5 ms·

I predict: 1) China won't attack Taiwan until it can be assured a swift victory. 2) China will reach that state within our lifetimes. WWII was won, in part,

by blagie 5y ago

I predict: 1) China won't attack Taiwan until it can be assured a swift victory. 2) China will reach that state within our lifetimes. WWII was won, in part, by US manufacturing prowess. China has that advantage. It's military is currently behind in equipment, but if it chose to, it could build a blue water navy or whatever else it wants in record time. It also has the political ability to engage in major projects like these (see respective COVID19 responses). I suspect Chinese military leadership is far more competent than US or EU. The cream of the crop in the West doesn't go into the military (see Afghanistan for an good example of how US armed forces are managed). I also think we will see major disruptions in military from autonomous and semi-autonomous machines which will really reduce the US lead. DJI is headquartered in China, as are many of the other players here. If heave machines like carriers are obsoleted, the US advantage might turn into an expensive liability. The Chinese military also has more manpower.

dTal 5y ago
Carriers are already obsolete in a superpower war. Both sides possess weapons that can destroy them utterly from a great distance, and their location cannot be kept secret. Carriers won't last a day.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  China's hypersonic missiles have shorter range than an F35 launched from a carrier with midair refuel drone. The only issue is that we'd want our carriers closer in practice. Close to the action means faster response times. If we are willing to destroy Chinese satellites, then China's kill chain becomes much harder. I'm not convinced that a drone or spyplane can reliably penetrate the defensive line of destroyers + cruisers + E2 Hawkeyes. And satellites aren't even that reliable either, it may be possible to hide a carrier between satellite flyovers in practice.
  - blagie 5y ago
    A drone could not penetrate a defensive line of destroyers, cruisers, and E2 Hawkeyes. However, a destroyer costs $870 million. I can build a drone for around $870 which has decent range, and sufficient firepower to do real damage if attacking with sufficient precision (e.g. placing a small explosive charge directly within a barrel). That means I can launch a million drones for the cost of one destroyer. I'm pretty sure that a line of destroyers, cruisers, and E2 Hawkeyes wouldn't be able to destroy a fleet of a million drones. If they could, the cost of destroying each drone would likely be greater than the cost of the drone.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      CRAM bullets cost cheaper than your drone, and those CRAMs are on each Destroyer. I think our cruisers have 2 CRAMs on them (but I forget exactly) These CRAMs can aim-bot and destroy subsonic cruise missiles (500mph), and even supersonic cruise missiles (1000mph). That's why China has spent billions developing hypersonic missiles (2500+mph) to dodge our CRAMs and missile defenses. How fast is your drone flying? Does it pull enough lateral Gs to dodge CRAM shots or avoid the Patriot defense missiles? -------- https://youtu.be/0bmSCC823tM?t=205 https://youtu.be/0bmSCC823tM?t=205 The "city-version" has shorter range, because we need the bullets to self-destroy themselves before they land on someone's property. So the Israeli "Iron Dome" is in fact, inferior, to the defense system on these Destroyers / Cruisers that surround the Carrier. Tel Aviv's Iron Dome also has a much more difficult job: defending a population center rather than just a few ships. There will naturally be "holes" in the Iron Dome (just areas of the city that aren't as well defended). In contrast: we can position our ships to maximize the chance of interception, and minimize the chance of our CRAM's failing. ----------------- The worry about China's drones is their stealth spydrones which will try to triangulate the position of the carrier strike group. The drone then sends the coordinates to a hypersonic missile. I'm not convinced that the stealth systems on those drones are sufficient to "hide" from radar, probably only good enough to prevent things like CRAM/Patriots from locking on. Without the ability to lock on, we don't have an ability to kill those drones from Destroyers / Cruisers. That's where the Carrier comes in. The E2 Hawkeye has an aerial radar system and can get "eyes in the sky", making our targeting superior (maybe then our Patriots can hit). We can also launch fighters (F22 is probably sufficient) to close the distance and lock on / destroy the target... or even engage in a dogfight (radar-drones wouldn't have much dogfighting ability). -------- How is China launching a million drones anyway? Their carriers aren't like ours. We have 4x catapults and 2x runways per carrier, I'm pretty sure China's carriers are only 1x runway. How many minutes does it take per launch? If its an air battle you want, the 4x catapults + 2x runways the Supercarriers push will get more planes into the air than anything in the Chinese Navy... and we have something like 10 carriers fielded right now.
ericmay 5y ago
I either agree or think your predictions make sense, but I think your premises that lead to them are a little bit suspect. China doesn't have the same manufacturing prowess that the US did because of its location. In World War II, the US was essentially an untouchable supply chain with access to both oceans. It could fight Japan and supply Russia through the west if necessary, and it could fight Germany and supply England and Russia through the eat too. In China's case, the main issue is that while the factories are certainly humming right along, they need to import food, oil, and other raw materials. Where do those come from? Certainly Russia, despite its blustering, isn't going to do too much to help China because that gives the U.S. an easy excuse to attack Russia in the east. Expect Russia to sit this one out and maybe screw around in a inconsequential way in Europe at best. Will China then get resources from neighbors? Sure. Except now they have to transport all of these raw materials to the east coast of China where all the factories are. Lots of lead times here. Meanwhile, the US can simply purchase the same materials from untouched supply chains in Europe and South America. > it could build a blue water navy or whatever else it wants in record time. I very much doubt this. And this has to happen years (decades?) before a war breaks out. China would have to build these ships in docks on the shore, which would be vulnerable to any number of U.S. bombing campaigns from strategic locations (Guam, Japan, carrier fleet, etc.). Not to say why wouldn't the U.S. also build hypersonic missiles? > It also has the political ability to engage in major projects like these (see respective COVID19 responses). Sure, that's always the general strength of the authoritarian regime. The ability to issue dictates. But that's also the great weakness, because you can go down a very wrong path and you won't know until its too late. Japan experienced this in World War II. But the U.S. (and allies) would undoubtedly be united in a response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The center-left, center, and entire right wing of the US for sure would be. So I'm not sure I'd look at the U.S.'s COVID-19 response and generalize from that. > I suspect Chinese military leadership is far more competent than US or EU. The cream of the crop in the West doesn't go into the military (see Afghanistan for an good example of how US armed forces are managed). What do you base this on? If nothing else, the United States and European Union (NATO allies) have been engaging in actual joint operations all over the world for the past 20-some years. And the U.S. fought a different kind of war in Afghanistan than it would the one it might have to fight against China in the Pacific. First, the U.S. occupied the country just fine for 20 years, and then got tired of it. The U.S. also operated with very strict rules of engagement. Like, shoot at US soldiers then throw your Ak-47 in the weeds and say it wasn't you and nobody could do anything since you didn't have your weapon on you. Iraq looks to be a better example but neither should be relied upon as a good case. > I also think we will see major disruptions in military from autonomous and semi-autonomous machines which will really reduce the US lead. DJI is headquartered in China, as are many of the other players here. Who cares about DJI? > If heave machines like carriers are obsoleted, the US advantage might turn into an expensive liability. Weren't you saying that China would build a blue-water navy in record time? What would they do with this obsolete navy? But the U.S. doesn't need to keep its carrier groups within range of any Chinese action to cause lots of problems for China. A naval blockade, they can go sink ships in ports that are friendly to China but aren't in China, etc. > The Chinese military also has more manpower. True that quantity does have a quality all of its own, but it seems like a bottle neck to me. Are they going to load up boat after boat and sail soldiers to Taiwan? Seems like a pretty expensive offensive and will Chinese moral handle losing soldiers in boats going to attack Taiwan? Lots of uncertainties. Anyway, my point here was just to provide some counterpoints to some of yours here. Frankly, this is all really stupid.

by blagie 5y ago

dTal 5y ago

Carriers are already obsolete in a superpower war. Both sides possess weapons that can destroy them utterly from a great distance, and their location cannot be kept secret. Carriers won't last a day.

dragontamer 5y ago
China's hypersonic missiles have shorter range than an F35 launched from a carrier with midair refuel drone. The only issue is that we'd want our carriers closer in practice. Close to the action means faster response times. If we are willing to destroy Chinese satellites, then China's kill chain becomes much harder. I'm not convinced that a drone or spyplane can reliably penetrate the defensive line of destroyers + cruisers + E2 Hawkeyes. And satellites aren't even that reliable either, it may be possible to hide a carrier between satellite flyovers in practice.
- blagie 5y ago
  A drone could not penetrate a defensive line of destroyers, cruisers, and E2 Hawkeyes. However, a destroyer costs $870 million. I can build a drone for around $870 which has decent range, and sufficient firepower to do real damage if attacking with sufficient precision (e.g. placing a small explosive charge directly within a barrel). That means I can launch a million drones for the cost of one destroyer. I'm pretty sure that a line of destroyers, cruisers, and E2 Hawkeyes wouldn't be able to destroy a fleet of a million drones. If they could, the cost of destroying each drone would likely be greater than the cost of the drone.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    CRAM bullets cost cheaper than your drone, and those CRAMs are on each Destroyer. I think our cruisers have 2 CRAMs on them (but I forget exactly) These CRAMs can aim-bot and destroy subsonic cruise missiles (500mph), and even supersonic cruise missiles (1000mph). That's why China has spent billions developing hypersonic missiles (2500+mph) to dodge our CRAMs and missile defenses. How fast is your drone flying? Does it pull enough lateral Gs to dodge CRAM shots or avoid the Patriot defense missiles? -------- https://youtu.be/0bmSCC823tM?t=205 https://youtu.be/0bmSCC823tM?t=205 The "city-version" has shorter range, because we need the bullets to self-destroy themselves before they land on someone's property. So the Israeli "Iron Dome" is in fact, inferior, to the defense system on these Destroyers / Cruisers that surround the Carrier. Tel Aviv's Iron Dome also has a much more difficult job: defending a population center rather than just a few ships. There will naturally be "holes" in the Iron Dome (just areas of the city that aren't as well defended). In contrast: we can position our ships to maximize the chance of interception, and minimize the chance of our CRAM's failing. ----------------- The worry about China's drones is their stealth spydrones which will try to triangulate the position of the carrier strike group. The drone then sends the coordinates to a hypersonic missile. I'm not convinced that the stealth systems on those drones are sufficient to "hide" from radar, probably only good enough to prevent things like CRAM/Patriots from locking on. Without the ability to lock on, we don't have an ability to kill those drones from Destroyers / Cruisers. That's where the Carrier comes in. The E2 Hawkeye has an aerial radar system and can get "eyes in the sky", making our targeting superior (maybe then our Patriots can hit). We can also launch fighters (F22 is probably sufficient) to close the distance and lock on / destroy the target... or even engage in a dogfight (radar-drones wouldn't have much dogfighting ability). -------- How is China launching a million drones anyway? Their carriers aren't like ours. We have 4x catapults and 2x runways per carrier, I'm pretty sure China's carriers are only 1x runway. How many minutes does it take per launch? If its an air battle you want, the 4x catapults + 2x runways the Supercarriers push will get more planes into the air than anything in the Chinese Navy... and we have something like 10 carriers fielded right now.

ericmay 5y ago

I either agree or think your predictions make sense, but I think your premises that lead to them are a little bit suspect. China doesn't have the same manufacturing prowess that the US did because of its location. In World War II, the US was essentially an untouchable supply chain with access to both oceans. It could fight Japan and supply Russia through the west if necessary, and it could fight Germany and supply England and Russia through the eat too. In China's case, the main issue is that while the factories are certainly humming right along, they need to import food, oil, and other raw materials. Where do those come from? Certainly Russia, despite its blustering, isn't going to do too much to help China because that gives the U.S. an easy excuse to attack Russia in the east. Expect Russia to sit this one out and maybe screw around in a inconsequential way in Europe at best. Will China then get resources from neighbors? Sure. Except now they have to transport all of these raw materials to the east coast of China where all the factories are. Lots of lead times here. Meanwhile, the US can simply purchase the same materials from untouched supply chains in Europe and South America. > it could build a blue water navy or whatever else it wants in record time. I very much doubt this. And this has to happen years (decades?) before a war breaks out. China would have to build these ships in docks on the shore, which would be vulnerable to any number of U.S. bombing campaigns from strategic locations (Guam, Japan, carrier fleet, etc.). Not to say why wouldn't the U.S. also build hypersonic missiles? > It also has the political ability to engage in major projects like these (see respective COVID19 responses). Sure, that's always the general strength of the authoritarian regime. The ability to issue dictates. But that's also the great weakness, because you can go down a very wrong path and you won't know until its too late. Japan experienced this in World War II. But the U.S. (and allies) would undoubtedly be united in a response to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. The center-left, center, and entire right wing of the US for sure would be. So I'm not sure I'd look at the U.S.'s COVID-19 response and generalize from that. > I suspect Chinese military leadership is far more competent than US or EU. The cream of the crop in the West doesn't go into the military (see Afghanistan for an good example of how US armed forces are managed). What do you base this on? If nothing else, the United States and European Union (NATO allies) have been engaging in actual joint operations all over the world for the past 20-some years. And the U.S. fought a different kind of war in Afghanistan than it would the one it might have to fight against China in the Pacific. First, the U.S. occupied the country just fine for 20 years, and then got tired of it. The U.S. also operated with very strict rules of engagement. Like, shoot at US soldiers then throw your Ak-47 in the weeds and say it wasn't you and nobody could do anything since you didn't have your weapon on you. Iraq looks to be a better example but neither should be relied upon as a good case. > I also think we will see major disruptions in military from autonomous and semi-autonomous machines which will really reduce the US lead. DJI is headquartered in China, as are many of the other players here. Who cares about DJI? > If heave machines like carriers are obsoleted, the US advantage might turn into an expensive liability. Weren't you saying that China would build a blue-water navy in record time? What would they do with this obsolete navy? But the U.S. doesn't need to keep its carrier groups within range of any Chinese action to cause lots of problems for China. A naval blockade, they can go sink ships in ports that are friendly to China but aren't in China, etc. > The Chinese military also has more manpower. True that quantity does have a quality all of its own, but it seems like a bottle neck to me. Are they going to load up boat after boat and sail soldiers to Taiwan? Seems like a pretty expensive offensive and will Chinese moral handle losing soldiers in boats going to attack Taiwan? Lots of uncertainties. Anyway, my point here was just to provide some counterpoints to some of yours here. Frankly, this is all really stupid.