Pages

Thursday, August 17, 2023

Defending Taiwan

Let’s assume China makes an invasion of Taiwan part of whatever war they initiate.  In fact, this is an absolute certainty since they can’t allow an enemy base of operations to exist just a hundred miles off their mainland.  Let’s further assume that the US opts to defend Taiwan (by no means a certainty).  How would the defense play out from a US Navy perspective?
 

 
Carrier Activity
 
The main function of a carrier group would be to provide air cover for Taiwan.  Basically, this becomes a large scale battle for air superiority to relieve Taiwan’s forces from the threat of aerial bombardment and missile attack … an ambitious and exceedingly challenging effort!
 
The main invasion effort will likely be along the southern beaches due to Taiwan’s geography.  That dictates our carrier defensive location.  With aircraft only having, at best, a two hundred mile or so combat radius (remember, you have to include sufficient loiter/combat time!), our carriers will have to operate within two hundred miles or so  radius of the midpoint of the Taiwan Strait at the southern end of the strait.
 
Unfortunately, this ‘anchors’ the carrier group to a fairly fixed location.  Yes, the group would sail back and forth a bit but the necessities and constraints of aircraft range and endurance (loitering and combat time) dictate that the carrier remain in a very limited and predictable location.  A carrier constrained to a limited and predictable location is a good way to get a sunk carrier due to cruise/ballistic missiles and enemy subs.
 
The scale of air superiority action would demand all the carrier’s aircraft to operate in the air-to-air role.  There would be few, if any, available for ground support.
 
 
Surface Ship Activity
 
Aegis ships will be quite active – and one hopes successful – providing an anti-air ‘umbrella’ over the strait.  Standard SM-2/6 missiles are credited with ranges of 150-200 miles which, unfortunately, would suffice to cover, if barely, the strait from the eastern (seaward) side of Taiwan.  In conjunction with carrier aircraft, this would help establish local air superiority.
 
One should also note that the mountainous geography poses radar problems for ships operating on the eastern side of Taiwan and trying to exert anti-air influence over the strait and the western side of the island.
 
 
Submarine Activity
 
Offense – Our subs will attempt to attack Chinese naval forces at the northern and, most especially, the southern end of the Taiwan Strait.  Unfortunately, the strait is only a hundred miles wide or so which greatly restricts the submarine operations.  Only a single sub can operate at each end at a time without risking blue-on-blue engagement.  Thus, our large submarine force will be limited by geography to a minimal combat presence. 
 
Defense – As noted above, our carrier groups will be tied to a fairly fixed location and this will attract enemy subs.  Thus, one of the main functions of our submarine force will be to act as distant screens for the carrier group to intercept Chinese subs/ships approaching from around the southern tip of Taiwan or north from Philippines.  Again, though, only a relative few subs can operate in the area at a time before the crowding of subs becomes counterproductive.
 
It is obvious that the blue-on-blue concern will be a huge factor.  As described, that concern will severely limit the number of subs we can effectively employ in the fairly restricted Taiwan operating area.  We could have a thousand subs but if we can only safely and effectively employ four in the operating area, the remaining 996 are useless except as attrition replacements.  We need to begin addressing ways to safely and effectively operate more subs in the restricted area.  I cannot offer any specific thoughts on how to do that but I can and do raise the issue.  To be fair, this is an issue dating back to WWI and no one has satisfactorily solved it.
 
 
Philippines
 
The importance of the Philippines cannot be overstated.  For the Chinese, control of the Philippines provides protection for the southern invasion force.  For the US, the Philippines provides the approach from which a counterattack can be staged and launched against the southern invasion force.  The key question, therefore, is which side will seize and control Luzon and surrounding air and seas?
 
 
Amphibious Landing
 
While not an opposed landing, per se, landing troop reinforcements from the eastern side of the island would be a likely scenario.  This would require Aegis ships to move very close to shore to provide anti-air protection for amphibious ships during the landing/unloading process.
 
 
Guam
 
We can’t even begin to successfully defend Taiwan without a functional Guam so defending Guam is part of the Taiwan defense.  Guam’s defense is, however, a separate topic so I’ll leave it at that.  Just be aware of the vital role Guam will play in terms of logistics, basing, staging, repair, etc.
 
 
 
Issues
 
ASW - Chinese subs will be a major threat and we lack effective ASW.  Large, slow, non-stealthy, defenseless, fixed wing P-8 ASW aircraft will be unable to survivably operate in the area.  Helos will be unable to operate at any great distance from their host ships due to survivability concerns.  Possibly, Burke/helo hunter-killer units could be effective, however, that places a multi-billion dollar, high value, Aegis vessel squarely in the enemy submarine operating area.  We lack a dedicated, expendable (cheap) ASW ship.
 
Aircraft – We have no useful airbases near Taiwan unless Japanese bases are viable.  This would require Japan to enter the war, offer the use of their bases, and be able to defend those bases well enough to keep them effectively operating – no sure thing!  This leaves only carriers as a source of aircraft.  Unfortunately, our carrier fleet is shrinking in numbers and our air wings are half the size they once were.
 
Further, the F-18 is not a state of the art fighter and will be hard pressed to hold its own.
 
Ground Support – We will have few, if any, carrier aircraft available for ground support.  The Air Force won’t have any bases within useful distance to provide support.  We might be able to base Air Force aircraft on Taiwan bases but the likelihood of Taiwan bases remaining operational is not good.
 
This might be a scenario where big deck amphibious ships, configured for pure ground support (maximize the F-35Bs), could be effective assuming we can establish local air superiority. I assume attack helos would be non-survivable due to Chinese anti-air weapons and contested skies.
 

Conclusion
 
Why is it important to understand how a Taiwan conflict will play out?  It’s because that will determine what capabilities and, therefore, what platforms and weapons we need.  Currently, the Navy designs ships in a complete vacuum with no consideration for strategic and operational requirements (CONOPS).  We need to stop this ‘blind’ design practice and begin designing to our specific needs. 
 
Consider the Navy’s obsession with unmanned assets.  Do we need unmanned assets?  Well, it all depends on how we intend to fight a war with China.  Unmanned assets may be useful or they may not.  We don’t know because we don’t have a war plan.
 
I’m offering this brief outline of how a defense of Taiwan will play out.  You can agree or disagree with my vision but it offers a concrete set of operational requirements which, in turn, allows us to design assets that will directly and effectively support the plan instead of designing assets that we just cross our fingers and hope can somehow prove useful but we’re not sure.

85 comments:

  1. Arguably, we shouldn't even be using fighters to contest the air. There's a RAND study that argues that Taiwan should invest into a robust Integrated Air Defense System, as radars and SAM TELs would allow greater uptime and suppression of enemy aircraft, versus Taiwan's limited and outnumbered fighter fleet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What do you think the odds are that land-based radars and SAM sites and mobile launchers will survive continual bombardment long enough to be effective? I'd say it's highly unlikely. That doesn't mean they shouldn't establish an anti-air system but it means that significant supplemental air assets (carriers) will be needed.

      There's a Catch-22 at work, here. A fixed (sensors and launchers) system is effective but easily destroyed. A mobile system can survive by constantly moving but then it's not effective. Catch-22.

      Delete
    2. Essentially the argument is that the Chinese will be able to sufficiently mass fighters that Taiwanese fighters will be ineffective and suppressed. Neither fighters nor mobile SAMs will be able to do full coverage of the island, but what mobile SAMs allow is a better ability to suppress local PLAAF operations, allowing ground forces a period of time where they are less molested by Chinese air attack. Completely removing the pressure is impossible - the best that can be done is a temporary relieving of pressure, in waves.

      Delete
    3. China doesn't have our background on fighting air defense and we have seen the Russians don't know how to teach them. We know we are the pros and that stealth got us over the hump. A ground based air defense keeps China from wearing out their fighter force before the fight begins. Same would be true if they took a heavy UAV approach to patrolling.

      Delete
  2. If there's 1 scenario where the F35B would come handy is in China Taiwan war. All airports and airstrips will be immediately taken out so Taiwanese Air Force to still operate should invest in some F35Bs to operate out of freeways and other intact areas. Should be a no-brainer but some reason, USA won't sell them and I recall someone saying Taiwanese weren't really interested in it?!? Just incomprehensible.

    If we really believe war is inevitable, shouldn't we do our best and damn China reaction and sell Taiwan what they need?!? Also, and this is another funny incomprehensible one, don't know how many times I've asked this question, even to US GVT Officials!!!!, why is USA so worried about China Taiwan war MORE THAN THE TAIWANESE?!?!!? Taiwan at times has refused US military help or said they not interested in buying some of our gear AND not a insignificant amount of the population wouldn't be that adverse at making some sort of political deal with China? So why is it US job to worry about Taiwan more than the Taiwanese?!?? I know some say the chips and memory cards for computers but that crap to build in USA would be tons cheaper than actually going to war! Most of USN ending up at the bottom of the ocean would be far worse than just building a couple of computer fabs in the USA.

    SO WHY ARE WE SO WORRIED COMPARED TO THE TAIWANESE?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "USA won't sell them"

      The Taiwan defense system is undoubtedly riddled with Chinese agents. Giving Taiwan F-35Bs would be tantamount to giving them to the Chinese. Of course, the Chinese likely already have every piece of digital information on the F-35 so maybe it doesn't matter?

      "SO WHY ARE WE SO WORRIED COMPARED TO THE TAIWANESE?"

      We'll leave the politics to other blogs.

      Delete
    2. It's an unfortunate problem that the Taiwanese military is seen as the armed wing of the current opposition party, the KMT. The current Taiwanese ruling party, the DPP, is loathe to strengthen the military for fear of strengthening the KMT's base. Which is foolish but then this isn't the first time immediate domestic politics were given priority...

      Delete
    3. How about putting F35B's on Yonaguni, a Japanese island about 70 miles from Taiwan? Maybe they could be moved to Taiwanese highways after the war starts?

      Delete
    4. "moved to Taiwanese highways"

      This is a common misconception. Yes, you might generate one or two sorties this way but, very soon, modern jets need extensive maintenance, have voracious fuel appetites, need complex mission planning, and need large quantities of ordnance ... none of which are available on a highway.

      Operating a modern jet on a highway is an appealing notion that is utterly impossible on any extended (meaning more than one or two sorties) basis.

      Delete
    5. I thought the 35B's had tendency to eat regular concrete and melt asphalt like there was no tommorrow. If that's still the case then that might make them a no go on highway use at least for STOVL. If you don't use STOVL then either of the other variants should be just as useful.

      Delete
    6. "I thought the 35B's had tendency to eat regular concrete and melt asphalt like there was no tommorrow. "

      This is certainly true for VERTICAL landing. But the plane can also land in "short landing" mode, where the lift fan is used and the exhaust is directed down, but the plane is still moving forward at 50 knots or so. The British are thinking of using it on their carriers since it would allow a higher landing weight.

      In this case, any particular piece of roadway only sees the exhaust for a second or so, since it's moving. In vertical landing, of course, the same piece of roadway sees the exhaust for much longer.

      Is it enough to eliminate the roadway damage problem? Don't know. The analysis requires more knowledge than I have. But I'm pretty sure that the British have not hardened the entire flight deck of their carrier like we do the landing spots on ours, so there's that.

      This would allow much shorter landing roll than either of the other two variants.

      Delete
  3. Without commenting on the whole piece, I'll note that the blue-on-blue problem for subs is indeed tough. The bathymetry north and west of the Penghu Channel is quite unfavorable, limiting subs to operating to the southern end of the island. There's about a 200nm line extending west-southwest from Kaohsiung or thereabouts where a picket line is feasible (more on this later) without putting unreasonable (for the context) restrictions on the subs' maneuvering.

    So let's say we set up our picket, a Chinese fleet comes, and our subs fire (details in just a moment). Up to that point, several friendly subs could operate in an area with maybe 20 kyard/ 10 nm separation without too much risk. With a little bit of planning and judicious use of the limited sub-to-sub and sub-to-surface communication means that exist, they could probably coordinate an attack on the enemy surface group or sub wolfpack or whatever is is that's coming that way. The problem is, once the torpedoes are launched, the enemy may hear the ejection pump/other launch transients (NOT a given as is sometimes assumed, in fact far from it in many cases) and will definitely hear the torp coming at some point between launch and the beginning of terminal homing. They are then likely to fire a snapshot down the bearing the torpedo is coming from, or a spread of snapshots, etc.

    Under good conditions where there is some combination of favorable acoustic parameters and room to maneuver, the sub will be able to retain the wire(s), let the torpedoes run slow and quiet, and covertly evade down a bearing that takes them out of the cone where a counter-shot has a chance at hitting them while retaining their own passive solution on the target; they may also 'dog-leg' the weapon(s) so that the counter-shots go in a harmless direction depending on engagement range and some other things.

    Much of this goes out the window with lots of friendly assets in the area. In this context, your covert evasion may put you close to a friendly asset. It may put you into the sensor cone of a counter-shot meant for someone else. Someone else's covert evasion may put them into the path of a counter-shot going down the bearing one of your weapons was detected at.
    If anybody's launch gets heard, there are going to be a bunch of active sonars banging away and weapons flying everywhere even if your own shots were undetected. Due to this, covert evasion is likely out the window much earlier than desired, and you'll have to perform a combination of speeding up and violently maneuvering that will cause you to lose wires, at which point your own weapons become dangerous to everyone in the kill-box, friend or enemy alike; you're also going to be making a lot of noise, your passive solutions will get screwed up frequently due to everyone's speed and violent maneuvers, etc. The relative lack of room to maneuver makes all of this worse for everyone.

    So, outside the stars aligning on a perfectly coordinated stealthy attack on the enemy ASW assets wherein everyone is able to stay keep drilling holes in the water with the tail out until the weapons are within a thousand yards of their targets, we're going to have to space out much further, maybe 30nm/60k yards apart, which (assuming everyone stays in their patrol boxes) leaves room for about six subs on the first picket line, and probably no second picket line. And this is an optimistic analysis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And this is an optimistic analysis."

      No, this is an unrealistic analysis because you've neglected the most important and most difficult factor. You're in a US sub and you get the faintest hint of another sub (faint hints is all you get off a modern sub). Is it friendly or enemy? Shoot now while you have the advantage and risk a friendly fire or wait and possibly allow an enemy sub to get the first shot at you? This is why you don't operate subs anywhere near each other. If you've packed friendly subs together (30 miles is packed together), you have no way to distinguish friend from enemy until it's too late.

      You're analysis is yet another aspect of why you don't operate subs together but it's not the main reason - identification uncertainty is.

      Delete
  4. While there are lots of variables, and massing for an invasion likely wont go unnoticed, unless the Chinese are absolutely inept at planning, I struggle to envision how we can get a CVBG (whether a single, or ideal 4 CVN force) within range of Taiwan to enter the air battle. Prepositioned subs would be a massive threat, and surface groups with land based support could keep us just out of range, and I think we would use/lose assets and time pushing through them, if we even could (at least in time to affect the outcome).
    Related to this, I dont think anyone expects Taiwan to get or keep air superiority, so likely, any kind of ASM defense agsinst the invasion fleet will be weak at best. Fixed and mobile systems alike will see immense losses, and Im not convinced that airborne weapons will be plentiful enough to stop an invasion fleet. Elsewhere, the idea of shore based torpedo stations at the likely landing sites was brought up, and seems valid. Maybe underground bunkers (under the beach, or just offshore) with torp launching capability and massive magazines have potential(??) Fighting an invasion fleet when its right off shore, when it is relatively packed together, escorts have no room to maneuver, etc seems like a possibly more successful venture than relying on SSNs to do so in the constrained and sub-unfriendly strait. A couple pulses of a hundred Mk48s, even blind gired, would be devastating, and protecting transports a couple miles offshore from this would be difficult at best. A Battle of Drobak Sound, Edition 2, seems like it has potential...

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've read several articles recently stating that China is making preparations for a 2024 invasion of Taiwan. Assuming this is true, what we would do with a 6 - 12 month warning? It's not enough time to produce anything new, but it is enough time for some preparation:

    - Cut short deployments for maintenance and training.
    - Shift ships/subs from Europe to the Pacific.
    - Activate, harden, and defend airfields in Saipan, Tinian and Rota.
    - Increase the defenses for Guam.
    - Work the diplomacy to attempt to secure allies in advance.
    - Start expanding equipment production and repair facilities, and run existing lines 24/7.

    There's a LOT that could be done with even 6 months of warning. Feels like we should act like accordingly even if it's just a 20% probable event. Luck favors the prepared...

    ReplyDelete
  6. The feasibility of Japanese airbases would depend on whether Jaan wants to enter the war or not. Moreover even from the southern big Japanese islands Taiwan is at least 1000 km away, so how effective would be fighters taking off from their for sir superiority missions. Bombing runs sure would be feasible.

    From Luzon too distance is about 400 km to the souther end of Taiwan.Againg time on station would be very limited.

    In contrast from the nearest big Chinese cities Taiwan is 200-250 km away, thus they can provide air cover over the beaches.

    The US Navy would require multiple CVNs to provide a credible air cover. They need to coordinate flying large number of air crafts over a small area from multiple carriers.

    The Chinese would definitely need to capture one or more ports on the western side of Taiwan to provide logistics to the landed forces. US should plan for destroying these facilities using all assets at hand or maybe flying in bombers from farther bases.

    -BM


    ReplyDelete
  7. Since I'm a complete amateur I can say the first thing that comes into my head. Which is - don't fight that war you are talking about. To let China choose both the location and the timing of the war would practically guarantee an American defeat.

    If you must fight a war let the US launch a surprise attack on China, destroying many of its aircraft and much of its navy - preferably while the ships have troops aboard. Lock the remainder of its navy in port by deploying mines.

    You'll have to work out for yourselves whether to use nukes. The defeat of China might well be worth the destruction of DC and NYC. But there are tracts of the USA that I'm sure you wouldn't want to see destroyed.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Since I'm a complete amateur I can say the first thing that comes into my head."

      And you did! Now, think a bit deeper.

      Delete
    2. What, you mean that a surprise attack by the USA is essentially impossible? Yes, that's my assumption too. Even putting aside any question of Chinese technology, the US is presumably riddled wth Chinese spies, from the White House downwards. My point was, of course, that if you can't whack 'em first you are on to a loser. And if you do whack 'em first and it turns nuclear then both sides lose anyway.

      Insofar as you've built a navy for any particular purpose other than supplying careers and wealth for Admirals, you've built one to refight a mid-ocean battle like Midway. The Chinese will not oblige. Suppose the brilliant strategic minds of the Pentagon were turned to the question "If we will need to fight China, where, and when, should we choose to do so?" What sorts of answer might make sense? (Apart from the political answer "let's not fight them".)

      Delete
    3. Having failed to think a bit deeper, do you have anything actually useful or informative to offer?

      Delete
    4. Come on now Commander, Dearieme raises some good points. Initiative selection is an order of battle issue.

      Delete
    5. "raises some good points."

      So go ahead and discuss it. What is the point? How does it apply? What's the realistic implication?

      Delete
  8. What about mines? It seems like the best way to stop an invasion would be to mine the strait. Conversely, China might try to stop the US from intervening by mining the east side of the island.
    -CP

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mines would be very effective and almost impossible to apply. Think about it. You can't lay mines during peacetime and once war begins, the Chinese will quickly destroy any minelaying asset that makes an appearance. Given the concentration of Chinese assets that will be in/near the strait, there won't be any covert minelaying. This has been discussed in previous posts and comments. Please avail yourself of the archives for more details.

      Delete
    2. WRT to 'impossible to apply'... Depends on what the run up to the war looks like. At what point and for how far does China close off airspace around Taiwan.

      B-52s can ALREADY deliver Quickstrike mines from a 40-mile standoff distance.

      https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23705/b-52-tested-2000lb-quickstrike-er-winged-standoff-naval-mines-during-valiant-shield

      That should allow mining the Taiwan Strait. Especially BEFORE China initiates hostilities; and you know we'll be able to see their pre-invasion buildup(s) weeks if not months in advance.

      Same article indicates B-21 as a higher-flying option with MORE than 40-mile standoff. So there's your seafloor reload AFTER the war starts.

      I can't tell if B-2 can handle Quickstrike mines.

      Delete
    3. "should allow mining the Taiwan Strait. Especially BEFORE China initiates hostilities; "

      Come on, now. Think this through.

      First, it's a war crime to mine the 75 miles or so of international waters of the Taiwan Strait during peace. It would be an act of war to mine China's territorial waters. That only leaves the 12 miles of Taiwan's territorial waters.

      Now, consider China's reaction if they see the US mining Taiwan waters. They'll either shoot down our ancient B-52s (why not, since we're mining?) or instantly start the war before we can lay more than a few mines. So, your choice is either commit a war crime which will ensure the rest of the world takes China's side and which will probably trigger the war, anyway or mine Taiwan's waters (assuming Taiwan agrees) which will, again, trigger the war.

      By the way, do you realize how insignificant a 40 mile stand off is relative to enemy aircraft, SAMs, and A2A missiles?

      Seriously, think this through.

      Delete
    4. I looked up 'war crime' to see if naval mining falls into that category and near as I can tell it does not. No mention of any sort of blockades being war crimes, either.

      The Ottawa Treaty, which we didn't sign, concerns itself with land mines only.

      My research shows that 'The Laws of War' ARE semi-spelled out. But I see no mention of area-denial tactics being out of bounds.

      World Opinion seems to effective only against the US. I await any example of world opinion staying policies in Russia, China, North Korea, Palestinian Territories... Add Canada, Switzerland, South Africa, Honduras, or Brazil. Any country. Any? Sound and Fury signifying nothing.

      If we unleash Quickstrike 1 hour before PLAN ships cross Taiwanese waters would that be provocative and casus belli? Well, the ChiComms will say so. But they're Communists- Maybe we should rethink our national policy of always taking the first punch so as to be properly sporting. Because it costs lives.

      How about we conduct mining ops AFTER the Red Army hits Taiwanese beaches. We'll get away with it the first time using B-21s (for sure-) and likely even with B-52s accompanied by ECM. Followup minings will likely be more difficult because they'll be looking for it. That's war. Oh look! Turns out B-1s can carry Quickstrikes too! I like where this is going.

      I wonder if Quickstrike will be folded in to Rapid Dragon? If China loses air superiority then cargo planes become viable. But I'm just spit-ballin' there.

      I acknowledge SAMs are a factor. I don't agree, because I don't know, they're insurmountable. SEAD will be part of mining ops.

      My overall point is that mining is imminently possible. Whether it's a good idea may be another issue. Or may not. But there's no need to take naval mining off the table prematurely. Or quickly.

      Delete
    5. Good catch.

      Hague VIII, drafted in 1907, is analyzed (and quoted extensively) in detail here: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=ils

      Please allow me to quote selectively:

      “ The resulting treaty – the Convention of 1907 Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Mines (Hague VIII) – thus reflects a compromise agreement founded on different competing claims: on the one hand, between humanitarian and military interests and, on the other, between commercial and naval priorities. Comprising only five substantive provisions, Hague VIII aims to protect innocent shipping both during and after conflict by limiting the indiscriminate effects of naval mines. To date, it remains the only treaty governing naval mines. “

      That last sentence is important. Hague VIII is the only treaty extant governing naval mines.

      Hague VIII addresses contact mines specifically and exclusively. It does not address influence mines. Also addresses commercial shipping specifically and EXCLUSIVELY. But let those two quibbles go. Moving on:

      “ Article 2 of the 1907 Convention forbids the laying of “automatic contact mines off the coast and ports of the enemy, with the sole object of intercepting commercial shipping.” "This article (ed: Hague VIII Article 2) is somewhat ambiguous in relation to both the location of legitimate minelaying and the extent to which it is allowed for purposes additional to the interception of commercial shipping. “

      “ What about the use of mines in international straits in which the territorial seas of opposing belligerents meet and in which mining activities could render such straits impassable? On this latter point, the conference made a conscious decision not to address the issue because the majority of States believed they had no mandate to do so. “

      Bear in mind this was the thinking in 1907 but it’s a deliberate treaty omission tailor-made for the Taiwan straits.

      And then we get in to the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). I started to go through UNCLOS in-depth but then I recalled that the United States never ratified it. USA never ratified UNCLOS and is not bound by it. But let me quote the most salient part of UNCLOS, “ In peacetime, a state is permitted to lay mines in its own territorial seas, internal waters and archipelagic waters. However, since ships of all nations enjoy the right of innocent passage through the territorial sea and archipelagic waters, a state’s right to lay armed mines in these waters is tempered by its obligation not to hamper the appropriate passage of foreign ships. This rule is derived from both treaty and customary international law." May I stop right here and note that the authors don't cite ' both treaty and international law. ' 61 footnotes but none for what IMHO opinion is a sweeping statement of fact. But let's keep going with UNCLOS:

      " A coastal state is entitled to suspend innocent passage to protect its national security and for weapons exercises but, in such circumstances, the suspension must be temporary and only in specified areas of its territorial sea. “

      If that’s not an exception large enough to drive a Quickstrike through I don’t know what is. Taiwan declares ‘national security and away we loft (mines).

      Or you could read it to mean Taiwan could mine its own waters. Which COMNAVOPS has already noted. The Taiwan Straits is approx. 110 miles wide; I assume they, and we, can mine the 12-mile territorial limit with impunity.

      To summarize my argument:

      1. 40-50+ mile standoff delivery distances indicate we have the means to mine.

      2. There is no international law.

      And thus, if we avail ourselves to mining as a complementary tactic Taiwan becomes just a little more defensible.

      Delete
  9. I guess the actions and impact of the US forces depends a lot on what the mutual defence agreements between US/Philippines and US/Japan actually mean.
    If the US comes to the aid of Taiwan and declairs war on China, does that then mean they can make use of the military bases on the Philippines and Japan?
    That would complicate things emensly for the Chinese.
    Tatical fighters, ATACMS etc.
    Carrying out a seaborne invasion in the south of Taiwan where the biggest port lies would be immensely difficult .
    I guess the job of the US navy would be to lie off the East of Taiwan, roll up Plan navy assets, and then try to provide assistance to Taiwan either through helping to contest the airspace, complicate Chinese landings or escorts supplies into Taiwan.
    I imaging lockading Taiwan would be costly for the plan. They between potential attacks from the US NAVY to the East and Taiwan forces to the West.
    In short, an invasion would be a massive gamble for the Chinese and something they probably couldn't pull off unless the defence arrangements break down or the Taiwanese fold.
    Dave

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. China has immense amounts of military resources to devote to a Taiwan invasion and have staked their political reputation and future on doing so if Taiwan doesn't agree to some sort of political reconciliation. China will invade and will succeed.

      Delete
    2. The point of attacking Taiwan isn't Taiwan, it is to crash the economies of the rest of the world.
      Oil War was the way to strangle the West in the 90s,
      Chip War is the way today.
      One thing the Ukraine war has shown, God is on the side of the deeper magazines, to mis quote the Corporal.

      Delete
    3. ComNavOps has more faith in the ability of Chinese forces then they have themselves.
      I really believe they are every bit as corrupt and incompetent as their Russian counter parts with the added folly of political commissars.
      I think Biden saw that political ambiguity in Ukraine gave the Russian's the confidence to attack and made his position clear on the defence of Taiwan.
      In Ukraine, we saw how effective and survivable artillery, mobile air defence , antitank missiles and mines were in the defence. Combined with a massive amphibious landing into urban and mountainous terrain, the challenge is huge.
      The Chinese will need to capture and rapidly put back into action ports in order for the invasion to be sustainable (I've seen a figure of 500 tons of supplies per brigade per day). Mining the straights may not be feasible, but sinking ships in harbour, mining the port and infrastructure and targetting the ports with artillery is very feasible.
      In short, an incredibly difficult operation even without the US showing up to interrupt an opposed landing and subsequent efforts to supply the invading force.
      Dave

      Delete
    4. "ComNavOps has more faith in the ability of Chinese forces then they have themselves."

      Unless you have access to internal Chinese military self-assessments, you have no idea what they think of themselves. If you do have access, please let me know.

      As far as my assessment of the Chinese, much/most of their equipment is newer and more capable than ours. They appear to be training harder and more realistically then us. They're running actual missions around (and in!) Taiwanese controlled air and water. They're practicing actual invasion tactics. They've clearly and unequivocally defined their goal: Taiwan 'reunification'. Given all that, it's only reasonable to assess them as capable.

      The only unknown is the quality of their soldiers and leadership. That won't be known until war occurs. On the other hand, we've seen the quality of our people and it's disturbing.

      Delete
    5. "The point of attacking Taiwan isn't Taiwan, it is to crash the economies of the rest of the world."

      I don't see it that way. That may be a side benefit but it's not the main point. China wants to accomplish two main goals:

      1. Satisfy a long-standing cultural and political imperative to 'reunify' with Taiwan.

      2. Eliminate the strategic vulnerability that Taiwan represents. China simply cannot allow an enemy (the West) base to exist a hundred miles off their mainland. The Cuban Missile Crisis should serve as an example that we can relate to.

      Delete
  10. There is no reason large tankers couldn’t operate out of the Philippines and support the Air Wing. It would allow the carrier to operate much further away from Taiwan with little degradation in the air wing’s capabilities.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "There is no reason large tankers couldn’t operate out of the Philippines"

      It is highly unlikely that Philippines will enter a war against China. They are more likely to opt for neutrality, in which case we can't use Philippine bases, or opt to enter a war on China's side in which case we'd have no access to bases unless we invade Philippines and seize a base.

      Delete
    2. Doesn't the mutual defence agreement between the US and the Philippines mean that the US could operate from bases in the Philippines in time of war.
      The US seems very keen on spending a lot of money opening new bases there.
      There wouldn't be much point in spending that much money on infrastructure if they had no relevance.
      Dave

      Delete
    3. “ It is highly unlikely that Philippines will enter a war against China. They are more likely to opt for neutrality, in which case we can't use Philippine bases, or opt to enter a war on China's side in which case we'd have no access to bases unless we invade Philippines and seize a base.”

      That’s not as obvious to me. Once China starts going across bodies of water to seize territory I’m going to venture the Philippines will get *real* nervous

      Delete
    4. "That’s not as obvious to me."

      Then you're not thinking clearly. In a China-US war, the Philippines are strategically vital. If Philippines were to enter the war on the US side, they'd be attacked, devastated, overwhelmed, and conquered by the Chinese who desperately need control of the islands. They'd lose everything. Alternatively, if Philippines were to enter the war on China's side, they'd suffer only occasional US attacks against specific Chinese bases - a much more palatable and survivable scenario.

      The Philippines are in China's back yard. The US is umpteen thousand miles away. If you're going to pick an enemy, wouldn't you pick the one farthest away and least likely to attack you?

      A far more likely option for Philippines is to opt for neutrality although it's debatable whether China would honor that choice.

      Of the three choices, siding with China or declaring neutrality are likely. Siding with the US is far and away the least likely choice.

      Delete
  11. Would a air/surface ship/ sub picket line be viable or survivable to screen the US navy task force east of Taiwan. AEW maybe flying 50 miles east of the surface picket ships?
    AEW and destroyers could mutually support each other while subs and destroyers would do the same.
    The navy task force would then periodically dash closer towards Taiwan and provide temporary air superiority/ strike capabilities.
    This could be carried out in coordination with other assets.
    i.e targetting of ground based missiles from friendly bases or to allow the Taiwanese air force to take off and land from airbases that have been repaired.
    Dave

    ReplyDelete
  12. Does anyone know much about the possibility of creating a system similar to the Swiss National Redoubt system in the eastern mountainous part of Taiwan? Many have brought up coastal defenses, but one has to wonder how much those will hold up against the initial wave of missile attacks.

    Could mountain installations be an option? Obviously, such a plan assumes three things:
    1. That the Chinese will be able to make landfall (I think what is posed by ComNavOps naturally leads to that conclusion).
    2. That there is a number of casualties the PLA could suffer that would cause problems for them when it comes to morale, war support, and trained manpower.
    3. The Taiwanese (soldiers and civilians) could tolerate much of their island being occupied at expense of maintaining the redoubt.

    If you had a fortified area that the PLA would need to take to establish control of the island, it could give the US Navy the time it needs to get into position to cut off the PLA supply lines.

    -Huskers1995

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe there are aircraft hangars within the mountains.
      I imagine there will also be command and control and an extensive network of tunnels.
      Other then the mountains there is extensive urbanisation.
      The Russians during there invasion tried to bypass as much of it as possible.
      Look at how long it took to subdue Maruopl, a city of less then half a million.
      Taiwan has urbanisation near the possible landing sites overlooked by mountains on the East Side of the Island.
      Not favourable terrain for an invasion.
      Dave

      Delete
  13. Should we even bother trying to defend Taiwan? Should we even bother trying to contest China? This blog has made it abundantly clear that we are going to fail. We might as well not bother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "This blog has made it abundantly clear that we are going to fail."

      No, this blog has made it abundantly clear that we face severe military challenges - entirely self-inflicted. However, as I have noted many times, our enemies face their own challenges. We can win but we need to vastly improve our processes.

      Delete
    2. Are you sure about that? That may not be the narrative you intend, but it's what comes across. hell, this whole post here is just an argument that we should not bother defending Taiwan at all.

      Delete
    3. " this whole post here is just an argument that we should not bother defending Taiwan at all."

      I'm sorry that you were unable to grasp the purpose of the post. The intent is to understand what defending Taiwan would entail for naval assets. With that understanding, we can then intelligently discuss equipment, tactics, advantages, disadvantages, and alternatives so as to develop better defense strategies.

      Delete
    4. It really begs the question - SHOULD we defend Taiwan? Is it worth the efforts to be made, when Taiwan is not a formal ally and does not have a security guarantee? Shouldn't our allies be picking up the slack and defending themselves?

      I don't really have an issue with sending military aid to Ukraine because Ukraine is willing to defend itself. I do have an issue with fighting our allies battles for themselves, on our dime.

      Delete
    5. Our allies aren't likely to feel any more obligated to help Taiwan than we are. Im not aware of anyone having any defense agreements with them. (But they could exist, just cant think of any right now) So who, if not the US, would/should help them??? As the supposed world leader in promoting democracy and freedom on Earth, I think that we do have a bit of a moral obligation to assist those in danger of being overrun. Especially by somthing as vile as the CCP. I don't take the consequences of that lightly, since my youngest daughter just joined the USN in the spring, and could likely be at risk. Now yes, if we jump in, Id like to see the other WestPac nations and our allies join in, and we shouldnt have to go alone. But regardless of politics, who "recognizes" someone else, defensive agreements or lack thereof, etc... I feel that Taiwan is a better excuse to fight than most of the other things we've gotten into over past decades.

      Delete
  14. https://www.csis.org/analysis/first-battle-next-war-wargaming-chinese-invasion-taiwan

    Opinions vary

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't mind links but please add some value by commenting on the some aspect of the link. Add some analysis.

      Delete
    2. Next War:Taiwan 2nd edition, with OOB updates isn't shipping yet. So we'll have to wait to try out some of the ideas in this blog. Once it is out we can design a CNO scenario.

      Delete
  15. I have previously stated that I don't believe China will invade Taiwan before 2050+ or so, if at all, and even if it happened I doubt the US would start a war over it, but let's put that aside for the sake of discussion.

    It seems self-evident that simply sitting on Taiwan or around it would be an extremely suboptimal strategy.
    Much more effective to actually strike Chinese ports so that whatever they managed to land starves anyway, for example, since an invading force has immense logistical needs.

    But would any US government nowadays allow that, realistically?
    (Remember Nam.)
    And if China sees her cities burning, would she not retaliate against CONUS?

    P.S.: ComNavOps, you wrote "million" where you meant "billion" while talking about the Burkes, just a tip.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "you wrote "million" where you meant "billion"

      Ah, who cares? Million, billion, trillion ... beyond a certain point, what's the difference? The more appropriate term is 'butt-ton' of money. :)

      Seriously, thanks for spotting that and I've corrected it.

      Delete
    2. "The long-delayed contract for the KRAPTECH program has been awarded to Lockheed Martin, with a cost-plus format totaling about 2.857 butt-tons of money..."

      Ha!

      Delete
    3. I've seen analysis indicating China, more or less, has to invade by 2035.

      After that point their population really starts to age-out.

      It's incredible to think their population is projected to be about 60% of it's current size in 2100.

      They have unbelievable economic problems starting in 10 years & it just gets worse from there. It truly is incredible how bad it will be for their country.

      -LP

      Delete
    4. China is already having huge economic problems. One of their big real estate companies just went belly up and number of economic data sets have gone dark, the latest bring youth unemployment data has been classified and not released. Last numbers published weren't good, only can assume they got worst....

      Delete
  16. We can't fight a symmetric war with China. We're not going to win through force of arms, technological superiority, and probably not through superior training, either. We can win on a strategy of depriving their invasion forces of the fuel required to sustain an invasion. The targets of value are nearby refineries, storage tanks, and pipelines. None of these targets are stealthy, they don't move around, and I don't imagine that there are air defenses protecting thousands of miles of oil pipelines. Munitions dumps and factories are secondary targets.

    This map shows the locations of their power plants and energy infrastructure:
    https://www.bakerinstitute.org/chinas-energy-infrastructure

    Their military vehicles don't run on coal, natural gas, nuclear reactors, batteries, or Hydrogen, so you can uncheck the boxes next to the map for all of that stuff.

    Everything we actually need to destroy is within range of a cruise missile. China's refineries near Mongolia are not a factor. We didn't invade Normandy by sailing from the far side of Britain, because that was not sustainable. The Chinese won't invade Taiwan by sailing from Beijing, either. If there's no jet fuel to be had within 600 miles of Taiwan, their fighters don't have the tanker support to continue to function.

    I assume that the Chinese are not willing to devote limitless resources to taking Taiwan, else they would've done so already. Cost (economic, geopolitical, military, public image) is clearly an issue for them, so make it as costly and painful as possible. President Xi must deliver economic prosperity to his people. Taiwan's existence or lack thereof is a moot point if he can't do that.

    kbd512

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We're not going to win through force of arms"

      Of course we can. We just have to recognize what advantages we have and emphasize them. Our advantages lie in a far superior submarine fleet, the best air superiority fighter in the world by a long shot (the F-22), a far superior bomber force (B-2), and mobile airfields (carriers).

      Instead of focusing on gender, climate, diversity, and politics in the military, we need to be building more F-22s now, getting our subs out of maintenance purgatory and back to active status, push the B-21 production bomber as fast as possible, revert to Kitty Hawk / Forrestal type carriers, rebuild our air wings back to around 100 aircraft, and establish more air wings (we only have 9, currently).

      Do that and we can win.

      You're also overlooking our relations with the rest of the world. We have useful trading partners that will continue to trade with us during a war whereas China has no useful trade partners and will suffer severe economic issues when war cuts off the entire Western market of imports and exports.

      Can we lose a war with China? Certainly, if we continue on the idiotic path we're on.

      Can we win a war with China? Certainly, if we make some intelligent choices about our priorities.

      Delete
  17. The Philippines plays its ally card to get millions of dollars in equipment and base improvements each year. Their President has made it clear the USA cannot use its bases for offensive operations without permission, which the Philippines will never allow as it has no dog in this fight. China is its largest trading partner, largest source of tourism dollars, most Philippine businesses are run by Filipino ethnic Chinese, and their nation was smashed during World War II when caught in the fight between the USA and Japan. It will declare neutrality, and has probably secretly told the Chinese this.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "our carrier groups"

    This assumes at least six months advance notice to deploy at least four carrier groups near Taiwan, which is unlikely. It's not just getting them there, but expanding the supply pipeline to support four carriers in Westpac in combat.

    Our Navy should have a real exercise. The CNO should order four carriers deployed to Westpac immediately. This would result in a year of comedy, yet produce very valuable lessons.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont think itd be THAT bad, but I do think that we should create massive traffic jams and overwhelmed parking lots by re-homeporting three east coast carrier groups to Bremerton/ San Diego immediately...

      Delete
  19. Have we missed the amassed Chinese SRBM and anti-carrier missiles (both hypersonic and non-hypersonic)? I know the SM 2/6 missiles were mentioned but, as you have stated numerous times, the NUMBER of shipborne missiles on the US destroyers and soon to be retired CGs might not be enough for a sustained missile bombardment from ChiComm missile troops.
    One thing is for sure, IF the United States decides to strike mainland China airfields and other targets, then the ChiComms will definitely then return the favor on Guam.
    US won't be able to hide a proxy puppet like they have been doing with Ukraine, they will have to act directly and escalation will be the order of the day. Question then is - how long before the first 'tactical' nukes goes off in the TO?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Have to think tactical nukes as deterrence.

    Why not just give Taiwan couple dozens short range ballistic missiles with nuke warhead (to be under our 'unspoken' control like the Pave Paws radar) to guarantee a 2nd strike capability? China will never trade Shanghai/Shenzhen/Guangzhou (each city of 10's million population) or 3 gorges dam for Taiwan.

    Otoh, if Taiwan does not have nuke deterrence, PLA may very well deploys tac nuke weapons to 'shock awe' Taiwan into quick submission without draining PLA assets (i.e. planes/missile/ships) in preparation to counter US & allies forces, and to minimize casualties & destructions on all sides (like WW2 nukes which quickly ended the war); a quick fait accompli without the maddening devolving war like RU-Ukr.

    Both sides might think: go big, or go home.

    Otoh, if our purpose is to knock back PLA navy 30-years, then 'Taiwan' is not the place to do it.

    So, in the end, what do we want strategically?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Why not encourage Taiwan to do as was the original plans by Nazi Germany to repel an allied invasion (on what is later called D-day)? I sort of like

    " Rommel knew how hard it was to operate under Allied air attack, and wanted the Panzers close to the water’s edge, where they could hit the Allies in the vulnerable moment as they were slogging ashore."

    Or maybe:

    "Rundstedt argued for a more orthodox posture, grouping the Panzers into a strong, centrally located reserve, ready to smash the Allies as they advanced inland. In the end, there was a compromise that, typically, satisfied no one."

    As from below:

    https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/reception-germans-d-day

    I prefer Rommel's plan by the way not the compromised one the Germans end up using.

    While out Taiwanese allies are pounding away at the Chinese amphibious invasion, our navy could blast away the Chinese fleet using the relatively useless Taiwanese ships as decoys maybe last minute unmanned modifications to keep the Chinese naval forces scattered.

    While the Marines use their oh-so-classified and "China-focused" improved Force Design 2030 based on below

    "as experiments and analysis continue, the Marine Corps will implement further modifications to FD 2030"

    https://breakingdefense.com/2022/06/analyzing-the-biggest-changes-in-the-marine-corps-force-design-2030-update/

    Where I am sure they will learn quickly from their bloodshed that they need some real heavy tanks and artillery unlike in the simulations and would be soon be begging for tanks like Ukraine.

    By the way, CNO how do you know "Taiwan defense system is undoubtedly riddled with Chinese agents." and if so we can use it to our advantage if we are smart, think:

    "Double Cross system, which specialized in turning German spies into double agents, tricked the Nazis into believing that the Allied attacks would come in Calais and Norway rather than Normandy. "

    From below:

    http://benmacintyre.com/us/book/double-cross-the-true-story-of-the-d-day-spies/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "We can use our diversity, or wokeness, to our advantage for spies"

      I deleted several comments as unrelated to naval matters. This is not a political or sociology blog. We'll stick to naval matters.

      Delete
    2. The German response to Normandy was based on the various factors of uncertainty about the exact assault point, overwhelming 16"/8"/5" naval firepower, Allied air power, and the [well founded] fear of interdiction of reserve units. Those factors meant that there was no single, perfect defensive plan.

      Commenters, today, looking at Taiwan, need to take those and similar factors into account while trying to formulate a Taiwan defensive scheme.

      For example, lining tanks up on the beach without air superiority and an anti-missile 'umbrella' would be tantamount to lining up targets for the Chinese to destroy at leisure.

      Delete
    3. "For example, lining tanks up on the beach without air superiority and an anti-missile 'umbrella' would be tantamount to lining up targets for the Chinese to destroy at leisure."

      So we camouflage our tanks so they would not be seen like below maybe we can ask Ukraine to steal and reverse engineer some for us:

      "A new special protective material “cape” has been announced for Russian tanks and military vehicles for use in combat.

      The “cape” is expected to protect vehicles primarily from detection by radar and thermal imaging reconnaissance devices as well as providing deforming coloration for optical masking, according to a statement by state manufacturer Research Institute of Steel.

      The research institute confirmed the material is designed as a camouflage to reduce visibility against satellite or aviation reconnaissance equipment, thus avoiding resulting artillery shelling or rocket attacks from long distances"

      https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/land/12260-protective-camouflage-cape-developed-for-russian-tanks

      By the way what is the deal with woke-ness and using it to our advantage, or freedom, or whatever, as you may choose to call it, after all we used it in the Cold War propaganda didn't we?

      As shown by below as in the book below:

      "I Chose Freedom" by Viktor Andriyovych Kravchenko

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Kravchenko_(defector)

      Delete
    4. I think I should post a better link than "I choose freedom" shouldn't I, anyway here's below:

      "Propaganda was ever-present during the Cold War. Using different mediums, techniques and degrees of subtlety, Cold War propaganda promoted the advantages and virtues of one political system and/or criticised or demonised the other. This reached its peak in the 1950s and 1960s, a time when pro-American values were being widely promoted in film, television, music, literature and art."

      https://alphahistory.com/coldwar/cold-war-propaganda/

      And as to how it relate to naval matters, it will weaken the Chinese troop's morale as well as boost our own.

      And to add to our tanks we camouflage them using like below if we do not have aerial superiority

      "SAAB's mobile camouflage system, a patterned textile netting, was attached to two M1A2 Abrams tanks during ABOLC's final field training exercise, a competitive force-on-force exercise.

      According to SAAB officials, in addition to providing visual camouflage, the system also helps to mitigate and reduce thermal signatures, radar signatures and near infrared signatures."

      https://www.army.mil/article/131663/mrd_abolc_saab_test_tank_camo_system

      After all according to above:

      ""Everything that they've said this system will do, it has done," he said. "I'm impressed.""

      That should allow us to use Rommel's original plans.

      Delete
    5. And while we are at it, have some well defended submarine resupply zone in a given area fully stocked with reload missiles secretly agreed upon with our Taiwanese allies taking full advantage of below to pound the Chinese fleet:

      "The latest Tomahawk missiles, coincidentally also known as the Block V, will add an anti-ship capability to the existing land-attack mode. They are expected to be operational before the first Virginia Block V joins the submarine force.

      More potent still, although unconfirmed, are likely to be new hypersonic boost-glide vehicles. It is unclear how many will be carried in each VLS but a reasonable guess is three rounds. Because the Block Vs have more VLS slots it seems natural that they will be among the first submarines to carry the hypersonic missiles. With a total of 6 VLS tubes they could carry a mixed load of, perhaps, 12 hypersonic missiles (3 in each of the aft 4 tubes) and 12 Tomahawks in the forward tubes."

      https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/07/us-navys-virginia-class-submarines-get-more-tomahawk-missiles/

      Delete
    6. On,

      " We need to begin addressing ways to safely and effectively operate more subs in the restricted area."

      Maybe we can use below to be fitted to submarine operating in the area, from

      "The operational implications of this successful integration are critical. “Where before a submarine would have to hoist different masts according to the capabilities required, now all the operator has to do is hoist the one OM with all the systems and sensors included,” Sela commented. For example, currently when a submarine is escorting another ship or a special forces mission, if it wishes to communicate it has to move away from the area of operations to be able to come closer to the surface and hoist antennas. “With the new ICS, the submarine can communicate with a much lower RCS, and therefore no longer needs to leave the area and get detached from the task force,” Sela concluded."

      And,

      "The ICS is production ready and can be retrofitted in all existing and future Hensoldt OMS 150 and 200 masts"

      https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/05/iai-and-hensoldt-showcase-integrated-communications-and-surveillance-system-for-submarines/

      Delete
    7. "Maybe we can use below to be fitted to submarine operating in the area"

      You understand, I hope, that an integrated periscope/mast has nothing to do with the blue-on-blue issue?

      "some well defended submarine resupply zone in a given area fully stocked with reload missiles secretly agreed upon with our Taiwanese allies"

      ???? We have Guam, already, and we have submarine tenders but a sub has to return to port to do reloads. If you're imagining some secret, hidden base on Taiwan, no one is going to risk a surfaced sub in a Taiwan port that's under attack.

      I have to say, you seem to be tossing out equipment ideas almost at random without thinking through the operational realities and implications. I'd like to see a higher level of analysis accompanying your comments.

      As you know, manufacturer's claims are hugely overblown and mostly false.

      Step it up!

      Delete
    8. Of course the telescope/mast itself does nothing to solve the blue-on-blue issue but it will provide an "Friendly submarine in the area" sign to local anti-submarine forces which is the goal because, as you have already mentioned, as we can not operate many submarines in the area anyway so when one leaves and/or enters it will prevent our own submarine from getting killed by friendlies.

      Also having an on-shore base allows more "stuff" to be stored than a resupply ship (which could be sunk like the Type XIV U-boat "Milk Cows"

      " By the end of the war all ten had been sunk."

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_XIV_submarine#Operation

      as well as save our submarines the trip to Guam and also to boost morale of local Taiwanese fighters "Look we trust you to fight hence we are resupplying right here." Risky? Yes, but strategically could provide a morale boost and allows us to keep more supplies on-hand.

      Delete
    9. " it will provide an "Friendly submarine in the area" sign to local anti-submarine forces"

      No, it won't. Just because you tell friendly forces that you're in the area doesn't mean that the next submarine contact they get is you. Any competent ship commander assumes that EVERY submarine contact is enemy. To do otherwise is foolish and, likely, fatal. THAT'S the problem. You can't distinguish friend or foe from a faint hint of a submarine contact and you MUST assume it's hostile and attack accordingly.

      Correspondingly, a submarine has to assume every contact it gets is an enemy ship.

      You NEVER operate subs and ASW forces in the same area. THAT'S why the number of subs you can operate in a given area is very limited (limited to one!). The only way a sub or ASW asset can survive and be effective is to treat EVERY contact as hostile.

      Delete
  22. https://l.smartnews.com/p-w9xxZ/0EQHoG

    Wars are usually a way out of internal issues or bad economic news. China could be lot more volatile in coming years BUT at the same time, Xi and his buddies must also be looking at Putin and Russian military in Ukraine and the issues they having. They might be having internal second thoughts about military adventure in Taiwan. I still think we are years away from a conflict between China and Taiwan, IMO, its still way too risky for China.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see this as an endogenous problem. The most compelling analysis of Putin's decision-making was that the long-term dynamics seemed to be against Russia re-absorbing Ukraine. It was slowly escaping Russian orbit, and the calculation was made that, whether Russia had a good chance of success or not, it had a better chance of winning today than it would in 5 or 10 years. It was now or never.

      That doesn't seem to be the case for China. Inertia seemed to be working against Russia but might be working for China.

      Delete
    2. Sorry for the multiple comments.... I didn't mean to publish but...

      ... what I meant by endogenous is that within this framework of "now or never" we seem closer to the Russian position. Suppose we announced we were going to formally ally with and defend Taiwan, and we immediately move to surge every available asset there. We create an impregnable defense that the Chinese wouldn't be able to attack.

      If we succeed, we win without actually having to fight a war.

      On the other hand, China will recognize this, and be strongly tempted to attack before we can build this defense. So, the way to win the war is to immediately start putting every asset possible on a war footing. Fly every F-22 to Taiwan and base every carrier there. Stockpile and move an army there, and tell them to go to hell.

      Delete
    3. "So, the way to win the war is to immediately start putting every asset possible on a war footing"

      I dont think fwd deployments and conventional deterrence works...UNLESS it's an absolute, overwhelming capability, and you clearly have the will to use it. So in that vein, this "pivot West" is a sham. But if tomorrow, we strip 2nd/6th fleet of its CVBGs, and move them to the west coast and Pearl, pull the Reagan back to Pearl, and shift a majority of AF assets into a WestPac striking position, THEN, we could potentially create SOME deterrence. Of course, our actions also need to show our willingness to use them. But a massive shift of combat resources would be a good start!##

      Delete
  23. "Can we win a war with China? Certainly, if we make some intelligent choices about our priorities."

    Even if we start today, how quickly could we produce more F-22s? How quickly could we ramp up new CVWs (not just the planes, but the people)?

    Obviously there's a trade we can make between time and money. If money is no object, we can do things faster. But that's also a political decision. What we're programming and budgeting now we know we don't actually get for 3-5 years. Maybe we dramatically speed that up, but it still tells me that if we're fighting a war before, say, 2026, we're fighting it with what we've got right now. No new subs, no new carriers, no extra F-22s. Questionable stockpiles of advanced weaponry.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is one area even with Ukraine war and "supposed" DoD ramp up, let's face reality: China has HOT PRODUCTION LINES and US still is in peace time mode. Don't recall the precise numbers by we are far behind in how many ships China produces, destroyers and frigates, not sure about subs. Not sure about tanks but I think all our Abrams are refurbished, brought back from storage, not really new builds. China is making new builds. Fighters? We still have old F16,F18 and F15 lines with F35 hot so that's not too bad. Munitions? We are still lagging with quite pitiful quantities built per year.

      Agree USA will fight with what we have now, China could rapidly replace it's losses during the war or after or just keep building up it's forces where it just would be too much of difference and US walks away.

      Delete
  24. The thing that jumps out at me is the near total lack of preparedness on the part of the US military to prepare for this type of conflict right now.

    We're spending our resources on AI and 'wonder weapons' and unmanned BS that will help us win a war in 2040. Maybe.
    But what about right now?

    I've read somewhere that the military's own estimate of maximum probability for war with China is the next five years.

    Why are we spending fortunes lining the pockets of defense contractors working on fantasy weapons while neglecting the here and now?

    More specifically:

    We are working on 6th generation fighters, including the ridiculous 'Loyal Wingman' project...but the navy doesn't have a FIFTH generation air superiority fighter.
    We'll be going to war with F-18s, admittedly the hottest thing going.....in 1988.

    Where are our ASW assets?
    The Perry's have been retired.
    The Burke's are going to be busy (more than busy) with AAW requirements. They aren't going to have time to chase submarines. At best they can give some situational awareness around the carriers while their helicopters perform search functions for which they were not designed.

    The S-3 Vikings were also retired without replacement...not much to add to that one.

    Where are the surface combat ships? This isn't blue water with 'infinite' stand-off ranges. These fights are much more up close and personal.
    Modernized WW2 destroyers would be really nice to have to screen the carrier groups and to attack enemy surface ships.
    Modernized WW2 heavy cruisers would be devastating against enemy surface ships and would be highly effective in halting enemy merchant shipping travelling west to east into the region.

    Those same heavy cruisers and updated Iowa's would be particularly effective at cratering the Chinese bases strewn throughout the Spratly's and South China Sea generally.

    And why don't our ships have armor and why aren't they festooned with anti-missile and CIWS defense systems?
    If you are going to need to go into the corners and slug it out on the ropes, those kinds of things become a necessity.

    It also might be nice to have a robust and effective USMC amphibious capability just in case you need it.

    The US military has done a piss-poor job of preparing for one of the most obvious contingencies that it has ever had staring it in the face.

    Lutefisk

    ReplyDelete
  25. ACES & EIGHTS,
    Modify a Freedom - class LCS with mine -laying racks;haul ass (47 knots) into Chinese harbors and likely invasion chokepoints. Lay mines.
    Brits had good results with fast minelayers in WW2. Mines were one of the weapons the Allies used that had a very good ratio of devices employed to enemy vessels sunk. Most likely mines would be cheaper per device, than Unmanned Vessels . And so what if the Chinese sink a bunch of LCS’s; they’re cheaper than B-2’s, B-21’s or aircraft carriers. Ties up enemy resources clearing mines and hunting fast minelayers.
    MISSION, SHIP, CREW
    ACES & EIGHTS

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is nothing in this comment that is logical, factual, practical, or realistic.

      Go research,

      -LCS max speed
      -distance from 1st island chain to Chinese harbors
      -LCS endurance and range
      -US attitude towards suicide missions
      -LCS survivability

      and then try again.

      Assuming you're the same Anon who's been posting a series of ridiculous ideas, this is the last one I can allow. You need to conduct some serious research about naval warfare before you comment again. This blog requires a certain degree of knowledge that you seem to lack.

      Come up to speed on the archives and naval warfare, in general, before you comment again. Thanks.

      Delete
  26. Not alot of attention have been focused on the Penghu islands which most likely people had overlooked.

    Control over those islands gives China a halfway point to amass forces for invasion proper as well as air and artillery bases to provide support from.

    Even if fortifying the islands is not in the best favour of Taiwan, it would still do to deny China them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. In a war involving Taiwan, I imagine that maintaining satellite guidance in this conflict is going to be a far more consequential to America rather than China. Outside of Japanese cooperation, their stand-off capabilities against the Chinese would become non-existent without their GPS satellites.

    While much of the PLA rocket force might not be as much of threat anymore against surface combatants as a reprisal but they'd still be able to effectively carry out their A2/AD tactics through other means such as mounting anti-ship missiles on their combat aircrafts.

    ReplyDelete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.