3 ms·

I mean they are. Realistically some will be hit during intial exchanges, current specialized amphib like this vessel mostly used for training and CONEMPs. PRC

I mean they are. Realistically some will be hit during intial exchanges, current specialized amphib like this vessel mostly used for training and CONEMPs. PRC will rebuild at leisure once TW is defanged / US removed from equation, last year they built more dry tonnage than entire 5 year US ship building program during WW2. They can crank these out during amphib phase... By the time these are employed, landing will mostly be largely uncontested. TBH by the time these are employed TW will have no energy, no calories, no running water, no sewage etc... they'll probably be looking forward to logistics barges to bring in supplies.

Leary 2y ago
Slight tangent: thoughts on the J-36 in a hypothetical Taiwan scenario?
- maxglute 2y ago
  1IC, Guam, Alaska maybe Darwin and Diego Garcia standoff strikes. Or enabler strikes (tankers/awacs/replenishment etc). Also perhaps even east Europe (baltics, east germany, scanadinavian peninsula). IMO very not... polite to talk about - MENA strikes. Downstream of Malacca / energy blockade is US financial pressure to MENA energy exporters to simply not export to PRC... obviating need for physical blockade, of course all sorts of potential transhipping sheninagans to circumvent. PRC IRBM+s can already hit MENA energy facilities, J36 range = hitting US MENA military basing, at greater scale. Basically sharper sword of damacles on MENA (and NATO whose dependant on MENA energy) on hedging/cooperating with US security interests in TW scenario. Due to PRC geographic location (5000km = 3000km j36 + 2000km+ standoff), J36 is functionally light strategic bomber that can be based in mainland to hit INDOPACOM, CENTCOM, EUROCOM without need for forward basing logistics. If J36 has supercruise, it can hit those areas with standoff munitions within probably 5 hours (vs B2/B21 missions are like 50+ hours from CONUS so there's geographic multiplier affect per J36 frame). Fleet of J36s creates 5000km bubble of high tempo deterence. Then consider procurement rate differences (100 B21s by 2040s vs how many J36s can be build), and then potential PLA engine / missile upgrading (i.e. extend range by 1000km UK enters picture), or tanking over RU and suddently CONUS north west CONUS / Alberta oil infra is in range.

Leary 2y ago

Slight tangent: thoughts on the J-36 in a hypothetical Taiwan scenario?

maxglute 2y ago
1IC, Guam, Alaska maybe Darwin and Diego Garcia standoff strikes. Or enabler strikes (tankers/awacs/replenishment etc). Also perhaps even east Europe (baltics, east germany, scanadinavian peninsula). IMO very not... polite to talk about - MENA strikes. Downstream of Malacca / energy blockade is US financial pressure to MENA energy exporters to simply not export to PRC... obviating need for physical blockade, of course all sorts of potential transhipping sheninagans to circumvent. PRC IRBM+s can already hit MENA energy facilities, J36 range = hitting US MENA military basing, at greater scale. Basically sharper sword of damacles on MENA (and NATO whose dependant on MENA energy) on hedging/cooperating with US security interests in TW scenario. Due to PRC geographic location (5000km = 3000km j36 + 2000km+ standoff), J36 is functionally light strategic bomber that can be based in mainland to hit INDOPACOM, CENTCOM, EUROCOM without need for forward basing logistics. If J36 has supercruise, it can hit those areas with standoff munitions within probably 5 hours (vs B2/B21 missions are like 50+ hours from CONUS so there's geographic multiplier affect per J36 frame). Fleet of J36s creates 5000km bubble of high tempo deterence. Then consider procurement rate differences (100 B21s by 2040s vs how many J36s can be build), and then potential PLA engine / missile upgrading (i.e. extend range by 1000km UK enters picture), or tanking over RU and suddently CONUS north west CONUS / Alberta oil infra is in range.