China & Chinese Shenanigans

[McJay Pilot]

12 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

 

Hang some Sargent Fletcher pods off of it, throw a few SATCOM antennas on top and now it could become a legit SOCOM asset... just sayin!

[Clark Griswold]

On 8/24/2020 at 8:05 PM, McJay Pilot said:

Hang some Sargent Fletcher pods off of it, throw a few SATCOM antennas on top and now it could become a legit SOCOM asset... just sayin!

Good capability additions to be sure if only money grew on trees that were planted on every AF base but if there were to be a US mil operator for this the USMC would likely be it. 

Too expensive for the Coasties and not enough assigned mission(s) requiring this capability for the AF to invest in a fleet of 30 to 50 aircraft, the Marines, maybe as they get back to their Naval / Amphibious roots with the direction the Commandant is taking them, necessary to prepare for Pacific shenanigans. 

Thinking about the article (Bring Back the Seaplane from WOR), the problem with the current feasible model (Shinmaywa US-2) for the US (maybe the Aussies too) for military amphibious airlift is the lack of a ramp for parallelized cargo or vehicle delivery to austere locations.  Don't see that feature on the Chinese AG600 either.  People and their personal gear to a remote distant island(s) would be no problem, but something that could really have an appreciable effect on the fight like a small SAM battery or other system/cargo, don't see how it would carry and deliver it without an unacceptable amount of ass pain.

We still need a seaplane though 😉

 

[Tarawa565]

The article outlines more uses than just transport - and the R3Y, for example, had a nice ramp for cargo. 

The listed ideas were:

+ Logistics (article specifically talks about supporting USMC but would also be applicable to other services)

+ Tanker support (for USAF and USN)

+ Strike (as a wild idea similar to the 1950s Navy stuff)

+ SAR

Seems like we should at least study it - worst case it forces us to get tighter on our analysis of current choices.

[Clark Griswold]

The article outlines more uses than just transport - and the R3Y, for example, had a nice ramp for cargo. 
The listed ideas were:
+ Logistics (article specifically talks about supporting USMC but would also be applicable to other services)
+ Tanker support (for USAF and USN)
+ Strike (as a wild idea similar to the 1950s Navy stuff)
+ SAR
Seems like we should at least study it - worst case it forces us to get tighter on our analysis of current choices.

No doubt but every idea has to justify & defend itself to get money so how does this capability square against already existing capabilities that could fulfill this requirement?

Just playing devil’s advocate but why would we need a seaplane when we have V-22’s that could do this mission?

Advocates for a reborn seaplane capability will have to specifically answer why amphibious takeoff/land when we have tiltrotor platforms now.

Don’t get me wrong, as a taxpayer and internet genius I think a modernized R3Y Tradewind or stretched model US-2 is what the US military needs and should equip my ANG wing with but... you have to get it past the Bobs so refine arguments and show why


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

So when does China invade Taiwan?  I wouldn’t be too surprised if it’s in the next 1-2 years...especially if/when our economy takes a huge it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9347527/US-admiral-warns-China-aims-invade-Taiwan-6-years-global-leadership-role.html

[Lawman]

When you talk about a DOD seaplane venture, this is all I can think about...
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/army-decided-replace-bradley-fighting-vehicles-17-years-22b-ago-ncna1136141
The embedded “pentagon wars“ video is especially funny...in a 100% accurate and sad way. 

Just a few points of perspective on that movie...

1. Actual COL Burton was a moron (look up some of his other Sprey-acolyte work)

2. The Bradley development went nothing like what is depicted in the movie (to include the imagined Israeli narrative)

3. The Brad has served longer in the Army than the Jeep, and is loved by anybody that ever crewed them about as much (particularly the Cav Scouts with the M3).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brabus]

It’s spot on satire of our acquisitions process. I like the F-35 - still doesn’t mean it wasn’t, and still is, a total acquisitions shit show. 

[Lawman]

It’s spot on satire of our acquisitions process. I like the F-35 - still doesn’t mean it wasn’t, and still is, a total acquisitions shit show. 

Some of the very same people sitting at the desks demanding answers from Pentagon and Defense contractors on “why does X cost so damn much” were sitting in their making decisions that made this process happen.

Nobody for 1 second holds the names of people up with a D or R next to their name that decided to fold a 4.5 Gen Harrier Replacement, a 5th Gen Viper replacement, and the Navy JAST program into a single platform.

As jacked up as letting people 10-15 years removed from tactical relevancy in acquisitions branch decide “what we need,” it beats the hell out of elected officials blindly pulling levers in decisions because of campaign promises or lucrative back door deals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FLEA]

11 hours ago, HeloDude said:

So when does China invade Taiwan?  I wouldn’t be too surprised if it’s in the next 1-2 years...especially if/when our economy takes a huge it.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9347527/US-admiral-warns-China-aims-invade-Taiwan-6-years-global-leadership-role.html

I don't think China has high enough probabilities for success right now to really risk it. Taiwan is much much smaller but MUCH MUCH better prepared and has only had to focus their defense on a linear threat where-as China's massive conscript Army is focused on multiple geopolitical goals. This is without support from the US or other Asian partners. 

[di1630]

I don't think China has high enough probabilities for success right now to really risk it. Taiwan is much much smaller but MUCH MUCH better prepared and has only had to focus their defense on a linear threat where-as China's massive conscript Army is focused on multiple geopolitical goals. This is without support from the US or other Asian partners. 

If China wants Taiwan, China could get Taiwan. The question is what price are they willing to pay for it. Right now the price is too high.

Even with America out of the picture, the price might be too high.

I’d give Taiwan some self defense tools that keep that cost too high for China and trash the notion of US carrier fleets stopping the attack.

Eventually as China gains power, Taiwan might see more benefit in alliance with them than us anyhow.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[jazzdude]

As jacked up as letting people 10-15 years removed from tactical relevancy in acquisitions branch decide “what we need,” it beats the hell out of elected officials blindly pulling levers in decisions because of campaign promises or lucrative back door deals.

But it's not acquisition determining what we need. It's the staffs determining needs and requirements through JCIDS. And those staffs need good majors/lt col as action officers who are much less removed from ops to make recommendations. Have bad AOs (or if they are stretched too thin), and you get poorly thought out COAs.

Sure, JCIDS overlaps the acquisitions cycle, and the budget process as well.

As frustrating as it can be, a core belief of our government is that Congress has the power of the purse to keep the executive branch in check.

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, di1630 said:

If China wants Taiwan, China could get Taiwan. The question is what price are they willing to pay for it. Right now the price is too high.

Even with America out of the picture, the price might be too high.

I’d give Taiwan some self defense tools that keep that cost too high for China and trash the notion of US carrier fleets stopping the attack.

Eventually as China gains power, Taiwan might see more benefit in alliance with them than us anyhow.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

I don't know. I've spent a bit of time looking at China's COAs. Sea states on the taiwan straights are very poor to support amphibious operations. Additionally, the island only had one beach head that is acceptable. Taiwan basically knows where and when China will land and they will have months of preparation because China can't stage an amphibious force large enough to meet a 3-to-1 force ratio without providing significant I&W. China's Navy is also not built for amphibious ops and they don't have enough assault craft to meet the force ratio as well. They will need to sequester a civil fleet which isn't ideal to undergo those types of operations. 

Additionally, the PLAAF doesn't have enough suitable airfields within an adequate logistical distance to Taiwan to support a full blown air campaign, though they will likely still have a numerical advantage. 

The straight is ideal terrain for Taiwan and is easily defensible via mining. The beachhead will be mined, trenched, and bunkered. It's going to be a blood bath and both sides will take heavy losses. For Taiwan this won't halt momentum because they have the homeland morale advantage.

The problem for China is they won't be able to conceal those heavy losses long and their population is generally war adverse. The state media machine isn't strong enough to overcome Taiwan's significant information operations branch, which exploits Chinese culture and values better than a western operation of the same type. Your average citizen in China does not see an overt benefit to holding Taiwan and as the war dead pile up, China will face the same problem every other modern empire faces with waning political support detracting CCP focus from the actual battle. For generations people have been told that China could easily take Taiwan, once the realization sets in that it's not that possible, there will be huge fallout for the party. 

If given 10 oppurtunities to stage an invasion, I think China would win 6 of them. But those odds arent nearly enough to risk it. 

Just my 2c. 

[ThreeHoler]

If China wants Taiwan, China could get Taiwan. The question is what price are they willing to pay for it. Right now the price is too high.

Even with America out of the picture, the price might be too high.

I’d give Taiwan some self defense tools that keep that cost too high for China and trash the notion of US carrier fleets stopping the attack.

Eventually as China gains power, Taiwan might see more benefit in alliance with them than us anyhow.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

How’s that working out for Hong Kong?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[VMFA187]

11 hours ago, Lawman said:

Nobody for 1 second holds the names of people up with a D or R next to their name that decided to fold a 4.5 Gen Harrier Replacement, a 5th Gen Viper replacement, and the Navy JAST program into a single platform.

As jacked up as letting people 10-15 years removed from tactical relevancy in acquisitions branch decide “what we need,” it beats the hell out of elected officials blindly pulling levers in decisions because of campaign promises or lucrative back door deals.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is it bad I got really excited when I initially thought you were talking about Dodge bringing it back to compete with the C8? Guess I've been out of the fighter game too long. 

[Clark Griswold]

So this guy wrote a paper about an idea I had but expressed it about 369% than I could:

https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2020/Mills-Deterring-Dragon/

Had this same idea too, if everything you're doing is not working, try doing the opposite like Costanza did for a while and it worked out (sorta)

So instead of them instigating provocation after provocation and thus driving the direction of changing the facts on the ground to their favor, we take the initiative and return the favor driving it to at least maintain the status quo 

Obviously the risk is there but not as high as letting the situation deteriorate further to their favor where we will not be able to meaningfully respond if they decide to take swift decisive action and initiate aggression against Taiwan and preemptive military strikes to keep the US out of theater or capable of using our in theater forces for likely for a month or more.

Thoughts?

[Prozac]

On 3/17/2021 at 6:55 AM, ThreeHoler said:

 

How’s that working out for Hong Kong?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

 

Hong Kong is a completely different proposition than Taiwan. Much smaller, attached to the mainland, and without any military capability at all. The territory was willingly signed over to the PRC in 1997. Taiwan is a part of mainland China only in the loosest sense and is willing to and capable of fiercely defending their democracy. If you fly into Shenzhen and then into Taipei, you will be amazed by the difference in professionalism, efficiency, and general attitude between the two. Taiwan is lightyears ahead of the PRC in pretty much every category other than sheer population size. Could Beijing turn that numerical superiority into a victory in the Taiwan Strait? Probably, but Taipei would make that victory very difficult and very, very costly. Xi’s ego may eventually get the better of him but if he looks at the issue dispassionately, I don’t think a Taiwan invasion makes any sense at all. 

[pbar]

I have serious doubts as to the Taiwanese will to fight.  Their attitude seems to be that the Americans will ride to the rescue and do all of the heavy lifting.  For example, only buying enough air-to-air missiles for their fighters to fly 1-2 sorties but they are out doesn't smack of preparedness to me.  Also, I went to the ROKAF Staff College with a Taiwanese F-16 pilot and I was concerned about some of the statements he made.  Sample of one but if he represents the mainstream thinking, their heart really isn't in it/in a lot of denial about the threat.  A Taiwanese-American retired USAF officer friend of mine who has gone to Taiwan numerous times for FMS and security cooperation visits with their top brass has doubts too.  A massive TBM barrage along with a blockade might be enough to force the Taiwanese to capitulate. 

I hope I am dead wrong.  Anyone fly with their guys in F-16 FTU or UPT and have a different experience?

And there isn't a lot of will in this country to fight and die on their behalf either.   

[HossHarris]

Their f-16 pilots are pretty good and focus on fairly complex air-to-air tactics.  The line guys, at least, will have their fangs out. Don’t know about the politicians ….
 

(taught in their f-16 weapons school at luke for a bit)

[FLEA]

I also don't think Taiwan plans on their fighters being around more than 1-2 waves. I think they see the beach defense as inevitable. 

[bfargin]

Taiwan is the country of my youth. I lived there from the time I was 8yo until I graduated HS. I was there when Nixon established trade ties with the commies in 1972 and then Carter finished the deal and formally recognized them as the one true China and publicly hung Taiwan out to dry in 1979. I have friends and family there and returned in 2013 for two years but am back in the US now.

The KMT ruled harshly for years in Taiwan and always had the public stand/position that China was "one" and Taiwan's government (ROC) was the true government of all of China, but realistically Taiwan has been an independent nation since Japan was booted during WWII (1895 to 1945, but formally Japan didn't give the island up until 1952 in the Treaty of San Fran). China doesn't really have any legitimate claim over Taiwan and through the years has only sporadically ruled over the island.

I think the Taiwanese would fight, but lets be honest a shooting war between the ChiComs (1.3 billion) and Taiwanese (~23 million) would be over quickly, unless the world intervenes.

[Lawman]

I also don't think Taiwan plans on their fighters being around more than 1-2 waves. I think they see the beach defense as inevitable. 

There is only so much flat, graded, asphalt surfaced space and fuel farms/infrastructure on the island…

I wouldn’t blame them not betting on repeated sorties when your opponent has Super Power quantities of SR/MRBMs not to mention a fleet of cruise missile carrying bombers. You’d be asking for performance out of PAC-3 and Aegis that nobody has actually been able to duplicate outside of a Tom Clancy novel.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

My money is on the Chinese commies.  My money is also on that we wouldn’t fire a single round to stop them.

If we don’t care about the Chinese commies running China the way they do and their influence over their region, then we’re not going to care if they invade an island that they continue to claim as their own.  Sure we’ll condemn it and the UN will have some harsh words and perhaps we might impose a few minor (but not significant) sanctions  but that will be it.  That’s what happens when you’re so economically in bed with your (supposed) enemy.

If the CCP wants to put its troops on Taiwan, it’s theirs to take.

My $.02

Edited July 28, 2021 by HeloDude

[GrndPndr]

1 hour ago, HeloDude said:

My money is on the Chinese commies.  My money is also on that we wouldn’t fire a single round to stop them.

If we don’t care about the Chinese commies running China the way they do and their influence over their region, then we’re not going to care if they invade an island that they continue to claim as their own.  Sure we’ll condemn it and the UN will have some harsh words and perhaps we might impose a few minor (but not significant) sanctions  but that will be it.  That’s what happens when you’re so economically in bed with your (supposed) enemy.

If the CCP wants to put its troops on Taiwan, it’s theirs to take.

My $.02

Maybe so.  But what does that look like two or three days in?  US as the only additional player there?

[HeloDude]

3 hours ago, GrndPndr said:

Maybe so.  But what does that look like two or three days in?  US as the only additional player there?

What do you mean “US as the only additional player”?  We wouldn’t militarily intervene, and wouldn’t do too much other than some minor sanctions.  We’re not about ready to go to war/fire on a country in which our economy is so closely tied.

[Prozac]

5 hours ago, HeloDude said:

What do you mean “US as the only additional player”?  We wouldn’t militarily intervene, and wouldn’t do too much other than some minor sanctions.  We’re not about ready to go to war/fire on a country in which our economy is so closely tied.

Why are we so quick to let China set that particular narrative? Shouldn’t it be more like: China is not about ready to invade Taiwan because the USA, upon which their economy is absolutely dependent, has publicly committed to the defense of the island? Your argument is a good one, but it goes both ways.