Bruh did you not see the post I was replying to?
Future War with (Red) China Hypotheticals/Theorycrafting
- Thread starter Husky_Khan
- Start date
Bruh did you not see the post I was replying to?
Japan is easing its regulatory practices which will allow it to start exporting limited types of military equipment abroad.
All of these intended customers are ones who have some sort of individual security guarantee with Japan and it's believed that these exports, which are desired abroad, would also lower the considerable development and procurement costs for Japan's own military self defense forces as well as enhancing their and their allies security capabilities. It seems Japan is focused on exporting fighter jets and missiles to security allies.
asia.nikkei.com
Nikkei Asia said:
All of these intended customers are ones who have some sort of individual security guarantee with Japan and it's believed that these exports, which are desired abroad, would also lower the considerable development and procurement costs for Japan's own military self defense forces as well as enhancing their and their allies security capabilities. It seems Japan is focused on exporting fighter jets and missiles to security allies.
Japan to enable fighter jet and missile exports to 12 nations
India, Australia, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines among destinations
asia.nikkei.com
History Learner
Well-known member
Since posting this, a lot has come out. For one, the U.S. Air Force now directly states it has given up on any retention of air superiority in a China conflict, instead opting for a new doctrine of "Mutual Denial":
Through a strategy of air denial, the United States would not seek to gain air superiority but instead work with allies and partners to implement a smarter defense-in-vertical depth approach, layering the effects of cyber disruptions, electromagnetic jamming, ground-based air defenses, drones and counter-air operations in increasing degrees of strength, from higher to lower altitudes.
The outer layer of American and allied defenses ought to consist of an integrated air defense system, including mobile surface-to-air missiles, radars and communications systems. Employing so-called shoot-and-scoot tactics, air defense units would fire their missiles and quickly turn off the radar and move away, making it difficult for the enemy to find and destroy them.
During the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S.-led coalition employed strike aircraft and special forces to hunt Iraq’s truck-mounted Scud missiles. But even with the benefit of air superiority, Iraq’s effective use of maneuver and high-fidelity decoys prevented the U.S. Air Force from claiming even a single confirmed kill of Scud-associated vehicles.
The fact Iraq's performance in 1991 is cited, given their losses and how that war turned out for them, should be chilling for all but this isn't the only recent piece. The U.S. Navy has also now conceded China can successfully blockade Taiwan:
China’s armed forces are capable of blockading Taiwan, a senior U.S. Navy official said, pointing to the size of the country’s navy, which is the world’s largest and growing at a rapid pace.
“They have a very large navy, and if they want to bully and put ships around Taiwan, they very much can do that,” Vice Adm. Karl Thomas, commander of the U.S. Seventh Fleet, said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.
China conducted military drills last month that sought to demonstrate its ability to blockade Taiwan, a democratic, self-governing island it sees as part of its territory. The drills came in response to a visit by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to the island in August and occurred in six zones that effectively encircled Taiwan. By using a blockade, military analysts say, Beijing could try to force submission by Taiwan’s government without an invasion.
Of equal note, was that Thomas said Beijing has completed its plans in the South China Sea and spoke of their industrial advantage as well as leaps in quality:Adm. Thomas said he sees China’s recent actions around Taiwan as an extension of the “might makes right” mentality he said the country has shown in the way it has militarized the South China Sea. China’s expansive claims in the South China Sea overlap with those of other countries in the region. It has during the past decade built artificial islands in those waters, equipping the outposts with military infrastructure and equipment.
“They’ve completely militarized those islands,” he said. “They already have all the bunkers they need, they already have all the fuel storage capacity they need, the ability to house troops, they have the missiles, the radars, the sensors.”
China has the world’s largest navy by size, though the U.S. has more-advanced warships, including a larger aircraft-carrier fleet, giving it a qualitative edge. Adm. Thomas said China is turning out navy ships at an impressive rate, while the U.S. doesn’t have as many shipyards producing navy ships as it needs. China, for instance, is producing its Type 055 destroyers—a large and heavily armed surface ship, also known as the Renhai-class cruiser, that has become a symbol of China’s naval modernization—at a much greater rate than the U.S. is producing guided-missile destroyers, he said.
“Capacity has a quality all of its own,” he said.
Difficulties China might have coordinating across different branches of its armed services, which is how modern militaries operate, has long been seen as a potential weakness for the country’s military. But China has made progress on that front, Adm. Thomas said. Aircraft from China’s air force are flying across water, whereas only its navy undertook such flights four years ago, he said.
“They are more joint than they were a year ago, three years ago, five years ago,” he said.
@History Learner
re Air Force mutual denial plan: It's what the Air Force wants in order to maintain Status Quo...not destroy enemy and remove them from a threat environment. That's a completely different game plan.
It doesn't tell me that we're unable to remove China's Naval Forces and air presence from around Taiwan, just that the policy makers want to make Taiwan feel pressured. Which is dumb, because China will view this policy change as a step back (ceding ground/sea to China).
As for the Navy: I have no doubt that China could rush ships to blockade Taiwan. There's no way they can keep that force afloat if the Navy and Air Force are told to clear a path. The Eastern side of Taiwan, at minimum, would get cleared away. Clearing the Taiwan Straight is harder because of the ready presence of Chinese land-based fighters, but we really have NO verification that the Chinese fighters are worth a damn when coupled with their training doctrine, or even that they can keep them in the air at the high tempo such a situation would demand. As always, their first pulse will be the most dangerous. Unless the Chinese completely cripple our Carrier Groups right off, we'll likely clear them off the East of Taiwan quickly enough to maintain supply to Taiwan.
To me, the real danger comes from the Chinese sub forces, simply b/c that's an area I'm definitely not well versed in.
re Air Force mutual denial plan: It's what the Air Force wants in order to maintain Status Quo...not destroy enemy and remove them from a threat environment. That's a completely different game plan.
It doesn't tell me that we're unable to remove China's Naval Forces and air presence from around Taiwan, just that the policy makers want to make Taiwan feel pressured. Which is dumb, because China will view this policy change as a step back (ceding ground/sea to China).
As for the Navy: I have no doubt that China could rush ships to blockade Taiwan. There's no way they can keep that force afloat if the Navy and Air Force are told to clear a path. The Eastern side of Taiwan, at minimum, would get cleared away. Clearing the Taiwan Straight is harder because of the ready presence of Chinese land-based fighters, but we really have NO verification that the Chinese fighters are worth a damn when coupled with their training doctrine, or even that they can keep them in the air at the high tempo such a situation would demand. As always, their first pulse will be the most dangerous. Unless the Chinese completely cripple our Carrier Groups right off, we'll likely clear them off the East of Taiwan quickly enough to maintain supply to Taiwan.
To me, the real danger comes from the Chinese sub forces, simply b/c that's an area I'm definitely not well versed in.
We have China beat in every sphere but closeness to Taiwan
DarthOne
☦️
So the political and military establishment tell us…
Have you fucking seen what thier rifles do?
Like, they were keyholing at under 25 meters
DarthOne
☦️
And who is the one reporting this? And how do we know this isn’t just what we’re meant to see by the Chinese?
History Learner
Well-known member
Indeed, which is entirely the point; this is a major shift in strategic thinking by the U.S.A.F because previously the plan was to establish Air Supremacy so as to make an invasion impossible and to conduct strategic strikes on China itself to degrade their capacity to do further actions. That we have now switched to the strategic defense says a lot about where the DoD rates Chinese capabilities.
Not sure what you're attempting to argue here.
If you want to know what happens when you're facing an enemy, as the United States is now, that has industrial superiority in production and is, at a minimum, coming to equal you in quality, the historical case example of this is Imperial Japan between 1941-1945. Quality wise in 1941, the Japanese were great; excellent training, superb battleships and the first carrier division in the world that came online in 1940. The problem was, the United States had been learning to and, even worse, had an overwhelming productive advantage.
As the commander of the 7th Fleet put it, quantity has a quality all of its own and they're making great strides in quality too.
History Learner
Well-known member
Is that why we have the commander of the 7th Fleet directly saying they're coming to match us in quality and are already outproducing us by large margins?
It's accurate, but it's worth noting this is the growing pains of a modern force and relatively easy to fix. The French had this exact issue in Afghanistan with their FAMAS, as an example. Your basically just have to change the propellant in the cartridges and that's it.
China never achieved anything just by militart conqest.They are not Moscov,they use economy to fuck you.
And,they belive that USA economy would fall till 2040.
So,why attack anybody there? if they go to war,it would be to take Siberia.They once have most of it,and now,when Moscov is falling,it would be good idea.
Eh, I'm not sure this is really true: Lots of China is China primarily because of military conquest. Obviously, the recent example would be Mao's communist China was primarily achieved by military conquest. Tibet seems to have initially been a near pure military conquest.
Major military campaigns were also responsible for major expansions of the Empire pre Mao as well. For example, the Han-Xiognu shows both the failure of attempted Chinese soft power, and how victory eventually required immense hard power.
What Edward Luttwak Doesn’t Know About Ancient China (Or a Short History of Han-Xiongnu Relations), pt. 1
A Mongolian stamp depicting Maodun, founder of the Xiongnu Empire.Image source. A few weeks ago a friend passed along one of the least correct essays I have ever had the misfortune to read. I…
scholars-stage.org
What Edward Luttwak Doesn’t Know About Ancient China (Or a Short History of Han-Xiongnu Relations), pt. 2
This is Part II of a two part series. We strongly recommend reading Part I before reading another sentence of this post.A modern depiction of Huo Qubing’s cavalry charging a surprised Xiongnu…
scholars-stage.org
China is no stranger to victory via military conquest. Pre nuclear age, that was their primary way of winning.
Eh, I'm not sure this is really true: Lots of China is China primarily because of military conquest. Obviously, the recent example would be Mao's communist China was primarily achieved by military conquest. Tibet seems to have initially been a near pure military conquest.
Major military campaigns were also responsible for major expansions of the Empire pre Mao as well. For example, the Han-Xiognu shows both the failure of attempted Chinese soft power, and how victory eventually required immense hard power.
What Edward Luttwak Doesn’t Know About Ancient China (Or a Short History of Han-Xiongnu Relations), pt. 1
A Mongolian stamp depicting Maodun, founder of the Xiongnu Empire.Image source. A few weeks ago a friend passed along one of the least correct essays I have ever had the misfortune to read. I…
What Edward Luttwak Doesn’t Know About Ancient China (Or a Short History of Han-Xiongnu Relations), pt. 2
This is Part II of a two part series. We strongly recommend reading Part I before reading another sentence of this post.A modern depiction of Huo Qubing’s cavalry charging a surprised Xiongnu…
China is no stranger to victory via military conquest. Pre nuclear age, that was their primary way of winning.
Yet now they have reason to be patient - why risk war which could be lost and certainly costly even with their president in USA,when they could wait 18 years for USA economical fall?
The West's ability to be a peer competitor to China should increase over time due to the declining Chinese birth rate.
Though Europe isn't actually interested in fighting China over Taiwan, is it? Though imposing heavy sanctions on China for this might be a different matter.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Aside from the UK, it doesn't matter if they're interested in fighting China over Taiwan. The UK is the only nation there with meaningful ability to project force so far away. The French could probably contribute some with logistical support from the US, but the rest could only make token efforts at actual military conflict.
What is the UK's power projection in this region?
History Learner
Well-known member
The West's ability to be a peer competitor to China should increase over time due to the declining Chinese birth rate.
Though Europe isn't actually interested in fighting China over Taiwan, is it? Though imposing heavy sanctions on China for this might be a different matter.
Basically my take as well, this decade until about 2050 is maximum danger, and thereafter we get to see whether the TFR recovery from genetic selection argument is real. That said, even if China crashes down to 500 million, if they equalize their GDP per capita to that of their neighbors, then they still become the dominant economy with all that implies for their military power.
But if their neighbors get the support of the US, then things get a bit more evened-out, no?