3 ms·

> Uncles modified RO/RO is literally just a military amphib ship with defenses stripped out, i.e it does 90% of the job. Uncle has converted his private ferry

> Uncles modified RO/RO is literally just a military amphib ship with defenses stripped out, i.e it does 90% of the job. Uncle has converted his private ferry [0] and other vessels to act as amphibious assault and support vessels. Certainly, China is on a building binge regarding amphibious assault vessels (e.g., Type 075), but it will take years to build, train, and crew these warships and others like it. > As much as RU is a reduced state, so is the EU as a block. These two things are not remotely the same. Russia has all but burned through their enormous inheritance of equipment from the Soviet days. That equipment can never be replaced, as Russia is no longer a superpower. Russia will become a second or third rate power among European countries, depending on how long the war drags out. Meanwhile, Europe is mostly sending old kit out of their warehouses and stockyards, with some notable exceptions. Europe has the economy to rearm, while Russia does not. Most importantly, Europe's military industrial base ought to be in a strong position before China is ready to invade. [0] https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/08/04/china-reportedly-converted-civilian-ferries-for-amphibious-assault-operations/ https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2021/08/04/china-reportedl...

dirtyid 4y ago
No, private ferries are duo use hulls EXPLICITYLY built to military standards "disguised" as / duo used for civilian purpose. As I've said, these RO/ROs will likely do brunt of the hulling because mil amphib including 075s are NOT being massively procured. Proponents of PRC not having enough dedicated amphib is not accepting the fact that massive dedicated amphib is NOT part of sealift strategy. Hasn't been for 10+ years for those that study PLA acquistion. Duo use civil/military sealift IS the strategy, and currently what has been built, trained, crewed is able to move massive amount of troops already. Yes they'll build, train, crew more, but that only extends the already gargantuan sealift capability that is more than enough for TW scenarios that most credible western analysts previously thought PRC needed. 7 group armies is an ABSURD amount of sealift. >Europe Europe already showed a lot of their acquisition hand, nothing meaningful for IndoPac and like AUKUS, big pieces like naval combatants are decades away while PRC dropping them like dumplings. RU, going through an active war is actually/literally has relevant industrial base to rearm, while also burning through legacy hardware just like EU, but with more and cheaper resource autarky and motivation to acquire at industrial scale for active war. Meanwhile Europe is TALKING about rearming, which is acquiring token SRK/US hardware as stop gab before figuring out indigenous efforts that will take decades. DE promises to raise spending already stalling, and they're key supplier in EU defense whose entire industrial base in general will have to deal with more expensive inputs. This is nothing like PRC who has massive industrial base and now cheap RU resources, hence EU prognosis being overall reduced. Like don't get me wrong, EU will likely increase defense capabilities relative to RU, but will be long and not smooth process, and questionable if their acquistions will be effective in the first place, especially for IndoPac. Two things can be true, EU can become a stronger bloc against RU, but also relatively weaker bloc against PRC relative to pre UKR war EU conditions. Reality at this time is both RU/EU are reduced powers, likely for decades and that works in PRC favour because while it prefers independant EU vs US+EU, writing off a weak EU that can't substantively boost US even if they wanted to is more reliable for planning because less need to transatlantic consider political shifts.
- infamia 4y ago
  > RU, going through an active war is actually/literally has relevant industrial base to rearm Russia doesn't have any money to rearm. Their economy is smaller than Canada, is about the same size as Italy, and ~9X smaller than the EU+UK. Russia will not be able to help China in any significant way. China is on its own if it attacks Taiwan, without a large power to support it. > but also relatively weaker bloc against PRC relative to pre UKR war EU conditions. Reality at this time is both RU/EU are reduced powers, likely for decades and that works in PRC favour The Europeans need to scale up their existing industrial base, not completely reimagine their forces from the ground up. That will take years, not decades. They can rearm rather quickly, considering the EU+UK's economy is larger than China's. Also, you misunderstand part of the real value of a more muscular EU; it frees up even more US resources in the Pacific.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    >RU RU has already established (and now increasingly streamlined due to actually building for war) defense industrial base + PPP and autarkic resource advantages + will be forced maintain beyond 2% to rearm. Canada maybe richer but they're also squandering 6.5B buying a few coast guard patrol ships, which is arguably more incompetent than RU who at least have deficient hardware in numbers to prosecute war, and also more closely reflects current broken state of EU/NATO defense which has dwarfed RU for decades but couldn't sustain a few weeks of war that RU can. That said, RU rearming not enough to threaten NATO again, as if revealed RU capabilities were, but enough to keep NATO occupied. RU help to PRC is significant cheap resources, no one expected RU to help in any other way except maybe provide overflight rights (big for lobbing missiles over NORAD) and playing nuclear brinksmanship against SKR/JP. Just like US is going to be largely on her own in terms of force commitment for PRC war, without large power support outside of potential basing, because realistically there are no other "large" powers to rival US/PRC in TW scenario. Except maybe JP, but questionable if their defense bump fundable, or level of commitment in actual TW scenario. >Europeans need to scale up Yes, but "need to" being operating word, post Trump + basic historic EU/NATO coordination issues means they're pivotting towards indigenous programs like 4.5/5/6g fighters (JP/SKR as well) - stuff that will take decades. Major capital platform like surface combatants also going to be decade+ timeline due to politics. All the big ticket / long term expensive things they plan to either do indigenously or wean off US. Meanwhile issues with hollowed out defense base and lack of common market / per country acquisitions = it's not going to be a smooth or well coordinated process for long time. EU has potential to rearm but I have serious doubts they will / are systemically capable for doing it quick. EU+UK economy is smaller than PRC by PPP but more important is defense base and industrial efficiency simply not there. I would bet that actual urgency to rearm will decrease now that RU is diminished, I don't see west EU stopping free riding anytime soon especially with structural changes like expensive energy that's already deindustrializing like in DE. Smaller/poorer east EU near frontlines likely, but little savings there. Which ties to more "muscular EU" freeing up US resources for IndoPac, which IMO is more rhetoric than sensible analysis. Beside hardware relevant EU defense not relevant for IndoPac, the primary issue of US resourcing is dominantly domestic US interservice politics, where despite all voices screaming for PRC pivot, relatively useless army is still getting largest branch funding and pouring stupid resources into CENTCOM - ~8X USEUCOM, down from ~12X after AFG withdrawl, that's where US is freeing up meaningful resources. Apart from funding UKR war now, EU defense post GWOT was relatively insignificant committment, there wasn't much juice to squeeze. Compare to PRC gains, quick napkin math suggests PRC is _saving_ 3x USEUCOM budget buying cheaper RU oil last year, add in long term cheaper gas, less competitive EU exports, years delay in TW arms shipment and structurally PRC is coming out ahead, at least short/medium term.

dirtyid 4y ago

No, private ferries are duo use hulls EXPLICITYLY built to military standards "disguised" as / duo used for civilian purpose. As I've said, these RO/ROs will likely do brunt of the hulling because mil amphib including 075s are NOT being massively procured. Proponents of PRC not having enough dedicated amphib is not accepting the fact that massive dedicated amphib is NOT part of sealift strategy. Hasn't been for 10+ years for those that study PLA acquistion. Duo use civil/military sealift IS the strategy, and currently what has been built, trained, crewed is able to move massive amount of troops already. Yes they'll build, train, crew more, but that only extends the already gargantuan sealift capability that is more than enough for TW scenarios that most credible western analysts previously thought PRC needed. 7 group armies is an ABSURD amount of sealift. >Europe Europe already showed a lot of their acquisition hand, nothing meaningful for IndoPac and like AUKUS, big pieces like naval combatants are decades away while PRC dropping them like dumplings. RU, going through an active war is actually/literally has relevant industrial base to rearm, while also burning through legacy hardware just like EU, but with more and cheaper resource autarky and motivation to acquire at industrial scale for active war. Meanwhile Europe is TALKING about rearming, which is acquiring token SRK/US hardware as stop gab before figuring out indigenous efforts that will take decades. DE promises to raise spending already stalling, and they're key supplier in EU defense whose entire industrial base in general will have to deal with more expensive inputs. This is nothing like PRC who has massive industrial base and now cheap RU resources, hence EU prognosis being overall reduced. Like don't get me wrong, EU will likely increase defense capabilities relative to RU, but will be long and not smooth process, and questionable if their acquistions will be effective in the first place, especially for IndoPac. Two things can be true, EU can become a stronger bloc against RU, but also relatively weaker bloc against PRC relative to pre UKR war EU conditions. Reality at this time is both RU/EU are reduced powers, likely for decades and that works in PRC favour because while it prefers independant EU vs US+EU, writing off a weak EU that can't substantively boost US even if they wanted to is more reliable for planning because less need to transatlantic consider political shifts.

infamia 4y ago
> RU, going through an active war is actually/literally has relevant industrial base to rearm Russia doesn't have any money to rearm. Their economy is smaller than Canada, is about the same size as Italy, and ~9X smaller than the EU+UK. Russia will not be able to help China in any significant way. China is on its own if it attacks Taiwan, without a large power to support it. > but also relatively weaker bloc against PRC relative to pre UKR war EU conditions. Reality at this time is both RU/EU are reduced powers, likely for decades and that works in PRC favour The Europeans need to scale up their existing industrial base, not completely reimagine their forces from the ground up. That will take years, not decades. They can rearm rather quickly, considering the EU+UK's economy is larger than China's. Also, you misunderstand part of the real value of a more muscular EU; it frees up even more US resources in the Pacific.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  >RU RU has already established (and now increasingly streamlined due to actually building for war) defense industrial base + PPP and autarkic resource advantages + will be forced maintain beyond 2% to rearm. Canada maybe richer but they're also squandering 6.5B buying a few coast guard patrol ships, which is arguably more incompetent than RU who at least have deficient hardware in numbers to prosecute war, and also more closely reflects current broken state of EU/NATO defense which has dwarfed RU for decades but couldn't sustain a few weeks of war that RU can. That said, RU rearming not enough to threaten NATO again, as if revealed RU capabilities were, but enough to keep NATO occupied. RU help to PRC is significant cheap resources, no one expected RU to help in any other way except maybe provide overflight rights (big for lobbing missiles over NORAD) and playing nuclear brinksmanship against SKR/JP. Just like US is going to be largely on her own in terms of force commitment for PRC war, without large power support outside of potential basing, because realistically there are no other "large" powers to rival US/PRC in TW scenario. Except maybe JP, but questionable if their defense bump fundable, or level of commitment in actual TW scenario. >Europeans need to scale up Yes, but "need to" being operating word, post Trump + basic historic EU/NATO coordination issues means they're pivotting towards indigenous programs like 4.5/5/6g fighters (JP/SKR as well) - stuff that will take decades. Major capital platform like surface combatants also going to be decade+ timeline due to politics. All the big ticket / long term expensive things they plan to either do indigenously or wean off US. Meanwhile issues with hollowed out defense base and lack of common market / per country acquisitions = it's not going to be a smooth or well coordinated process for long time. EU has potential to rearm but I have serious doubts they will / are systemically capable for doing it quick. EU+UK economy is smaller than PRC by PPP but more important is defense base and industrial efficiency simply not there. I would bet that actual urgency to rearm will decrease now that RU is diminished, I don't see west EU stopping free riding anytime soon especially with structural changes like expensive energy that's already deindustrializing like in DE. Smaller/poorer east EU near frontlines likely, but little savings there. Which ties to more "muscular EU" freeing up US resources for IndoPac, which IMO is more rhetoric than sensible analysis. Beside hardware relevant EU defense not relevant for IndoPac, the primary issue of US resourcing is dominantly domestic US interservice politics, where despite all voices screaming for PRC pivot, relatively useless army is still getting largest branch funding and pouring stupid resources into CENTCOM - ~8X USEUCOM, down from ~12X after AFG withdrawl, that's where US is freeing up meaningful resources. Apart from funding UKR war now, EU defense post GWOT was relatively insignificant committment, there wasn't much juice to squeeze. Compare to PRC gains, quick napkin math suggests PRC is _saving_ 3x USEUCOM budget buying cheaper RU oil last year, add in long term cheaper gas, less competitive EU exports, years delay in TW arms shipment and structurally PRC is coming out ahead, at least short/medium term.