Agreed that the most likely next step after a blockade is an amphibious assault.
But in turn that is a huge escalation leading me to question how quickly they’d actually push that through. I don’t doubt submarines will be pushed into optimal positions for striking into China and killing their navy but I suspect an escort arrangement would be more likely. This forces China to strike American forces first, which is more palatable to the American and allied publics, than just beginning to sink ships
Another thought that came to mind, my apologies for replying twice: while China is clearly building a robust amphibious force, I find it unlikely they are looking just at Taiwan. For all the “pivot to the pacific” talk, it is impossible to ignore the role of the US navy as a global fighting force and that is what China seeks to emulate and/or surpass. They need ships for more than a Taiwan fight for that
A blockade is already an act of war.
Maybe if we look at this from a purely military standpoint but, unless a particularly hawkish president is in office, certain non military matters will influence the overall response.
Technically no, since Taiwan is not recognized neither by China nor by USA. From both Chinese and American official position, Taiwan is insurgent territory of China, and therefore China could freely restrict the trade there.
I disagree. America built the current world order on free trade but recognised the need for a force to back that trade. Even if the Chinese just want to secure their backyard, they need a potent force for post Taiwan and they can’t build it after the dust settles. Much like the US post WW2, the losing nation has to sign the deal aboard a Chinese ship and that ship then has to be part of the force that dictates the future. If they sign a winning agreement aboard one of their 5 remaining ships then it’s just a pyrrhic victory.
An act of war against Taiwan. Not the US.
What convoy escorts?
The navy said several years ago they don’t have the ships to escort MSC ships.
The USN didn’t escort anyone in the Red Sea.
I disagree that it is so inevitable. The US still has 11 CVNs and a lot of countries aren't going to bow to this shitty new order.
I'm fairly certain that the USN strategy will be to contain China around Taiwan such that the rest of the world can keep moving, mostly because American supply lines are truly global. From there they can pick away at the PLAN and force them to attempt a breakout and avoiding a 1:1 engagement (obviously very oversimplified)
Depending on how PLAN procurement goes the 11 carrier advantage the US have will be greatly diminished if not completely gone by the of the next decade. Current sources already point toward 5 carriers by the end of this decade with dual carrier construction starting at both major shipyards. Also, its not a suprise that quite a bit of countries are not a big fan of the US order either but are really only here due to US forces.
This only works assuming a comparatively weaker PLAN which is not going to be the case in the coming years and assuming they won't go all out declaring total war in the pacific. USN barely has enough resource as it is to contain the current PLAN.
From my read, I don't believe that the PLAN wins or loses based upon the ships they send into the fight but the logistics they can bring to bare and, more specifically, protecting their logistics. Fundamentally the destroyer pack hunting tactics are flawed and that remains so for the time being
That’s a nice plan and all but it almost immediately will fail.
Not a consideration really. There are like what? 19? B-2s in existence. These are not going to survive facing the entire PLAAF (equipped with around 400 stealth air superiority fighters) and the PLAs GBAD network, not to mention PLAN ships and their radars.
i could use a small fleet of WWI submarines to devastate the MSC fleet if they don’t have any escorts or countermeasures, and considering the limited number of ships in that fleet, means they only need to hit a few and the US’s capability to supply overseas forces drops significantly.
Range is an issue of supply. A WWI sub wouldn’t have the range to do it either.
I’d love to see the maritime militia counter a Harpoon
So the numerically inferior USN would took a defensive stance alongside the perimeter of great length, with numerically superior PLAN having a central position & being capable of creating overwhelming superiority in any direction it wished? Such strategy would either cause USN quickly attrited by clashes with superior Chinese forces, or being forced to retreat any time Chinese push against perimeter.
I disagree that the fortress islands are a positive for the Chinese. I believe they’d be abandoned fairly quickly as they’re intensive to defend and strategically of little value beyond the initial conflict.
As soon as you would start striking Chinese nuclear silos with atomics, you should better expect most of US cities switched out of existence. The fallout from the massed strikes against ICBM silo fields (and Chinese have a lot of them - more than deployed missiles, obviously) would have such severe consequences, that China would immediately retaliate against US population centers. The US would likely do the same, and both nations would be crippled completely.
They are valuable positions around which fleet could be deployed, having support from coastal airfields. I don't see why Chinese should abandon them; any decisive American attack against them would cause a great strain of American limited resources.
Yes, but problem is, USN forces on the perimeter would be in even more vulnerable position for same kind of attacks from PLAN and PLAAF. While Chinese forces at least would be massed & have mutual support (as well as coastal airbases and missile positions support), the USN would be spread thin alongside great perimeter, having only a handful ships in each particular area.
They have more than enough warheads to cripple the USA completely.
There are about 19 long-range stealth bombers in USAF inventory. Likely not all of them are available. Its not even remotely enough to knock down all Chinese silos (considerig how many decoys they have) or tunnel-based mobile launchers. And as soon as first nuclear attack by B-2 came, China would be in "use or lose" scenario. So they would retaliate immediately with massive strikes against US home territory.
With ICBM's that you could not all destroy by first strike.
I mean, I suspect the RAN will be deploying almost exclusively to block passage through the Singapore Strait and the Celebes sea which is a major sealane for Chinese imports. Unless China managed to keep SK and Japan neutral, those are some relatively powerful navies holding down the East China sea. Let's be generous and say that only interrupts 40 percent of Chinese critical materials imports, that is still a serious detriment to the war machine. Further, this perimeter, as I envision it, isn't static. It's knowing where ships are and being able to respond appropriately and it's targeting crucial supply vessels such as AORs to keep the Chinese ship's stocks diminished
I'm not so sure this is such an advantage anymore. Remember the Ukrainian strike on Russian airbases? Nothing says that can't happen to the US as well, despite defenses
Sigh. China have about 400 silos deployed at three bases. How exactly you are planning to destroy 400 targets in one swoop, using only 10-15 bombers? Notto mention a freaking 5000 kilometers of tunnels they use to store & move TEL's! You have just one strike with less than 20 bombers for that.
Considering their experiments with searching submarines by orbiting lasers, they may just think boomers would not be such a good idea anymore.
Is that another tag for AIP submarines? Could you explain, please?
