7 ms·

At some point in the next 10 years Taiwan will be surrounded by half a dozen Chinese aircraft carriers[1]. The rest of the world knows that continuing to rely

At some point in the next 10 years Taiwan will be surrounded by half a dozen Chinese aircraft carriers[1]. The rest of the world knows that continuing to rely so heavily on Taiwan for crucial components is not viable. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/china/china-aircraft-carrier-type-003-launch-satellite-imagery-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/09/china/china-aircraft-carrier-...

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Taiwan will be surrounded by half a dozen Chinese aircraft carriers Every time U.S. aircraft carriers enter a discussion, the reams of developments in anti-ship missile and swarming tactics with aerial or maritime drones (or fast boats) comes up.
- dragontamer 5y ago
  That's because China can launch anti-ship missiles from any Chinese highway to threaten US Carriers. In contrast, the weapon-platforms of Taiwan / US Navy are simply more constrained. Sure, US Destroyers / Cruisers are good missile platforms and US Aircraft Carriers / F35 fighters are also good delivery mechanisms for anti-ship missiles... But China has the advantage of land-based missiles, land-based air force, AND sea-based naval forces to triple-team up against the US Navy. ------- Chinese Carriers hanging around the Straight of Taiwan and hugging their coastline (under protective cover of Chinese missile-forces / Chinese air-forces) is the expectation. We're not concerned about Chinese Carriers trying to say, attack Hawaii (which would be the opposite situation: US Air Force supporting US Navy in defense). The near-term threat is the gross geographical advantages of the China-Taiwan fight. There's a mild expectation that if a Chinese / Taiwan fight were to occur, US Marines might be forced to make landings in the Chinese mainland to destroy Chinese land-based missile forces and even the odds.
  - jacobolus 5y ago
    How useful are anti-ship missiles in Ishigaki Island (Japan), Batanes (Philippines), etc.? If Taiwan is loaded with anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, naval mines, loitering munitions, artillery, modern fighter jets, etc., any Chinese invasion is at the very least going to come at very steep cost in life/military hardware. And then the economic costs (to everyone in the world) are going to be extreme.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > How useful are anti-ship missiles in Ishigaki Island (Japan), Batanes (Philippines), etc.? Better than nothing, but the Chinese mainland has literal highways and railroads to deliver more-and-more missiles. When all else is equal, the winner is decided by logistics. Who can "deliver" more missiles to a location first? I'm willing to bet that Chinese highways and Chinese railroads have superior logistics / delivery than Ishigaki Island or the Batanes. That is: the winner will be decided by "number of missile deliveries to the Strait of Taiwan". (A lot of people get caught up in thinking about the "last mile" of delivery: F35 jets or Destroyers or MLRS systems. But the "first mile" of railroads / highways is just as important, and leans severely to a Chinese advantage) > If Taiwan is loaded with anti-ship missiles, loitering munitions, artillery, modern fighter jets, etc., any Chinese invasion is at the very least going to come at very steep cost in life/military hardware. Putin just proved to the world that "Just because its a bad idea" doesn't mean it won't stop the autocratic dictator from doing something stupid. China attacking the world-capital of semiconductor manufacturing would piss off the world for sure. But "pissing off the world" doesn't seem to enter into the calculus of these leaders. EDIT: I'm also willing to bet that Xi Jinping cares about Chinese soldier's life only a _little_ bit more than Putin cares about Russian soldier lives.
      - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
        > When all else is equal, the winner is decided by logistics Which is why it’s almost public policy that the opening salvos of this war would involve raining down missile fire on those logistical chains.
      - omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
        > When all else is equal, the winner is decided by logistics. Who can "deliver" more missiles to a location first? I'm willing to bet that Chinese highways and Chinese railroads have superior logistics / delivery than Ishigaki Island or the Batanes. That's an interesting point. One on hand, rail/highways are superior to anything ocean-going for transport, and cargo ships are easily taken out and would need extremely effective escorts. On the other hand, rail/highways are much harder to protect because of their length. If cargo ships could still reach Taiwan with escorts, I wonder if Taiwan could have enough supplies to deny China access to their rail/highway systems such that it negated their numerical advantages.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > China has the advantage of land-based missiles, land-based air force, AND sea-based naval forces to triple-team up against the US Navy Point is if China leans into its fleet for fire support (it’s currently not clear if they will do this or rely on land-based or aerial firing platforms), there are anti-ship missile systems Taiwan could be outfitted with to compensate for far cheaper than those ships cost.
  - gscott 5y ago
    I bet every US military platform uses chips from Tawain... if China was to take or even blockade Tawain it would be bad for the us military industrial complex. Not to mention the worldwide recession, job cuts and other problems not being able to put that one last needed chip into products like cars would cause.
  - dahdum 5y ago
    > There's a mild expectation that if a Chinese / Taiwan fight were to occur, US Marines might be forced to make landings in the Chinese mainland to destroy Chinese land-based missile forces and even the odds. That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed.
    - potta_coffee 5y ago
      We've had two world wars that in retrospect seem remarkably unlikely and irrational, insane even.
    - dragontamer 5y ago
      > That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed. Then your assumptions need to be set appropriately. That is: China will have its full set of highways and railroads in-tact to deliver missiles to the US Navy. That will be the US Navy fighting at a severe disadvantage. Furthermore, US Marines will largely be sitting around doing nothing. Having additional troops from a separate branch of the military doing __SOMETHING__ would at least help even the odds. (Marines do have some ships, but the Marines specialized in Sea vs Land situations, not sea vs sea kinds of battles) ------- In any case, the Taiwan situation is a very difficult fight to think about. US Navy will be at a severe disadvantage in almost every concievable scenario, and its difficult to see how other branches (US Army, US Air Force, or US Marines) can help in a significant manner. (Sure, some islands here and there can station some US Air Force, US Army can also station some troops in Taiwan. But is it enough to make a big difference?)
      - dahdum 5y ago
        We have no defense pact with Taiwan, and are not obligated to engage. Our official stance is strategic ambiguity, but Ukraine has showed how unlikely we are to join the fight. We will try to follow much of the same sanctioning, intelligence, and providing arms playbook, but with less international support. Your scenario presumes we are in open conflict with Chinese troops, in which case landing marines is merely an escalation of a war that’s already begun.
  - potta_coffee 5y ago
    This is precisely why USMC infantry training pivoted back toward more traditional (for the Marines) landing tactics in the Pacific, away from desert operations.
  - topspin 5y ago
    > That's because China can launch anti-ship missiles from any Chinese highway to threaten US Carriers. The Chinese need not resort to mere land batteries. The Chinese have a fleet of well over 200 Xian H-6 strategic bombers to launch whatever anti-ship standoff PGM they can mount to the wings or fuselage. And the new H-6N is aerial refueled. A few years from now when these are operationally armed with sufficient quantities of supersonic/hypersonic/flocking/maneuvering/whatever anti-ship missiles China will have absolute control of the sea around Taiwan; foreign war ships, cargo ships and anything else that isn't a submarine will be permitted to remain in the area at China's pleasure. There is a reason that foundries are rapidly being built in the US, Europe, etc.: the shot callers at the top of these semiconductor manufacturers know that one day in the not too distant future Taiwan will be blockaded in China's play to reunify and there is nothing the West can do about it without risking the destruction of capital ships full of propulsion reactors.
tomatowurst 5y ago
I doubt this. you'd need to continue having a thriving economy, not only that for an aircraft carrier group to be effective you'd need quality fighter jets that can take off with equal or more payload than the US (which does not use a ski ramp for this reason) and compete with it's 5th or 6th generation planes. In addition you would need adequate defense fleet, especially submarines quiet enough and capable of detecting threats and countermeasures. Even the Taiwanese F-16V will be able to obtain air superiority in the present, 10 years is awfully short for it to master jet engine manufacturing. In 10 years it would be lucky if CCP survives internal issues due to a dwindling economy and inability to service and maintain much of its core infrastructure rather than an external one. I could definitely see Xi taking some of the islets close to its coast line but doing so would give the US justification to station its airbase permanently and start a Russian style sanction.
- iooi 5y ago
  You're assuming that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan. That's not a given -- by a long shot. > and start a Russian style sanction Unlike the Russian sanctions, a broad sanction on the Chinese economy would deeply impact the US economy. It's not a viable strategy.
  - rdtwo 5y ago
    Yeah Russia sanctions mostly just affect Europe
  - tomatowurst 5y ago
    > US would go to war with China over Taiwan They've repeatedly signaled and backed this up with a real aircraft carrier that sails between the straits. They aren't doing this just for show. The ball is in CCP's court, if they venture too far past their coastline they are going to face USN + JSDF. Again, Taiwan is NOT ukraine. It's semiconductor supply is critical to national security and the economy. US also signaled they would hit China with sanctions and I don't think it's a bluff. China needs US more than US needs it.
    - 5y ago
zie 5y ago
Assuming this is true, makes Taiwan even happier they hold TSMC in country, otherwise what incentives does the rest of the world have for helping Taiwan out, except the whole, we are the good guys stance? We know the we are the good guys message is only good so far.
mjevans 5y ago
I suspect that outside of... 'mainland China' (I'll phrase it for clarity) and the island just off the coast of 'mainland China'; the rest of the world really just wants stability in the region and no further conflict. Generally the status quo is OK for the rest of the planet, and the other nations would be happy to call 'mainland China' China and the island off of that recognized as the sovereign nation of 'Taiwan' (or something else other than China, since the name's already taken by a larger military power). I wonder what it would take to get that to stick until we grow up enough as a species to cease having countries and instead have a united single government like Star Trek.
- throw8383833jj 5y ago
  >> grow up enough as a species to cease having countries and instead have a united single government like Star Trek. This would require everyone to think very alike which we will never be. there's simply too much diversity. why not aim for more of a everyone have it their own way kind of model where more of the power is sent to local governments? this way there would be less conflict and more happy people, rather than only one way for everyone (one size does not fit all)
  - mjevans 5y ago
    Division reflects an 'us' vs 'them' mentality. This leads to all the things Yoda talked about. A single governing body is the only chance at equal justice and opportunity for all; assuming it isn't corrupt, but with that assumption failed there is no justice anyway.
alfalfasprout 5y ago
The fact China hasn't already invaded makes this doubtful. More likely is trying to install a pro-CCP politicians and pursuing annexation politically. The US has had a very close relationship w/ Taiwan for decades including military training and access to newer military hardware. Also discussions about china attacking a US ship are rather silly since that would be an outright declaration of war. The amount of firepower available to the US would level mainland cities. Too much to lose for them to make an invasion likely.
robonerd 5y ago
I think the PRC saw how well Russia has fared against modern weapon systems in Ukraine and is probably getting cold feet. Taiwan has had more time to prepare and very advanced domestic manufacturing; the missile spam would be dense enough to make a Macross fan blush. And with respect to the Type 003, where is the J-35 or whatever they're calling it? Still not ready. The only plane they've got for these ships is the J-15, which has the RCS of a barn. Carriers without planes are like tigers without teeth. Furthermore the PLAN's lack of operational experience with carriers is stark, to put it mildly. Those ships will be good at one thing: being reefs.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Taiwan will be surrounded by half a dozen Chinese aircraft carriers Every time U.S. aircraft carriers enter a discussion, the reams of developments in anti-ship missile and swarming tactics with aerial or maritime drones (or fast boats) comes up.

dragontamer 5y ago
That's because China can launch anti-ship missiles from any Chinese highway to threaten US Carriers. In contrast, the weapon-platforms of Taiwan / US Navy are simply more constrained. Sure, US Destroyers / Cruisers are good missile platforms and US Aircraft Carriers / F35 fighters are also good delivery mechanisms for anti-ship missiles... But China has the advantage of land-based missiles, land-based air force, AND sea-based naval forces to triple-team up against the US Navy. ------- Chinese Carriers hanging around the Straight of Taiwan and hugging their coastline (under protective cover of Chinese missile-forces / Chinese air-forces) is the expectation. We're not concerned about Chinese Carriers trying to say, attack Hawaii (which would be the opposite situation: US Air Force supporting US Navy in defense). The near-term threat is the gross geographical advantages of the China-Taiwan fight. There's a mild expectation that if a Chinese / Taiwan fight were to occur, US Marines might be forced to make landings in the Chinese mainland to destroy Chinese land-based missile forces and even the odds.
- jacobolus 5y ago
  How useful are anti-ship missiles in Ishigaki Island (Japan), Batanes (Philippines), etc.? If Taiwan is loaded with anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, naval mines, loitering munitions, artillery, modern fighter jets, etc., any Chinese invasion is at the very least going to come at very steep cost in life/military hardware. And then the economic costs (to everyone in the world) are going to be extreme.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > How useful are anti-ship missiles in Ishigaki Island (Japan), Batanes (Philippines), etc.? Better than nothing, but the Chinese mainland has literal highways and railroads to deliver more-and-more missiles. When all else is equal, the winner is decided by logistics. Who can "deliver" more missiles to a location first? I'm willing to bet that Chinese highways and Chinese railroads have superior logistics / delivery than Ishigaki Island or the Batanes. That is: the winner will be decided by "number of missile deliveries to the Strait of Taiwan". (A lot of people get caught up in thinking about the "last mile" of delivery: F35 jets or Destroyers or MLRS systems. But the "first mile" of railroads / highways is just as important, and leans severely to a Chinese advantage) > If Taiwan is loaded with anti-ship missiles, loitering munitions, artillery, modern fighter jets, etc., any Chinese invasion is at the very least going to come at very steep cost in life/military hardware. Putin just proved to the world that "Just because its a bad idea" doesn't mean it won't stop the autocratic dictator from doing something stupid. China attacking the world-capital of semiconductor manufacturing would piss off the world for sure. But "pissing off the world" doesn't seem to enter into the calculus of these leaders. EDIT: I'm also willing to bet that Xi Jinping cares about Chinese soldier's life only a _little_ bit more than Putin cares about Russian soldier lives.
    - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
      > When all else is equal, the winner is decided by logistics Which is why it’s almost public policy that the opening salvos of this war would involve raining down missile fire on those logistical chains.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 5y ago
      > When all else is equal, the winner is decided by logistics. Who can "deliver" more missiles to a location first? I'm willing to bet that Chinese highways and Chinese railroads have superior logistics / delivery than Ishigaki Island or the Batanes. That's an interesting point. One on hand, rail/highways are superior to anything ocean-going for transport, and cargo ships are easily taken out and would need extremely effective escorts. On the other hand, rail/highways are much harder to protect because of their length. If cargo ships could still reach Taiwan with escorts, I wonder if Taiwan could have enough supplies to deny China access to their rail/highway systems such that it negated their numerical advantages.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > China has the advantage of land-based missiles, land-based air force, AND sea-based naval forces to triple-team up against the US Navy Point is if China leans into its fleet for fire support (it’s currently not clear if they will do this or rely on land-based or aerial firing platforms), there are anti-ship missile systems Taiwan could be outfitted with to compensate for far cheaper than those ships cost.
- gscott 5y ago
  I bet every US military platform uses chips from Tawain... if China was to take or even blockade Tawain it would be bad for the us military industrial complex. Not to mention the worldwide recession, job cuts and other problems not being able to put that one last needed chip into products like cars would cause.
- dahdum 5y ago
  > There's a mild expectation that if a Chinese / Taiwan fight were to occur, US Marines might be forced to make landings in the Chinese mainland to destroy Chinese land-based missile forces and even the odds. That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed.
  - potta_coffee 5y ago
    We've had two world wars that in retrospect seem remarkably unlikely and irrational, insane even.
  - dragontamer 5y ago
    > That sounds remarkably unlikely and irrational. If China touched the US mainland it would mean immediate full-scale war, the opposite should be assumed. Then your assumptions need to be set appropriately. That is: China will have its full set of highways and railroads in-tact to deliver missiles to the US Navy. That will be the US Navy fighting at a severe disadvantage. Furthermore, US Marines will largely be sitting around doing nothing. Having additional troops from a separate branch of the military doing __SOMETHING__ would at least help even the odds. (Marines do have some ships, but the Marines specialized in Sea vs Land situations, not sea vs sea kinds of battles) ------- In any case, the Taiwan situation is a very difficult fight to think about. US Navy will be at a severe disadvantage in almost every concievable scenario, and its difficult to see how other branches (US Army, US Air Force, or US Marines) can help in a significant manner. (Sure, some islands here and there can station some US Air Force, US Army can also station some troops in Taiwan. But is it enough to make a big difference?)
    - dahdum 5y ago
      We have no defense pact with Taiwan, and are not obligated to engage. Our official stance is strategic ambiguity, but Ukraine has showed how unlikely we are to join the fight. We will try to follow much of the same sanctioning, intelligence, and providing arms playbook, but with less international support. Your scenario presumes we are in open conflict with Chinese troops, in which case landing marines is merely an escalation of a war that’s already begun.
- potta_coffee 5y ago
  This is precisely why USMC infantry training pivoted back toward more traditional (for the Marines) landing tactics in the Pacific, away from desert operations.
- topspin 5y ago
  > That's because China can launch anti-ship missiles from any Chinese highway to threaten US Carriers. The Chinese need not resort to mere land batteries. The Chinese have a fleet of well over 200 Xian H-6 strategic bombers to launch whatever anti-ship standoff PGM they can mount to the wings or fuselage. And the new H-6N is aerial refueled. A few years from now when these are operationally armed with sufficient quantities of supersonic/hypersonic/flocking/maneuvering/whatever anti-ship missiles China will have absolute control of the sea around Taiwan; foreign war ships, cargo ships and anything else that isn't a submarine will be permitted to remain in the area at China's pleasure. There is a reason that foundries are rapidly being built in the US, Europe, etc.: the shot callers at the top of these semiconductor manufacturers know that one day in the not too distant future Taiwan will be blockaded in China's play to reunify and there is nothing the West can do about it without risking the destruction of capital ships full of propulsion reactors.

tomatowurst 5y ago

I doubt this. you'd need to continue having a thriving economy, not only that for an aircraft carrier group to be effective you'd need quality fighter jets that can take off with equal or more payload than the US (which does not use a ski ramp for this reason) and compete with it's 5th or 6th generation planes. In addition you would need adequate defense fleet, especially submarines quiet enough and capable of detecting threats and countermeasures. Even the Taiwanese F-16V will be able to obtain air superiority in the present, 10 years is awfully short for it to master jet engine manufacturing. In 10 years it would be lucky if CCP survives internal issues due to a dwindling economy and inability to service and maintain much of its core infrastructure rather than an external one. I could definitely see Xi taking some of the islets close to its coast line but doing so would give the US justification to station its airbase permanently and start a Russian style sanction.

iooi 5y ago
You're assuming that the US would go to war with China over Taiwan. That's not a given -- by a long shot. > and start a Russian style sanction Unlike the Russian sanctions, a broad sanction on the Chinese economy would deeply impact the US economy. It's not a viable strategy.
- rdtwo 5y ago
  Yeah Russia sanctions mostly just affect Europe
- tomatowurst 5y ago
  > US would go to war with China over Taiwan They've repeatedly signaled and backed this up with a real aircraft carrier that sails between the straits. They aren't doing this just for show. The ball is in CCP's court, if they venture too far past their coastline they are going to face USN + JSDF. Again, Taiwan is NOT ukraine. It's semiconductor supply is critical to national security and the economy. US also signaled they would hit China with sanctions and I don't think it's a bluff. China needs US more than US needs it.
  - 5y ago

zie 5y ago

Assuming this is true, makes Taiwan even happier they hold TSMC in country, otherwise what incentives does the rest of the world have for helping Taiwan out, except the whole, we are the good guys stance? We know the we are the good guys message is only good so far.

mjevans 5y ago

I suspect that outside of... 'mainland China' (I'll phrase it for clarity) and the island just off the coast of 'mainland China'; the rest of the world really just wants stability in the region and no further conflict. Generally the status quo is OK for the rest of the planet, and the other nations would be happy to call 'mainland China' China and the island off of that recognized as the sovereign nation of 'Taiwan' (or something else other than China, since the name's already taken by a larger military power). I wonder what it would take to get that to stick until we grow up enough as a species to cease having countries and instead have a united single government like Star Trek.

throw8383833jj 5y ago
>> grow up enough as a species to cease having countries and instead have a united single government like Star Trek. This would require everyone to think very alike which we will never be. there's simply too much diversity. why not aim for more of a everyone have it their own way kind of model where more of the power is sent to local governments? this way there would be less conflict and more happy people, rather than only one way for everyone (one size does not fit all)
- mjevans 5y ago
  Division reflects an 'us' vs 'them' mentality. This leads to all the things Yoda talked about. A single governing body is the only chance at equal justice and opportunity for all; assuming it isn't corrupt, but with that assumption failed there is no justice anyway.

alfalfasprout 5y ago

The fact China hasn't already invaded makes this doubtful. More likely is trying to install a pro-CCP politicians and pursuing annexation politically. The US has had a very close relationship w/ Taiwan for decades including military training and access to newer military hardware. Also discussions about china attacking a US ship are rather silly since that would be an outright declaration of war. The amount of firepower available to the US would level mainland cities. Too much to lose for them to make an invasion likely.

robonerd 5y ago

I think the PRC saw how well Russia has fared against modern weapon systems in Ukraine and is probably getting cold feet. Taiwan has had more time to prepare and very advanced domestic manufacturing; the missile spam would be dense enough to make a Macross fan blush. And with respect to the Type 003, where is the J-35 or whatever they're calling it? Still not ready. The only plane they've got for these ships is the J-15, which has the RCS of a barn. Carriers without planes are like tigers without teeth. Furthermore the PLAN's lack of operational experience with carriers is stark, to put it mildly. Those ships will be good at one thing: being reefs.