lemmee tell ya about a lousy thing the NAVY is doing.
Sadly, the Navy is studying the use of airships, specifically the "Airlander" type of so-called "hybrid airships" for logistics use. This is the same type of aircraft that the Army wisely rejected in it's original "LEMV" configuration. But somehow, it's being re-considered by the Navy. Breaks my heart to see. It was trash when the Army rejected it; and it's trash now.
(full disclosure, yeah "Airlander" is a competitor airship design)
A counter-argument if I may provide (I have debated this with senior Navy before): The short take on airships supporting the US Navy is Yes — but only in specific, carefully designed roles. Airships would not solve the U.S. Navy’s Pacific SLOC (Sea Lines of Communication) vulnerability on their own, but they could meaningfully strengthen the logistics and ISR architecture that keeps SLOCs open against the PRC — again, if the Navy uses them in the right way. Airships would compliment the logistics architecture, and make more resilient. Key items to ponder:
Airships are not fast enough to replace sealift or airlift, but they can:
- Move small, high-value cargo (spare parts, sensors, medical supplies)
- Resupply isolated EABO nodes
- Reduce demand on vulnerable surface connectors
Thereby creating logistics elasticity — a critical factor when the PRC intends to interdict SLOCs. They are an enabler, not a decisive platform.
"only in specific, carefully designed roles" the same could be said for submarines, or oilers, or minesweepers, or........whatever. By and large, the general reactions to the use of airships is absolutely justified........... because the word "airships" is still taken to mean either blimps, or dirigibles.
my avatar above says it clearly. No blimps, No dirigibles
time to move PAST those archaic type of lighter-than-air craft; to something that keeps the benefits of them, but adds greater capabilities.
Carbon foam/fiber, ceramic reinforced aluminum Speed minimum of 100kts VTOL/hover in place, amphibious Unlimited range Payload 300 ton
What can we do with 300 tons? What weapons for self-defense? What offensive weapons? How many VLS cells could she carry, launch, or simply supply to a sister marine vessel…? Or, as a “stealthy” flying carrier; how many drones could she carry to; and then launch directly into contested airspace… ?
Spot on analysis. In the Pacific the choices are 1) Don't fight 2) Win really, fast, violently, SAP /STO surprise 3) Go nuclear. Logistics (of all stripes) will not allow us to fight a prolonged war. China, OTOH, has shorter supply lines and an industrial capability that mirrors us at the beginning of WWll. Personnel and quality of equipment can change the exchange ratios in the short term. Attrition, and inability to repair / replace combat losses, lack of "preferred munitions", transport necessitate winning fast if we fight...or break the seal on the nuclear option and hope to fight a controlled conflict. Hope is not...
As for the Navy and sea power we need above all to start building ships again. As for war with China… not to be pacifist but there really needs to be a reason, oh and they have nukes too. At present Finland (ship building skills that are being transferred to America) is more important than Ukraine.
Get thee to the shipyards and become shipwrights.
The importance of Ukraine is they are being worked to death by 🇺🇸 us, in the bargain we have a standoff lab for teaching ourselves modern war, at the end of the bargain we’ll get the Slavic Congo’s (yes it is) resources cheap, dead or fled nations have cheap deals.
If it comes to war, we may end up doing a "far blockade" on China--all of China's seaborne trade runs through areas that are well out of range of China's land-based missiles and aircraft. Get a few destroyer task groups in Indonesia and southeast of the Philippines to stop and sieze any ship going to or from China and rile up the locals in Central Asia, and it's likely we can Anaconda Plan Beijing.
Yes, although they would mainly be helpful in countering Chinese subs trying to break the blockade by sinking our ships.
Thing is, if it comes to war we may have to write off Taiwan and possibly South Korea. Japan can probably hold, as the Chinese will likely run out of long-range missiles that can range to the ports on the Pacific side of Honshu before we run out of port facilities.
Trying to relieve Taiwan, OTOH, is certainly going to end very poorly, at least if we try it early on. If they can hold out for a few months, the Chinese might go through enough of their missile stocks that we can chance it.
Japan can re-route through the Pacific and away from their usual shipping lanes. It'll add transit time, but that's different than not being able to get there.
We have talked endlessly about the choke point that is US submarine construction. At this point Aussie SSN s a political statement more than an actual plan.
The Russians have always been lousy warfighters. They get exaggerated credit for WWII but the facts are that they fought that war ineptly as well, suffering huge casualties from amatuer tactics, only winning because of raw numbers of men compared to the Germans and most criticallly being supported by UK/US logistics.
If Tiawan is willing to fight as hard as Ukraine they will hold. Deep strikes on logistics cuts both ways. But they should be building up their drone inventories, not tanks or jets.
China is in the process of building a bluewater navy with global reach, a navy intended to become the strongest by far on the planet. I submit we need to worry about everything west of Hawaii, if not Hawaii itself.
It would be a damned shame if we were to abandon them. We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 100 hours just 35 years ago; if we've slipped too far for a repeat performance, what's the point?
I too doubt these Russian casualty figures. Had the Russians actually experienced these alleged human and material casualties, they would have made one of two alternative decisions: either to (1) sue for peace while negotiating a partial acceptance of NATO's terms; or else to (2) fully mobilize for total war and put enough forces into a final push for victory while accepting truly horrific casualties occurring inside a relatively short operational timeframe.
Keep in mind that these are the same folks that kept the fact that they lost 20 to 27 million (with about 8-9M being troops) over the same time 80 years ago a secret for almost 50 years. Though I'm sure that in any given village or town they had some inkling as to the true magnitude.
Compare that to the 5.5 to 7M losses for the Germans (of which 4.4-5.3M were troops). And it should be pointed out that these are from ALL fronts plus a major strategic bombing campaign that targeted population centers.
The Russians don't seem to have changed tactics much in 80 years. The figures are very believable in context.
Let's just say that most of what you likely read about modern Russia would fit reality as "good" as "in USA oligarchs buy congressional seats on auction, and all Congressmen must have KKK membership".
Really, if you were Xi JinPing would you let loose the dogs of war given the USN is still configured for the 1980s and our leadership is as it is now? If I were Xi I would act as the U.S. doesn't exist -- don't strike any U.S. targets, just invade Taiwan and be done with it. IMO, the USA would never fire the first shot. YMMV.
2027 might be an interesting year in several locations if 2026 is any indication. If China launches in 2027 there probably won't be much opposition if they don't hit US bases.
Seriously? You believe Ukrainean ridiculously exaggerated numbers? Are you so naive? Or just can't comprehend, that losses of 1.3 million for a nation of 140 millions would be obvious? Seriously, cmdr. Salamander, you still did not understand that BOTH sides of war are dismissing their own losses and exaggeratin enemy ones? Never thought you as naive type...
Because there would at least be something going on--you might be able to hide the extent of the extra flights bringing the bodies home, but you couldn't hide that there were some.
There's also the very slight issue that no ground troops have been committed aside from one rescue mission.
I think it will be a tiered approach of unmanned systems in knife-fighting range at the beginning of a Taiwan invasion - low profile, numerous, hard to track and kill (mostly submerged) to interdict invasion forces and slow their roll. Medium range will be naval blockades of choke points, moved in after the initial missile barrage to limit resupply of petrol and other logistics (THEIR SELOCs). Long range will be stealth attacks with bombers (especially as the B-21 comes along, or AGM-183A/Dark Eagle/HACM, and long range drones.
Once attrition and logistical chokepoints take some of the starch out of them, we'll be able to constrict the noose and get closer more safely. They have good interior lines, but have to divide their forces to cover all approaches. We can concentrate forces where we want to attack. Same problem Japan had...but we also have (hopefully) Japan and SK in close to project force after the initial attacks peter out. China can go Winchester, too, you know.
Can't wait to see the people claiming the Ukraine numbers are made up without explaining how the only mechanised force at the May Day parade in Moscow this year was... an armored limo. An armored convertible limo. If they're doing well, why haven't they won after this absurd length of time?
Anyway, more and more it seems the single most important ship class of WWII was the Liberty.
lemmee tell ya about a lousy thing the NAVY is doing.
Sadly, the Navy is studying the use of airships, specifically the "Airlander" type of so-called "hybrid airships" for logistics use. This is the same type of aircraft that the Army wisely rejected in it's original "LEMV" configuration. But somehow, it's being re-considered by the Navy. Breaks my heart to see. It was trash when the Army rejected it; and it's trash now.
(full disclosure, yeah "Airlander" is a competitor airship design)
c'mon Navy! No more #***$#! blimps!
In the 1950's Navy blimps were flying over NY harbor! Good times!
They were around until 1965!
A counter-argument if I may provide (I have debated this with senior Navy before): The short take on airships supporting the US Navy is Yes — but only in specific, carefully designed roles. Airships would not solve the U.S. Navy’s Pacific SLOC (Sea Lines of Communication) vulnerability on their own, but they could meaningfully strengthen the logistics and ISR architecture that keeps SLOCs open against the PRC — again, if the Navy uses them in the right way. Airships would compliment the logistics architecture, and make more resilient. Key items to ponder:
Airships are not fast enough to replace sealift or airlift, but they can:
- Move small, high-value cargo (spare parts, sensors, medical supplies)
- Resupply isolated EABO nodes
- Reduce demand on vulnerable surface connectors
Thereby creating logistics elasticity — a critical factor when the PRC intends to interdict SLOCs. They are an enabler, not a decisive platform.
"only in specific, carefully designed roles" the same could be said for submarines, or oilers, or minesweepers, or........whatever. By and large, the general reactions to the use of airships is absolutely justified........... because the word "airships" is still taken to mean either blimps, or dirigibles.
my avatar above says it clearly. No blimps, No dirigibles
time to move PAST those archaic type of lighter-than-air craft; to something that keeps the benefits of them, but adds greater capabilities.
NOMINAL AIRSHIP 600’ length, 360’ wide, 180’ height Hull is fully rigid panels,
Carbon foam/fiber, ceramic reinforced aluminum Speed minimum of 100kts VTOL/hover in place, amphibious Unlimited range Payload 300 ton
What can we do with 300 tons? What weapons for self-defense? What offensive weapons? How many VLS cells could she carry, launch, or simply supply to a sister marine vessel…? Or, as a “stealthy” flying carrier; how many drones could she carry to; and then launch directly into contested airspace… ?
Another post full of hot air
Spot on analysis. In the Pacific the choices are 1) Don't fight 2) Win really, fast, violently, SAP /STO surprise 3) Go nuclear. Logistics (of all stripes) will not allow us to fight a prolonged war. China, OTOH, has shorter supply lines and an industrial capability that mirrors us at the beginning of WWll. Personnel and quality of equipment can change the exchange ratios in the short term. Attrition, and inability to repair / replace combat losses, lack of "preferred munitions", transport necessitate winning fast if we fight...or break the seal on the nuclear option and hope to fight a controlled conflict. Hope is not...
Ukraine not worth the risk of nuclear war.
As for the Navy and sea power we need above all to start building ships again. As for war with China… not to be pacifist but there really needs to be a reason, oh and they have nukes too. At present Finland (ship building skills that are being transferred to America) is more important than Ukraine.
Get thee to the shipyards and become shipwrights.
The importance of Ukraine is they are being worked to death by 🇺🇸 us, in the bargain we have a standoff lab for teaching ourselves modern war, at the end of the bargain we’ll get the Slavic Congo’s (yes it is) resources cheap, dead or fled nations have cheap deals.
One note here:
If it comes to war, we may end up doing a "far blockade" on China--all of China's seaborne trade runs through areas that are well out of range of China's land-based missiles and aircraft. Get a few destroyer task groups in Indonesia and southeast of the Philippines to stop and sieze any ship going to or from China and rile up the locals in Central Asia, and it's likely we can Anaconda Plan Beijing.
Aussie SSN would help a lot. They would also give us another diplo angle to gett support in SEA
Yes, although they would mainly be helpful in countering Chinese subs trying to break the blockade by sinking our ships.
Thing is, if it comes to war we may have to write off Taiwan and possibly South Korea. Japan can probably hold, as the Chinese will likely run out of long-range missiles that can range to the ports on the Pacific side of Honshu before we run out of port facilities.
Trying to relieve Taiwan, OTOH, is certainly going to end very poorly, at least if we try it early on. If they can hold out for a few months, the Chinese might go through enough of their missile stocks that we can chance it.
Taiwan = waiting on Corregidor, for the Great Aid Convoy that never comes?
Can Japan, in turn hold out if their SLOC is cut?
Time to work on our West Coast infrastructure, with mass population, uh "transfers" if needed.
I don't think the Chinese can cut Japan's SLOCs, though I could be wrong. I don't see the NW Pacific as a good operating environment for Chinese subs.
Where does Japan get oil? Solely from Alaska? Food?
When we blockaded them in 44-45, it was all Southern trade.
Japan can re-route through the Pacific and away from their usual shipping lanes. It'll add transit time, but that's different than not being able to get there.
We have talked endlessly about the choke point that is US submarine construction. At this point Aussie SSN s a political statement more than an actual plan.
The Russians have always been lousy warfighters. They get exaggerated credit for WWII but the facts are that they fought that war ineptly as well, suffering huge casualties from amatuer tactics, only winning because of raw numbers of men compared to the Germans and most criticallly being supported by UK/US logistics.
Uh, we really need to increase our buys of tankers and freighters?
Not to mention have something to fill them with.
POL likely won't be too much of an issue. Ordnance will be though.
Hello West coast port security...
And defeating all those CCP container ship launched drones. Or a couple of suicide tankers
Or just scuttle a few ships with cement in the right areas.....
Not just the west coast.
What makes you think the SLOCs to Guam and Japan are safe?
Where did I say that? See my commend on the “deep fight”
My bad. My first reply ended up on the wrong thread. I think we'll have trouble enough delivering fuel and munitions to the Marianas.
I am beginning to accept the eventual takeover of Taiwan as a fait accompli...
I will submit that we need to worry more about Guam and Okinawa, along with the rest of Marianas and Ryukus.
Of course, the way the Democrat Party is turning into modern day Bolsheviks, they may well let those islands go willingly in the 2030's...
'Stolen Lands' and all.
If Tiawan is willing to fight as hard as Ukraine they will hold. Deep strikes on logistics cuts both ways. But they should be building up their drone inventories, not tanks or jets.
Or subs
Drone subs
China is in the process of building a bluewater navy with global reach, a navy intended to become the strongest by far on the planet. I submit we need to worry about everything west of Hawaii, if not Hawaii itself.
It would be a damned shame if we were to abandon them. We kicked Saddam out of Kuwait in 100 hours just 35 years ago; if we've slipped too far for a repeat performance, what's the point?
We have LCS's, Zumwalt stealth destroyers, and "The World's Largest Aircraft Carrier"!!!
(oh. wait.)
I doubt these Russian casualty figures. They sound like they came out of the Ukraine ministry of information.
I too doubt these Russian casualty figures. Had the Russians actually experienced these alleged human and material casualties, they would have made one of two alternative decisions: either to (1) sue for peace while negotiating a partial acceptance of NATO's terms; or else to (2) fully mobilize for total war and put enough forces into a final push for victory while accepting truly horrific casualties occurring inside a relatively short operational timeframe.
You are thinking like a nation state. Think like the dictator running the nation state.
The British used to be much better at propaganda.
Other sources have made estimates that are pretty close.
For instance see: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/05/29/nearly-500000-russian-soldiers-killed-in-ukraine-top-uk-intel-chief-says/
I remain skeptical. Very skeptical.
Your prerogative.
Keep in mind that these are the same folks that kept the fact that they lost 20 to 27 million (with about 8-9M being troops) over the same time 80 years ago a secret for almost 50 years. Though I'm sure that in any given village or town they had some inkling as to the true magnitude.
Compare that to the 5.5 to 7M losses for the Germans (of which 4.4-5.3M were troops). And it should be pointed out that these are from ALL fronts plus a major strategic bombing campaign that targeted population centers.
The Russians don't seem to have changed tactics much in 80 years. The figures are very believable in context.
Whatever you say. A lot may have happened in 80 years.
You have little to no idea about modern Russia at all, isn't it?
You have me there tovarisch.
I can barely read, do math, or form cogent thoughts. Fortunately I have someone to tell me what to believe.
Let's just say that most of what you likely read about modern Russia would fit reality as "good" as "in USA oligarchs buy congressional seats on auction, and all Congressmen must have KKK membership".
A better gauge may be prisoner remains exchanges.
Really, if you were Xi JinPing would you let loose the dogs of war given the USN is still configured for the 1980s and our leadership is as it is now? If I were Xi I would act as the U.S. doesn't exist -- don't strike any U.S. targets, just invade Taiwan and be done with it. IMO, the USA would never fire the first shot. YMMV.
2027 might be an interesting year in several locations if 2026 is any indication. If China launches in 2027 there probably won't be much opposition if they don't hit US bases.
Jetcal1: I think Taiwan is on it's own.
Seriously? You believe Ukrainean ridiculously exaggerated numbers? Are you so naive? Or just can't comprehend, that losses of 1.3 million for a nation of 140 millions would be obvious? Seriously, cmdr. Salamander, you still did not understand that BOTH sides of war are dismissing their own losses and exaggeratin enemy ones? Never thought you as naive type...
You would be surprised how easy it is to hide, especially when those casualties are not only killed but wounded.
Yeah? Ok, I claim that America lost a million of soldiers during the war with Iran; how would you hide those casualties?) You said it's easy)
Because there would at least be something going on--you might be able to hide the extent of the extra flights bringing the bodies home, but you couldn't hide that there were some.
There's also the very slight issue that no ground troops have been committed aside from one rescue mission.
Bingo. Then why do you assume Russians would not notice something in the same scenario?
Because the Russians have noticed that there are casualties?
And of course you're not biased.
Others are coming to the same conclusion: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2026/05/29/nearly-500000-russian-soldiers-killed-in-ukraine-top-uk-intel-chief-says/
Never claim myself not to be biased; merely that I understood that BOTH sides are presenting data in the way that would be favorable for them.
I think it will be a tiered approach of unmanned systems in knife-fighting range at the beginning of a Taiwan invasion - low profile, numerous, hard to track and kill (mostly submerged) to interdict invasion forces and slow their roll. Medium range will be naval blockades of choke points, moved in after the initial missile barrage to limit resupply of petrol and other logistics (THEIR SELOCs). Long range will be stealth attacks with bombers (especially as the B-21 comes along, or AGM-183A/Dark Eagle/HACM, and long range drones.
Once attrition and logistical chokepoints take some of the starch out of them, we'll be able to constrict the noose and get closer more safely. They have good interior lines, but have to divide their forces to cover all approaches. We can concentrate forces where we want to attack. Same problem Japan had...but we also have (hopefully) Japan and SK in close to project force after the initial attacks peter out. China can go Winchester, too, you know.
Do we have...do we have air defenses to deal with Chinese ultralongrange cruise missiles showing up over West Coast refineries and dockyards?
Can't wait to see the people claiming the Ukraine numbers are made up without explaining how the only mechanised force at the May Day parade in Moscow this year was... an armored limo. An armored convertible limo. If they're doing well, why haven't they won after this absurd length of time?
Anyway, more and more it seems the single most important ship class of WWII was the Liberty.