Because of the last two decades of low level wars, we’ve come to believe that a couple of ships or a few aircraft constitute a significant force. As a result, we have admirals who have never commanded a bona fide task force and commanders who have never operated a large air group. We’ve completely lost our institutional knowledge of how to command fleets and immense fighter sweeps or air strikes.
Consider the following:
China flew 52 fighter planes toward Taiwan on Monday in the largest show of force on record, continuing the three days of sustained military harassment against the self-ruled island.
The sortie included 34 J-16 fighter jets and 12 H-6 bombers, among other aircraft, according to Taiwan’s Ministry of National Defense. (1)
Now, ask yourself, could we do this? Could we operate and coordinate 50+ aircraft on a single mission?
Now, go further and ask yourself, could we defeat 50+ aircraft in a single battle?
As you ponder those questions, remind yourself that 50+ aircraft is just a small subset of what a real war will see. We’ve forgotten that WWII routinely saw multiple hundreds of aircraft involved in single missions. We’ve forgotten the threat level that a real war will bring and we’ve certainly forgotten how to carry out such missions either offensively or defensively. China, however, is learning how to do this while we’re focused on gender integration, sensitivity training, and stamping out extremism (meaning conservative views) among the troops.
If you want to go a step further, ask yourself, could we put 50+ aircraft over Taiwan at a moment's notice, if we chose to defend the country?
China is gearing up for war. What are we gearing up for?
___________________________________
(1)Navy Times website, “China flies record 52 planes toward self-ruled Taiwan”, Huizhong Wu, 4-Oct-2021,
China will take back their island, and of course they will mission kill Kadena and the equipment parks on Okinawa, without effective resistance. They will sink the five navy ships able to leave port under their own power. They will also sink two cement freighters across the channel in Guam, and the Guam people's liberation movement will arise and burn down the oppressive Anderson base hangers.
ReplyDeleteHowever, our admirals and generals will denounce the evil GOP and institute racial 'strict goal' promotions. In addition, every O-4 and above and E-9s will receive Silver Stars, and PoCs will receive DSCs/Navy Crosses.
So the real winner will be America.
Am I the only one who's getting late-USSR vibes from the military, recently?
ReplyDeleteCapabilities that only exist on paper, obsession with ideological purity and political posturing at the expense of everything else, appearance over substance, production mess-ups, lies and deceit at every opportunity, denial about enemy power...
No.
DeleteSpot on. The military is broken. Army and Marines probably very good at a tactical level: company/battalion. The Army and Marines were having to fight wars the last 20 years. The Navy is a joke - the can’t navigate ships without collisions, they can’t build ships. The LCS, Zumwalt and Ford classes are unmitigated disasters. I pray that the submarine force is better. All the services are bogged down by rabid anti white and gender politics. The upper ranks are totally incompetent. The entire goal of the DOD is not preparing to fight a war and establish deterrence but rather to maximize defense industry profits and general officers post retirement incomes. That’s all or leaders care about.
Delete
ReplyDeleteYou point out correctly that we do not deal in large scale operations. But more importantly, as both World Wars and even the Reagan build-up of the 80's which contributed to "winning" the Cold war has proven Mass Production Counts.
Even if we somehow magically got multi-trillion dollar military budget, can we even crank out enough ships to combat China? With two yards and a production line that has not stopped we still only average about 2-4 Burkes a year at best. Maybe 5 years for a carrier. Virgina class subs also 2 a year. We can expect the same for our new destroyer...er frigates once they get into production. Even the cheaply made LCS classes are not exactly mass production items. There are no 90 day Liberty ships or Buckley class DE's which we cranked out 148 of in less than 3 years.
Forget WW2 size, to get to 600 ship navy of the Reagan era how long would it take?
With our current ships, forever to never. Let's not kid ourselves. 3 Burkes a year is a challenge at this point more than a given. We need more of things that are useful yet cheaper. Cheaper needs to account for the entire lifecycle, not just acquisition.
Delete- Carriers create their own institutional gravity by how many service members serve on them and the number of jobs that build and maintain them. It seems as though additional automation actually makes this worse vs other platforms. Play into that hand. Simplify the design and standardize with our allies, make the ship fit the infrastructure that can support it. Easiest would be a live with it CTOL version of the QE class. If not, make nice with France on their upcoming carrier. In a world where we don't need to buddy up I'd say develop a modern conventional CV, or a 1 reactor CVN the size of a CV with conventional gas turbine backup. Spend the money on the graving docks for a larger cheaper force. Upgrade NNS for 2 ships in the dock at once. Build the system first and the ships will follow. Block buys. 1 sea frame for big deck aviation. Plenty else for the other yards to do.
- Surface combatants. Never assume a service life past 35 years. Stop building Burke Flight III. Make changes for cost and efficiency for flight IV where there is an assumption of buys of 3+ a year. Get the margins back up to where they need to be at start of life of the ship. EASR, basically frigate gear with the loadout of the destroyer. Sorry, running out of time. Basically never let the Navy design another hull, just integrate what they need on work someone else already did succesfully.
"China is gearing up for war. What are we gearing up for?"
ReplyDeleteA Kumbaya-singing contest?
Some ideas:
1) Fire every 3 and 4 star, and promote officers in lower ranks with warrior mentalities to replace them.
2) Develop a coherent and specific national grand strategy, with the military portion based on the old "2-1/2 war" concept, and derive CONOPS to implement that strategy.
3) Get more shipyards and aircraft and weapons manufacturing facilities opened/reopened, including at least two more sub-capable yards, preferably west coast.
4) Reinstitute live training exercises like the interbellum Fleet Problems or the RN Springtrains, with real OpFors, to rehearse the grand strategy and CONOPS, and kick ass and take names objectively to validate what works and change what doesn't.
5) Prepare ships and crews for those exercises by instituting something like the RN's FOST, plus something like Perisher for all prospective ship CO's, sub and surface.
6) Make it abundantly clear to every sailor, soldier, airman, and Marine that military forces exist to win wars by killing people and breaking things, that "gender integration, sensitivity training, and stamping out extremism" are subsidiary to good order and discipline, and that extremism does not mean particular political views.
7) Get rid of the LCSs, and fire everybody responsible for them.
8) Build no more Fords, fire everybody responsible for them, and build a combination of Nimitzes and Kitty Hawks on an accelerated schedule, to get to 9-12 of each for what 12 Fords would cost
9) Build some modern battleships, and 20 true CGs to replace the Ticos.
10) Build 80 or so single-purpose ASW frigates.
11) Build FFG(X)s as FREMM GP escorts instead of as cheaper and less capable AEGIS replacements for the Ticos.
12) Replace current LHA/LHD/LPDs with amphibious squadrons of cheaper, stealthy, more conventional amphibs that can be risked close enough to shore to perform actual assaults.
13) As new amphibs enter the fleet, repurpose LHAs/LHDs/LPDs. Convert LPDs to HII ABM/BMD ships, and LHAs/LHDs to interim Lightning/ASW carriers until new Nimitzes/Kittys start building up the carrier numbers.
14) Stop decommissioning the Los Angeles boats long enough to keep submarine numbers from dropping off the chart.
15) Build 20 Ohio-based SSGNs and 30 Virginia VPMs as primary and secondary strike platforms; as the Columbias enter the fleet, consider converting newer Ohios to SSGNs.
16) Build 30 cheaper SSNs and 30 AIP SSKs to perform missions that don't require Virginia capabilities, in order to free up the Virginias for more demanding missions.
17) Develop some cheap combatant and logistics ships that we can pump out a few to keep yards in business and can ramp up production in a hurry in case of war.
18) Build some extremely stealthy true littoral combatants, including ASW corvettes, missile patrol boats, mine warfare ships, and the aforementioned SSKs.
19) Build enough combat logistics ships and other auxiliaries to support wartime operations of all combatants.
20) Set a 30-year goal of 450-500 ships and a 40-year goal of 600.
21) Build 3 new aircraft for the Navy--a long-range air superiority fighter/interceptor for fleet defense, a smaller number of long-range stealthy strike/attack aircraft (that could be drones), and a "Marine A-10."
22) Bring back the S-3s or build a replacement that can serve ASW/patrol, tanker, and COD roles.
23) Convert F35Cs to EW aircraft by adding a 2nd seat where the lift fan goes on the Bs, and converting the bomb bay to additional electronics and fuel tanks for longer legs.
24) Increase air wings to at least 80 for Nimitzes, 60 for Kittys, and 40 for Lightning/escort carriers.
I doubt anyone will agree with every one of those, but at least I'm putting something out there for comment, and I think most would agree that doing all those things would produce a stronger and better USN that was more prepared for war. And done right, it would not need to cost more than what the USN is doing now.
"A Kumbaya-singing contest?"
DeleteYour comments are going to spam for no obvious reason so there may be a delay being published until I periodically check and 'un-spam' them. Be patient, they'll show up!
"Get more shipyards and aircraft and weapons manufacturing facilities opened"
DeleteNo one can argue with that but how do you open a facility without steady, on-going work? How/where will the work come from?
"Reinstitute live training exercises"
DeleteGiven that you've expressed a preference for continuing the deployment model, where will the time come from for these exercises?
In contrast, I've proposed no deployments and constant training exercises.
"How/where will the work come from?"
DeleteWell, in the "if only we could" scenario, maybe the multi-trillion dollar spending bill thats in the headlines could be... "Repurposed"??
With leadership wanting to spend money on infrastructure, what better infrastructure is there than new/expanded/remodeled public shipyards, and the fleet that uses them?? An extra trillion (even a half-trillion!) thrown at the Navy (and wisely managed) could fix a lot of problems!! Especially when coupled with some intelligent cuts, like stopping LCS, a Nimitz restart, a 50% culling of flag ranks, positions, and staffs, etc...
"Convert LPDs to HII ABM/BMD ships,..."
DeleteThis just occured to me, and maybe its a dumb question/thought... But why do we task so many USN assets with BMD??? I understand that we'd like to have a missile shield, but... What happened to MAD, and isn't that good enough???
"Given that you've expressed a preference for continuing the deployment model,"
DeleteExcept that I haven't proposed continuing the current deployment model. I don't propose a no-deployment-ever model, but I do propose rotating to allow more time for training and maintenance.
I have proposed a rotation of 10% major maintenance time (possibly decommissioned like the Brits, with all but a few crew removed), 30% reserve time (crewing up, with reservists providing additional manning to focus on maintenance and extremely short-term ops, 1 week or less), 30% home fleet (fully or almost fully crewed up, focus on extensive training and readiness preparation), and 30% deployable (perhaps half actually deployed at any time, short-term to perform specific missions). Nobody deploys without first completing FOST, and nobody gets to be CO of anything without first completing Perisher.
"No one can argue with that but how do you open a facility without steady, on-going work? How/where will the work come from?"
DeleteIf we are building to 600 Navy ships plus constructing some victory-type cargo ships to support any expeditionary operations, we will have enough to keep several additional yards busy. I would propose the smaller SSN to be the French Barracuda, and would propose that Naval Group build or rebuild a west coast yard to build them, like they did with Brazil for the Raichuelos. Same thing for whomever we chose to build the AIP SSKs (and a longer-range SSK AIP is what I think Australia really needs, so. perhaps we could work a deal there). An increase in maintenance opportunities would also increase demand.
Plus, I have avoided the political side, but I would have some political proposals to bring manufacturing back to the USA, specifically heavy manufacturing including ships.
"Your comments are going to spam for no obvious reason so there may be a delay being published until I periodically check and 'un-spam' them. Be patient, they'll show up!"
DeleteEither you are catching them very quickly, or the problem has cleared up. At least on my end, I am able to see them.
Jjabatie
DeleteMAD was for the USSR and now for Russia and China. BMD is for nations like North Korea, Iran or Pakistan that could get a real irrational mad man with the power to fire a few nukes.
North Korea's leadership till now has been rational stay in power and not get attacked and having nukes makes a Libya or Iraq style regime change far too risky. But maybe the next guy is an 'lets just nuke California fuck everything' person.
"BMD"
DeleteToday, BMD is for conventional ballistic missiles from China as much or more so than nuclear defense. China has a large inventory - growing larger all the time - of conventional ballistic missiles. For example, the Chinese DF-21, the so-called carrier killer, is a conventional ballistic missile (at least in that role). We're looking for BMD to protect carriers and distant bases like Guam.
"Either you are catching them very quickly, or the problem has cleared up. At least on my end, I am able to see them."
DeleteI check the spam folder several times per day but, for example, your last, long comment appeared twice in the spam folder so I'm guessing you entered it twice when it didn't immediately show up? It doesn't matter but I did want to let you know that I'm not moderating the comments and if there's a delay in their appearance it's likely they got routed to spam so just have faith that I'll redesignate them for publication as quickly as I can.
"we will have enough to keep several additional yards busy."
DeleteThis is one of the major challenges we face. We just don't have the work load to support many new shipyards. Each yard would need to build several ships per year, at least, plus have a reasonable expectation of similar work loads for the foreseeable future in order to justify their establishment and operation.
One more yard, while helpful, wouldn't solve our wartime needs. We would need dozens of yards. If we do the math, that would be a requirement for several ships per year multiplied by dozens of yards. That's something on the order of a hundred ships per year and there's no way that's happening with just Navy work.
Now, if we could modify our legislation to substantially promote commercial construction then we might get to the required level of new ships.
This is not a criticism of you or your idea. I, too, want to increase our domestic shipbuilding industry and I'm facing the same challenge when I discuss it. I've described ways to solve the problem in past comments but it won't be easy. It needs to be a combined commercial and navy solution. Neither will suffice on its own.
"30% deployable (perhaps half actually deployed at any time, short-term to perform specific missions"
DeleteYou're confusing me. You say 'deployable' and then in the next phrase (literally!) you say 'short-term … specific missions' which is EXACTLY the model I've described (home ported with occasional short term, specific missions) and which you've disagreed with. So, which is it, deployments or short term missions?
"I don't propose a no-deployment-ever model, but I do propose rotating to allow more time for training and maintenance."
DeleteAgain, you're confusing me. I'm assuming you know that our current deployment model is the Optimized Fleet Response Plan (OFRP) whose description is nearly identical to what you're calling for. Here's the OFRP description:
"The OFRP seeks to maximize employability while preserving maintenance and training with continuity in ship leadership and carrier strike group assignments, and restoring operational and personnel tempos to acceptable levels."
That sounds EXACTLY like what you're proposing as something new and different!
As you know, the OFRP has been a resounding failure with double deployments being common along with deferred maintenance, almost no training, flight hours cut beyond bare minimum, and ships sitting idle for months and years. So, how will your nearly identical plan succeed where the OFRP has failed?
I understand that you're postulating an ideal scenario with various modifications to reality. Nothing wrong with that - I do it all the time. HOWEVER, the number of modifications to reality that would have to occur to make your plan succeed seems beyond any possibility even in an ideal world.
Thoughts?
"Now, if we could modify our legislation to substantially promote commercial construction then we might get to the required level of new ships."
DeleteThis hits the nail on the head. Aircraft (and missile?) production benefits hugely from Boeing's commercial production. The Jones Act clearly isn't enough, but legislation to support/require US commercial shipbuilding could produce the desired outcome.
"Now, if we could modify our legislation to substantially promote commercial construction then we might get to the required level of new ships."
DeleteI agree and have some ideas, but they go far more into the political than the navy realm, and thus I have not posted them here. Basically, we have had tax and regulatory policies that have driven manufacturing of all sorts overseas for the past few decades, and we need to reverse those.
"As you know, the OFRP has been a resounding failure with double deployments being common along with deferred maintenance, almost no training, flight hours cut beyond bare minimum, and ships sitting idle for months and years. So, how will your nearly identical plan succeed where the OFRP has failed?"
DeleteOne, I'm not deploying just to deploy, I'm deploying ships when there is a specific mission, like your approach. Two, we have averaged 100 ships deployed over the past 30 years, or between 35% and 40% of our 250-300 ships. By restricting deployments to specific needs, I would cut the deployed number to 80 or 90, while increasing fleet size to between 500 and 600, so the percent deployed drops to around 15%. That creates a lot of time for training and maintenance.
OFRP has looked to me like nothing more than a scheme to justify long and/or back-to-back deployments, which make no more sense to me than they do to you.
Excellent ideas, sir; however, the navy is committed now to increasing the numbers of female minority officers and they really can't be bothered with warfare stuff.
Delete"You're confusing me. You say 'deployable' and then in the next phrase (literally!) you say 'short-term … specific missions' which is EXACTLY the model I've described (home ported with occasional short term, specific missions) and which you've disagreed with. So, which is it, deployments or short term missions?"
DeleteI think the confusion is that you are interpreting my "deployments" to mean the Navy's concept of deployments--long trips with little action. I use the word deployment to mean any time you travel out of home waters, so my definition of deployment is closer to your definition of mission.
Look at it this way. We had roughly 100 ships deployed when we had 500-600 ships in the 1980s. That's roughly 15-20% deployed, leaving 80% of the time to engage in maintenance and training. We kept the 100 ships deployed as the fleet dropped to between 250-300, depending on how you count ships. That's roughly 35-40% deployed, reducing the time to engage in training and maintenance to roughly 60-65%. Big difference.
I would build the fleet back to 450 by 2040, 500 by 2050, 600 by 2060. I would reduce deployment by getting rid of idle time deployments, and deploying only when there was a need. Say 80-90 ships deployed at a time, max. That's 20% of 450, 18% of 500, 15% of 600. Now you are back to having 80+% of the time for maintenance/training.
"Say 80-90 ships deployed at a time"
DeleteYou envision 80-90 specific missions being run during peacetime at any given moment????? What are these missions? I'd be hard pressed to come up with two legitimate missions at any given moment! Honestly, I'm hard pressed to come up with any legitimate mission other than a punitive cruise missile attack which we seem to do every couple years.
I strongly suspect that you're still thinking 'presence' like we're doing now - just cruising around aimlessly. Feel free to describe the kinds of 80-90 missions that would be executing at any given moment. Convince me that they're not just our routine deployments.
Think USAF could pull it off, they still have Red Flag and other Flags to somewhat practice big fleets and operations. Not sure how well USN fighters and carriers would handle big numbers, not sure they've done recently any real big exercises to have to work against like a Chinese Taiwan War.
ReplyDeleteSomething else to consider is all the other "stuff": can we provide fuel, cargo, parts, repairs fighters, runways, hangars, etc...what about re-arming? Do we even have enough missiles? Reading article the other day about Tomcat/Phoenix and was surprised to learn that probably no more than 20 Phoenixs were on board carriers and usually would be moved from carrier to next carrier deploying....I think we kind of assume sometimes that we have 100s of missiles or bombs laying around, can get parts anytime we want, can fix a runway in a hour,etc....our expectations probably don't match reality. Plus, let's not forget, what happens if China does this day after day? Being able for us to manage one day or 2 days is nice but can we pull it off 10 days? A month? 2 months? That's another form of strain I doubt we are prepared for.
Taiwan
ReplyDeleteReading recently Taiwan will fund big increase in production of its indigenous anti-ship missiles and new 400 km extended range version plus buying Harpoons, it will take more than a few years to come to fruition and seems a belated response.
Was wondering if priority should be mass producing thousands of naval mines and laying numerous mine fields for a more immediate and effective deterrence to the Chinese threat of invasion?
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4290059>
"new 400 km extended range"
DeleteTargeting. Where/how will Taiwan accomplish 400 km targeting? In a war with China, China will flood the sky with aircraft and no Taiwan surveillance/targeting aircraft will live long enough to provide 400 km targeting.
This is the kind of realistic war factors that modern militaries just don't seem to engage in anymore.
" laying numerous mine fields"
That's great but how would these massive mine fields be laid? In a war, China will sink/shoot any ship or aircraft in sight. It will be nearly impossible for Taiwan to lay mines. They could lay them before a war but that would likely trigger the war!
How good is Chinese MCM?
DeleteMaybe Taiwan won't need massive minefields, although I'm pretty sure a Chinese invasion force won't care too much about losses.
Still a strong advocate for some kind of land-based rocket-deployed naval mine for Taiwan.
DeleteIt seems reasonable a sufficient number should be economically feasible with: ISO container based launcher, basic solid rocket motor, rudimentary INS guidance, effective targeting & sufficient explosives.
Let them sit on land, perhaps involve some kind of shell game with other shipping containers. When the time comes, fire them into the strait for deployment.
-LP
" When the time comes, fire them into the strait for deployment."
DeleteYou would need thousands for effective coverage.
400 km targeting is irrelevant when the Taiwan Strait at most is 220 km wide, (130 km at its narrowest) and 180 km on average.
DeleteAnd some Taiwanese islands are only 10 km from Chinese mainland - that's 105mm howitzer range!
The Chinese can saturate the largely ageing and often obsolete Taiwanese airdefences with land based fighters, missiles and ECM aircraft.
And they can saturate the strait with lots of craft including repurposed civilian ships.
So you don't need a small number of expensive long range weapons, you need lots of cheap ones to saturate Chinese naval forces.
But then the air defence issue remains especially as not many advanced Patriots have been acquired and there's only 6-7 hardened airbases on the island and all are in range of Chinese missiles and fighter aircraft.
"400 km targeting is irrelevant when the Taiwan Strait at most is 220 km wide"
DeleteYou've missed the point. Absent over-the-horizon (OTH) sensors, weapons are only effective out to the horizon which is 15-20 miles or so. Taiwan, being mountainous to some degree, could have sensors with a substantially increased horizon thanks to height but those sensors are unlikely to survive longer than a few minutes into a war. China understands targeting and will initiate a war with a massive attack on all known sensors. That will leave Taiwan with no effective OTH sensors and will limit their weapons to 15-20 miles.
So many people become enamored with long range weapons without thinking through the targeting aspects. This is why the Chinese DF-21 carrier-killer is a non-existent threat. The missile is powerful but there is no effective targeting system for it.
Taiwan can have a million mile weapon but if they have no targeting sensor, they're limited to horizon ranges.
CNO - to leverage off of your previous post, why would we need to launch 50+ aircraft when we are using missile to do the strike roll? 50+ Fighters to defend the task force, when we have 500+ SMs in the escort ships?
ReplyDeleteI am not trying to bust you, this to me is a serious question. If the predomiant use case is to use Tomahawks, et al, to conduct strike and fighters are not good at anti-missile defense, see how that leads us down the path to downplay what you and I agree are critical warfighting skills?
Why does China think that 50+ aircraft raids will be effective against an IADS?
You're quite right that a large scale strike by the US would likely be cruise missiles. HOWEVER, just as the Chinese air group was composed of several bombers (likely carrying cruise missiles of some type) and dozens of fighter escorts, so too would an opposed strike of ours require many escorts to protect the missiles as I described in a recent blog story.
DeleteDefensively, I've never stated that fighters are not good for anti-missile protection. They are, IF USED CORRECTLY. I have stated that our vision of a Standard missile umbrella is largely fantasy. That means that air superiority is the key to defense and that requires large numbers of aircraft which is the point of the question. Do we know how to control and coordinate 50+ defensive aircraft? Obviously not.
"Why does China think that 50+ aircraft raids will be effective against an IADS?"
China has a very different view of aerial strike warfare. Importantly, they do not view casualties the way we do. If they lose a bunch of aircraft but succeed in the mission, they'll consider that acceptable whereas we would not.
The Chinese bombers would likely carry cruise missiles which is what most of their public discussions indicate. This takes us back to missiles as the preferred strike weapon.
I don't know about Taiwan's defenses. China may consider them not very formidable especially if China is willing to accept more casualties than we are.
For some historical perspective, WWII saw the use of fight sweeps as an immediate precursor to, and enabler of, strikes. These sweeps involved dozens to hundreds of fighter aircraft. That's the question I'm posing: can we command and coordinate those kinds of large groups of aircraft, whatever the specific mission? If not (and I know we can't), then why aren't we practicing to do so?
Good discussion.
DeleteCNO, your point about (perceived Chinese loss tolerance - it hasn't been tested yet) raises an interesting set of questions regarding the US situation.
Delete- What IS the US loss tolerance?
- What is the replacement timeline for pilots, ship crew?
- What capacity is there to accelerate the training timeline, or increase training throughput.
It strikes me that 30 years of post-Cold War cutbacks and "colonial" conflicts have left the US with a a potentially very brittle military capability in the form of a relatively inflexibly-sized highly-trained professional force not unlike that which the British Empre took into WW1.
For such a force it really doesn't take all that much in terms of major-conflict losses to seriously degrade the force's capabilities with the most likely result being desperate plugging of front-line gaps with irreplaceable training cadres.
"point about (perceived Chinese loss tolerance - it hasn't been tested yet)"
DeleteYes, it has been tested and proven … repeatedly.
The Chinese employed human wave attacks in the Korean war.
The Chinese employed human wave attacks during the Boxer Rebellion.
The Chinese employed human wave attacks during the post-WWII civil war.
They've ruthlessly killed their own citizens. For example, the Tainanmen Square Massacre in 1989 saw the Chinese government kill several hundred to several thousand people, depending on which source you look at. If they'd do that to their own citizens, they won't hesitate to accept levels of military attrition far beyond what we would accept.
They've killed thousands of Uyghur in various campaigns of suppression.
All of this demonstrates a pattern of disregard for individual life in the pursuit of military and government goals. So, yes, there is every reason to believe that China's tolerance for casualties is stunningly high compared to the West.
That aside, the rest of your comment is not only on point but quite relevant and perceptive. The US military has prided itself on having highly trained individual soldiers. The drawback to that is that highly trained soldiers can take years to produce. We will not be able to produce replacements quickly during war. This suggests that the pursuit of advanced technology and technologically knowledgeable and skilled soldiers is a potential weakness as much as it is a strength.
The same applies to our equipment technology. An incredibly advanced radar that cannot be maintained and repaired is of less value in war than a simpler radar that can be operated at peak effectiveness and is easily repaired.
Disagree on the use of human wave tactics in the Korean War :
DeletePVA forces used rapid attacks on the flanks and rear and infiltration behind UN lines to give the appearance of vast hordes. This, of course, was augmented by the PVA tactic of maximizing their forces for the attack, ensuring a large local numerical superiority over their opponent.[12][13] The initial PVA victories were a great morale booster for the PVA. However, by late 1951, overextended supply lines and superior UN firepower had forced a stalemate. The KPA that invaded in 1950 had been much better supplied and armed by the Soviets than the PVA had been. The main arms of the PVA were captured Japanese and Nationalist arms.[14]
Historian and Korean War veteran Bevin Alexander had this to say about Chinese tactics in his book How Wars Are Won:
The Chinese had no air power and were armed only with rifles, machineguns, hand grenades, and mortars. Against the much more heavily armed Americans, they adapted a technique they had used against the Nationalists in the Chinese civil war of 1946–49. The Chinese generally attacked at night and tried to close in on a small troop position—generally a platoon—and then attacked it with local superiority in numbers. The usual method was to infiltrate small units, from a platoon of fifty men to a company of 200, split into separate detachments. While one team cut off the escape route of the Americans, the others struck both the front and the flanks in concerted assaults. The attacks continued on all sides until the defenders were destroyed or forced to withdraw. The Chinese then crept forward to the open flank of the next platoon position, and repeated the tactics.
Roy Appleman further clarified the initial Chinese tactics as:
In the First Phase Offensive, highly skilled enemy light infantry troops had carried out the Chinese attacks, generally unaided by any weapons larger than mortars. Their attacks had demonstrated that the Chinese were well-trained disciplined fire fighters, and particularly adept at night fighting. They were masters of the art of camouflage. Their patrols were remarkably successful in locating the positions of the U.N. forces. They planned their attacks to get in the rear of these forces, cut them off from their escape and supply roads, and then send in frontal and flanking attacks to precipitate the battle. They also employed a tactic which they termed Hachi Shiki, which was a V-formation into which they allowed enemy forces to move; the sides of the V then closed around their enemy while another force moved below the mouth of the V to engage any forces attempting to relieve the trapped unit. Such were the tactics the Chinese used with great success at Onjong, Unsan, and Ch'osan, but with only partial success at Pakch'on and the Ch'ongch'on bridgehead.
In short, yes they use local numerical superiority in that they can maneuver their forces in such a way that they outnumber the local opposition which is a pretty sound tactic.
The same tactic is used against the Nationalists post WW2, it only gave the impression of a human wave tactics because the poor sods in that particular detachment was really under attack by people who knows ganging up on a lone detachment is much better than attack all along the front at once.
DeleteThis casual disregarding of Chinese tactics without fact checking is not only a insult to history but also a danger to the US military if they think like that. China is not only capable of accepting higher loses but they are also smart enough to maximize their fighting potentials when needed.
"Disagree on the use of human wave tactics in the Korean War"
DeleteOne can describe the actions any way they want but if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck …
When attacks are launched at superior defensive positions and the attacker's only advantage is numbers then it is, by definition, a human wave attack. Or, if you prefer, from the Wikipedia 'Human Wave Attack' article, we get this definition:
"According to U.S. Army analyst Edward C. O'Dowd, the technical definition of a human wave attack tactic is a frontal assault by densely concentrated infantry formations against an enemy line, without any attempts to shield or to mask the attacker's movement."
The Internet is replete with descriptions of Chinese human wave attacks in the various examples I cited. Finding one person who attempts to rewrite history with a spin on human wave attacks doesn't alter reality.
except that they do mask their movement, did you not read the part about camouflage and infiltration ? The frontal attack was a diversion and the rear pincer movement was the real attack.
DeleteOr the part where they focus on the vulnerable flanks ? It's not some dumb movie scene where they charge across open field in plain daylight.
DeleteThe internet says a lot of things, and most of them without any proof.
DeleteAs one of many, many examples of descriptions of human wave attacks, you might peruse this article from an Asian focused site: Human Wave
DeleteIt uses the same battle description but acknowledges what it is: a human wave attack.
Spin it any way you like but the reality doesn't change.
More than one thing can be true at the same time: the Chinese arguably had 'better' light infantry and they also employed human wave attacks.
DeleteI define better as more cohesive, more determined to carry out assigned tasks, more disciplined, more enured to hard labor, and so forth. Western units generally had better marksmanship, and were certainly more skilled with radios and other technology.
You just focus on the word "Human wave" and then assume it means the most banal of tactics which is throwing enough bodies at a point until it works which is certainly not the case here.
DeleteToday, each modern fighter can command much larger space than WWII thus command large number of advanced fighters mean command very large area. I think that Navy can do this. Question is how good they are.
ReplyDeleteChina's action tends to show they can counter multiple carrier battle groups with land based aircrafts. Two US carriers and one UK carrier just had a drill not from there.
It is no secret that Pentagon conducted many computer war games around the First Island Chain and found US could not win. Therefore, lure Chinese Navy to fight in Mid Pacific is important. Over there, their carriers simply no match to US Navy's.
"China's action tends to show they can counter multiple carrier battle groups with land based aircrafts."
DeleteThey have shown nothing that indicates that.
"It is no secret that Pentagon conducted many computer war games around the First Island Chain and found US could not win."
US war games are generally scripted, pre-ordained, and show nothing other than what the game organizers want them to show. There is nothing in the public domain that describes any war game in sufficient detail to ascertain whether any result, good or bad, is realistic.
I really love the comments that state we need more graving docks and more facilities to work on ships/build ships. One itty bitty small problem...where are the skilled labor workers going to come from to do all this miraculous work? i have been working in the ship repair industry for the past 10 years and the manpower issues continue to get worse. One yard I worked at, a major one in Hampton Roads Va, the average age of the workers was 57 and it is only getting worse. At the company I work at now, I have enough work to keep two more teams completely employed....but there is no one applying. Or if they do start, they last a week or two.
ReplyDeleteWithout the skilled labor force to support ship building or repairs....all the infrastructure is useless.
"where are the skilled labor workers going to come from"
DeleteYep, that's a major problem. We need to drop our current high school 'college or bust' education and reinstate vocational education programs for the various trades. We had that when I was young and it worked quite well. We abandoned it in a misguided attempt to make every student a college student whether they wanted it or not and whether they were suited for it or not. We need to regain what we foolishly threw away.
Agree completely, yet I think subsidies to the yards is needed as well. Face it, shipbuilding and repair isnt easy work. Not too glorious, and pretty thankless as well. I dont know how well paid the average yardbird is paid, but itll take some good money to attract the younger set. With the exception of those doing it "cause dad did", Im not optimistic about ANY serious trades getting or staying well manned, without the pay becoming very enticing...
DeleteThe local Public School standard
Deleteis every graduate will be,
Employed, Enrolled or Enlisted.
Yards want trained workers ?
Apprentices worked for the RN yards in good old days,
it works for Germans today.
There are apprenticeship schools at all the major yards and they have openings. The workers are paid rather well. $15 to start in a lot of cases with no experience. I have had numerous welders with credentials making well into 6 figures with overtime. They are good paying jobs but they are hot dirty and nasty. most young people we get last about 2 weeks once on the deck plates.
Delete"...most young people we get last about 2 weeks..."
DeleteAnd thats the tragic and scary part!!!
"They are good paying jobs but they are hot dirty and nasty. most young people we get last about 2 weeks once on the deck plates."
DeleteCoffee Man, I've been thinking about this post all day.
A couple of thoughts I had:
I wonder what the workplace environment is for these new hires?
How welcoming are the 'old dogs' that work there? My guess is, not very.
So if you're a good young worker, maybe with some welding skills, and this new job is "hot dirty and nasty" and I'm getting treated like crap by the old guys that work there...I'm going to say to hell with this place, I can go do something else.
That may not be the case, but if it is you're never going to keep Millennial workers who don't respond to that 'pay your dues' style of hazing.
The other thing is that if you can't keep these workers, if the work actually is too tough for them to handle, then you've got to switch to immigrant workers.
I've worked in manufacturing and there are plenty of smart, hard-working, capable workers from south of the border here.
But again, are the 'old dogs' going to accept these 'Mexicans', or are they going to make their work lives impossible?
Just food for thought.
I may be overly harsh here, but I grew up in a GM town and worked in industry, and I know how it can be.
Lutefisk
Look what happened during Cold War. US and Soviet Union did many like this but no war between the two. Although China's nuke has no match to US, they can destroy quite large portion of US thus like with Soviet Union, direct war is very very unlikely.
ReplyDeleteShort of establishing a US base in Taiwan (and incurring China's wrath for that action), I don't see how the ROC lasts another decade.
ReplyDeleteChina's strategy for taking Taiwan is pretty obvious. Overwhelm the airspace, bombing/missiles/artillery to soften any defenses, and land huge amounts of troops ASAP. All of this could be accomplished within a few days at most, possibly even hours. As you have stated, the PRC doesn't care too much about incurring casualties, and I think they care even less about inflicting civilian casualties in Taiwan. This reality significantly speeds up their operations.
The ROC's defense strategy relies on US intervention. However, the only way I think US intervention happens is if they can hold off China for at least a week, and even then US intervention is far from a guarantee. Once the operation shifts from the US assisting in defense to one where it has to liberate the island the likelihood of intervention becomes zero.
If we truly want to contain China we need a drastic change in policy quickly. This means drawing down even further in Europe (do you really think any of those countries except the UK would actually help us in a major war? Their combined forces are more than enough to take care of Russia, they can fend for themselves.) and shifting a significant amount of our forces to the Pacific. We can talk about percentages, but let's start with 75% of our forces for starters. We are far too spread out right now to actually confront our main adversary.
Last UK review, UK would be hard pressed to deploy more than 5000 troops at best. Tanks? LOL! Don't even bother. RN still has a few ships but nowhere near what they had for Falkland War. My guess France and Poland are probably last 2 countries with somewhat balanced forces. So this is going to be US vs China, if we decide to defend Taiwan, I wouldn't count on anyone else.
Delete"If we truly want to contain China we need a drastic change in policy quickly."
DeleteDoes the US even have an actual China policy?
Besides generic platitudes and Strongly Worded Letters, I mean.
Do not always look other nation's behaviors on your own glasses. You need to understand how other people think. Do NOT listen only to these Taiwanese Americans to think all Taiwanese think the same. These Taiwanese Americans have deep ties in the nation than with their Chinese ancestors.
DeleteFrankly, China doesn't want to take Taiwan NOW by force unless forced to do so. To her benefit, China wants to see Taiwan's economy deteriorates further and further, people's anger toward current government higher and higher. Only while anger toward current government reaches extreme, than quickly take the island. Likely, then, most Taiwanese troops will rebel against their commanders and surrender. Since economy is in terrible condition, it is much easier to recover after Chinese take over.
Only then, the island could be easily swallowed. Forget not, ethnically, Taiwanese are Chinese speaking the same language. If economy keeps improving after Chinese taking over, than, you will hear "Taiwanese" only among Taiwanese Americans. People in Taiwan will then behave like other Chinese to take care their day to day lives - working, doing business, .... etc.
Biggest danger now is China's preparing to choke Taiwanese economy.
Delete"Frankly, China doesn't want to take Taiwan NOW by force unless forced to do so."
Im wondering what scenario would "force" a murderous communist regime to invade a prosperous, free nation???
At this point, the U.S. is only capable of one thing for certain, that is pissing a crap ton of funding on things that the late Howard Hughes would call a pipe dream. When it comes to defense spending (appropriations, I believe is the fancy word), we are shooting ourselves in both feet with a GAU-8. We are doing considerably more subtraction from our forces than addition.
ReplyDeleteThis gross ineptness as far as procurement, even development of new weapons and platforms is nothing new. Instead of alienating Allies, it is going to require an all hands effort with our allies to counter threats like the PRC.
Some of the old arguments are relevant in this discussion. You know the LCS, Zumwalts, the floating GNP (Ford-class).
When the U.S. underwent a major downsizing in force size after the First Gulf War, especially with naval ship-building, it created a gradual void of experienced shipyard workers at all levels. The skill sets are not there, country-wide trade jobs have nosed dived, the current generation(s) appears to be disinterested in skill or trade jobs. A friend of mine has been a machinist for the past three decades and he often says there are more jobs then there are applicants to fill them. The same goes for a friend of mine that works at one of the National Labs.
The diminishing shipyard skills could have been addressed by having contracts spaced out which could have allowed ships to be built overtime while maintaining the skillsets that are required.
We had the Taiwan Relations Act that was in place from 1955 to 1980 when Carter killed it. We continued to watch over Taiwan even with the agreement mothballed. Japan will defend Taiwan, I believe Australia will as well as the Brits.
That's my $1.50.
One big problem is the nation spending much more on a weapon than China.
DeleteJust look civilian commercial product, Chinese ones are cheaper. Problem is that this is amplified in military gears. Way too many in the food chain of the military industry complex.
Another serious issue is less and less bright high school graduates choose STEM in their college educations. Do we really need so many lawyers, bankers, ....? Look major universities in the nation, their STEM graduate programs are filled with foreign students. How can then the nation maintain technology leadership 20 years down the raod.
"How can then the nation maintain technology leadership 20 years down the road?"
DeleteImmigrants. We've been doing that since before the founding of the republic. More recently, ask Von Braun about it.
There are way too many anti immigration forces. Just look many upon many yelled cut H-1B visa.
DeleteFurthermore, once US economy tanks, many smart Americans will migrate out for better lives than their nation.
CNO has often dispelled the myth that the Chinese build cheaper weapons. At the very least, due to lack of open information and subsidies that are incalculable, you cant make an accurate comparison. I agree their civilian products are cheaper. My industry is infested with cheaper and very inferior parts sourced there. Companies are to a point where they cant guarantee their work because of the inferior parts!! If the Chinese military is receiving the same quality of materials that civilians are, then Taiwan has nothing to worry about, let alone the US!!!
DeleteJjabatie, the reason your industry is infested with Chinese parts was because you are willing to buy them, and they (both American & Chinese counterparts) can still make a profit, the proverbial you get what you paid for.
DeleteOtoh, the Chinese moon rover (built by chicom mil-industry) is over 1000 days old and still tooting around, so it can't be all junk.
Tim, you're right in that. We've dug our own proverbial grave by outsourcing so much to China. Our incessant need for profit and cheaper items has done a great job of not only making us largely dependent on them in most industries and consumer markets, but funding their enormous military buildup. I can't even forsee a way out of it. Sure, the use of tarriffs and the leveling of the playing field economically is a good start, but we've already given up so much manufacturing, that short of a war, where trade could just stop, I dont see our ability rebounding. Add in a stagnating economy, a lack of workforce, green iniatives that will severly impact energy costs and availibility etc, and you have a bleak outlook for any change.
Delete" China is gearing up for war. "
ReplyDeleteI believe China is gearing up for both a deterrence (strategic nuclear), and IF UNAVOIDABLE, a possible war (tactical nuclear to grab Taiwan).
On the strategic nuclear front: China is building these ICBM silo farms (couple hundreds on each 'farm') 2000+ km inland (beyond our cruise missile range). It seems, from CNO's most recent posts and comments, we are still thinking 'fighting China' in terms of WW2 Germany/Japan, or the most recent Gulf wars, with conventional warfare. Perhaps that's do-able if China has only couple hundred warheads (even that, I don't know if we're willing to risk Beijing's reaction if their industrial/mil complex are in ruin) let along if they have thousands of warheads (or tens of thousands like former USSR)- which seems to be the direction Beijing is heading in nuclear deterrence.
Otoh, we have exhaustively gone thru all kind of conventional scenario of a Taiwan invasion- with the following conclusions. 1. we will see the invasion preparation. 2. PLA will suffer enormously even if they do manage to grab Taiwan. Then, it becomes obvious- first, to hide its preparation, & two, to shock & awe without cost- tac.nukes will come to play. The whole 'Taiwan grab' may be fait accompli in couple hours (not weeks, not even days) with nil PLA cost, and the chance we escalate likewise is probably very small.
So, these '50 planes' fly-bys may just be deception. Sun Tze 101.
There's little reason for China to start a shooting war over Taiwan since the island will fall in your lap in a couple decades anyway, but there's absolutely none to start a nuclear one.
DeleteCould they get away with it? Maybe (see COVID), but why would they pick the riskiest option for no reason?
"China is building these ICBM silo farms (couple hundreds on each 'farm')"
DeleteNot quite. From Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists website:
"The first missile silo field near Yumen was disclosed by the Middlebury Institute in late-June. The second field near Hami was disclosed by the Federation of American Scientists in late-July. The third field near Ordos (Hanggin Banner) was disclosed by a military research unit at Air University in mid-August."
"The Yumen field began construction in March 2020 and appears to include 120 silos. Construction of the Hami field began in February 2021 and might eventually include 110 silos. The Ordos field, which began construction in April or May 2021, has a different layout and so far only appears to include about 40 silos"
"All told, these discoveries indicate that China might be constructing nearly 300 new missile silos."
The same site notes that China currently has nowhere near enough nuclear missiles to fill the silos although that could change in the future as China continues its military build up.
If China can get away with it (tac.nuke Taiwan), then they're not starting a nuke war, but finish a task (like we did in WW2). All the ingredients (to use nukes) are there: asymmetric, casualty avoidance, and immediately effective.
DeleteAs for silos construction, it could be deception, or 'cut to the chase' (i.e. bring to fore the end state of a near-peer nuclear end result as reminder/deterrence, and not the conventional war preparation/race in the mean time). As that Kevin Costner's baseball movie: if you build it, they will come.
I cant see any reason for China to cause any more destruction than is necessasary to take Taiwan. While there's always been the cultural portion to the Chinese want of "reunification", realistically, Taiwan is a treasure chest for them. With less than a percent of the landmass and less than two percent of the population, Taiwan makes about 5% of Chinas gdp. Of course, the particulars, especially the amount of technology in both products and advanced manufacturing would be a boon to China. So absorbing the 7th biggest Asian economy with as little damage as possible would be the intelligent play, certainly ruling out going nuclear. Never mind the rest of the worlds response to it...
DeleteWhile everything you said has merit (for Beijing to stay its hand) in status quo global affair. But, I'm only looking at what happened recently as data points. 1. Beijing is upping its ICBM silo farms (and I have to assume they will fill them up) thus upping its strategic nuke policy. 2. Milley had to call his PLA counterpart to ease their fear/miscalculation (China must have upped, and we detected, their defcon status). 3. Milley had to gather his service chiefs to 'safelock' nuke launch protocols. While I may be reading into it too much, but it seems the distance between a miscalculated spark to a nuke launch is not as big as we want to believe.
DeleteBack to 'Taiwan', if and when China decides to take Taiwan by force, it will knowingly cross a Rubicon it knows can never go back from- that means, everything Beijing worked for to genuflect itself into an existing west dominated world will be for nought. At that point, China will go for broke on Taiwan. IMO, we are still some distance from that breaking point, but it seems both China and the US are not putting a break on the collision course.
Clarification, point 1 & 2 are unrelated. 2. is referring to Beijing's potential misread (thus miscalculation) on Trump's gambit.
Delete"it seems both China and the US are not putting a break on the collision course."
DeleteLet's be crystal clear - any tensions are 100% due to China's actions. The US is not threatening to seize Taiwan … China is. The US is not flying large fleets of aircraft into Taiwan's air defense zones … China is. I'm not going to allow willful mischaracterizations of China's actions to appear on this blog. There is only one party at fault.
I don't think moral certainty or absolutism have bearing on outcome of near-peer conflict (or de-conflict). See Cold-War-1, its beginning and the end got nothing to do with we being right (and they wrong).
DeleteRight and wrong may have nothing to do with the outcome but they certainly impact fault and responsibility. Your statement,
Delete" it seems both China and the US are not putting a break on the collision course."
is utterly false. China is solely to blame and is solely responsible for 'putting a break' on their path to war as well as their many other despicable actions on the global stage. If you want to defend China, this is not the blog to attempt it on.