# US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia



## MarkOttawa (8 Mar 2019)

Not a pretty picture (e.g. carrier vulnerabilities https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/120795/post-1563946.html#msg1563946 ), fixes suggested:



> US ‘Gets Its Ass Handed To It’ In Wargames: Here’s A $24 Billion Fix
> _Warships sink. Bases burn. F-35s die on the runway. Can $24 billion a year -- 3.3 % of the Pentagon budget -- fix the problem? _
> 
> The US keeps losing, hard, in simulated wars with Russia and China. Bases burn. Warships sink. But we could fix the problem for about $24 billion a year, one well-connected expert said, less than four percent of the Pentagon budget.
> ...



Relevant posts from 2015 and 2016:



> Making the Case For the Eagle’s Carriers vs the Dragon: NOT
> (links at start no longer work--copy and paste in search box upper right)
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/mark-collins-making-the-case-for-the-eagles-carriers-vs-the-dragon-not/
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Mar 2019)

Good novels on the war with China from thread: https://army.ca/forums/threads/32288.1450.html


Re: What book are you reading now?
« Reply #1474 on: December 13, 2018, 12:10:18 »
Quote
Currently reading this series of the modern US Navy. Have read all his Dan Lenson books. Just starting ONSLAUGHT. Poyer does a fair bit of research for his books as detailed in the Acknowledgments.

Author: David Poyer’s active (Annapolis 1971) and reserve naval service included sea duty in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Arctic, Caribbean, and Pacific, and shore duty at the Pentagon, Surface Warfare Development Group, Joint Forces Command, and in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.  He retired from the Joint Forces Command as a captain, with the Defense Superior Service Medal as his highest award.

Modern Navy Series

THE CRUISER
Just promoted to Captain, Dan Lenson's first glimpse of his new command is of a ship literally high and dry. USS Savo Island, which carries a classified, never-before-deployed missile defense system, has run aground off Naples, Italy. Captain Lenson has to relieve the ship's disgraced skipper and deploy on a secret mission—Operation Stellar Shield—which will take his ship and crew into the dangerous waters bordering the Middle East. As a climate of war builds, with threats of nuclear and chemical weapons, Dan has to rally Savo Island’s demoralized crew and confront a mysterious death on board, while learning to operate a complex missile system that has not been battle tested. But when the conflict reaches a climax, Dan is forced to make a decision that may cost hundreds of thousands of innocent lives—or save them, but at the cost of his ship and his career.

TIPPING POINT: The War with China: The First Salvo
Dan Lenson’s under fire both at sea and in Washington. His command of the first antiballistic-missile-capable cruiser in the Fleet, USS Savo Island, is threatened when he's called home to testify before Congress. In the Indian Ocean, Savo cruises off East Africa, protecting shipping lanes from pirates. But this routine patrol turns ominous when an unknown assailant begins assaulting female crew members. At the same time, a showdown starts between India and Pakistan.  Savo Island, with her unique but not yet fully battle-ready ability to intercept ballistic missiles, is all that stands between two nations on the brink of nuclear war.  Dan will have to cope with a deadly tsunami, incoming weapons, and a quickly tilting balance of power, as China finally makes her bid to humiliate and displace America in the Pacific, beginning a deadly war.

ONSLAUGHT: The War with China: The Opening Battle chronicles 
Dan Lenson’s latest challenge as the U.S. Navy struggles to hold Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. As Allied computer, satellite, and financial networks are ravaged by cyberattacks, China and its Associated Powers begin to roll up American allies, launching invasions of India, Taiwan, South Korea, and Okinawa. USS Savo Island is one of the few forces left to stop them. But with a crew under attack from an unknown assailant, and rapidly running out of ordnance against waves of enemy missiles and torpedoes, can Dan and his scratch-team task force hold the line? Or will the U.S. lose the Pacific—and perhaps much more—to an aggressive and expansionist new People’s Empire? The most explosive novel yet in the long-running Dan Lenson series, Onslaught presents an utterly convincing scenario of how a global war with China could unfold.  

HUNTER KILLER: The War with China deepens
The United States stands nearly alone in its determination to fight, rather than give into the expansionist demands of the aggressive new “People’s Empire.” The naval and air forces of the Associated Powers – China, Pakistan, Iran, and North Korea – have used advanced technology and tactical nuclear weapons to devastate America's fleet in the Pacific, while its massive army forced humiliating surrenders on Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, and other crucial allies. Admiral Dan Lenson, commanding a combined US–South Korean naval force, and Commander Cheryl Staurulakis of USS Savo Island fight to turn the tide and prepare for an Allied counteroffensive. Meanwhile, SEAL operator Teddy Oberg escapes from a hellish POW camp and heads west through desolate mountains toward what he hopes will be freedom. And in Washington, DC, Dan’s wife Blair Titus helps formulate America's political response to overwhelming setbacks in the Pacific and at on the home front.

DEEP WAR (Dec 18): The war with China and North Korea goes nuclear
The war against China turns dire as the United States struggles to survive in this gripping thriller featuring Navy commander Dan Lenson. After America suffers a devastating nuclear attack, and facing food shortages, power outages, cyber and AI assaults, and a wrecked economy, Admiral Dan Lenson leads an allied force assigned to turn the tide of war in the Pacific, using precisely targeted missiles and high-tech weapons systems. But as the campaign begins, the entire Allied military and defense network is compromised—even controlled—by Jade Emperor, a powerful Chinese artificial intelligence system that seems to anticipate and counter every move. While Dan strives to salvage the battle plan, his wife Blair helps coordinate strategy in Washington, DC, Marine sergeant Hector Ramos fights in an invasion of Taiwan, and Navy SEAL master chief Teddy Oberg begins a desperate journey into central China on a mission that may be the only way to save the United States from destruction and defeat.

https://www.goodreads.com/series/40576-dan-lenson
Dan Lenson Series

https://www.bookseriesinorder.com/david-poyer/
DAVID POYER BOOKS IN ORDER


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Aug 2019)

Excerpts from a very thoughtful article by a serving USAF officer (chokepoints and blockade, as vs Japan in WW II):



> Shapes, Part II: The Shape of Strategy
> 
> This is the second in a two-part series, called “Shapes,” which examines the assumptions behind how the Air Force designs its combat aviation at the enterprise level, rather than at the aircraft level. Culturally, airpower advocates are often captured by the possibilities inherent in a specific piece of hardware, rather than the possibilities inherent in a range of airpower capabilities. In reality, what makes airpower useful is not limited to the shape of a specific aircraft – it includes the shape of the whole. What does airpower need to accomplish, in what portion of the world, and against what adversaries? Part I was titled “The Shape of Airpower [ https://warontherocks.com/2019/07/shapes-part-i-the-shape-of-airpower/ ].”..
> 
> ...



Note last part here, don't see how conventional weapons only work vs China:



> US Navy: Carriers or Subs, with the Dragon in Mind
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/mark-collins-us-navy-carriers-or-subs-with-the-dragon-in-mind/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Aug 2019)

Very scary, lengthy, paper from United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney about increasingly parlous US strategic position vs China in a conventional conflict--do have a glance. Onehttps://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/averting-crisis-american-strategy-military-spending-and-collective-defence-in-the-indo-pacific key take-away:



> 'Above all, the Pentagon will need to increase the “lethality” and “resilience” of its forward-deployed forces to enable them to “survive, operate and win” inside China’s A2/AD threat envelope'



And for that a lot of unlikely money will be needed.



> Averting Crisis: American strategy, military spending and collective defence in the Indo-Pacific
> https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/averting-crisis-american-strategy-military-spending-and-collective-defence-in-the-indo-pacific



Good graphics.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## lptheriault (19 Aug 2019)

Very interesting vulgarization of the potential flash point between the US and China : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_keFhXPclns


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Aug 2019)

Story about USSC report above on China vs US (https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/129967/post-1580745.html#msg1580745):



> China now strong enough for a surprise move in the Indo-Pacific
> 
> MELBOURNE, Australia – China is gaining an increasingly favorable military position in the Indo-Pacific, leaving the United States no longer able to enjoy military primacy in the region, a new report by an Australian think tank has warned.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Aug 2019)

China is very vulnerable to the Japan, India, Vietnam and the US.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Aug 2019)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> China is very vulnerable to the Japan, India, Vietnam and the US.


Can you explain?  Seriously.     op:


----------



## MarkOttawa (28 Oct 2019)

What platforms best to launch conventional missiles (SLCM, maybe hypersonics) against major foe: submarines? surface ships?



> Submarines are poised to take on a major role in strike warfare, but is that a good idea?
> 
> The U.S. Navy is preparing to ink one of the largest contracts in its history with General Dynamics Electric Boat and the firm’s partner shipyard Huntington Ingalls Industries Newport News that will make the new generation of attack submarines a major force in strike warfare.
> 
> ...




Another angle in a earlier post (links to other posts in text no longer work, but do if copy and paste in "Search" box at upper right--"Related" links at bottom do work):



> US Navy: Carriers or Subs, with the Dragon in Mind
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/mark-collins-us-navy-carriers-or-subs-with-the-dragon-in-mind/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Oct 2019)

Sometimes you end up fighting on equal footing with the other guys.



























You can't always rely on technology to give you an edge.  Sometimes it just comes down to a matter of will.


----------



## CBH99 (28 Oct 2019)

No matter what we do, I can't see the US led west winning the strategic battle against China in the slightest.

Even if full blown war kicks off in the seas around China, and even if we win decisively...what then??


China is the worlds most populous country, and is the 2nd largest economy in the world.  They invest quite decisively and strategically around the world, securing a majority of rare earth metals, etc.  They have a massive military, which is very quickly being modernized - and the PLAN is producing ships of near quality 3 to 4 times faster than the USN.



So war kicks off, and we win.  Okay.  Now what??   China is still a massive country, massive economy, and still has global ambitions.  Best case scenario, perhaps we set them back a decade or so militarily.    :2c:


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Oct 2019)

Best strategy is to have them fight each other, with one side having support from ... uh, Hanoi and the other Uslamabad.


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Dec 2019)

US Navy seriously trying to figure our how carriers can cope with China--things don't look too good these days (further links at original):



> With China gunning for aircraft carriers, US Navy says it must change how it fights
> 
> Just because China might be able to hit U.S. Navy aircraft carriers with long-range anti-ship missiles doesn’t mean carriers are worthless, the service’s top officer said Thursday.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (7 Dec 2019)

Good flipping grief--here's another vulnerability vs Russkies:



> Pentagon Concerned Russia Cultivating Sympathy Among US Troops
> 
> Russian efforts to weaken the West through a relentless campaign of information warfare may be starting to pay off, cracking a key bastion of the U.S. line of defense: the military.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Dec 2019)

Age of the carrier vs major powers ending?



> Amid a heated aircraft carrier debate, the US Navy sees funding slashed for a next-generation fighter
> 
> As questions continue to swirl about the vulnerability and reach of aircraft carriers, Congress has gutted funding for the U.S. Navy’s research effort into a next-generation fighter to replace the relatively limited range F/A-18 Super Hornet, an effort experts say could decide the continued relevance of the aircraft carrier in the 21st century.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2019)

While there is no doubt that aircraft carriers are facing major challenges, the nay sayers never seem to have an answer as to "why" the PLAN, Royal Navy, Indian Navy, Japanese Self Defence Force and the ROK are all building or considering building new aircraft carriers of their own. Obviously there is still utility in the carrier concept, otherwise, _no one_ would be building them.

Blowing a bit of dust off my crystal ball I'll make some predictions:

1. The aircraft carrier is going to evolve into a smaller platform. Testing the USS America as a "Lightning Carrier" and Japan considering the Izumo for that role is the first step. UAV and UCAV's are not going to need massive supercarriers as platforms, and the proliferation of AA/AD weapons suggests that any nation wanting or needing aircraft carrier capabilities will need to be able to produce something similar to the CVE, and at the same sort of speed (along with associated aircraft and systems).

2. I think China is actually playing a different game. The building program calls for as many as 6 carriers, but none of them will be equivalent to a CVN. Rather than the PLAN trying to "break out" of the First Island Chain, they can keep many of their carriers in the South China Sea and establish numeric superiority over the 2 or 3 American carrier battle groups which will have to "break in" in past the First and Second Island chains in the face of Chinese AA/AD and PLAAF attacks supported by Chinese sea power. Having 6 carriers ensures that there are always 2 or 3 on station, and allows the Chinese to "show the flag" in the Indian Ocean and Western Pacific from time to time as well

3. While long range missiles, hypersonic weapons and railguns might transition missile ships and monitors as the premier "Capital ships" later in the 21rst century, carriers will still be needed to provide surveillance, outer perimeter defense (imagine UCAV's armed with lasers or missiles engaging enemy missiles well over the horizon from the battle group) and BDA, as well as flexibility in prosecuting or following up difficult targets. The smaller carriers from point 1 will serve very well in this sort of environment.

So aircraft carriers are very likely to remain the center piece of surface naval power for many years to come, evolving into newer forms as conditions change.


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Jan 2020)

Is the US facing a "bastion gap"? What countries would want to host American bastions vs China? Excerpts:



> Battle of the Bastions
> 
> During the Cold War, the Soviet Union, warned by the Walker spy ring — active from 1967 to 1985 — about the vulnerability of its nuclear submarines, concentrated them in the Barents Sea close to the Russian mainland. Later, Moscow did the same on the Pacific coast in the Sea of Okhotsk. With their most precious assets huddled in isolated waters, the Soviets then implemented what became known as the “bastion concept” to protect them. As the nuclear submarines maneuvered within a defined space, they were protected by approximately 75 percent of the Soviet navy’s attack submarines, every surface vessel in its northern and Pacific fleets, and hundreds of aircraft. It was a truly formidable defense, one that NATO spent considerable energy and resources finding counters to.
> 
> ...



Plus:



> The surface Navy needs to fundamentally reshape itself to defeat the Chinese threat, study finds
> https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/surface-navy-association/2020/01/08/the-surface-navy-needs-to-fundamentally-reshape-itself-to-defeat-the-chinese-threat-study-finds/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jan 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> New commandant wants a sweeping re-do of concept of amphibious operations:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



It seems to me that is charitable to describe as "challenging" the logistics, under potential or actual threat, of this this kind of operating:



> Marine Commandant: ‘The Farther You Back Away From China, They Will Move Toward You’
> _The Marine Corps is moving out on a new land-based missile designed to hold Chinese warships at bay. _
> 
> SURFACE NAVY ASSOCIATION: The Marine Corps are inching closer to buying a ground-based version of a new naval missile recently deployed to sea for the first time, giving the Corps the power to cover ships at sea with precise warheads from over 100 miles away.
> ...



USAF has had similar thoughts about F-35A basing:



> USAF “Officers Give New Details for F-35 in War With China”
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/04/mark-collins-usaf-officers-give-new-details-for-f-35-in-war-with-china/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (16 Jan 2020)

Post illustrating at some length US forces vs China non-nuclear woes:



> The Eagle increasingly challenged in case of war with the Dragon in the western Pacific
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/01/16/the-eagle-increasingly-challenged-in-case-of-war-with-the-dragon-in-the-western-pacific/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99 (17 Jan 2020)

I have a feeling that if hostilities ever kicked off against China openly, primarily in the SCS - that Russia would be a good ally & neighbour, and keep western forces occupied in the European theatre as to limit the west's ability to reinforce the SCS.

They don't need to invade the Baltics or anything like that.  With substantially increased naval activity, aggressive air activity (most recently demonstrated with a SIGINT aircraft escorted by 2 fighters INSIDE Swedish airspace) - and possibly some open support & aggressive posturing in Crimea - they could effectively keep the Europeans engaged/preoccupied enough that the USN & USAF are essentially on their own in the SCS.


Yes, obvious allies will be there.  Japan and Australia are both professional, capable countries with robust enough capabilities to support American efforts.  However, the Europeans & American forces in Europe - being occupied with whatever it is Russia does to keep them there - wouldn't be able to reinforce the SCS.


America has done a pretty good job of 'forcing' (for lack of a better term) countries like Russia, China, Iran, Syria, etc to rely on each other economically & militarily.  I highly doubt if tensions kick off in the SCS, that Russia won't be a good friend and keep American forces preoccupied elsewhere.  (Same with Iran, possibly keeping the USN busy in the Persian Gulf, even if just by blocking the straight or closing down shipping, etc)


No easy solutions when looked at broadly.


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Feb 2020)

Big re-think going on at US Navy on aircraft carriers--a post:



> What future for the Eagle's Carriers, the Dragon much in Mind?
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/02/what-future-for-the-eagles-carriers-the-dragon-much-in-mind/



Mark
Ottaw


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (2 Feb 2020)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> While there is no doubt that aircraft carriers are facing major challenges, the nay sayers never seem to have an answer as to "why" the PLAN, Royal Navy, Indian Navy, Japanese Self Defence Force and the ROK are all building or considering building new aircraft carriers of their own. Obviously there is still utility in the carrier concept, otherwise, _no one_ would be building them.
> 
> Blowing a bit of dust off my crystal ball I'll make some predictions:
> 
> ...



The utility of the Aircraft Carrier is simple, it's a mobile airbase, with mobility being the key to its utility.

Airpower is critical in modern conflict, the problem though is aircraft need runways to operate, runways are fixed in position which makes targeting a relatively simple proposition, especially with modern missile technology.

An aircraft carrier is fast, it can travel 30+ knots per hour.  American Aircraft Carriers also carry tremendous amounts of firepower, fighter and multi role aircraft, electronic warfare aircraft, AWACS, etc. 

So the biggest utility of the Aircraft Carrier is it's mobility in contrast to shore based aircraft.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Feb 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I have a feeling that if hostilities ever kicked off against China openly, primarily in the SCS - that Russia would be a good ally & neighbour, and keep western forces occupied in the European theatre as to limit the west's ability to reinforce the SCS.
> 
> They don't need to invade the Baltics or anything like that.  With substantially increased naval activity, aggressive air activity (most recently demonstrated with a SIGINT aircraft escorted by 2 fighters INSIDE Swedish airspace) - and possibly some open support & aggressive posturing in Crimea - they could effectively keep the Europeans engaged/preoccupied enough that the USN & USAF are essentially on their own in the SCS.
> 
> ...



Russia and China? It's complicated: https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/27/russia-and-chinas-relationship--how-deep-does-it-go.html


----------



## MarkOttawa (3 Feb 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Big re-think going on at US Navy on aircraft carriers--a post:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



More from acting US Navy secretary:



> SECNAV Modly: Path to 355 Ships Will Rely on New Classes of Warships
> 
> The Navy’s plans to get to 355 manned ships by 2030 will rely on new classes of ships that don’t exist yet – including new kinds of amphibious and supply ships as well as “lightly manned” ships – the acting Navy secretary told USNI News.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Feb 2020)

Revived USN 2nd Fleet vs Russkie subs--why are RCN and RCAF so seemingly mute about this? Further links at original:



> Admiral Warns America's East Coast Is No Longer A "Safe Haven" Thanks To Russian Subs
> _Increased Russian sub activity means that the Navy no longer views sailing off the East Coast or across the Atlantic to be "uncontested" movements._
> 
> A senior U.S. Navy officer says that his service no longer considers the East Coast of the United States as an "uncontested" area or an automatic "safe haven" for its ships and submarines. This is a product of steadily increased Russian submarine activity in the Atlantic Ocean, including the deployment of more advanced and quieter types that can better evade detection.
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (6 Feb 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Revived USN 2nd Fleet vs Russkie subs--why are RCN and RCAF so seemingly mute about this? Further links at original:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



And a comment of mine on a post based on article at link above:



> More from commander of US 2nd Fleet–note his vice commander is from Royal Canadian Navy:
> 
> ‘NATO’s Joint Force Command Norfolk is heading towards reaching full operational capability next year, after the U.S. 2nd Fleet it is colocated with reached FOC in late December.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Feb 2020)

"Is ‘Escalate to Deescalate’ Part of Russia’s Nuclear Toolbox?"--conclusion of a post:



> A Louche Nuclear Weapons Use Doctrine?
> ...
> Hypersonics (ballistic or cruise missiles) would seem peachy keen, er, particularly suited weapons– conventionally or nuclear armed–with which to implement that “escalate to de-escalate” approach, whichever side has them. See, e.g., the end of this recent post–though the acting US Navy secretary does seem a bit OTT for the present moment:
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (9 Feb 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> More from acting US Navy secretary:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



 Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
« Reply #23 on: February 03, 2020, 15:17:36 »

Quote from: MarkOttawa on February 02, 2020, 14:07:27

    Big re-think going on at US Navy on aircraft carriers--a post:

    Mark
    Ottawa

Now defense secretary weighs in of reshaping US Navy (further links at original)–excerpts, note changing the carrier force at end:



> ‘Defense Secretary Mark Esper on how the Navy can get to 355 ships
> 
> In the wake of reports that the Navy may cut shipbuilding in its upcoming budget request, Esper said he is “fully committed” to building a fleet of 355 ships or larger. But to get there, the Navy is going to have to fundamentally reshape itself around smaller ships that can be more quickly bought than the large, exquisite designs the service now relies on — a shift that could have big implications for both the industrial base and the carrier force.
> 
> ...


https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/02/what-future-for-the-eagles-carriers-the-dragon-much-in-mind/comment-page-1/#comment-14507

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 Feb 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Re: US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia
> « Reply #23 on: February 03, 2020, 15:17:36 »
> 
> Quote from: MarkOttawa on February 02, 2020, 14:07:27
> ...



Might be an interesting exercise to match Space X capabilities with navy requirements:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0-pfzKbh2k


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Feb 2020)

And now:



> Navy Budget Proposal Slashes Shipbuilding in Smallest Hull Buy Since Sequestration
> 
> The Navy’s Fiscal Year 2021 budget lays out a shipbuilding plan that would be the smallest in six years and does not begin to move the sea service towards a 355-ship fleet that relies more on smaller ships, according to budget documents.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Feb 2020)

Post on how USAF is planning/hoping to cope with China and Russia (mainly), RCAF noted in final para:



> How Can the USAF Afford to Re-Equip with the New Equipment it Will Decide it Needs?
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/20/how-can-the-usaf-afford-to-re-equip-with-the-new-equipment-it-will-decide-it-needs/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Feb 2020)

And more in a post on Pentagon's plans/hopes to be able to deal with China:



> What the US Needs to Do to Be Ready to Fight China
> 
> Further to this post,
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99 (21 Feb 2020)

I think it's only a matter of time until China & the US square off.

Not necessarily of WW3 magnitude, but not via proxies either.  Both sides openly discuss military conflict with each other, and both sides openly discuss revamping their military procurement & doctrine in order to win a battle against each other.

Might take 20 years, might take 5 years....either way, I have a feeling we'll be seeing some naval action in the SCS within our lifetimes  :2c:


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Feb 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I think it's only a matter of time until China & the US square off.
> 
> Not necessarily of WW3 magnitude, but not via proxies either.  Both sides openly discuss military conflict with each other, and both sides openly discuss revamping their military procurement & doctrine in order to win a battle against each other.
> 
> Might take 20 years, might take 5 years....either way, I have a feeling we'll be seeing some naval action in the SCS within our lifetimes  :2c:



The Second Battle of the Paracel Islands, perhaps? 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Paracel_Islands


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 Mar 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> And more in a post on Pentagon's plans/hopes to be able to deal with China:
> 
> the discussion of a possible war with China continues to be remarkably open in the US–latest official example:
> ...
> ...



The future of the US Navy's carriers is being seriously examined by both the Pentagon and the navy department--a post:



> End of the Line Coming for the US Navy's Supercarriers as they Face the dragon's Ever-Longer Fiery Breath?
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/08/end-of-the-line-coming-for-the-us-navys-supercarriers-as-they-face-the-dragons-growing-claws/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Mar 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> "Is ‘Escalate to Deescalate’ Part of Russia’s Nuclear Toolbox?"--conclusion of a post:
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/02/09/a-louche-nuclear-weapons-use-doctrine/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Now the start of this post:



> Subs and Russian Nuclear Weapons Doctrine, Note Cruise Missiles
> 
> To start one notes the US Navy is certainly taking those submarines seriously in public; so why does the Royal Canadian Navy stay largely mute? Why does our Navy not highlight an anti-submarine warfare mission (ASW) in the North Atlantic (its focus with NATO during the Cold War)?
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Mar 2020)

The best offence is a good defence

China’s “maritime road” looks more defensive than imperialist

Its foreign port-building focuses on protecting existing trade routes

AN OLD SAYING warns about Greeks bearing gifts, but it might fit the Chinese better. In the 1400s Zheng He, a Muslim slave who became the Ming empire’s admiral, led seven voyages south and west. He offered treasure to every leader he met—but only if they acknowledged the emperor, joining a world order centred on Beijing.

Chinese leaders today are following in Zheng’s wake. The “road” half of its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI)—a global infrastructure-building scheme—is a maritime one of seaports and shipping channels. Xi Jinping, China’s president, has said it will create a new model of “win-win co-operation”. Some critics suspect nefarious motives, such as yoking poor countries to China by giving them unrepayable loans.

The BRI has evolved site by site and Chinese officials have not made their intentions clear. However, the locations of the 22 maritime-road projects that we have identified as under way show how it is most likely to aid China. They suggest it will be more useful for protecting existing trade routes than expanding Chinese influence.

To measure the maritime road’s impact, we tested three benefits it could offer China. If the road were a resource grab, its projects should cluster in places that sell raw materials that China imports. If its aim were to boost trade, it should track the busiest routes used by Chinese shipping today, or where trade is likely to grow fastest. And if it were intended to secure current trade routes, its ports should sit near choke points—areas whose closure would force goods to travel circuitously—or in places that offer alternative routes.

We tested these explanations by using them to predict if countries host a BRI port. The results were conclusive. After holding other factors constant, there was no statistically significant link between having a BRI port and exporting raw materials that China wants, or having high current or projected trade with it. In contrast, the “trade-protection benefit”—either the value of Chinese trade in a country’s waters multiplied by the extra distance goods would have to go if those routes were shut, or the amount of trade that would be diverted to a country if shipping were disrupted elsewhere—was a good predictor. Given two otherwise average countries, one with a high trade-protection benefit (like Libya) is 2.7 times likelier to host a BRI port than another with an average benefit (like Liberia).

Owning or running a port does not guarantee perpetual access, but it does give China influence by enabling it to disrupt the host’s own shipping if it chooses. Many overland “belt” routes in the BRI would also make Chinese trade more resilient. For example, if the Strait of Malacca were closed, China could switch to BRI ports it wants to build in Myanmar, and finish the trip on planned BRI rail lines.

China’s military footprint also shows a focus on guarding trade routes. Its only base abroad is at Djibouti’s Bab al-Mandab Strait—the waterway whose closure would hurt China more than anywhere else. 

https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/09/28/chinas-maritime-road-looks-more-defensive-than-imperialist


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Mar 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> The future of the US Navy's carriers is being seriously examined by both the Pentagon and the navy department--a post:
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/08/end-of-the-line-coming-for-the-us-navys-supercarriers-as-they-face-the-dragons-growing-claws/
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Now the USN's Chief on Naval Operations talks about what might amount to a revolution in naval affairs:



> With China gunning for aircraft carriers, US Navy says it must change how it fights
> 
> 
> Just because China might be able to hit U.S. Navy aircraft carriers with long-range anti-ship missiles doesn’t mean carriers are worthless, the service’s top officer said Thursday.
> ...



And, to repeat, meanwhile there's that revolution in Marine affairs:



> Radically Re-Shaping US Marines to Take on China–e.g. no more Tanks
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/23/radically-re-shaping-us-marines-to-take-on-china-e-g-no-more-tanks/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Mar 2020)

And now from Flightglobal on USMC and F-35B:



> *Flight International Opinion*
> US Marine Corps backs away from tailor-made aircraft - and their expense
> 
> After spending billions of dollars over decades to develop custom-made aircraft, the US Marine Corps (USMC) intends get rid of a large portion of its bespoke fleet.
> ...



If the USMC really seriously reduces its F-35B fleet, what about the poor RAF/RN and Italian Navy? Costs and maintenance of their planes?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Apr 2020)

Meanwhile in the Russian high north and trending towards the G-I-UK Gap--start of a post:



> The Bears’s Arctic Build-Up (not aimed at North American portion)
> 
> Further to this post from 2016 (note further links),
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (21 Apr 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Now the USN's Chief on Naval Operations talks about what might amount to a revolution in naval affairs:
> 
> And, to repeat, meanwhile there's that revolution in Marine affairs:
> 
> ...



Start and end of a post on Pentagon's re-assessing role/future of carriers:



> US Navy’s Supercarriers (CVN) Slowly to Go the Way of the Battleship (BB)?
> 
> Further to this post,
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Apr 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Start and end of a post on Pentagon's re-assessing role/future of carriers:



Now a post on USINDOPACOM's worries about its deteriorating position vs China and how to deal with it:



> Dragon Facing Down the Eagle in the Western Pacific
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/04/22/dragon-facing-down-the-eagle-in-the-western-pacific/



Mark Collins


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Apr 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Now a post on USINDOPACOM's worries about its deteriorating position vs China and how to deal with it:
> 
> Mark Collins



"Indeed, the ability of the U.S. to work with like-minded allies and partners in the Indo-Pacific — such as Japan, Australia, India and Taiwan — to deter Chinese aggression may represent one of the most important challenges of the 21st century."

So, yeah, I guess the US is pretty much doomed, and so are we by extention....


----------



## CBH99 (23 Apr 2020)

I don't know about that daft...


While we can't underestimate China's capabilities, and the sheer volume of fire they can bring down in regards to cruise missiles & naval power, their crews lack a lot of real world experience.

They may have a distinct naval superiority at the onset, but I think the number of surface combatants would be drastically reduced in our favour if open war ever broke out.  (I don't know enough about their submarine programs to really comment)


It'll be a nasty few weeks of conflict for all sides, absolutely.  



I think their distinct advantage is simply geography.  They get to play on their home turf, close to reinforcements & close to supporting fires, able to concentrate forces far more than the US can.  Against China, I think the US would have to concede it'll be 'all assets vs. them' rather than thinking they can keep assets in the Persian Gulf, North Atlantic, etc.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2020)

Our friend Thucydides often talks about the shark vs the tiger scenario. The idea is that China is like a HUGE tiger, supreme its in own valley, while the USA, the world's greatest ever sea power, greater even than Britain in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, is equally supreme on the oceans. But neither can fight well in the other's domain. Even if America could assemble an army large enough to invade China ~ something that ONLY an Indian led coalition will ever manage ~ it is unlikely to be able to conquer it and it would certainly be unable to govern it for long. Equally, China cannot move America off the high seas.

War is a stupid choice. The Chinese want to get the Americans off the East Asian mainland. They also want the Russians out of East Asia and back behind the Yenesei, at least, maybe all the way back behind the Urals. America wants to hem China in, between the Indians in the West and the US and its allies in the East (Western Pacific, Guam, Japan and South Korea) and South (Australia, Indonesia, New Zealand, Philippines, etc). Both are doable.

_I believe_ (cannot cite a reliable source) that years decades ago China made a back-door proposal to the USA: remove US troops from South Korea and remove US air bases from the Asian mainland and China would reunify Korea under a democratic, capitalist South Korean government. The Americans never believed that was a serious, trustworthy offer. Now, with China under Xi Jinping, I'm not sure the offer is still on the table, but ...


----------



## Weinie (28 Apr 2020)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _I believe_ (cannot cite a reliable source) that years decades ago China made a back-door proposal to the USA: remove US troops from South Korea and remove US air bases from the Asian mainland and China would reunify Korea under a democratic, capitalist South Korean government. _*The Americans never believed that was a serious, trustworthy offer.*_ Now, with China under Xi Jinping, I'm not sure the offer is still on the table, but ...


Never heard that supposition before but very interesting nonetheless. China would have everything to gain from this. If this proposal had indeed occurred, and there was any consultation, South Korea would likely have vetoed, the repercussion for themselves were enormous.


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> China would reunify Korea under a democratic, capitalist South Korean government.


How would China do this? Given South Korea's likely reticence, this would require a strong arm approach, and concomitant deployment of military force that I am not sure China was even capable of undertaking at this time. Still, fascinated by this as a conceptual approach. When you say decades ago are we talking just after Nixon visited?


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Apr 2020)

Weinie said:
			
		

> Never heard that supposition before but very interesting nonetheless. China would have everything to gain from this. If this proposal had indeed occurred, and there was any consultation, South Korea would likely have vetoed, the repercussion for themselves were enormous.How would China do this? Given South Korea's likely reticence, this would require a strong arm approach, and concomitant deployment of military force that I am not sure China was even capable of undertaking at this time. Still, fascinated by this as a conceptual approach. When you say decades ago are we talking just after Nixon visited?



Later, in the very late 1980s, maybe 1990 or 91 when Deng Xiaoping and then Jiang Zemin were running the show. I was told about this in the hallways at a seminar/conference where the question on enhanced military coordination was raised. My source, about an Assistant Deputy Minister level in. a non-military department of the Chinese government, said the proposal had been made, _sub rosa_ but at a high enough level to be taken seriously. That was the first and last I heard of it.

I reported it back to the ADM(Pol) people and heard nothing from them either. I asked, in about 2005, long after I was retired, if the information was classified and I was told it was not and that, in fact, it was nowhere in our (Canadian) files.  :dunno: 

As to how China would do it, _I think_ that about ⅓ of the North Korean generals are on the American payroll, ⅓ are on the Chinese payroll, ⅓ are on the Japanese payroll, and ⅔ are on the South Korean payroll.  :nod: My guess is that the Chinese have a solid plan to kill the North Korean dictator and open the big bridge near Yuanboa (元宝区). By the way, the Yalu River is a formidable obstacle anywhere near Chinese trailhead; an opposed invasion of North Korea will not be a cakewalk. < https://www.google.com/maps/@40.1597282,124.2287155,10.22z >


----------



## Weinie (28 Apr 2020)

Wow. Can't even conjecture what the current geopolitical construct would look like if this had been realized. Fascinating story. Thanks for the context.


----------



## MarkOttawa (8 May 2020)

Start of a post:



> How the US Services Need to Prepare, Jointly, for Conflict with Russia or (and?) China
> 
> Further to this post,
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (12 May 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Start and end of a post on Pentagon's re-assessing role/future of carriers:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Now navy dept. gives up own carrier study, broader Office of Secretary of Defence study of future USN fleet continues:

1) 


> Navy Scraps Big Carrier Study, Clears Deck For OSD Effort
> _The study into what kind of carriers the Navy might need in a decade’s time was problematic from the start, and conflicted with the Pentagon senior leadership’s redo of the Navy’s force structure plan.  _
> https://breakingdefense.com/2020/05/navy-scraps-big-carrier-study-clears-deck-for-osd-effort/



2) 


> Acting SECNAV McPherson Ends Navy Future Carrier Study; Nominee Braithwaite Gives Full Support to Ford Program
> https://news.usni.org/2020/05/12/acting-secnav-mcpherson-ends-navy-future-carrier-study-nominee-braithwaite-gives-full-support-to-ford-program



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Jun 2020)

Start of a post:



> More US Navy “Jeep” Carriers (LHA) for Marine F-35Bs, what about the USN’s big Carriers?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jun 2020)

Start of a post--US services planning to cope with "missile gap" with PRC:'

[





> Who will be Willing to Host US Intermediate-Range Missiles in the Western Pacific?
> 
> (Photo at top of this post: “An experimental version of a new cruise missile is fired from San Nicolas Island, Calif., last August, part of the Pentagon’s effort to develop new intermediate range missiles that could be based in Asia.”)
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Jun 2020)

Start of a post:



> Euro NATO Willing to try to Deal with a Growling Bear as US faces the Dragon Ascendent?
> 
> Further to this post,
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Jun 2020)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Start of a post:
> 
> a lot of thinking is still going on but it’s good that people are realizing there likely will have to be major changes to the fleet to deal with the PRC’s rise–by David B. Larter (tweets here) at _Defense News_:
> ...
> ...



Now some really radical thinking about USN's carriers and air wings--excerpts:



> The Aircraft Carrier We Need
> By Jerry Hendrix
> 
> *A strategic design update is due*
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jun 2020)

Still think it is nuts to put a pilot in harms way to conduct strikes against known targets.

Pilots for recce?  Absolutely.

But pilots just to put ordnance on target when there are alternate delivery options for GPS (or even EO/IR defined methods of comparing targets with datasets)?  

A bunch of  semi-submersibles with a bunch of missiles and a couple of dozen crew each seems a much more cost effective means of overwhelming the enemy's defences.

https://pressfrom.info/au/news/tech-and-science/-24208-china-is-developing-a-warship-of-naval-theorists-dreams.html

It's amazing what can be accomplished when not hindered by institutions and forced to consider alternatives.

In fact - why do you need a pilot over the target in any event?


----------



## MarkOttawa (26 Jun 2020)

Start of a post:


> US Navy’s Position vis-à-vis PRC in Western Pacific, South China Sea, not that Bad after all?
> 
> Further to this post and “Comments”,
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (20 Jan 2021)

US services competing with each other for Indo-Pacific roles, funding:

1) Navy:



> Biden’s Pentagon Ready To Take Hard New Look At Navy Plans ​
> The Trump administration's belated - and very expensive - plans to reinvent the Navy are about to get a scrubbing by the Biden team.​
> 
> 
> ...



2) Army (several things Marines want to do to):



> Facing Cuts, Army Chief Touts Pacific Role ​
> Upcoming Pacific Defender wargames will held showcase Army’s investments in long-range missiles, missile defense, logistics, and information warfare, said Gen. James McConville, the Army Chief of Staff.​
> 
> 
> ...



3) Marines:



> New in 2021: The Corps gets a new unit ― the Marine littoral regiment​The Marine littoral regiment is one designed specifically to fit within Commandant Gen. David Berger’s plan for the future Corps to fight a dispersed war in the enemy littorals.
> 
> The Marine Corps’ III Marine Expeditionary Force will standup the first three Marine littoral regiments and begin a three-year experiment to figure out how to best build and fight the regiments...
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99 (21 Jan 2021)

To be fair, the Navy is probably the most important / useful of the branches in a war against China - and that is not to dismiss the important roles the USAF with undoubtably play, and the capabilities both the USMC and Army can contribute.

The USN should have had their shipbuilding plans objectively analyzed, scrubbed, and re-prioritized a few years ago.  



How much money has been spent/wasted on literally _a dozen_ Freedom class LCS, where their propulsion system constantly breaks down?  Or they get a hull rupture after a _tugboat_ gets blown into it on a windy day, while docked?  

For use as a dedicated ASW platform, it could have made a lot of sense.  Use for low-intensity operations in the Persian Gulf, Caribbean, anti-piracy, etc -- and a very fast ASW platform, that would have made sense.  But they tried to do too much, somehow turn it into a combatant, failed big time... and now they have a ship that can't really fight anything other than pirates or speedboats, and half the time couldn't keep up with a ferry.



Or the Ford class carriers?  I understand that newer systems, redesigned deck, and automation has helped to reduce the crew size by roughly 1000 people, which in and of itself is a substantial step forwards.  The EMALS sounds great in theory, except - despite _billions_ of extra dollars thrown at it, and years to work out the bugs - doesn't work remotely reliably enough to be functional.  Not with fancy Block 3 Hornets and F-35C's that run the risk of falling into the drink because it malfunctions, or just doesn't bloody work.

The Ford class could have been a fairly affordable, yet still cutting edge Nimitz class replacement.  (Once the production catches a steady pace.)  Instead, they can't even get the 1st in class operational, despite it currently costing roughly $13B - and that cost is still climbing.  

What's worse is that they've already started construction of 2 more Ford class carriers, even though the first one still hasn't been able to effectively function yet.  It still can't reliably launch or recover aircraft...so essentially a gigantic money pit (literally) that can't really do anything.


With a pretty solid scrap coming up soon, the USN really can't afford (literally or figuratively) to be failing this badly when it comes to procuring new ships.  The only shipbuilding programs the USN has that are able to produce capable ships in a fight against China is their Virginia class submarines, and their Alreigh-Burke class destroyers.  (Even then, I'd say their Columbia class  SSBN could have funded more efficiently by looking at a modified version of the Virginia class.)

0.02


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Jan 2021)

I personally think US Military thought is caught in a sort of cognitive dissonance where they are continuously looking for solutions to problems that don't exist.

Solutions without problems are a lot like shooting at ghosts. You don’t hurt the ghosts, but you wreak havoc with anyone or anything in your line of fire.

What to do about Chinese encroachment in the South China Sea should start from the premise that you don't fight on terrain that is infavourable to you.  So I always question the American logic of basing decisions off wargames that involve the US Pacific Fleet charging head first in to the South China Sea, storming the Spratly Islands and Invading Taiwan with the entire US Marine Corps.

The pivot towards Littoral Ops is dumb and is just the Military Industrial Complex providing a solution to a problem that doesn't actually exist. The US should be focusing on Blue Water Supremacy with the ability to impose Naval Blockade on China and force them to come out in to the Open Ocean and fight where their Fleet can be destroyed in detail.

The US should also focus on strengthening the Militaries of its partners in the Region.  The geography of the entire region is very unfavourable for China.


----------



## Weinie (21 Jan 2021)

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I personally think US Military thought is caught in a sort of *cognitive dissonance where they are continuously looking for solutions to problems that don't exist.*
> 
> Solutions without problems are a lot like shooting at ghosts. You don’t hurt the ghosts, but you wreak havoc with anyone or anything in your line of fire.
> 
> ...



Perhaps, or maybe the pundits, for lack of anything substantive to opine about, are filling the space. 

I am pretty confident that the U.S. has a number of COA's to deal with China in the event of either limited or full on conflict, notwithstanding all the conjecture that has been posed. I am also pretty confident that the PRC knows this, and it may explain why they have been very aggressive in all arenas; diplomatic, economic, informational, regional, when it comes to China/US relations, but have only blustered when it comes to the military.

Several folks on this site have posited that it is only a matter of time before China and the US go at it. That may be true, but I still think it would go badly for the Chinese in the end.


----------



## CBH99 (21 Jan 2021)

Weinie, I think you bring up a good point.  And one that I've addressed in previous posts, without knowing the answer to.

It may very well go badly for China in the end.  But the end of what?

With more shipyards, and those shipyards pumping out ships at a faster rate than American ones, and a government that does not need to debate or play politics with itself (as a democracy such as the US has to) - in addition to being able to engage the enemy closer to their own shores (which also have substantial fire support)....  even if the fight does go badly for the Chinese, they will be able learn lessons, rebuild, and pose a similar problem shortly down the road again.


Short term, I agree.  I think it would be China's loss in the end.  

Long term, I see them learning from the lessons.  Rebuilding at a frightening rate.  And posing the same danger down the road, if not more capable than they are now.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (22 Jan 2021)

Weinie said:


> Perhaps, or maybe the pundits, for lack of anything substantive to opine about, are filling the space.
> 
> I am pretty confident that the U.S. has a number of COA's to deal with China in the event of either limited or full on conflict, notwithstanding all the conjecture that has been posed. I am also pretty confident that the PRC knows this, and it may explain why they have been very aggressive in all arenas; diplomatic, economic, informational, regional, when it comes to China/US relations, but have only blustered when it comes to the military.
> 
> Several folks on this site have posited that it is only a matter of time before China and the US go at it. That may be true, but I still think it would go badly for the Chinese in the end.


I agree and think that it would go very badly for the Chinese as well.  Everyone talks about China's A2AD capability and certainly that allows them to assert control over the SCS but those assets would be of very little value if things went kinetic. There value is more political than anything else.

China is pumping out a lot of ships, on average 6 to 7 major war vessels a year, 1 to 2 submarines a year and many other smaller coastal defence vessels. 

The real question is what is the actual quality of these ships and does PLAN actual have the technical and institutional sophistication to use any of that shiny kit effectively? 

China has almost no recent combat experience. In fact, the one war the PLA did fight, the Sino-Vietnamese War, they did very poorly despite having vastly superior forces in all aspects.  There is something to be said about combat experience and having lots of it, which the Vietnamese certainly did.

I feel a fight against the US Military would have a worse outcome for the Chinese.  They would be coming up against a Military force with vastly superior experience in combat and a seasoned warfighting culture.


----------



## CBH99 (23 Jan 2021)

As we all know, quantity has a quality all it's own.  And being able to fight close to home, logistics, supporting fires, and supporting aircraft - are all in favour of the Chinese.

As for their A2AD caspabilities - those remain to be seen.  Yes, it gives them some political power in regards to SCS matters.  But if it also has the ability to rain down anti-ship ballistic missiles in the dozens, or hundreds - that is a kinetic danger that can't be underestimated at first.  It would only take one or two of them to hit their targets, and they would most likely be at least mission-kills on the ships they hit.



Do the Americans have superior technology, a more seasoned warfighting culture, and vastly more experience conducting complex operations?  Absolutely, they are a well oiled machine.

But the Chinese have the benefit of focusing their efforts on a relatively small geographical area.  Whereas the US still insists on having forces all over the place, and hasn't really 'prepared' their fleet for such an undertaking in terms of readiness.  (Technology, sure.  But readiness?  Iffy)

I.e., The US insists on using it's supercarriers far more often than they need to be used, and that has led to a massive backlog in carrier maintainence, with a majority of the Nimitz class fleet currently down & in various states of repair/maintenance.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2021)

In commenting on the British defence budget on D&B's British Military Current Events I noted the switch to long range missiles and the presence of the 40,000 islands of the western pacific in which to hide them.

A bit more digging got me to noticing a common tendency:  Raytheon.

Raytheon produces the following systems

SPY-6 
Aegis
Patriot
NASAMS
C-RAM
Phalanx

Standard SM-6
Standard SM-3
Standard SM-2
ESSM
AMRAAM AIM-120
Peregrine BVRAAM
Sidewinder
Sea RAM
Stinger

It has also produced the current US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin - AKA "the, the, ah former general. I keep calling him general, but my, my — the guy who runs that outfit over there,"

Is it fair to talk about a Raytheon Strategy - a forward based "Iron Dome" designed to contain and control inimical forces?  

Prototypes are already in the place on the Black Sea (Romania) , the Baltic and Japan (Aegis Ashore)


The Hypersonic market seems to have been designated to Lockheed Martin while Northrop Grumman has got the ICBM upgrade.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2021)

And while on the subject of missiles, and in particular Raytheon, their suite includes

Javelin (127 mm)

Griffin (140 mm)
Carl Gustaf Guided Munition (84 mm)
Pike (40 mm)

What is noteworthy about the last three is that they are all SAL guided - meaning they require a laser designator. 
Pike is launched from the H&K M320 GL underslung on a C7, with a separate laser attached to the same C7.  Apparently it is currently in services with CanSOF.

Other SAL weapons include the 180mm Hellfire and Brimstone suites of Lockheed and MBDA, now supplemented by the Spear 3 missile (130 km range from an F35 or Typhoon).  These can all be salvoed and autonomously targeted.

What is the effect of a Hypersonic vehicle delivering a mixed load of SPEARS, Griffins, CGGMs and Pikes to the battlefield where the platoons' 40mm grenadiers and CG-84 gunners are also laser designators?

What could these developments mean for the future roles and kit requirements of the LIBs and the SOF types?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Mar 2021)

bit of a side track, but interesting considering the current situation the CAF finds itself in. https://harrisbricken.com/chinalawblog/check-your-china-anti-sexual-harassment-policies-now/


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Mar 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> And while on the subject of missiles, and in particular Raytheon, their suite includes
> 
> Javelin (127 mm)
> 
> ...



It's instructive to have a look at these islands with sovereignty in mind.

The majority of the South China Sea islands are Vietnamese (France) and the remainder are either Filipino (US) or Malaysian (UK).









						South China Sea Islands - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




I suspect that we'll see an influx of re-roled Marines (US, UK, Fr, NL) with hypersonic ground based missiles to interfere with China's efforts. Here's an indication of some recent French activity in the region, which you don't hear much about because, well, 'France': https://www.france24.com/en/france/...uth-china-sea-with-a-nuclear-attack-submarine

Of course, following, we'll see a big uptick in PRC insurgency activity in the SEA region...


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Mar 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> In commenting on the British defence budget on D&B's British Military Current Events I noted the switch to long range missiles and the presence of the 40,000 islands of the western pacific in which to hide them.
> 
> A bit more digging got me to noticing a common tendency:  Raytheon.
> 
> ...






> Lockheed Martin Shutters 2 Navy Plants, Heralding New Technology On The Waterfront​
> 
> 
> 
> ...











						Lockheed Martin Shutters 2 Navy Plants, Heralding New Technology On The Waterfront
					

Lockheed Martin just announced the surprise closure of two factories supporting the Freedom class Littoral Combat Ship, the Mk 48 heavyweight torpedo and the Mk 41 Vertical Launch System--suggesting that big changes are ahead for maritime warfare.




					www.forbes.com
				




Lockheed Martin is responsible for the F35, the MRLS/Himars systems and the Hypersonic programmes.

The Freedom LCS is the USN's monohull version which was a late entry into the LCS game and an early problem child with a fore-shortened delivery plan.

The Independence LCS is the Aussie trimaran,  based on the Austal JHSV technology adopted by the USMC and the US Army, and with a lengthened production run.  The Army and Marines were relieved of responsibility for the JHSV by the USN who transferred them to the civilian manned Military Sealift Command.  The JHSV contract is also extended to produce MRTs and Ambs for the LCS/JHSV fleet.









						U.S. Navy to Test Spearhead-class EPF as Maintenance and Repair Vessel for LCS - Naval News
					

The U.S. Navy has announced that USNS Burlington will carry out a proof-of-concept test: The EPF ship will serve as an afloat forward staging base style platform, transporting a Maintenance Expeditionary Team of active duty sailors and their equipment and repair materials to various Littoral...




					www.navalnews.com
				












						Austal Wins $235 Million To Build EPF-15 - Defense Daily
					

Austal USA won a $235 million contract modification for the detail design and construction of the Spearhead-class Expeditionary Fast Transport (EPF) 15.




					www.defensedaily.com
				












						New Details of Austal’s EPF Hospital Ship Emerge - USNI News
					

After the Navy last week issued a $235-million contract modification to Austal USA to build its latest multi-purpose Expeditionary Fast Transport ship, new details of the ambulance variant have come to light. A spokesman for Naval Sea Systems Command told USNI News this week that the ambulance...




					news.usni.org


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Mar 2021)

Meanwhile the USMC/USN are moving to another Australian product as a large, long-range Ship-to-Shore connector













						We Now Know What the Marines’ New Light Amphibious Warship Will Look Like
					

The future of the Marine Corps is amphibious. Here are the ships that will carry them throughout the Pacific and onto enemy-held islands.




					nationalinterest.org
				












						U.S. Considering Australian Light Amphibious Warship
					

Australia has a history of importing key military platforms from...




					www.maritime-executive.com
				




Designed to operate with the USMC's Littoral Regiments centered on the  185 km, 400 kg Raytheon-Kongsberg NSM launched from unmanned Oshkosh JLTVs.







So....

An island based campaign to establish a No-Go area in the South China Seas exploiting China's failure to make friends with its neighbours.

USMC replaces island based Hellcat and Corsair raider squadrons with NSM batteries.
Higgins Boats are replaced with JHSVs and Light Amphibious Warships.
LCS replaces PT boats.
All operated under an umbrella of a Raytheon, Aegis based "Iron Dome".

By 2023.


----------



## MarkOttawa (19 Mar 2021)

Note desire to chop old systems to take on PRC (and Russia):



> New Pentagon No. 2 Hits China In First Speech As Tensions Rise ​Beijing represents “a threat to regional peace and stability, and to the rules based international order on which our security and prosperity, and those of our allies, depend,” Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said​
> Capping a tense week in US-China relationships, recently confirmed Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks used her first public remarks today to take aim directly at China. But she also had a warning for American defense bureaucrats and contractors, emphasizing that to compete with China, the _Pentagon must make “difficult choices” in jettisoning older weapons systems to make room for modern force_ [emphasis added].
> 
> By threatening neighbors in the Pacific region and using predatory economic practices, Beijing represents “a threat to regional peace and stability, and to the rules based international order on which our security and prosperity, and those of our allies depend,” Hicks told students at the National Defense University.
> ...


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (31 Mar 2021)

An extended island-hopping campaign with the army following on the Marines? Really? Note final para quoted:


> ‘Soldiers aren’t fighting Marines for a job in the Indo-Pacific, chief says​





> The Army’s interests in the Indo-Pacific region have some wondering whether soldiers are wading into Marine territory, but the Army’s top officer dismissed those concerns Tuesday [March 30], saying the two services would bring complimentary capabilities to a fight in that part of the world.
> 
> The Marine Corps is overhauling its force so it can quickly move expeditionary units between islands in the South and East China seas and within range of Chinese forces. The recipe calls for a lighter and more mobile Corps than what existed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. The Army is going through similar changes to prepare for any possible confrontation with a great power.
> 
> ...


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FJAG (31 Mar 2021)

MarkOttawa said:


> An extended island-hopping campaign with the army following on the Marines? Really? Note final para quoted:
> .... Army Pacific commander Gen. Paul LaCamera, who was also present during the CSIS discussion, said the difference also lies in the “mass” that the Army can bring to war.
> 
> If the Marines are “there first and we come in behind them, that allows them to continue to move on,” LaCamera said. “It’s really based on, ‘how do we work well within the concept of design that the commander of INDOPACOM” is using during a war…’
> ...



I ran across Gen Paul LaCamera's name when I wrote a novel on Operation ANACONDA in the Shah-I-Kot valley in Mar 2002. LaCamera commanded the 1-87th Inf (from the 10th Mtn Div) which air assaulted into a position at the foot of Kakur Ghar (on top of which the Robert's Ridge incident took place). The 1-87th had a very major fight there but eventually was able to withdraw from a very perilous situation without any fatalities.

LaCamera went of from there to command the 3rd Bn of the 75th Ranger Regt, the 75th Ranger Regt itself, the 4th Infantry Div (1 ABCT/ 2SBCTs) and finally the XVIII Airborne Corps. On top of that he's had staff positions as Director of Operations, Joint Special Operations Command from 2007 to 2009. In 2009, he became the Assistant Commanding General, Joint Special Operations Command. From 2010 to 2012, LaCamera served as the Deputy Commanding General (Operations), 25th Infantry Division in Hawaii.

In short the man has a tremendous amount of experience with everything from light infantry, to airborne, to mechanized, to Ranger to Tier 1 special operations. Service with the 25th Inf Div would have also put him into close contact with the Marines and the Navy.

Off hand, I'd say that if anyone knows what he's doing in this new environment that the US Army faces in the Pacific then LaCamera would probably be that guy.

🍻


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 Apr 2021)

FJAG said:


> Off hand, I'd say that if anyone knows what he's doing in this new environment that the US Army faces in the Pacific then LaCamera would probably be that guy.


Meanwhile what the Marines are thinking (and US Army to follow after them? Still seems to me there needs to be a lot more coordination to avoid equipment and missions duplication):



> Historic Marine Plan to Reinvent The Corps EXCLUSIVE ​The document outlines an evolving effort to stand up a series of small, agile units tasked with air defense, anti-ship and submarine warfare, and seizing, holding and resupplying ad hoc bases to support an island-hopping campaign in the Pacific.​An ambitious new Marine Corps planning document outlines historic changes in how the service plans to equip, organize, and train over the next decade to meet the challenges of Chinese and Russian competition, ushering in changes not seen since the 1920s.
> 
> The unreleased 180-page document is meant as a first iteration of an effort to _create a series of small, agile units tasked with air defense, anti-ship and submarine warfare, and seizing, holding and resupplying small temporary bases as part of an island-hopping campaign in the Pacific_ [emphasis added].
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FJAG (1 Apr 2021)

MarkOttawa said:


> Meanwhile what the Marines are thinking (and US Army to follow after them? Still seems to me there needs to be a lot more coordination to avoid equipment and missions duplication):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I would expect that the coordination is ongoing albeit tinged with the usual interservice rivalry.

During WW2 there seemed to be a general division of labour which had the Marines doing the amphibious assaults while the Army provided the bulk of the follow up forces that landed into secured beachheads and completed securing the island/country etc and established secure logistics and airfield nodes from which to expand further.

Much of the future is just high level navel gazing with strategy, tactics and division of roles to be decided by the capability of the new weapon systems coming on line. Air defence (particulalry anti-missile defence) will play a big part as will long range (particulalry anti-ship) strike capabilities. Added to this will be some form of close-in local security for installations and a suite of offensive and defensive EW and cyber tools and the usual signals and logistic enablers. 

I see no particular reason why there cannot be duplication of these weapon suites with the Marine role being more in line with accompanying the fleets and conducting the amphibious taking and securing of the more forward areas portion while the Army moves in behind the Marines or even ahead into already secure countries and installs and runs more secure areas in depth. That way more assets can be deployed but the Marine portion can be used for the more mobile, amphibious operations.

🍻


----------



## MarkOttawa (2 Apr 2021)

USAF not best pleased with US Army's new focus on long-range fires:



> Air Force general says of Army’s long range precision fires goal: ‘It’s stupid’​
> The U.S. Air Force general in charge of managing the service’s bomber inventory slammed the Army’s new plan to base long-range missiles in the Pacific, calling the idea expensive, duplicative and “stupid.”
> 
> “Why in the world would we entertain a brutally expensive idea when we don’t, as the [Defense] Department, have the money to go do that?” Gen. Timothy Ray, who leads Air Force Global Strike Command, said during the Mitchell Institute’s Aerospace Advantage podcast recorded March 31.
> ...


Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GR66 (2 Apr 2021)

While I understand the USMC's shift to light and dispersed for operations against China from a tactical point of view, I'm not sure I'm convinced from a strategic point of view.

What's the plan?  Drop small, mobile groups of Marines onto the numerous small islands of the Spratly and Paracel Island chains where they can launch their mobile missiles against Chinese ships and aircraft in range?

Taiping Island is the largest island in the Spratly Islands at 110 acres - mostly runway and is currently administered by Taiwan.  The total land area of the Spratly Islands is about 490 acres.  The 130 coral islands and reefs of the Paracel Islands only have 7.5 sq. km. (1850 acres) of land area between them.  Woody Island is the largest at about 2.1 sq. km (520 acres) and is  controlled by China and has a population of about 1,000.  By far the largest of the uninhabited Senkaku Islands (Uotsuri Island) is 4.32 sq. km (1070 acres) with a total land area of the Senkaku chain being 7 sq. km (1700 acres).  

That's a total land area of all three of these island chains combined of 4040 acres.  By comparison CFB Edmonton has an area of about 25.5 sq. km (6300 acres).  

If war were to break out between China and the US wouldn't it be easier to simply blast any of these tiny specks of land that show any signs of enemy activity, fire anything, or emit anything EM with heavy missiles that have much longer range than anything mobile that the Chinese or Marines could move to the islands...and interdict the airspace and seas around them to prevent any resupply?  I think it would be far easier to deny the use of these islands by your enemy than to take and hold them with your own forces and keep them supplied and combat effective.

If the Chinese move beyond the First Island Chain to the larger islands of Japan, The Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam and Indonesia proper then I think the whole calculus of the conflict is different.  What advantage is it to China to invade larger, populated islands of their neighbours?  Unless they continue on with a full invasion of the largest, most highly populated islands in order to defeat the nations outright then they'd be faced with having to defend their gains permanently.  Capture part of the Japanese islands?  Some of the Philippines?  Half of Malaysia?  If the Chinese have to go all in for conquest of their neighbours then maybe light, mobile forces are NOT the solution.  The Chinese would have to deliver their land forces by air or sea so we'd likely be better off facing their light forces with heavier forces on our side.

There are two other scenarios that are different.  The Chinese could continue to "creep" forward in the First Island Chain.  Building up uninhabited reefs, bullying foreign fishing vessels out of the waters, etc.  The question is, would the US fire on Chinese fishing vessels?  Coast Guard ships?  "Civilian" construction crews?  Is the US going to go to war with China over a tiny rock in the South China Seas?  I'm guessing that China is betting no.  And is initiating open war by re-taking some of these rocks with the USMC a wise political/strategic option?

The other scenario of course is Taiwan.  Light forces might be able to deploy to Taiwan more quickly than heavier forces, but being so close to China the transports (small and fast or large and slow) will all be at risk from attack en route.  Air and Sea forces would likely be the best initial response to try and counter an attempted Chinese landing as well as their re-supply after an invasion.  Land forces like the USMC would likely be too busy fighting the ground fight (where tanks and artillery might be more use than anti-ship missiles) to spend much effort focusing on Chinese naval targets.  

The bigger question is will/should the US (and the West) go to war over a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?  Unlike the other territories discussed above, Taiwan IS Chinese territory.  It's just controlled by the losing faction of the Chinese civil war.  The PRC categorically considers Taiwan as an integral part of China...not an historically integral part of a greater China.  To Beijing Taiwan IS China.  As such they don't see an invasion of Taiwan as expansion or invasion of a foreign territory.  It is re-integration of a rebel-held portion of China into the country.  Western interference in what China considers an internal matter would clearly categorize us as "enemies" taking side in their civil war rather than as "rivals".  It would be like Russia backing Quebec if they were to separate.  

While I totally sympathize with the Taiwanese people and their aspirations for freedoms that they wouldn't have as part of the PRC (same goes for Hong Kong), I'm not sure I am willing to send my children off to war to take sides in that fight.  And it's a fight that would NEVER end as long as there is a PRC.  If a Chinese invasion is pushed back we'd have to continue to defend the island forever.


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Apr 2021)

GR66 said:


> While I understand the USMC's shift to light and dispersed for operations against China from a tactical point of view, I'm not sure I'm convinced from a strategic point of view.
> 
> What's the plan?  Drop small, mobile groups of Marines onto the numerous small islands of the Spratly and Paracel Island chains where they can launch their mobile missiles against Chinese ships and aircraft in range?
> 
> ...




Taiwan has never been Chinese territory, not communist any way. We sacrificed Tibet to China, Crimea to Russia, if we let china invade a sovereign nation and take it over, we fail as a nation and none of the west's treaties would be worth anything. The PRC has never exerted any control over the ROC, but because we have been courting China for decades for business purposes we have isolated the Republic of China. That policy has only lead to China growing stronger. In a war against China, the RoC will be a crucial strategic objective to hold in order to split PLAN naval control between the south and east China seas.


----------



## GR66 (2 Apr 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Taiwan has never been Chinese territory, not communist any way. We sacrificed Tibet to China, Crimea to Russia, if we let china invade a sovereign nation and take it over, we fail as a nation and none of the west's treaties would be worth anything. The PRC has never exerted any control over the ROC, but because we have been courting China for decades for business purposes we have isolated the Republic of China. That policy has only lead to China growing stronger. In a war against China, the RoC will be a crucial strategic objective to hold in order to split PLAN naval control between the south and east China seas.


From Wikipedia:

_"In 1662, Koxinga, a loyalist of the Ming dynasty who had lost control of mainland China in 1644, defeated the Dutch and established a base of operations on the island. His forces were defeated by the Qing dynasty in 1683, and parts of Taiwan became increasingly integrated into the Qing empire. Following the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895, the Qing ceded the island, along with Penghu, to the Empire of Japan. Taiwan produced rice and sugar to be exported to the Empire of Japan, and also served as a base for the Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia and the Pacific during World War II. Japanese imperial education was implemented in Taiwan and many Taiwanese also fought for Japan during the war._

_In 1945, following the end of World War II, the nationalist government of the Republic of China (ROC), led by the Kuomintang (KMT), took control of Taiwan. In 1949, after losing control of mainland China in the Chinese Civil War, the ROC government under the KMT withdrew to Taiwan and Chiang Kai-shek declared martial law. The KMT ruled Taiwan (along with the Islands of Kinmen, Wuqiu and the Matsu on the opposite side of the Taiwan Strait) as a single-party state for forty years, until democratic reforms in the 1980s, which led to the first-ever direct presidential election in 1996."_

So, like many East Asian nations it was controlled by Western powers (in this case the Dutch) in the 1600's.  But from 1662 until 1895 it was part of the Ming/Qing Dynasties of CHINA.  It was occupied by the Japanese after the Sino-Japanese war in 1895 and ceded back to the Republic of CHINA as part of the peace agreement in 1945 (Nationalist Government of China...but China nonetheless).  After the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek lost the Chinese civil war the Republic of CHINA continued to rule the island while the communist forces took control over the mainland.  

So I'd argue your claim that "Taiwan has never been Chinese territory".  Agreed that the communists never ruled it, but that would be like saying that if rather than total defeat, the US Confederacy and retreated and held on to just Florida that Florida was never part of the United States.

It is of note that only 14 Nations recognize the Republic of China with full diplomatic relations....and that does not include the USA, Canada, Australia, Japan, The Philippines, any EU or NATO members.  This is part of the "One China Policy".  And as per the Shanghai Communique of 1972 "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain *there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China*. The United States does not challenge that position."

In fact, the ROC Constitution itself claims the territory of the Republic of China encompasses ALL of the territories of the Republic of China as defined when their Constitution was written in 1947 which includes both mainland China (including Hong Kong and Macau) and the island of Taiwan.  They refer to the areas under their control as the "Free area of the Republic of China".

A very messy situation and as I said I totally sympathize with the people of Taiwan, but even their own government views themselves as Chinese.  I just question if this is a civil war we wish to fight (again).


----------



## Weinie (2 Apr 2021)

GR66 said:


> From Wikipedia:
> 
> _"In 1662, Koxinga, a loyalist of the Ming dynasty who had lost control of mainland China in 1644, defeated the Dutch and established a base of operations on the island. His forces were defeated by the Qing dynasty in 1683, and parts of Taiwan became increasingly integrated into the Qing empire. Following the First Sino-Japanese War in 1895, the Qing ceded the island, along with Penghu, to the Empire of Japan. Taiwan produced rice and sugar to be exported to the Empire of Japan, and also served as a base for the Japanese invasion of Southeast Asia and the Pacific during World War II. Japanese imperial education was implemented in Taiwan and many Taiwanese also fought for Japan during the war.
> 
> ...


So we just agree on the nine-dash line, and allow the PRC to run roughshod by relying on "self defined historical' interpretations.

Can the UK then reclaim most of the continent of North America, the Spanish a good chunk of South America, and the Dutch the West Indies, based on real life historical activities?

Asking for a friend.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Apr 2021)

My sense is that the Marine strategy is more one of containment -  I dont think they will be putting NSMs on the Spratly's but instead will be scattering them around the first string of islands of Japan, Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and places like Brunei and Malaysia.  Possibly Vietnam and Indonesia.  

Plugging up straits and holding the Chinese into the South China Seas and the Yellow Sea and reversing the Area Denial problem.   The NSM/JLTV/Lt Amphib/LRUSV screen will degrade the performance of the Chinese surface fleet.  The Anti-Air Battalion could reduce the ability of the Chinese to use their own missiles effectively.

Behind the Marine screen, on the open water side of the islands, perhaps we could see the USN 40 knot littoral assets operating - in a logistic support fashion and also for plugging gaps penetrated by the Fishing Boat Militia?

The Blue Water fleet would likely be standing well out of range in the vicinity of Hawaii?

I'm assuming a new Cold War - a forty year blockade - rather than a re-run of WW2.

The US gets a do-over tackling the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere.  This time with the Chinese in charge.


----------



## GR66 (2 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> So we just agree on the nine-dash line, and allow the PRC to run roughshod by relying on "self defined historical' interpretations.
> 
> Can the UK then reclaim most of the continent of North America, the Spanish a good chunk of South America, and the Dutch the West Indies, based on real life historical activities?
> 
> Asking for a friend.



I think you're being a little obtuse.  I specifically differentiated between the Taiwan situation and the rest of the contested areas surrounding China.

The government of the Republic of China themselves in their constitution consider the island of Taiwan as part of China.  Almost the entire world subscribes to the One China policy and doesn't recognize the Republic of China as a sovereign state.  Curious, have you ever heard the United States or any other nation declare publicly and definitively that they will defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion?  They are purposefully ambiguous about it.  The reason is that it may not be in their national interest to go to war with China to defend Taiwan.  The circumstances of any such invasion (e.g. the ROC unilaterally declaring independence) may impact the decisions that the US makes at the time.

How about Hong Kong?  It is also Chinese territory but historically a separate political entity with freedoms and rights similar to the West.  It's been effectively occupied by the communists.  Hong Kong democracy is no more.  When do we start launching our missiles?  

As for the rest of the territories I never said we should step back and let China unilaterally seize the territory out to the Nine Dash Line.  I only suggested that should China seize these islands that due to their tiny size it may make more strategic sense to simply bombard them and deny the Chinese the ability to hold them rather than sending in the USMC to occupy them where they would be fairly easy targets themselves.  

Kirkhill's containment strategy above makes more sense to me but really only works if Chinese seizure of the Nine Dash Line is by military force and leads to open war with China.  In my opinion the more difficult (and likely) scenario is that China works on taking defacto control of these territories through means other than open warfare.  That's why I raised the question as to whether the US will be the first to open fire in a war with China by sinking civilian fishing ships, or missile attacks on construction contractors?  Coming up with an effective "multi domain" response to this threat is I think ultimately more important and will have more of an impact on the situation in the South China Sea than whether the USMC has anti-ship missiles or howitzers in its artillery units.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Apr 2021)

And look what Google turned up....






						Tightening the Chain: Implementing a Strategy of Maritime Pressure in the Western Pacific | CSBA
					

CSBA is an independent, non-partisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options.




					csbaonline.org
				












						Expeditionary Advanced Maritime Operations: How the Marine Corps Can Avoid Becoming a Second Land Army in the Pacific - War on the Rocks
					

The Marine Corps’ very existence rests upon the axiom that the sea is maneuver space — an arena for decisive combat operations. Although the service has



					warontherocks.com
				




Funny when you look at the Littoral Regiment Construct.  It has three major units.  A Combat Team.  An Anti-Aircraft Battalion.  A Logistics Battalion.

The emphasis has been on the Anti-Ship mission.  But the Anti-Ship mission is managed by an Infantry Combat Team, a Battalion, with an attached and subordinate NSM artillery battery. 

The senior artillery position actually will be going to the CO of the Anti-Air Battalion.  So... what is the primary mission of this regiment?



> Significantly for the emerging Marine vision to support the Navy at sea from agile land-based batteries, the new plan also calls for standing up 14 new precision strike batteries dubbed NMESIS (Navy-Marine Expeditionary Ship Interdiction System). By 2030, the Marines call for 252 launchers stacked with hundreds of Naval Strike Missiles, a powerful threat to hold enemy ships out of the 115 mile range of the missile. The Corps’ launchers consist of an unmanned JLTV chassis with a HIMARS-like launcher firing the precision missile.



The existing plan calls for three Littoral Regiments each with one  NMESIS battery of 18 ROGUE launch vehicles. (185 km range)

They also seem to suggest a battery or two of Ground Launched Cruise Missiles (aka Maritime Strike Missile) (> 1000 miles range)









						US Navy set to receive latest version of the Tomahawk missile
					

The Navy is taking delivery of the latest version of the Tomahawk cruise missile next week.




					www.defensenews.com
				





But by 2030 the prospect is of 14 NMESIS batteries with 252 launchers.    Does that suggest 14 Littoral Regiments?  With 14 AD Battalions?   It seems to me that the AD deployment could be at least as significant as the Anti-Ship deployment.  










						Marines' Drone-Killing Lasers Get Even More Powerful After Upgrades
					

The Corps has a new $2.5 million agreement with Boeing to service its Compact Laser Weapon System for the next five years.




					www.military.com


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Apr 2021)

GR66 said:


> Kirkhill's containment strategy above makes more sense to me but really *only works if Chinese seizure of the Nine Dash Line is by military force and leads to open war with China*.  In my opinion the more difficult (and likely) scenario is that China works on taking defacto control of these territories through means other than open warfare.  That's why I raised the question as to whether the US will be the first to open fire in a war with China by sinking civilian fishing ships, or missile attacks on construction contractors?  Coming up with an effective "multi domain" response to this threat is I think ultimately more important and will have more of an impact on the situation in the South China Sea than whether the USMC has anti-ship missiles or howitzers in its artillery units.



China is already "defending" the Nine Dash Line with military force - manufactured islands, armed fishermen, armed coast guards, naval patrols, air incursions.  They are daring their neighbours and their neighbours allies to take a swing at them.  Up to now we have be doing the gentlemanly thing and ignoring this mess.  

But, for whatever reason, the new US administration seems to have decided to continue to push against Beijing both diplomatically (strong words in Alaska, continued criticism of WHO and China,  first US diplomat in Taiwan in 40 odd years, NASA insulting China by referring to Taiwan as a country in a handout) and militarily with additional weapons.









						Timeline: U.S. arms sales to Taiwan in 2020 total $5 billion amid China tensions
					

The United States government has so far announced $5.1 billion in arms sales to democratically-ruled Taiwan in 2020, to the anger of China which claims the island as its own territory.




					www.reuters.com
				




I think the US can make the case to establish these Littoral Regiments.

They are infantry poor and not designed to hold ground - a major concern if you fear an imperialist take over.
They have a small foot print.
They make a good trip wire to discourage the Chinese from taking action against its neighbours knowing that dead marines make for bad publicity.
The additional coastal defences and anti-air defences would be very useful to the locals and at the same time they would restrict China's freedom of action.

Leave it up to China to decide if the appropriate counter to a country voluntarily strengthening its defences by inviting a friend to the party is to fire the first shot.


----------



## Weinie (2 Apr 2021)

GR66 said:


> *I think you're being a little obtuse.*  I specifically differentiated between the Taiwan situation and the rest of the contested areas surrounding China.
> 
> The government of the Republic of China themselves in their constitution consider the island of Taiwan as part of China.  Almost the entire world subscribes to the One China policy and doesn't recognize the Republic of China as a sovereign state.  Curious, have you ever heard the United States or any other nation declare publicly and definitively that they will defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion?  They are purposefully ambiguous about it.  The reason is that it may not be in their national interest to go to war with China to defend Taiwan.  The circumstances of any such invasion (e.g. the ROC unilaterally declaring independence) may impact the decisions that the US makes at the time.
> 
> ...


And I think you are being willfully naive. "There will be peace in our time."

There has been some previous mis-adventures along the lines of this thread: the German military annexation in Austria in 1938, followed by the Sudetenland territory in Czechoslovakia. This was "managed" via the Munich Agreement. In return Hitler gave his word that Germany would make no further territorial claims in Europe. A promise that was broken soon after; leading to the Second World War.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2021)

Putting the pieces of the 2030 puzzle together (I think)

100x 11m sentinels Long Range Unmanned Surface Vessels  capped with Loitering "Kamikaze" Drones

252x JLTV/NSM ROGUE systems - 185 km radius
36x HIMARS/Precision Strike Missile systems - 499 km radius
12x GLMSM/Tomahawk - >1700 km radius

30x Light Amphibious Warships - Austal contending
15x Joint High Speed Vessels - Austal Catamaran
17x Littoral Combat Ships - Austal Trimaran
8x   Littoral Combat Ships - Lockheed Monohull

In addition there is the separate sale to Taiwan of

HIMARS/Harpoon SLAM-ER with 6 targeting pods - total 1.8 BUSD - Oct 21
100x Harpoon Coastal Defense Systems by Boeing - up to 2.37 BUSD - Oct 26
4x Aerial Drones - 0.6 BUSD - Nov 3
1x Field Information Communication System - 0.28 BUSD -  Dec 7.

The Taiwan sale may give some sense of the USMC systems with the Harpoon being swapped for the NSM.

Add in the prospect of either the Army adding the SM3 / SM6 to its inventory or additional Aegis Ashore systems being deployed (2 currently in Japan)









						Meet Your New Island-Hopping, Missile-Slinging U.S. Marine Corps
					

The Marine Corps just stood up the first of a new kind of unit designed to battle Chinese forces in the Western Pacific.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## medic5 (3 Apr 2021)

Agreed.  Station detachments of Marines with anti-air and anti-surface to deny superiority to the Chinese. One thing to note is the Marine Corps is proportionally larger today in comparison to the Army than it was during WW2. That might make the "follow up" of the Army unnecessary on smaller islands. 

Regardless if Taiwan is a country or not or whatever, the US cannot let China steamroll them. It would damage US power projection immensely and would cripple their influence in the area.


----------



## GR66 (3 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> And I think you are being willfully naive. "There will be peace in our time."
> 
> There has been some previous mis-adventures along the lines of this thread: the German military annexation in Austria in 1938, followed by the Sudetenland territory in Czechoslovakia. This was "managed" via the Munich Agreement. In return Hitler gave his word that Germany would make no further territorial claims in Europe. A promise that was broken soon after; leading to the Second World War.


Ah yes....Hitler and Chamberlain.  

I never claimed that China was not expansionist and that we shouldn't oppose them.  What I did question is whether the idea of using light USMC forces to occupy tiny specs of land in the Spratly's, Paracels and Senkakus made sense and if it would be better to simply deny their use to the Chinese in war since they are so highly exposed to attack.

I also stated that if the Chinese went beyond the Nine Dash line to the larger islands of Japan, the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Vietnam, etc. that heavier forces might be more suitable.  

Furthermore I suggested that rather than open military invasion of the territories in the Nine Dash line area they might use hybrid methods similar to Crimea, Donbass, and the already fortified Atolls the Chinese have created.  None of those elicited a military response from the West so I simply suggested that we improve our multi domain responses to these kinds of actions if we're not going to respond militarily.

Lastly I did note that in my opinion Taiwan is a special case and that in my opinion it is possible that because of the unique status of the ROC (in which they themselves as a government consider themselves in integral part of China) that depending on the circumstances leading up to a PRC invasion of the island there is no firm guarantee that the US will respond with direct military intervention.  

But yes...clearly that makes me a willfully naive appeaser of China.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2021)

medik05 said:


> Agreed.  Station detachments of Marines with anti-air and anti-surface to deny superiority to the Chinese. One thing to note is the Marine Corps is proportionally larger today in comparison to the Army than it was during WW2. That might make the "follow up" of the Army unnecessary on smaller islands.
> 
> Regardless if Taiwan is a country or not or whatever, the US cannot let China steamroll them. It would damage US power projection immensely and would cripple their influence in the area.




Apparently the USMC has form on this.  Their WW2 Defense Battalions.



> *Marine Defense Battalions* were United States Marine Corps battalions charged with coastal and air defense of advanced naval bases during World War II. They maintained large anti-ship guns, anti-aircraft guns, searchlights, and small arms to repel landing forces.











						Marine defense battalions - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




An Artillery Combat Team with an infantry security force?




> A 1939 table of organization and equipment (TOE) included:[3]
> 
> 
> HQ Company
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Apr 2021)

Three USMC Littoral Regiments, armed with NSMs (185 km) PrSMs (>499 km) and GLMSMs (>1700 km) focused on Okinawa, Batan and Brunei.

Okinawa and Batan protect the flanks of Taiwan.  Japan and Australia protect the flanks of the USMC.

US Area Denial - The South China and Yellow Seas become 


a contested zone
a no-mans land
a space for US subs and aircraft to operate
a space for the US to base Aegis Ashore and anti-ICBM/MRBM defences.
a commercial blockade


----------



## FJAG (3 Apr 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> Three USMC Littoral Regiments, armed with NSMs (185 km) PrSMs (>499 km) and GLMSMs (>1700 km) focused on Okinawa, Batan and Brunei.
> 
> Okinawa and Batan protect the flanks of Taiwan.  Japan and Australia protect the flanks of the USMC.
> ...



An interesting graphic. Add to that that the US Army has an artillery brigade in Korea, the 210th Fd with two MLRS battalions; a Patriot and THAAD equipped AD Brigade, the 35th AD and a Military Intelligence Brigade, the 501st MI (with five MI bns) as well as other elements and the cordon moves further north particulalry if some of these elements are converted to MDTFs with the appropriate developing weapon systems.

Incidentally, if you ever wish to see an interesting graphic, click on VesselFinder any day of the week and zoom onto the South China Sea to see what the marine traffic in this region looks like.

🍻


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Apr 2021)

I found this 2014 article which seems to describe the current sea-change in missileering.  It argues against long-range silver bullets engineered to take down incoming missiles.  It calls for taking down launch platforms at long range and filling ships magazines with long range SSMs and lots and lots of  very short range SAMs.  It also recommends lightening warheads to add fuel for range arguing that modern ships are more electronically fragile than their Cold War vacuum tube predecessors. 

Seems in keeping with current developments.









						47 Seconds From Hell: A Challenge To Navy Doctrine - Breaking Defense
					

WASHINGTON: Someone shoots a cruise missile at you. How far away would you like to stop it: over 200 miles out or less than 35? If you answered “over 200,” congratulations, you’re thinking like the US Navy, which has spent billions of dollars over decades to develop ever more sophisticated...




					breakingdefense.com
				





Taking a cue from the USMC armament took another look at the PLA(N).   By my count it has 241 hulls capable of launching the Harpoon/NSM analog C-803 out to 230 km.  It has 42 hulls capable of launching they YJ-18 out to 540 km.   It has, or is building, 11 hulls capable of launching a Tomahawk analog, the YJ-18.

All of these are, compared to missiles, slow moving targets and they are operating in contained waters with no place to hide.

The USN/USMC are countering the 241 short range hulls with 252 remotely operated JLTV launchers on shore where they can mask and they have minimal "crew" exposure.

Likewise the 42 midrange hulls are matched with 36 HIMARS launchers and the 11 long range hulls are matched by 12 (my estimate) Tomahawk launchers.

My sense is that the USMC launchers are much less vulnerable than the PLA(N)s and likely to be more effective.  And more likely to be available if the PLA(N) tries to launch its fleet of 60 some odd 15 knot Landing Ships (800 to 4800 tonnes).  It has, or is building 11 "proper" amphibs but most of them are building.

I think Taiwan is safe for a while - assuming politics.




In reading up on the Japanese Aegis Ashore it seems the Japanese have actually cancelled them but may be inclined to re-instate.  Although they seem to have switched to an offensive strike model targeting launchers rather than missiles. It further seems that the Japanese bureaucrats were late in discovering that it takes 8 Aegis warships to maintain the 24/7 coverage that 2 Aegis Ashore systems can when tied into the central, nuclear powered electrical grid.  And the grid powered radars can reach out farther.  The Japanese were planning on putting their shore units on hulls but discovered that it would still require all their existing Aegis hulls to maintain watch making them unavailable for their intended offensive roles.









						Japan to consider strike capability to replace missile defence system
					

Japan is to consider the acquisition of weapons able to strike enemy missile launchers to bolster defence against North Korea after a decision to cancel the Aegis Ashore missile defence system, the defence minister said on Thursday.




					www.reuters.com
				












						Japan’s Rethink Of Aegis Ashore Could Tie Up Navy, Increase Costs And Cause Big Delays
					

Japan's homeland defense against missile attack requires land-based radars.




					www.forbes.com


----------



## MilEME09 (4 Apr 2021)

Goid break down of the threat to taiwan


----------



## Weinie (10 Apr 2021)

GR66 said:


> I think you're being a little obtuse.  I specifically differentiated between the Taiwan situation and the rest of the contested areas surrounding China.
> 
> The government of the Republic of China themselves in their constitution consider the island of Taiwan as part of China.  Almost the entire world subscribes to the One China policy and doesn't recognize the Republic of China as a sovereign state.  *Curious, have you ever heard the United States or any other nation declare publicly and definitively that they will defend Taiwan from a Chinese invasion? * They are purposefully ambiguous about it.  The reason is that it may not be in their national interest to go to war with China to defend Taiwan.  The circumstances of any such invasion (e.g. the ROC unilaterally declaring independence) may impact the decisions that the US makes at the time.
> 
> ...


Perhaps the first step in response to your question above.

U.S. issues guidelines to deepen relations with Taiwan


----------



## MarkOttawa (13 Apr 2021)

More on the US Army’s global reach plans for long-range fires, note also Arctic (further links and graphics at original):



> > *BREAKING New Army Long-Range Units Head To Germany*
> > _The Army will create two new units to coordinate long-range warfare in Eastern Europe: a Multi-Domain Task Force and a Theater Fires Command._
> >
> > The Pentagon is reversing Trump’s planned withdrawals from Germany and instead beefing up the Army’s capability to wage long-range, high-tech warfare, the Army announced this morning. The long-awaited announcement comes as 40,000 Russian troops mass along the border with Ukraine.
> > ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Apr 2021)

India clearly has an eye on China's 'Argie Bargie' approach too:

China’s South China Sea moves need strong pushback from international community​
The Chinese aggression warrants strong pushback from the international community. Therefore it is necessary for the international community including India to give a call to address the matter as per international law. The Chinese ambitions is not just limited to the SCS region but also the Himalayas along the Line of Actual Control (LAC) as evident last year when 20 Indian military personnel were killed in the Galwan valley.

China’s aggression in the SCS region has found a new ground, ..

Read more at:
China’s South China Sea moves need strong pushback from international community


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Apr 2021)

How to put the new thinking into practice:




> *Navy, Marines Push Plans To Transform How They Fight*
> 
> Putting a variety of unmanned capabilities through their paces “in a Pacific warfighting scenario,” Rear Adm. Robert Gaucher, Pacific Fleet’s director of maritime headquarters, said in a statement, the exercise “will include maneuvering in contested space across all domains, targeting and fires, and intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance.”
> 
> ...




Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Apr 2021)

How to put the new thinking into practice:



> *Navy, Marines Push Plans To Transform How They Fight*
> 
> Putting a variety of unmanned capabilities through their paces “in a Pacific warfighting scenario,” Rear Adm. Robert Gaucher, Pacific Fleet’s director of maritime headquarters, said in a statement, the exercise “will include maneuvering in contested space across all domains, targeting and fires, and intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance.”
> 
> ...




Mark
Ottawa


----------



## YZT580 (17 Apr 2021)

Weinie said:


> Perhaps the first step in response to your question above.
> 
> U.S. issues guidelines to deepen relations with Taiwan


On the other hand, Taiwan believes that they are the official government of China.  They were driven off the mainland by the communists and fought to protect themselves from invasion for years but I don't believe they ever officially surrendered their claims of being the legitimate government.  So there is one China, yes, but the government is on Taiwan.   We have Pierre to thank, in part, for the current configuration.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Apr 2021)

Maybe the US needs it's own 'forecasting tournament':

"Yet America’s experience with forecasting is a cautionary tale. Despite the attention attracted by ace, American tournaments and prediction markets have struggled for money and mainstream acceptance. There are no active forecasting tournaments in American intelligence agencies today, though some remain in the Pentagon and elsewhere."



How spooks are turning to superforecasting in the Cosmic Bazaar​The gamification of intelligence may provide answers to pressing global questions

Every morning for the past year, a group of British civil servants, diplomats, police officers and spies have woken up, logged onto a slick website and offered their best guess as to whether China will invade Taiwan by a particular date. Or whether Arctic sea ice will retrench by a certain amount. Or how far covid-19 infection rates will fall. These imponderables are part of Cosmic Bazaar, a forecasting tournament created by the British government to improve its intelligence analysis.

 Since the website was launched in April 2020, more than 10,000 forecasts have been made by 1,300 forecasters, from 41 government departments and several allied countries. The site has around 200 regular forecasters, who must use only publicly available information to tackle the 30-40 questions that are live at any time. Cosmic Bazaar represents the gamification of intelligence. Users are ranked by a single, brutally simple measure: the accuracy of their predictions. 

Forecasting tournaments like Cosmic Bazaar draw on a handful of basic ideas. One of them, as seen in this case, is the “wisdom of crowds”, a concept first illustrated by Francis Galton, a statistician, in 1907. Galton observed that in a contest to estimate the weight of an ox at a county fair, the median guess of nearly 800 people was accurate within 1% of the true figure.

Crowdsourcing, as this idea is now called, has been augmented by more recent research into whether and how people make good judgments. Experiments by Philip Tetlock of the University of Pennsylvania, and others, show that experts’ predictions are often no better than chance. Yet some people, dubbed “superforecasters”, often do make accurate predictions, largely because of the way they form judgments—such as having a commitment to revising predictions in light of new data, and being aware of typical human biases. Dr Tetlock’s ideas received publicity last year when Dominic Cummings, then an adviser to Boris Johnson, Britain’s prime minister, endorsed his book and hired a controversial superforecaster to work at Mr Johnson’s office in Downing Street.

America’s sprawling intelligence establishment was the first to apply these principles. Over the past decade, it has carried out more than a dozen forecasting projects, including prediction markets, in which people can bet money or points on the outcome, and prediction polls, like Cosmic Bazaar. The most prominent tournament was the Aggregative Contingent Estimation (ace) programme, run from 2010 to 2015 by the Intelligence Advanced Research Projects Activity (iarpa), a blue-sky research body for American spooks. A curated team of superforecasters from the Good Judgment Project, a scheme led by Dr Tetlock, were found to be at least one-third more accurate than other research teams.

ace and similar programmes inspired Britain to create Cosmic Bazaar. One of its purposes is to identify a group of persistently successful forecasters who could help answer difficult questions in a crisis. The top 20 or so competitors are “incredibly accurate”, says Charlie Edwards, who trains British intelligence analysts. They are obsessed with their Brier scores, a measure of accuracy over time, and, in common with findings from the Good Judgment Project, share sources of data and news enthusiastically. The only rewards are virtual badges and branded notebooks. But for analysts accustomed to working with secret intelligence, where success remains in the shadows, a high score here—and the merchandise to prove it—is a “badge of honour”, says Mr Edwards.

The game’s afoot​Yet the point is not just to pick star performers. It is also to encourage “cognitive diversity” by ensuring that intelligence draws on talent beyond Britain’s smallish pool of full-time analysts. Cosmic Bazaar’s anonymity produces an egalitarian backdrop: a junior data scientist can contest the predictions of a veteran ambassador, and the reasoning behind them, without the shadow of rank. The site encourages debate and discussion. Users can “upvote” perceptive comments by others, and questions are supplemented with seminars by experts. Moreover, since the system is unclassified (unlike most of its American-government counterparts), officials can log in from home, or abroad.

The programme is also intended to identify blind spots in analysis. Officials say that so much government attention is spent on covid-19 that slower-burning or more distant matters tend to be missed. In October, for instance, Cosmic Bazaar asked users a question on Mozambique, responses to which suggested that the risk of jihadist activity was greater than thought (as would later prove true), prompting others to look more closely at the matter.

At the moment, Cosmic Bazaar is the largest forecasting tournament in Europe. But others are getting interested. Britain hopes to draw European allies into the contest. Adam Siegel, a co-founder of Cultivate Labs, the firm which wrote the software for Cosmic Bazaar, says that the Czech Republic is using his company’s platform for public tournaments involving several government agencies, and that another European government has run a classified version. Regina Joseph of Sibylink, a consultancy, has run tournaments for the Dutch government and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe.

Yet America’s experience with forecasting is a cautionary tale. Despite the attention attracted by ace, American tournaments and prediction markets have struggled for money and mainstream acceptance. There are no active forecasting tournaments in American intelligence agencies today, though some remain in the Pentagon and elsewhere.

One reason for this, suggests “Keeping Score: A New Approach to Geopolitical Forecasting”, a recent paper by Perry World House, a research group at the University of Pennsylvania, is that such platforms threaten to expose poor analysts and up-end existing hierarchies. “Established employees”, the paper’s authors write, “may view the potential disruption wrought by a mechanism that outperforms many traditional analysts with a sense of impending doom, as a factory worker might view a new assembly robot.”

However, the larger issue may simply be that the feature which makes precise forecasting possible also limits its appeal. A basic requirement is that questions be falsifiable, so that it is unequivocal, after the fact, who got it right and who wrong. This means there is no room for what psychologists have called “clairvoyance”, or the post hoc claim that a vague prediction came true. Yet policymakers are often drawn to bigger and vaguer questions that resist such score-keeping, such as: “what does Russia want?” or “will China become more aggressive?” Dr Tetlock calls this the “rigour-relevance trade-off”.

One way to approach this problem, says Steven Rieber, who oversees forecasting at iarpa, is to draw on an advanced statistical technique known as Bayesian networking, which uses conditional probabilities. Forecasters can be asked to judge, for example, the probability that China would seize an island in the South China Sea by a particular date if it were becoming more aggressive—and also the probability of it doing so even if it were not. A big and elusive question can thus be broken down into several smaller and more tractable ones, known as “Bayesian question clusters”. Foretell, a project run by the Centre for Security and Emerging Technology (cset) at Georgetown University, which also uses the Cultivate platform, employs this methodology to predict the course of technological competition between America and China. It is not yet clear whether that approach will be successful.

For now, forecasters are enjoying a moment in the sun. In Britain, Cosmic Bazaar’s insights are trickling into policy teams that work on covid-19 and counter-terrorism. In America, President Joe Biden, one day after his inauguration, announced his intention to establish a National Centre for Epidemic Forecasting and Outbreak Analytics. In March the administration hired Jason Matheny, a former chief of iarpa and the founder of cset, as an adviser on technology and national security.

The long-term viability of forecasting will depend, though, not just on accuracy, but also explainability. “It's not enough to learn that there’s a 70% chance of war breaking out between these two countries in the next year, and not the 30% you thought,” says Dr Rieber. “You need to understand what leads to that higher probability judgment.” An assessment paired with a colourful psychological profile of Xi Jinping is more likely to resonate with a prime minister or president than a percentage figure. “You have to build up a trust relationship with these decision-makers,” says Mr Siegel. “You need to put a story together alongside the numbers.” ■

_A version of this article was published online on April 14th, 2021._

How spooks are turning to superforecasting in the Cosmic Bazaar


----------



## Blackadder1916 (17 Apr 2021)

YZT580 said:


> . . .   So there is one China, yes, but the government is on Taiwan.   We have Pierre to thank, in part, for the current configuration.



Ah yes, it must have been the recognition by Canada in 1970 that convinced the rest of the world.  Or were we 20 years late in accepting reality?









						Britain recognises communist government of China - archive, 7 January 1950
					

7 January 1950: Unconditional recognition of Mao Zedong’s regime as the legitimate government of all China sees the withdrawal of support from Nationalists




					www.theguardian.com
				



*7 January 1950*: Unconditional recognition of Mao Zedong’s regime as the legitimate government of all China sees the withdrawal of support from Nationalists

(_of course there's more to the story_)


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Apr 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> Ah yes, it must have been the recognition by Canada in 1970 that convinced the rest of the world.  Or were we 20 years late in accepting reality?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


France under de Gaulle recognized PRC in 1964. Much more significant than Canada:








						On-the-spot France - Marking 50 years of diplomatic ties between France and China
					

France and China are today commemorating fifty years of diplomatic ties. On 27 January 1964, France established relations with the People’s Republic of China, led by Mao Zedong since 1949. President…




					www.rfi.fr
				




Mark
Otawa


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Apr 2021)

Meanwhile, on the Information Front


"He who dealt it, smelt it."









						Advisor to Russian Defense Minister Warns of ‘Mental War’:  Who Is Waging It and Against Whom?
					

At the end of March, Andrei Ilnitsky, an advisor to the Russian minister of defense, gave a detailed interview to military magazine Arsenal Otechestva (Arsenal of the Fatherland) (Arsenal Ot




					www.realcleardefense.com


----------



## YZT580 (19 Apr 2021)

Never said Canada was first.  Point is that  there is a second side (not very common I will admit) to the one China story.


----------



## FJAG (1 May 2021)

A first look at the Biden administration's look at defence:



> Defense secretary lays out vision of future in first major speech​By Oren Liebermann, CNN
> 
> Updated 8:49 PM ET, Fri April 30, 2021
> 
> ...



Defense secretary lays out vision of future in first major speech - CNN Politics

🍻


----------



## MarkOttawa (1 May 2021)

Plus the PLAAF's J-20, at AvWeek:



> Face It: China’s J-20 Is A Fifth-Generation Fighter​
> "The adversary gets a vote,” is a much-touted phrase in the halls of the Pentagon. Unfortunately, not everyone in the U.S. military is responding quickly enough to China’s vote: the development and fielding of its Chengdu J-20 fifth-generation fighter.
> 
> The U.S. Air Force has launched a series of projects to produce revolutionary air combat capabilities, but those programs will not bear fruit until the latter half of the decade or beyond. Any changes in the next five years may be tied to altering procurement of existing platforms. But Adm. Philip Davidson, Indo-Pacific Command chief, says the time to transform is now. “Our adversaries are developing or are fielding already fifth-gen fighters themselves,” he says. “To go backward into fourth-generation capability as a substitute, broadly, would be a mistake in my view and would actually put us at a severe disadvantage over the course of this decade.”
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99 (1 May 2021)

The only fight the US *should* be planning well ahead for, is a peer adversary.  While both Russia and China are named, I'd strongly suggest it is the latter who they really need to focus on in terms of equipment design & procurement, strategy, etc etc - and how to counter not only their military & cyber capabilities, but their financial and political capabilities also.

Any other 'enemy' in the form of a nation state is unlikely, and wouldn't be a particularly prolonged engagement - especially if we are focusing primarily on the air domain as the article above does.  

The US could have, and should have, purchased a fleet of light attack planes for places like Iraq and Afghanistan that could deliver the same ordinance as a Strike Eagle at a fraction of the cost -- if another conflict of that nature drags the US into it, they would be well advised to take that step quickly, as they've demonstrated they can do.


But in the long term planning, keeping China in mind as the most likely adversary would be wise.  As upgraded as some of the 4th generation planes can be (which absolutely gives them some impressive & deadly capabilities) -- relying on upgraded 4th gen tech against an adversary like China could very well a huge, huge mistake.  

I understand the F-35 was supposed to replace several of those platforms with a state of the art 5th gen platform -- and from everything I've read officially, as well as having some good talks with a friend of mine who is now flying F-35C's for the USN - he wouldn't want to take any other plane into combat.  While it may still have teething issues and plenty of growth still planned, anybody who flies the F-35 has stated it would be their choice of aircraft in a peer combat situation, hands down.


Regardless of anything, the "Great Pacific Brawl" will be a bloody fight for both sides.  

But I don't think the US should put all of their eggs in one basket.  Especially the F-35 basket.  Issues with the aircraft aside, I have absolutely ZERO CONFIDENCE that critical intelligence about the F-35's capabilities, cyber weaknesses, maintenance security, etc etc - is not already well secured by Chinese intelligence, as they hacked & browsed the F-35 development program for quite some time before the breaches were caught.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Jun 2021)

Interesting read - 

Just a reminder that the Battle of Kapyong occurred during this era - April 22 to 25, 1951.  
The PPCLI Presidential Citation was awarded contrasting the actions of the PPCLI, RAR and Glosters to the "Bug-Out Fever" that the US Army was fighting.









						The United States Began To Fail Abroad 70 Years Ago In The Korean War
					

Korea is a thought-provoking conflict that should be studied by the U.S. military and foreign policy experts. Let’s learn from our failures.




					thefederalist.com


----------



## Weinie (1 Jun 2021)

Kirkhill said:


> Interesting read -
> 
> Just a reminder that the Battle of Kapyong occurred during this era - April 22 to 25, 1951.
> The PPCLI Presidential Citation was awarded contrasting the actions of the PPCLI, RAR and Glosters to the "Bug-Out Fever" that the US Army was fighting.
> ...


IMO, the author has cherry picked events to support his article. The U.S and others fought this to a stalemate that was overtaken by world events. Had the U.S. been completely engaged (and not tired of WWII, and focused on Europe), the history of SE Asia would be completely different.

.02c


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Jun 2021)

OK.  Now they have gone too far.

Last week they shut down the oil supply to the  East Coast of the US.  Meh!
To be fair they did apologize for the inconvenience they caused.

This week they have out done themselves.  They shut down the supply of burgers on Memorial Day, the start of  barbecue season.  And worse.  They did it here in Alberta.  And Australia.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/jbs-meat-cyberattack-1.6048942
		


I wonder what happens next?









						The JLTV and the 21st Century American Way of Land Warfare
					

The U.S. Army and Marine Corps are looking to change how they will fight near-peer adversaries in the future. Both Services are focused on becoming more lethal, distributed, mobile and survivable. Whe




					www.realcleardefense.com
				












						A Russian Move in Europe - Geopolitical Futures
					

Russia and the European Union held a conference last week, during which Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in a speech: “The situation remains




					geopoliticalfutures.com


----------



## MarkOttawa (17 Jun 2021)

Debate in US about how practical all the fancy new plans--USAF agile basing, basing US Army long-range fires, Marines' plans for EABO--actually are, plus an fancy example of new think from the army:

1) From a June 7 story in _Foreign Policy_:



> *Pentagon Faces Tense Fight Over Pacific Pivot*
> _The Defense Department is in an internal tug of war over the_ _practicality of putting more U.S. troops in the range of Chinese missiles._
> By *Jack Detsch*, _Foreign Policy’_s Pentagon and national security reporter.





> The U.S. Department of Defense is locked in a tense debate over whether to base American troops and high-end weapons within reach of newly capable Chinese missiles, multiple current and former officials with knowledge of the talks told _Foreign Policy_, a battle pitting the agency’s more risk-averse analytical wing against other parts of the Pentagon and Capitol Hill.
> The battle has come to a head after the Pentagon’s budget loaded a fund that lawmakers designed last year to position more U.S. forces near China in the Western Pacific with research and development for destroyers, fighter jets, and submarines that could end up outside the region, prompting near-instantaneous anger from Congress, where many insist that the Pentagon isn’t abiding by the law.





> “If you wanted to improve force posture west of the international dateline, it would be funded,” said one congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss budget deliberations.





> The battle dates back to the Trump administration, which first called for forward-deployed U.S. troops to sit in the so-called first island chain that rings China in the Western Pacific, including Japan. The _fight came to a head this spring as outgoing U.S. Indo-Pacific Command chief Adm. Phil Davidson began privately and publicly urging a buildup of American assets in Guam, including onshore Aegis missile defense batteries, in his final days as commander _[emphasis added].





> Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and top officials have indicated to Congress they were interested in moving more U.S. military forces into close quarters with China. But Davidson and parts of the Pentagon supporting the effort have been met with stern opposition from the agency’s budget analysts at the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office, known as CAPE, and the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment, an internal think tank that conducts long-term planning. _Both offices hold a pessimistic view of the ability of the U.S. military to withstand attacks from China’s new generation of highly capable missile and rocket forces, sources familiar with the debate said [emphasis added]_. China has tested long-distance missiles that can knock out U.S. carriers and even hit Guam, but its ranged forces are still mostly untested in combat.





> Capitol Hill is still struggling to understand the disconnect.





> “DoD has produced a lot of products countering the rise of China, we expected this to be more robust than it is,” a senior House Republican aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing budget talks. “And we’ll be holding DoD to account for all these other briefings and strategy documents and how they’re reflected in this budget request. We’re very concerned that they are not reflected in this budget request.”





> The United States has more than 70,000 troops in Japan and South Korea, including many grouped together at major installations, which has raised fears in Congress and policy circles that China could wipe out thousands of American forces in a single attack. One solution to that would be to disperse U.S. troops and platforms around the region, leaving them in place to respond to any threat from China—but equally or even more vulnerable to long-range attack. Sources said _CAPE, which is focused on investing in hypersonic strike weapons, the B-21 bomber, and mobile platforms, has pushed for keeping American troops and assets outside of China’s range, in places like Hawaii, Alaska, and California, using nascent long-range firepower and stealth bombers capable of withstanding Chinese air defenses _[emphasis added].





> “They’re essentially saying that if something ever happened we’re going to hightail it out of the region, get the ships out, get the aircraft out beyond the second island chain, and we’re going to have all of these magic weapons and _we’re going to gradually fire our way back in, because we can’t be inside,” a former Senate aide with knowledge of the debate said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss closed-door policy talks. “That’s an absolute fairy tale_ [emphasis added].”..



Read on. The end of the article:



> “You want to be inside so that you have forces there if and when the fight starts, as opposed to trying to fight your way back in,” said Heino Klinck, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia until January. “On the other hand, you want to have forces outside of the [Chinese military] strike envelope. That’s the dilemma.”
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For sure.

2) US Army island-hopping (to the max) demonstration (with video), at _Defense News_:



> US Army fires autonomous launcher in Pacific-focused demo​The U.S. Army fired an autonomous launcher in a June 16 demonstration at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, focused on how it might be deployed to take out enemy ships and other defensive systems in multidomain operations in the Indo-Pacific theater.
> 
> A concept video shows C-130 transport aircraft landing on a strip in an island in the Pacific Ocean. The Autonomous Multidomain Launcher, or AML, comes off the C-130′s ramp while a High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, drives out of the other aircraft. The two launchers deploy as a manned-unmanned team to strategic points on the island. One launcher fires a simulated Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM — the future Army Tactical Missile System replacement — to hit an enemy ship detected in the nearby ocean. The other fires an extended-range version of PrSM to take out an air defense system located on an enemy-occupied island.
> 
> ...



Far out, Man.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99 (17 Jun 2021)

I say this with a 'bit' of experience... not as much as many of you.

But, I'm already missing the good old days of people just shooting each other.  Horrible thing to say, and something I never thought I ever would say.  

In my ideal world - adults would sit down and talk to other adults, nicely, be empathetic to each other's concerns, and work together for the common good.  But, it isn't so.



At least when human beings were engaging other human beings, there was a chance of mercy, civility, compassion, and honour when the battles were raging.  

Now?  Everything is shooting at each other from 1000km away with a missile that travels at Mach 5, or dropping a pallet of 20 cruise missiles out of the back of a C-17 to go pummel a ton of targets 3 time zones away.

We avoid engaging hospitals and schools at all costs, and there are usually investigations and accountability when it happens.  Now?  Shutting down the power grid of an entire city, or an entire part of a country, is part of a strategy.  Hospitals, grocery stores, houses, police stations, emergency services, water purification, sanitation, etc etc all need electricity to work.  What about banking, when ATMs and debit cards won't work?  When people's mortages, savings, investments, etc all disappear?

We may not drop bombs on each other's hospitals in a peer vs peer conflict, but we are still using a strategy of "Let me f**k with your basic infrastructure, which will result in dead or injured civilians, in the hopes that will help dissuade you from continuing the war."


Anyways, sorry for the rant.  There really is some far out stuff, and to be fair - some pretty neat tech.  I know war has actually never been simple, but I really do have concerns about what war is turning into.

0.02


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jun 2021)

Your point is taken but war is always, IMO, ultimately about the civilians and their willingness to be deprived in support of national objectives.  Sometimes it is taxes.  Sometimes it is butter and sugar.   Sometimes it is bread and water.  Sometimes it is their lives.

I'm not sure that there has ever been a time when that wasn't true.


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Jul 2021)

From near the start and the latter part of an article at _War on the Rocks_:



> Sailors, Sailors Everywhere and not a Berth to Sleep: The Illusion of Forward Posture in the Western Pacific​
> Graham Jenkins
> 
> ...in their article, “The State of (Deterrence by) Denial,” Elbridge Colby and Walter Slocombe propose to buy many more boxes of real-life military forces while disregarding where exactly they might fit. The authors are the latest to sign onto the illusory prospect of a large-scale forward positioning of U.S. forces, particularly land-based missiles, in the Western Pacific. They add their voices to a years-long chorus of commentators who insist that only by “strengthen[ing] its Western Pacific forward posture” and stationing vast numbers of manpower and materiel in-theater — proving the ability to resist “Chinese aggression” — will any degree of deterrence be secured. But the very idea of “sufficient” foreign posture is an illusion: No additional countries in Asia (with the exception of tiny Palau) are interested in hosting U.S. troops at all, much less the quantity and type of forces for which Colby and Slocombe advocate. At the same time, merely increasing troop numbers at existing U.S. and partner bases would not meaningfully alter the strategic calculus, and new weapons systems like theater missiles are particularly unlikely to be welcomed with open arms...
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jul 2021)

Weinie said:


> IMO, the author has cherry picked events to support his article. The U.S and others fought this to a stalemate that was overtaken by world events. Had the U.S. been completely engaged (and not tired of WWII, and focused on Europe), the history of SE Asia would be completely different.
> 
> .02c


Had the US Kept troops in South Vietnam after the Peace Treaty was signed, then things would have been different as NV would not have broken the agreement and invaded. We might be looking at two Vietnam's or reconciliation on more equal terms.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Jul 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Had the US Kept troops in South Vietnam after the Peace Treaty was signed, then things would have been different as NV would not have broken the agreement and invaded. We might be looking at two Vietnam's or reconciliation on more equal terms.



You mean the peace treaty which required

Article 4
The United States will not continue its military involvement or intervene in the internal affairs of South Viet-Nam.

Article 5
Within sixty days of the signing of this Agreement, there will be a total withdrawal from South Viet-Nam of troops, military advisers, and military personnel, including technical military personnel and military personnel associated with the pacification program, armaments, munitions, and war material of the United States and those of the other foreign countries mentioned in Article 3 (a). Advisers from the above-mentioned countries to all paramilitary organizations and the police force will also be withdrawn within the same period of time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Jul 2021)

The US army had smashed the NVA and VC, had they said FU in the negotiations to such clauses, there was nothing the North could do and they could not withstand another offensive or the continued grind. the US should have bombed the docks the Soviet used to off load supplies. The big lesson there is when the enemy makes such demands they are lying about their intent, they hoped the politicians would agree to that for a short term gain.


----------



## shawn5o (18 Jul 2021)

Russia to unveil new fighter jet at Moscow's air show
Vladimir Isachenkov

The Associated Press








						Russia to unveil new fighter jet at Moscow's air show
					

Russian aircraft makers say they will present a prospective new fighter jet at a Moscow air show that opens next week.




					www.ctvnews.ca
				




Published Saturday, July 17, 2021 9:12AM EDT
Last Updated Saturday, July 17, 2021 9:37AM EDT

MOSCOW -- Russian aircraft makers say they will present a prospective new fighter jet at a Moscow air show that opens next week.

...

Russian media reports said that the new jet has been built by the Sukhoi aircraft maker in a program of development of a light tactical fighter.

...

Unlike Russia's latest Su-57 two-engine stealth fighter, the new aircraft is smaller and has one engine.

The Su-57 has been built to match the U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, but unlike the American aicraft that has been in service since 2005 its serial production is just starting and a new engine intended to give it the capability to cruise at supersonic speed is still under development.

The new warplane's name is unknown, and there is no information about its capability and deployment prospects.

The prospective Russian fighter jet appears intended to compete with the U.S. F-35 Lightning II fighter, which entered service in 2015. Russia hopes to eventually offer the new aircraft to foreign customers.

Rostec, the state corporation that includes Russian aircraft makers, said the "fundamentally new military aircraft" will be unveiled Tuesday at the Moscow air show. "Russia is one of the few countries in the world with full-cycle capacities for producing advanced aircraft systems, as well as a recognized trendsetter in the creation of combat aircraft," it said.









						Russia to unveil new fighter jet at MAKS 2021
					

Rostec announced a new military aircraft will be unveiled at the Russian MAKS 2021 exhibition in Moscow.




					www.aerotime.aero
				




More at links provided


----------



## MarkOttawa (27 Jul 2021)

JCS not happy with results of this war game, hoping to defeat PRC with lots of new super-duper high tech (JADC2 etc)--at _Defense One_:



> ‘It Failed Miserably’: After Wargaming Loss, Joint Chiefs Are Overhauling How the US Military Will Fight​
> In a fake battle for Taiwan, U.S. forces lost network access almost immediately. Hyten has issued four directives to help change that.​
> A brutal loss in a wargaming exercise last October convinced the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. John Hyten to scrap the joint warfighting concept that had guided U.S. military operations for decades.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Jul 2021)

shawn5o said:


> Russia to unveil new fighter jet at Moscow's air show
> Vladimir Isachenkov
> 
> The Associated Press
> ...


I can sorta see that Russia still steals and reverse engineers things. Not surprising at all


----------



## CBH99 (30 Jul 2021)

OldSolduer said:


> I can sorta see that Russia still steals and reverse engineers things. Not surprising at all


In all fairness, everybody does.  And just to play the advocate, but why shouldn’t they?

Why do all the R&D on developing this type of technology, when this type of technology already exists?  Better to steal what information you can, reverse engineer it as best able, then modify it/apply it to their own goals.  

Is it fair?  No.  Strategically smart?  You bet.  

I genuinely don’t see Russia as our enemy. A potential threat, if world events evolve a certain & specific way?  Absolutely.  But I don’t see a fight against Russia coming anytime soon.

China on the other hand…


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Aug 2021)

Competition vs Warfare











						How to Integrate Competition and Irregular Warfare - Modern War Institute
					

Ever since the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the watchword for the US military has been competition. “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism,” the NDS declares, “is now the primary concern in […]




					mwi.usma.edu


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2021)

LIttle Green Men!  A Wagnerian enterprise.



> We Now Know How Russia Would ‘Fight’ A Shadow War Against America​
> Recently, the inner workings of a shadowy Russian mercenary group came to light when a Samsung tablet containing sensitive information was recovered in Libya.
> 
> 
> ...





> Roughly 10,000 mercenaries have worked with the paramilitary group, often for short, conflict-based contracts. According to the BBC investigation, some have prior criminal backgrounds, making it hard for them to join the regular Russian military. Instead they choose mercenary work that could earn them 10 times the average Russian salary.
> 
> The group has very close ties to the Kremlin. It was created by Dmitry Utkin, a former Russian military special operator, and is allegedly funded by Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Russian businessman and confidant of President Vladimir Putin. The US Justice Department has indicted Prigozhin in relation to Russia’s interference in the 2016 US presidential election.





> The “shopping list” recovered with the tablet included a T-72B tank, 120mm mortars, AK-103 rifles, night-vision optics, helmets, and even a state-of-the-art radar system — indicating the extent of the Wagner Group’s presence and commitment to winning the conflict.











						We Now Know How Russia Would 'Fight' a Shadow War Against America
					

Recently, the inner workings of a shadowy Russian mercenary group came to light when a Samsung tablet containing sensitive information was recovered in Libya. A BBC investigation got ahold of the device, which had been used by members of Wagner Group. Wagner Group doesn’t officially exist, but...




					www.19fortyfive.com


----------

