The South China Sea's Gathering Storm
The Results
The invasion always starts the same way: an opening bombardment destroys most of Taiwan’s navy and air force in the first hours of hostilities. Augmented by a powerful rocket force, the Chinese navy encircles Taiwan and interdicts any attempts to get ships and aircraft to the besieged island. Tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers cross the strait in a mix of military amphibious craft and civilian rollon, roll-off ships, while air assault and airborne troops land behind the beachheads.
However, in the most likely “base scenario,” the Chinese invasion quickly founders. Despite massive Chinese bombardment, Taiwanese ground forces stream to the beachhead, where the invaders struggle to build up supplies and move inland. Meanwhile U.S. submarines, bombers, and fighter/attack aircraft, often reinforced by Japan Self-Defense Forces, rapidly cripple the Chinese amphibious fleet. China’s strikes on Japanese bases and U.S. surface ships cannot change the result: Taiwan remains autonomous.
There is one major assumption here: Taiwan must resist and not capitulate. If Taiwan surrenders before U.S. forces can be brought to bear, the rest is futile. This defense comes at a high cost. The United States and Japan lose dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of servicemembers. Such losses would damage the U.S. global position for many years. While Taiwan’s military is unbroken, it is severely degraded and left to defend a damaged economy on an island without electricity and basic services. China also suffers heavily. Its navy is in shambles, the core of its amphibious forces is broken, and tens of thousands of soldiers are prisoners of war.
The invasion always starts the same way: an opening bombardment destroys most of Taiwan’s navy and air force in the first hours of hostilities. Augmented by a powerful rocket force, the Chinese navy encircles Taiwan and interdicts any attempts to get ships and aircraft to the besieged island. Tens of thousands of Chinese soldiers cross the strait in a mix of military amphibious craft and civilian rollon, roll-off ships, while air assault and airborne troops land behind the beachheads.
However, in the most likely “base scenario,” the Chinese invasion quickly founders. Despite massive Chinese bombardment, Taiwanese ground forces stream to the beachhead, where the invaders struggle to build up supplies and move inland. Meanwhile U.S. submarines, bombers, and fighter/attack aircraft, often reinforced by Japan Self-Defense Forces, rapidly cripple the Chinese amphibious fleet. China’s strikes on Japanese bases and U.S. surface ships cannot change the result: Taiwan remains autonomous.
There is one major assumption here: Taiwan must resist and not capitulate. If Taiwan surrenders before U.S. forces can be brought to bear, the rest is futile. This defense comes at a high cost. The United States and Japan lose dozens of ships, hundreds of aircraft, and thousands of servicemembers. Such losses would damage the U.S. global position for many years. While Taiwan’s military is unbroken, it is severely degraded and left to defend a damaged economy on an island without electricity and basic services. China also suffers heavily. Its navy is in shambles, the core of its amphibious forces is broken, and tens of thousands of soldiers are prisoners of war.
The following 3 users liked this post by ORAC:
“US and Chinese air-to-air capability unimportant”, reveals a study conducted by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). As per the think-tank's wargames: 90% of USAF, JASDF & ROCAF aircraft will be lost to Chinese missiles on the ground.
There won’t be any Battle of Britain style air-superiority battles fought over Taiwan. It will be a rocket/missile war fought at long-ranges with DF-21s and AGM-158s – whoever runs out of missiles first will lose the war!
Here’s a link to CSIC’s fascinating 165-page wargame study: The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...hFolxC_gZQuSOQ
There won’t be any Battle of Britain style air-superiority battles fought over Taiwan. It will be a rocket/missile war fought at long-ranges with DF-21s and AGM-158s – whoever runs out of missiles first will lose the war!
Here’s a link to CSIC’s fascinating 165-page wargame study: The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...hFolxC_gZQuSOQ
Personally I am pretty sanguine about the possibility of a PLA invasion of Taiwan. The US military industrial complex needs a peer enemy in order to justify the acquisition of expensive military hardware, but hardware is only one element of a military threat.
C2ISR, logistics, training, exercising, and demonstrated competence in a joint and combined operations is where wars are one and lost. The PLA is far behind the US in everyone of these areas. Furthermore any Military that prioritized fealty to the supreme leader over military competence is going to lose to a Westernized opponent, the most important lesson to learn from Ukraine.
I find it puzzling why there is not more open source discussion of the obvious most likely Chinese course of action, that is a blockade to starve Taiwan into a “negotiated” settlement. This military action short of war forces opponents into the requirement for a diplomatic/economic response. Given the internal challenges the US has in maintaining support for Ukraine, it is not unreasonable a calibrated slow tightening of the noose around Taiwan would induce a paralysis by analysis in the US that would preclude action until the annexation of Taiwan has functionally occurred.
The following users liked this post:
"Blockades" are often considered Acts of War - even by non interested parties
Non kinetic responses like sanctions are much harder to make effective as Ukraine has amply demonstrated.
“US and Chinese air-to-air capability unimportant”, reveals a study conducted by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). As per the think-tank's wargames: 90% of USAF, JASDF & ROCAF aircraft will be lost to Chinese missiles on the ground.
There won’t be any Battle of Britain style air-superiority battles fought over Taiwan. It will be a rocket/missile war fought at long-ranges with DF-21s and AGM-158s – whoever runs out of missiles first will lose the war!
Here’s a link to CSIC’s fascinating 165-page wargame study: The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...hFolxC_gZQuSOQ
There won’t be any Battle of Britain style air-superiority battles fought over Taiwan. It will be a rocket/missile war fought at long-ranges with DF-21s and AGM-158s – whoever runs out of missiles first will lose the war!
Here’s a link to CSIC’s fascinating 165-page wargame study: The First Battle of the Next War: Wargaming a Chinese Invasion of Taiwan
https://csis-website-prod.s3.amazona...hFolxC_gZQuSOQ
The upside of V/STOL is they permit distribution across an impossibly large area to interdict, whether they are better than a standard aircraft is moot, they will be available, whereas conventional aircraft are locatable at known coordinates, enough to take them off the table. Carrier based aircraft, while previously advantageous are now prone to standoff munitions that may defeat the point defence of the carrier, they are a delectable target for the opposition, and point defence has to be perfect.
Drones have made a change on the battle space, they provide ISR that was not possible before, and the ability to have a munition that can be manoeuvred as needed in response to immediate direct observations is a major change in the survivability of everything in the fight. China can be expected to have capable jamming, that will be a point of concern for the user of drones.
China will have a better time in Russia than Taiwan, the latter is both better and worse than we expect, but then so is China. The quality of the troops is compromised by the same rot that Russia has, the sad thing is that Xi actually recognised that and has been cleaning out the corruption in the PLA while at the same time he has done the grab of the century by becoming the god king emperor of Qin... contrary to the emphatic repudiation of leaders for life by the CPC post Chairman Mao, and his curious wife.
Interesting article and map in the Economist this week - only Bhutan and the Tajiks are "friends"
"No country has more neighbours than China, with 14 land borders. And its neighbourhood is not just crowded, but also tumultuous. There is a rogue state, North Korea; war-torn ones, such as Myanmar; ones with which it has festering territorial disputes, such as India; others with which it has overlapping maritime claims, such as Japan; and one—Taiwan—which it is constantly threatening to invade. It is a difficult group to get along with under any circumstances, but China’s flawed diplomacy is making the task even harder.............
None of this means that China’s neighbours are turning their backs on it. Given its economic heft, that is unthinkable. But it points to a future in which Mr Xi’s hegemonic ambitions are frustrated as the more stable and dynamic countries on his borders either resist his initiatives or hedge their bets, while the most volatile ones, with the dimmest prospects, become increasingly reliant on China’s support. The challenge for America and its allies is to offer China’s neighbours ever more ways to hedge. For Mr Xi, the question is more existential: can China accept relations with its neighbours in which it is anything less than pre-eminent?"
"No country has more neighbours than China, with 14 land borders. And its neighbourhood is not just crowded, but also tumultuous. There is a rogue state, North Korea; war-torn ones, such as Myanmar; ones with which it has festering territorial disputes, such as India; others with which it has overlapping maritime claims, such as Japan; and one—Taiwan—which it is constantly threatening to invade. It is a difficult group to get along with under any circumstances, but China’s flawed diplomacy is making the task even harder.............
None of this means that China’s neighbours are turning their backs on it. Given its economic heft, that is unthinkable. But it points to a future in which Mr Xi’s hegemonic ambitions are frustrated as the more stable and dynamic countries on his borders either resist his initiatives or hedge their bets, while the most volatile ones, with the dimmest prospects, become increasingly reliant on China’s support. The challenge for America and its allies is to offer China’s neighbours ever more ways to hedge. For Mr Xi, the question is more existential: can China accept relations with its neighbours in which it is anything less than pre-eminent?"
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...lding-capacity
Alarming Navy Intel Slide Warns Of China’s 200 Times Greater Shipbuilding Capacity
The Office of Naval Intelligence is sounding the alarm about the huge gap in U.S. and Chinese shipbuilding capacity and its implications.
Alarming Navy Intel Slide Warns Of China’s 200 Times Greater Shipbuilding Capacity
The Office of Naval Intelligence is sounding the alarm about the huge gap in U.S. and Chinese shipbuilding capacity and its implications.
China will have a better time in Russia than Taiwan, the latter is both better and worse than we expect, but then so is China. The quality of the troops is compromised by the same rot that Russia has, the sad thing is that Xi actually recognised that and has been cleaning out the corruption in the PLA while at the same time he has done the grab of the century by becoming the god king emperor of Qin... contrary to the emphatic repudiation of leaders for life by the CPC post Chairman Mao, and his curious wife.
"Alarming Navy Intel Slide Warns Of China’s 200 Times Greater Shipbuilding Capacity"
Hardly news - the US has been down on capacity for donkey's years. Shipbuilding , in general, is done in poor countries - as they get richer the costs go up and the number of yards goes down. Take a boat trip along the Mersey, Tyne or Clyde. Or go to Singapore and see the old shipyards (you can't they built on them), and look over the horizon to Batam in Indonesia
Hardly news - the US has been down on capacity for donkey's years. Shipbuilding , in general, is done in poor countries - as they get richer the costs go up and the number of yards goes down. Take a boat trip along the Mersey, Tyne or Clyde. Or go to Singapore and see the old shipyards (you can't they built on them), and look over the horizon to Batam in Indonesia
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Japan doubling defence spending…
https://www.defensenews.com/global/a...xt-five-years/
Japan forecasts large boost to defense spending over next five years
MELBOURNE, Australia — Japan will spend more than double on defense over the next five years compared to the previous five amid a host of security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, according to the country’s latest defense whitepaper.
The English version, released July 28, projects Japan will spend $309.75 billion on defense between fiscal 2024 and fiscal 2028, compared with $122.48 billion between fiscal 2019 and fiscal 2023.
This includes $35.62 billion for standoff defense capabilities that Japan only recently started to acquire; the country spent $1.4 million on that effort in the previous five years.
These standoff defense efforts include the acquisition of air-launched standoff land-attack missiles such as the Joint Strike Missile for its F-35 fighter jets, a program to extend the range of its Type 12 ground-launched anti-ship missile, and the development of hypersonic weapons.
Japan’s forecast spending also includes $21.37 billion for integrated air and missile defense; the country spent $7.12 billion on that in the previous five years.
The document argues that Japan needs these capabilities “to counter opposing forces from a safe distance without being attacked.”
Projected spending on the integrated air and missile defense system mentioned in the document will likely primarily go toward two Aegis system equipped vessels that Japan plans to build in lieu of the scrapped Aegis Ashore missile defense system.
The ships, which are due to enter service in 2028 and 2029, will feature Lockheed Martin-made SPY-7 radars that Japan originally procured for its Aegis Ashore program. Local news agency Jiji Press previously reported that the vessels will each have 128 vertical launching system cells for missiles.
The whitepaper also said Japan is facing an “increasing diversity and complexity of airborne threats,” such as missiles flying at hypersonic speeds, low altitudes and on irregular trajectories.
Other areas expected to see a large investment boost over the next five years include sustainability and resiliency, as well as cross-domain capabilities. The former encompasses ammunition stockpiles, sustainment and maintenance costs, and improving the resiliency of defense facilities. Funding for that is to jump from $42.73 billion to $106.8 billion.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/a...xt-five-years/
Japan forecasts large boost to defense spending over next five years
MELBOURNE, Australia — Japan will spend more than double on defense over the next five years compared to the previous five amid a host of security challenges in the Indo-Pacific region, according to the country’s latest defense whitepaper.
The English version, released July 28, projects Japan will spend $309.75 billion on defense between fiscal 2024 and fiscal 2028, compared with $122.48 billion between fiscal 2019 and fiscal 2023.
This includes $35.62 billion for standoff defense capabilities that Japan only recently started to acquire; the country spent $1.4 million on that effort in the previous five years.
These standoff defense efforts include the acquisition of air-launched standoff land-attack missiles such as the Joint Strike Missile for its F-35 fighter jets, a program to extend the range of its Type 12 ground-launched anti-ship missile, and the development of hypersonic weapons.
Japan’s forecast spending also includes $21.37 billion for integrated air and missile defense; the country spent $7.12 billion on that in the previous five years.
The document argues that Japan needs these capabilities “to counter opposing forces from a safe distance without being attacked.”
Projected spending on the integrated air and missile defense system mentioned in the document will likely primarily go toward two Aegis system equipped vessels that Japan plans to build in lieu of the scrapped Aegis Ashore missile defense system.
The ships, which are due to enter service in 2028 and 2029, will feature Lockheed Martin-made SPY-7 radars that Japan originally procured for its Aegis Ashore program. Local news agency Jiji Press previously reported that the vessels will each have 128 vertical launching system cells for missiles.
The whitepaper also said Japan is facing an “increasing diversity and complexity of airborne threats,” such as missiles flying at hypersonic speeds, low altitudes and on irregular trajectories.
Other areas expected to see a large investment boost over the next five years include sustainability and resiliency, as well as cross-domain capabilities. The former encompasses ammunition stockpiles, sustainment and maintenance costs, and improving the resiliency of defense facilities. Funding for that is to jump from $42.73 billion to $106.8 billion.
I disagree. Lower level corruption and incompetence may have been reduced but the upper levels of the PLA are rotten to the core. The inconvenient truth is autocracies can’t have competent senior military leaders as they would then present a direct threat to the supreme ruler.
Does Xi have a problem with his selection of top brass? Absolutely, he has killed all people who speak the truth to him where it displeases him, and he is left with sycophants, appeasers, Yes Men, so that always goes well. He is isolated from reality by his system that he has full responsibility for. In one of the most recent disasters that befell China (another day ending in a "Y") it took 4 months before he was even aware of the problem. That is the extent of isolation he has established in his attempt to be the last "last emperor". He takes some action, against the corruption within the defence force, which impacts the capability of the force, he doesn't put the best and brightest officers into positions where they may take action against him, he has a greater risk from the uncorrupted officers who see his actions as being a step back to the worst times of the late 50s and early 60s, where the revolutionary leader ended up deciding to be the latest god king. Corruption affects capability, it reduces the internal threat to the dear leader unless it is so overt and unpopular that general resentment (not General Re Sent Meant) increases to the point of demanding removal of the God King. The PLA's rorting was getting way out of hand, Xi acted against the most egregious offenders.
The one child program is biting in the butt, China's demographics are lousy, about as bad as Russia's are. The PLA does not get the best of the best of the best, they get what they get, the commercial and industrial sectors have shortages of manpower from the growth and demand from decades of arbitraging manufacture to China so the west can have cheaper products. The PLA is not competitive for competent prospective employees.
Having sat for 4 hours trying to get a tow bar for an aircraft push back in China, the lasting impressing I have is the inability of bureaucratic China to act with logic or reason. (I worked for a Chinese airline once, for 2 years, as an IP, and in that time, on full pay, I never once stepped into an aircraft, never even saw a company aircraft - best job ever). I like China, like their food, like the people, don't see that bringing Formosa into the fold is in their national interest at all, while it make great rhetoric for the self appointed God King. Xi must be aware that while taking on Taiwan might be successful, it has at least equal probability of resulting in an internal guerrilla war for decades that would awaken emotions within the population and resentment against the govt. The same emotions that were present in Tiananmen Square exist today, they have just been appeased through economic reform, but they still run deep underneath the apparent apathy towards politics. Apathy can be overcome by giving an adequately egregious act against it's own population by a dictatorship. That is historically how most dictatorships end.
I find it puzzling why there is not more open source discussion of the obvious most likely Chinese course of action, that is a blockade to starve Taiwan into a “negotiated” settlement. This military action short of war forces opponents into the requirement for a diplomatic/economic response.
Last edited by fdr; 30th Jul 2023 at 00:02.
ORAC
You are right a total blockade on China in retaliation to China attacking a merchant ship in International waters would be devastating to China. Unfortunately it would also be devastating to the US and EU economies. I am unconvinced that there is the will power to react with a strong enough response to dissuade China. The tepid international response to Russia after the Ukrainian invasion doesn’t inspire confidence.
Other than energy blockades which significantly affected a few European countries, in general the costs of sanctions to the US and the broader EU hasn’t been relatively mild.
That won’t be the cost with China given the huge amount of trade.
PLA vessels attacking commercial vessels going to Taiwan would be an act of piracy, and would likely have repercussions, as it is an affront to FONOPS, so the USA would have a bit of a say. China is playing the bully game, intimidating Taiwan as Xi considers it to be good for his image. Losing most of their exports and more importantly, losing the 50% of their total food that is imported in sanctions would result in Xi being strung up fairly quickly. China needs trade, it is not discretionary, they would be in famine within 28 days of a retaliatory response to a
Other than energy blockades which significantly affected a few European countries, in general the costs of sanctions to the US and the broader EU hasn’t been relatively mild.
That won’t be the cost with China given the huge amount of trade.
You are right a total blockade on China in retaliation to China attacking a merchant ship in International waters would be devastating to China. Unfortunately it would also be devastating to the US and EU economies. I am unconvinced that there is the will power to react with a strong enough response to dissuade China. The tepid international response to Russia after the Ukrainian invasion doesn’t inspire confidence.
Other than energy blockades which significantly affected a few European countries, in general the costs of sanctions to the US and the broader EU hasn’t been relatively mild.
That won’t be the cost with China given the huge amount of trade.
Other than energy blockades which significantly affected a few European countries, in general the costs of sanctions to the US and the broader EU hasn’t been relatively mild.
That won’t be the cost with China given the huge amount of trade.
If China alienates their primary export markets, the nouveau middle class is out of cash and lifestyle, and will not be happy campers. If the food supply status hardens, then the rest of the miracle of China is not going to be happy going hungry while their produce gets handed over to those that live in the city and don't have to muck out the stalls every day. These are the same conditions that existed when alternatives to autocratic rule by an out of touch government existed, way back when. Didn't end well.
Historically, Formosa was populated by indigenous people from 3000BC through to around the 1300's when there was some interaction with Chinese. In the early 1600's it became a Portuguese colonised state, but the Portuguese were booted out by a Ming Dynasty remnant from the dynastic conflicts of the mainland who was then defeated by the Qing at the end of the 1600's. In 1895, Formosa was ceded to the Japanese, following more 'x'lent military feats by China. In 1945, it was taken back by the ROC-KMT (CKS). The ROC was the successor state in the UN, until the stunt of recognition of PRC occurred for expediency. That stunt helped achieve a short circuited UNSC, and internal politics resulted in the existing expansionist China. In the end, China has to have trade for it's own survival, so unless it intends to do a greater East Asian co-prosperity sphere thing, it has issues. Last time that was tried, it didn't go quite to plan.
Still like their food, at least the hot stuff.
The following users liked this post:
Indeed China does, but the rest of the world, specifically the UN does not, so it would be an illegal act. Same exists in Crimea, Russia can bleat as much as it wants to about Crimea, it is not considered by the UN to be Russian territory, nor are the other criminally invaded parts of Ukraine.
This weeks Economist has a couple of articles relevant to Chinese action on Taiwan
One is the need to keep an eye on Chinese action to build/rebuild stockpiles ahead of sanctions - oil and pig food (only 3 months supply in country) are especially sensitive. So far all indications are that they're just about back to pre-CV19 levels of buying but nothing more.
Also its possible to see which airfields the Chinese are hardening - in the last ten years these have been largely well north of Taiwan around Beijing. One might start to believe they don't totally trust The Good Leader or Mr P.................................
One is the need to keep an eye on Chinese action to build/rebuild stockpiles ahead of sanctions - oil and pig food (only 3 months supply in country) are especially sensitive. So far all indications are that they're just about back to pre-CV19 levels of buying but nothing more.
Also its possible to see which airfields the Chinese are hardening - in the last ten years these have been largely well north of Taiwan around Beijing. One might start to believe they don't totally trust The Good Leader or Mr P.................................
An interesting analysis on Taiwan's energy situation is here.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/31...ps-china-tsmc/
How China uses that as leverage will be interesting to watch.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/07/31...ps-china-tsmc/
How China uses that as leverage will be interesting to watch.