS 🎯
Part of what you do not understand is the CCP is changing as I type. The day is coming when communism will be behind them, look to the future, build your own world and let theirs be. My final request to a good man who should be my friend.
Addressing Quartermaster here.
Communists are known for appearing to change when they really aren't. The CCP is no different. The CCP is a threat to her neighbors and that makes her a threat to us. Helping the ROC fend off Xi's brutal regime is the right thing to do.
I like how until the late 1990s the official doctrinal goal of the ROC armed forces was invasion and liberation of mainland China. That's confidence right there.
"Taiwan is a province of China, in the same way that Texas is a state in the USA"
So Texas has been holding itself out as an independent entity since the 1940s? I missed that.
There's a lot of "tut, tut, pooh pooh" act of war, international law of the sea and warfare and such" arguments against this. To which I say, "bollocks", I like it. Besides the unsexiness of the decision to do it, my main concern is...do we even have the internal industrial capacity to do it? Also, drones (aerial and subsurface) definitely seems the way to go, as our tactical weapons platforms are in short supply and will be overtasked. Unless things have changed, doing this at scale is a minimum five year effort...with a LOT of senior officer driving it VERY hard. Calling SECDEF...
As noted in the embedded video, the need is to "procure, maintain, and deploy" a weapon. Currently our Tiffany-fragile CONOPS are supported by a Tiffany-fragile logistics chain. Yoo-hoo, SECDEF?
To some extent, isn't a mine just a minimally-propulsive drone that has been pre-positioned?
I think at the same time we should help Taiwan build up their Submarine program and even offer them a Burke DDG as their Cruiser
There is a lot of American DNA in their new sub. Burke’s like the Kidd’s will eat a disproportionate amount of their budget. Their is actually an episode of The West Wing about this. Their portrayal was relatively accurate. If Connie succeeds it might do something for them. Their safe bet would be if they could seing French FTIs to replace their Lafayette. Use the Greek version.
I don't think Europe will sell them the FTI's due to Chinese pressure. That's why I think those Flight 1 burkes would be an option for Taiwan
The real terrible option actually more practical is to keep building lcs-1s after the Saudi ships. Tweak them a bit more for air defense.
I would not give Taiwan the LCS
Me neither. I’d give then a variant of the Saudi frigates which are very different ships. Not unlike how Connie isn’t a Fremm. Chines removed, higher displacement, bow thruster. All before a totally different set of combat systems.
Wild...USN utterly bitchslapped and sent running by destitute AnsarAllah in the Red Sea, and you *still* imagine that you can deter China in their own backyard 🤔
No one knows who will win based on the bookies. We play the game anyway.
Velociraver I looked at your page. Your input in this instance is counterproductive. These men you argue with are US vets and servicemen. Recommend you stay the hell out of it. And fuck Hamas.
Well, as a vet myself, idgaf what your recommendations are. You go on with your zany schemes, then, poke the panda and FAFO..
Your recommendations are anti-Israel and probably Arab so fuck you.
Fuck Hamas? Hamas is kicking the IOF's pimply ass. Their videos are a masterclass in FIBUA and ambush 🔻
Blocked
If Hamas keeps beating the IDF at this rate, by the time they run out of Gazans to throw into the fight the Israelis will have lost a brigade of troops.
You might want to look at Rough Rider more critically. Multiple CSGs went into about the most disadvantageous searoom, under full and constant fire control quality surveillance, with very little room to maneuver, and basically face-tanked hundreds of saturation attacks with multi-layered simultaneous time-on-target threats, ASCMs, Drones, ASBMs, you name it. And did that for months. And none were hit.
If you don't realize part of Rough Rider was to see exactly how survivable the CSGs are in a bad neighborhood, I don't know what to tell you.
Oh yes, so survivable that they expended their magazine depth in no time, were forced to take evasive maneuvers, and lost at least three aircraft with no appreciable effect on their purported mission. They were withdrawn in a panic and an agreement reached with AnsarAllah out of fear of losing US sailors and ships..extrapolate that to a fight on China's doorstep, and imagine how long those VLS tubes will last against drone swarms, ASMs, and hypersonics. A CSG simply doesn't have enough tubes to survive in that environment, if it manages to leave the quay and complete the journey unhindered.
Here's a pregnant fucking idea.
Let 'em take it.
The only reason for the US to defend Taiwan from the Chinese is to preserve the investments of multinational corporations. That's it and that's all. It's a whole lot like China defending Cuba against us.
Here's my thought:
Not one US dollar.
Not a single American life.
Not one bullet, bomb, or missile.
The Chinese couldn't hurt the common citizens, currently they are slave labor under global elites.
If I was President Trump, war over Taiwan would be the last thing on my mind.
Dead Last.
"The only reason for the US to defend Taiwan from the Chinese is to preserve the investments of multinational corporations. That's it and that's all. It's a whole lot like China defending Cuba against us."
Nopity, nope, nope! You have no idea of what is at stake.
I know precisely what is at stake...the chip manufacturing capacity will be, OMG, Chinese! The people, the people, their businesses, seized! Blood in the streets! The only things left are heavy industry, owned by multinationals!!
Taiwan was China when Chiang kai-Shek fled there with the Chinese national Treasury in 1949. I learned this in civics class in 1967.
Tell me why one American should die defending it. Go on tough guy tell me
You understand nothing. Just the usual leftist propaganda.
Problem with your argument, I’m anything but a leftist.
You are acting as a typical leftist.
Leftists are neocons, always in favor of war. Like in Ukraine. My position is based on common sense; I am totally uninterested in defending a Chinese island that corporate elites have exploited for my entire lifetime. Defending means sending troops, absorbing personnel and losses of ships and planes, as well as a guarantee of domestic attacks on our homeland. For the first time since mechanized war has become reality, the United States is a direct target, over of all things, Taiwan?? For corporate elites??
If you want to be a stooge, do it.
He is using right wing talking points.
One might imagine the PRC building a rather substantial naval base on the eastern side of the ROC which makes things rather interesting given what lies off the east coast of Taiwan - a bathymetry that resembles nothing like The Strait. A lot of open and deep - deep - water; not bottled up like the ECS and SCS. Not a situation that I would imagine the Navy would relish dealing with.
Some of those multi-national corporations are critical to our own infrastructure and defense. We may be working to reduce that, but it remains true.
Our infrastructure and defense will be just fine without any multinational corporations. You are balancing lost lives of American servicemen against that. I’m sorry, I just won’t have it.
Not one. None. Nobody!
The cost of those chip factories will be far less than the cost of retention of Taiwanese assets. And that does happen to be something we’re working on. That’s where your strategy belongs, brother.
Taiwan keeps this game in their front yard. If they have Taiwan this game is played in our front yard. Geography is real.
The geography, in case you haven't noticed, is two hundred miles off the coast of mainland China. These people claim it, it’s on the other side of the world, and it Does Not Have to Matter.
And if you think the continental United States will not be attacked in a full-on war with China, I think you’d better take a closer look at what China has ready right now.
We do not need it.
Is there a way to deliver naval mines using ground-based artillery? I know we can use it to deliver land mines.
Depends on whether a 200lb warhead from a GMLRS can do enough damage. My guess is even a cheap PRSM variant will be very pricey for a mine.
I had a similar thought. Why not a GLSDB-based mine? I don’t know if a 250-pound bomb is enough (I’m guessing not); but, if so, let the Taiwanese chuck a bunch of them from shore to around 90-something miles out.
https://www.twz.com/land/ground-launched-small-diameter-bomb-headed-to-ukraine-for-its-second-try-at-combat-report
Or, Powered JDAMs to lay 500-pound mines from 300 miles away. That’s a good standoff distance for aircraft.
https://www.twz.com/jet-powered-jdam-aims-to-turn-bombs-into-cruise-missiles
Even a 60 lb charge like from a 155mm going off in your shafting is going to really put a damper on your whole outing. Would need some way to stay neutrally buoyant and listen for a 60 hz or whatever tonal and then swim toward it when the return was high enough. Would not, I think, be that hard to build honestly.
So say we all, as the expression goes. It is frustrating that sea mines are under-appreciated in pursuit of small numbers of super weapons.
But ... stranding the PLA ashore on Taiwan isn't enough. If China engineers a ceasefire despite difficulties with supplies they will dig in, reinforce, and resume the offensive in a year. Or two. Or a decade. Lather, rinse, repeat. That has been part of my frustration with publicly discussed wargames. Everyone seems to assume that if China doesn't capture Taipei by the end of the scenario, that is scored as a Chinese defeat.
The small Taiwanese army will need to drive the PLA into the sea to truly win the war. And it might require U.S. Army help if the Navy and Air Force can get sufficient forces there and sustain them--perhaps in the face of Chinese naval mines.
I explored this issue several years ago in Military Review: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2020/Dunn-Drive-Into-Sea/
Yeah, keep them off the beach. Better yet, have them wake up one day wondering wtf happened to their rising empire like Iran is tight now.
Quickstrike-ER could sow enough doubt in the Strait to stall follow-on waves and give allied fires time to work. However, I wonder if this would incentivize more preemptive PLA strikes against Taiwan and U.S. air bases. If you're interested, I've previously written about the PLA's logic and planning for long-range fires: https://ordersandobservations.substack.com/p/how-does-the-pla-plan-missile-strikes