USMC Doctrine Changes

jsport said:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...four-divisions-to-taiwan-expert/#10bf5a9f3163
Click to expand...


Ugh...David Axe. With all due respect to Dunn, he was a radio operator in the Michigan National Guard.
I'm pretty sure he wouldn't claim to be an expert on these matters.

The fundamental issue with protecting Taiwain is that PLAAN (and PLAAF) has the logistical support to maintain a force in being
of sufficient size to feign an invasion for a very long time. They'd just love if the US "provoked" them into invading
by some surge of four divisions across the Pacific in some War Plan D'orange.


RAND's "Air Defense Options for Taiwan" was a deeply sobering analysis of just how hard Taiwan is to defend.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1051.html
Taiwan is not impossible to defend just really, really hard to defend; the sheer inventory of SRBMs the PRC can throw at that island
and its surroundings is scary.
 
Last edited:
The only way the US can defend Taiwan is by access denial...or by actively destroying assets on the mainland in retribution (unlikely unless they strike Guam or Japan first). But were the Taiwanese army to stand its ground, any Chinese invasion would be slow and painful and provide ample opportunity for the US to eviscerate the PLAN and probably cause a disproportionate number of PLA-AF casualties as well. No doubt the PLA troops would suffer, if only on sunk transport ships in the straight. But it seems far more likely that any overt PRC military move would be a bombardment and blockade using aircraft and submarines, which would be hard to break and very much limit the PLAN's exposure. It would also make any US assets directly on the island exposed, cut off, and not much of a deterrent.
 
Skipjack and Flounder are the only meaningful way to defend Taiwan. Maybe some nips at port facilities and airfields across the Strait. Beyond that it's just making clear to China that you will in fact be bothered enough to fight and not roll over.

They can't airlift enough of what they'd need to occupy a resisting Taiwan. It has to come by sea. Naval mines in the strait-- and also major harbors with oil terminals. Then it's just a grind.

Taiwan is dug in pretty well, literally. It wouldn't be a pleasant place during the bombardment, though.
They might eventually take Taiwan, but the regime wouldn't survive a blockade.

Any sort of Chinese naval and army mobilization would take time and be noticeable. You use that time to strengthen Taiwan and make it more politically risky for China. Maybe a few Patriot and SHORAD batteries you're willing to lose to help buy some extra time for ROC forces. Mine the approaches and make no effort to hide the fact. Rushing frigates to harbors. All the things that makes it clear it will be impossible to avoid direct conflict between the two nations if an invasion proceeds. Deterrence is the best defense. If they are not deterred, you're going to have to settle for making them pay for each step along the way, and a blockade. I'm not sure you can "stop" an invasion. Certainly not if you want to keep it a nice limited war.
 
I don't see how mine delivery would be easier than stand off PGM/AShM delivery. It would be a nice to have in addition, if it could be done safely (seems doubtful to me). Any landing site is going to be obvious to any optical satellite in orbit, including commercial ones, as well any one with a satellite phone and a pair of binoculars with a good view. We would be talking about a Normandy level effort and all of the men and material associated with that; it would be a very crowded beach and shipping lane. You barely would need targeting; you could pretty much just pick impact points on a map and have anti shipping missiles sweep across the straight at random and still find ships with no point defenses to hit.
 
In the circa 2030 timeframe that China may intend to execute a military invasion on Taiwan, their build up will already be well underway and I don't forsee them having much of an issue launching an assault by sea or land at that point. Their ships will more than certainly outnumber USN vessels in the region and their missile forces at that point will put considerable pressure on our regional allies. China may be able to bully the US out of a good portion of the Western Pacific unless our allies are ready to make the military expenditures necessary to contain China and the risk associated with war.

With COVID-19 bogging down the world, there just isn't enough emphasis on military build up on behalf of any of the Western Pacific nations at the moment and no one should want to be BEHIND the curve. China is already sprinting forward.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt that the PRC can outnumber the USN in the Western Pacific in 2030, ship for ship. I strongly doubt they can force a contested invasion of Taiwan successfully if the US decided to get involved. Even assuming carrier assets can't be brought in close enough to be effective, US bombers could dump stand off PGMs from outside the first island chain and USN nuke boats would probably run rampant (and add additional missiles). Additionally, it also seems all but certain that by that time frame the US has air, sea, and land launched hypersonic weapons it can use to contest PLAN surface and landing forces. I have a hard time believing the PRC could manage the undertaking successfully at all, and at the minimum it would take tens of thousands of casualties, even assuming the US spared the mainland any direct attack. Your mileage may differ.
 
Josh_TN said:
I don't see how mine delivery would be easier than stand off PGM/AShM delivery. It would be a nice to have in addition, if it could be done safely (seems doubtful to me). Any landing site is going to be obvious to any optical satellite in orbit, including commercial ones, as well any one with a satellite phone and a pair of binoculars with a good view. We would be talking about a Normandy level effort and all of the men and material associated with that; it would be a very crowded beach and shipping lane. You barely would need targeting; you could pretty much just pick impact points on a map and have anti shipping missiles sweep across the straight at random and still find ships with no point defenses to hit.
Click to expand...

The problem is: the Taiwanese can't really deny any of the PRC's ISR* assets; I can't see many of ROC ASCM or other
launchers surviving. We are talking about an island with significantly smaller area than the "Scud Hunt" zone and
an adversary that's been the beneficiary of 30 years of improvement in tracking relocatable targets.

The distances to the mainland are so short that the PRC could look-shoot with their SRBMs.
And the PRC has the positive political objective and probably won't move until they are confident in their ability
to service the relocatable targets.

Protecting ROC's launchers starts to looks like MX/MPS or trench systems.

* I suppose there's nothing preventing the ROC from developing the mother of all multi-spectral obscurants and having
an island full of smoke generators.
 
marauder2048 said:
Josh_TN said:
I don't see how mine delivery would be easier than stand off PGM/AShM delivery. It would be a nice to have in addition, if it could be done safely (seems doubtful to me). Any landing site is going to be obvious to any optical satellite in orbit, including commercial ones, as well any one with a satellite phone and a pair of binoculars with a good view. We would be talking about a Normandy level effort and all of the men and material associated with that; it would be a very crowded beach and shipping lane. You barely would need targeting; you could pretty much just pick impact points on a map and have anti shipping missiles sweep across the straight at random and still find ships with no point defenses to hit.
Click to expand...

The problem is: the Taiwanese can't really deny any of the PRC's ISR* assets; I can't see many of ROC ASCM or other
launchers surviving. We are talking about an island with significantly smaller area than the "Scud Hunt" zone and
an adversary that's been the beneficiary of 30 years of improvement in tracking relocatable targets.

The distances to the mainland are so short that the PRC could look-shoot with their SRBMs.
And the PRC has the positive political objective and probably won't move until they are confident in their ability
to service the relocatable targets.

Protecting ROC's launchers starts to looks like MX/MPS or trench systems.

* I suppose there's nothing preventing the ROC from developing the mother of all multi-spectral obscurants and having
an island full of smoke generators.
Click to expand...

I'm specifically discussing the US preventing/foiling an invasion. Taiwan by itself cannot, so long as the PRC is willing to pay the butcher bill. Though resistance would probably stop pretty quickly if the US committed to not getting involved.

Edit: I presumed US involvement in the post I was responding to because both Flounder and Skipjack are US mine types that have not been exported.
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
I'm specifically discussing the US preventing/foiling an invasion. Taiwan by itself cannot, so long as the PRC is willing to pay the butcher bill. Though resistance would probably stop pretty quickly if the US committed to not getting involved.

Edit: I presumed US involvement in the post I was responding to because both Flounder and Skipjack are US mine types that have not been exported.
Click to expand...

What would China's reaction be to the US deploying mines off the coast of Taiwan?
 
In_A_Dream said:
Josh_TN said:
I'm specifically discussing the US preventing/foiling an invasion. Taiwan by itself cannot, so long as the PRC is willing to pay the butcher bill. Though resistance would probably stop pretty quickly if the US committed to not getting involved.

Edit: I presumed US involvement in the post I was responding to because both Flounder and Skipjack are US mine types that have not been exported.
Click to expand...

What would China's reaction be to the US deploying mines off the coast of Taiwan?
Click to expand...

I suspect they would be rather cross. For that matter, I suspect Taiwan wouldn't be amused either unless they specifically made the request.
 
Josh_TN said:
I presumed US involvement in the post I was responding to because both Flounder and Skipjack are US mine types that have not been exported.
Click to expand...

So, IIUC, you are talking about a US rapid mine laying effort in front of a presumed invasion force that's assembling in PRC ports
but has not yet put to sea? Or maybe the fleet has put to sea but even the fast hyrdofoils need 3 hours so you mine
in front of them?

I can't see any preemptive or preventive US defensive mine laying in international waters happening; the Taiwanese are
free to mine their own coastal waters and they would benefit from something like a ground-launched Quickstrike-ER.
 
marauder2048 said:
Josh_TN said:
I presumed US involvement in the post I was responding to because both Flounder and Skipjack are US mine types that have not been exported.
Click to expand...

So, IIUC, you are talking about a US rapid mine laying effort in front of a presumed invasion force that's assembling in PRC ports
but has not yet put to sea? Or maybe the fleet has put to sea but even the fast hyrdofoils need 3 hours so you mine
in front of them?

I can't see any preemptive or preventive US defensive mine laying in international waters happening; the Taiwanese are
free to mine their own coastal waters and they would benefit from something like a ground-launched Quickstrike-ER.
Click to expand...

I think there is some confusion which is my fault because I didn't quote the post I was responding to. The user "_Del_" posted the following:

" Skipjack and Flounder are the only meaningful way to defend Taiwan. Maybe some nips at port facilities and airfields across the Strait. Beyond that it's just making clear to China that you will in fact be bothered enough to fight and not roll over."

My original response was to that - so I was assuming a US involvement, since US equipment was specified. I personally don't think such mines would be very useful in this context for both political and practical reasons: I think Taiwan would have to give permission for mines to be used that way, certainly if they were placed inside the twelve mile limit of Taiwanese waters, and I don't think the US would be in any position to deliver a meaningful number of mines to that airspace even if they were fitted with glide kits. I responded by suggesting that long range stand off weapons would still make an invasion somewhat a of a bloodbath if the US were involved and that is my position on the matter.

It would probably behoove Taiwan to come up with a way of rapidly mining potential landing zones however. It would probably have to be a custom made, rocket delivered system; tube artillery shells would lack the the HE content to be effective bottom mines even if you could miniaturize a target detection device that was artillery fuse sized.

EDIT: we are getting rather far off topic
 
The way the PRC is going I would not be surprised to find THEM mining certain parts of the seaway.
 
Josh_TN said:
I don't see how mine delivery would be easier than stand off PGM/AShM delivery.
Click to expand...
Because anti-shipping missiles only work once the balloon goes up, while minelaying is both a deterrent to actual conflict which is the most favourable chance of defeating an invasion, and in the event they decide to proceed anyway, it shepherds all the commercial and military traffic into nice crowded areas even farther away from Taiwan's beaches to which you can lob your anti-shipping missiles.
Once they make the decision to go, I doubt they simply call it a day after the invasion fleet is bloodied. You're risking a much less "contained" conflict between two super powers.
 
_Del_ said:
Josh_TN said:
I don't see how mine delivery would be easier than stand off PGM/AShM delivery.
Click to expand...
Because anti-shipping missiles only work once the balloon goes up, while minelaying is both a deterrent to actual conflict which is the most favourable chance of defeating an invasion, and in the event they decide to proceed anyway, it shepherds all the commercial and military traffic into nice crowded areas even farther away from Taiwan's beaches to which you can lob your anti-shipping missiles.
Once they make the decision to go, I doubt they simply call it a day after the invasion fleet is bloodied. You're risking a much less "contained" conflict between two super powers.
Click to expand...

It's totally permissible to lay controlled mines in international waters. It's also totally permissible to sweep them.
 
It probably isn't something that is considered nice to do in an ally's EEZ or shipping routes without discussing it with them.
 
marauder2048 said:
It's totally permissible to lay controlled mines in international waters. It's also totally permissible to sweep them.
Click to expand...
Certainly. And that leaves everybody more time to come to their senses and ROC time to further prepare for any invasion scenario.
 
_Del_ said:
marauder2048 said:
It's totally permissible to lay controlled mines in international waters. It's also totally permissible to sweep them.
Click to expand...
Certainly. And that leaves everybody more time to come to their senses and ROC time to further prepare for any invasion scenario.
Click to expand...

It's intriguing. Those remote controlled/enabled mines under development seem purpose built for this scenario.
And I had forgotten how shallow most of Taiwan Strait is.
 
Quickstrike activate when they hit the water. The arming delay and the disarming delay can be programmed, but once they are released I don't think they will be 'controlled' in the legal sense. They can discriminate between target types acoustically to some degree but I don't think that is what 'controlled' means in this context. To lay them in meaningful numbers would probably require USAF bombers, and it would probably have to be done before the PRC turned the straight into a free fire zone. For those reasons I think Quickstrike wouldn't be that useful, though perhaps the Clandestinely Deployed Mine system is more flexible.
 
Josh_TN said:
Quickstrike activate when they hit the water. The arming delay and the disarming delay can be programmed, but once they are released I don't think they will be 'controlled' in the legal sense. They can discriminate between target types acoustically to some degree but I don't think that is what 'controlled' means in this context. To lay them in meaningful numbers would probably require USAF bombers, and it would probably have to be done before the PRC turned the straight into a free fire zone. For those reasons I think Quickstrike wouldn't be that useful, though perhaps the Clandestinely Deployed Mine system is more flexible.
Click to expand...

Yes, but I'm talking about Quickstrike-ER - which is basically the combination of Mk-82 bomb, Quickstrike tail sensor kit, and JDAM-ER glide/guidance kit:

1601480817262.png

Essentially, it's a guided glide mine, which, after being dropped, deployed its wings & glide toward the splashdown point.

Its advantage:

* It could be launched from any altitude, from any flight regime (including toss-bombing low-altitude delivery)
* It could be launched from standoff distance of enemy air defenses
* It could be launched in salvo, with individual mines gliding to their pre-designated position (thus allowing to establish the whole minefield in one fast salvo)
 
I'm aware of Flounder and Skipjack; I just don't think the stand off range is sufficient for a non fighter aircraft to survive the delivery in that close a proximity to the mainland.
 
Josh_TN said:
I just don't think the stand off range is sufficient for a non fighter aircraft to survive the delivery in that close a proximity to the mainland.
Click to expand...

Well, the B-1B could be used for that purpose - they could do low-altitude approach & toss delivery, then making supersonic retreat.
 
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/china/ship-mine.htmIn 2005, the Party Central Committee and the Central Military Commission made major strategic arrangements to form a military service reserve force. In September of the same year, the first reservative minesweeping force of the Navy, a reserve minesweeper brigade of the East China Sea Fleet, was established. The formed brigade belonged to the East China Sea Fleet. It is mainly responsible for conducting reconnaissance by separate or coordinated active service units, especially anti-mine reconnaissance and anti-mine warfare operations. It provides personnel and equipment for the expansion of wartime troops, and explores the way for the construction of naval reserve forces in peacetime experience.
The brigade is responsible for maritime training and peacetime force management; the resident city committee organization, transportation, fishery and other departments and the military sub-districts, boat and brigade joint control, take the territorial allocation method to pre-contract the vessel; the financial security is included in the city and county (district) Budget, the reserve soldiers are all selected from the ship's boss and veterans.
In order to form the maritime combat capability as soon as possible, the brigade combines the training content of each ship's production tasks with reasonable training, and uses the fishing boat to go to sea and return to the time for ship driving, electromechanical maintenance and other training, and use the fishing boat to concentrate on the sea to carry out the gathering, formation, and formation. Transform and other training. At the same time, the combination of theoretical teaching, practical exercises and assessment and evaluation, focus on the basic theoretical knowledge of war injury, damage, fire, reconnaissance, etc., and carry out practical training, further improving the military skills of the reserve officers and soldiers.

One could assume every swingin richard junk fishing boat will be hunting these mines...

​
 
Josh_TN said:
Quickstrike activate when they hit the water. The arming delay and the disarming delay can be programmed, but once they are released I don't think they will be 'controlled' in the legal sense. They can discriminate between target types acoustically to some degree but I don't think that is what 'controlled' means in this context. To lay them in meaningful numbers would probably require USAF bombers, and it would probably have to be done before the PRC turned the straight into a free fire zone. For those reasons I think Quickstrike wouldn't be that useful, though perhaps the Clandestinely Deployed Mine system is more flexible.
Click to expand...

There was a remote control capability developed for Quickstrike; it is via a unidirectional acoustic datalink that could
send arm/sterilize/self-destruct commands.

I fully expect Quickstrike to get the little turbojet that Boeing has been pitching for JDAM for like a decade.
Even so, I think the Quickstrike-ER range would permit aircraft to lay mines in international waters from within
the immediate airspace over Taiwan.

If you did it at night, I bet it looks pretty innocuous esp since the advantage of the wing kit is that it really
makes it difficult to reconstruct the minefield layout just by monitoring the aircraft in flight.

I don't credit PRC radars with the ability to readily detect and track wing-kit GBUs from these distances to splash down.
 
Last edited:
Another thought: what's preventing the PRC from quickly "minesweeping" the Strait via underwater nuclear detonations?
"It's one of those peaceful nuclear weapons usages...we're mining for Unobtainum"
 
I'm unaware of the acoustic link upgrade - this is something in production TDDs? As far as placement is concerned, my concern would be the bomber being directly engaged by long range AAWs (or even SAMs, at the higher altitudes needed to extend range). Tracking the individual munitions to the water isn't going to be possible unless an AWAC is available, and even then I suspect tracking a group of bombers releasing all of their weapons at once would make this exceedingly difficult for all target tracks.
 
marauder2048 said:
I fully expect Quickstrike to get the little turbojet that Boeing has been pitching for JDAM for like a decade.
Even so, I think the Quickstrike-ER range would permit aircraft to lay mines in international waters from within
the immediate airspace over Taiwan.
Click to expand...

And just imagine the possibilities of the offensive mining of Chinese naval bases and sub pens) It would seriously hamper their operation: PLAN would be either forced to risk losses on undetected mines, or restrict naval operations for days, while harbors and narrows are sweeped.

Josh_TN said:
As far as placement is concerned, my concern would be the bomber being directly engaged by long range AAWs (or even SAMs, at the higher altitudes needed to extend range).
Click to expand...

You could just use toss-bombing; approach on low altitude, accelerate to transsonic, pull up & detach mines on climbing. The kinetic energy would send mines up to the sufficient altitude for them to glide. And even if your plane is not suited for toss bombing (say, Orion/Neptune), you could just strap a JATO unit on mine, to give it additional kick for altitude.
 
Josh_TN said:
I'm unaware of the acoustic link upgrade - this is something in production TDDs? As far as placement is concerned, my concern would be the bomber being directly engaged by long range AAWs (or even SAMs, at the higher altitudes needed to extend range). Tracking the individual munitions to the water isn't going to be possible unless an AWAC is available, and even then I suspect tracking a group of bombers releasing all of their weapons at once would make this exceedingly difficult for all target tracks.
Click to expand...

The data link was mentioned in budget documents a while back. I don't know if it was ever deployed.
You are talking about 120+ nautical mile SAM shots from the mainland and there's nothing preventing
the use of airborne jammers, large radar obscurant/chaff bundles etc to cover the minelaying.

If you are really paranoid, you could always loft some (ideally) remote control second-hand commercial narrowbodies as blockers.

This is going to be a pretty quick minelaying exercise since, IIUC, it's bounded really only by how quickly the aircraft can release QS-ER.
jdam-er-footprint.png
 
Dilandu said:
marauder2048 said:
You are talking about 120+ nautical mile SAM shots from the mainland
Click to expand...

Not to mention, that if SAM missiles is launched into a tail-chase against retreating bombers, the actual engagement distance must be smaller.
Click to expand...

And I'm thinking, at this point, mainly about "cargo" bombers. Just flat-floored transport aircraft where you chuck QS-ER out the back.
 
marauder2048 said:
This is going to be a pretty quick minelaying exercise since, IIUC, it's bounded really only by the release times for Quickstrike-ER.
Click to expand...

Exactly - that's the beauty of Quickstrike-ER. It could be layed FAST. The old aerial mines required plane to drop each mine into the exact position - which took a lot of time & required a lot of low-flying. Wich Quickstrike-ER all the time your plane needed is only the time to release a salvo. Mines would reach pre-designated points themselves.

In therms of mine warfare, Quickstrike-ER is really the game-changer; it made possible such aggressive use of offensive minelaying, which was literally impossible before. A squadron of fast bombers could literally block enemy naval bases, or close strategic narrows, or boost coastal defenses in just one sortie.
 
marauder2048 said:
And I'm thinking, at this point, mainly about "cargo" bombers. Just flat-floored transport aircraft where you chuck QS-ER out the back.
Click to expand...

Well, in that case I would advice to strap JATO boosters on Quickstrike-ER, so they could be launched from low altitude without the need for carrier plane to climb up.
 
file:///C:/Users/user/Downloads/Research_on_vibration_characteristics_of_a_multi-b.pdf

As a new type of artillery, the multi-barrel artillery has the advantages of high firing frequency, efficient mutilate ability, largest kill area, et al. which make it a hotspot in present research on artillery field. Compared with single-barrel weapons, the multi-barrel artillery has a more complicated yet richer structure, thus the vibration caused by the interaction with a high-speed moving projectile is also more complex. The vibration of barrel has a significant effect on firing accuracy, which has been a classical problem concerned for long time due to particularity of the shock excitation and complexity of the mechanism system [1-5].

reducing Taiwan defenses w/ overwhelming artillery
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom