Submarines are vulnerable to aircraft once detected, so it’s down to if US submarine stealth technology has enough of a lead on Chinese detecting technology for subs to avoid being found.

I see no advantage in exposing submarines to such a risk, when a single carrier task force can shut the PRC down just by being there.

Submarines can be prepositioned in ways a carrier strike-group can’t, their mere existence in-theatre poses a threat. During the Falklands HMS Conquerer basically ported the entire Argentine fleet with the sinking of the Belgrano, now the submarine obviously couldn’t retake the islands and had to spend time dodging the Argentine Air Force after its attack, but it as a single submarine was very effective over an area much larger than the Taiwan Strait.

Edited by Silasw on Nov 11th 2020 at 8:13:00 PM

Not claiming that they would play no useful role—in fact would be very highly surprised if neither Taiwan nor the US didn't already have submarines in the area. Just that aircraft are going to crucial to the outcome either way.

Well, there's the small matter of the PLAN having its own sub fleet to sweep the Taiwan Strait with. Plus any invasion plan would involve the PLAAF trying to gain air superiority against the Taiwanese with land-based aircraft, which are also going to add to their land-based and naval anti-shipping firepower. So you'd have to address that somehow.

. . . Can't believe nobody's said it yet, but let's wish all of our active and former US service men and women a joyous Veterans Day? And a belated birthday to the Marines on this here forum.

Modern submarines are stupidly difficult to detect even in more comparatively shallow littoral waters. I would point out they are so stealthy they have run into each other without knowing the other sub was there. Submarines are dangerous to anyone whose side they are not on and are extremely hard to find.

Happy belated Veterans'/Remembrance Day, all. Here's hoping for a more peaceful world where no more people will have to become veterans and we all get to remember things in a happy old age.

November 11th isn't a public holiday in Australia, unlike Anzac Day; but back in middle school I remember the class performing this together for the occasion, once:

Happy belated birthday to the Marine Corps, the second-oldest service after the Army National Guard.

A nice Birthday present for our Crayola-munching friends:

Marine Corps receives first amphibious combat vehicle

https://www.joint-forces.com/features/special-forces/37530-friendship-2020-joint-russian-pakistani-sof-exercise

Pakistan and Russia have launched their fourth joint exercise since 2016.

Cross posting with the Russia thread. U.S. fishing boat confronted by Russian warship near Alaska coast.

They probably thought they'd come across Japanese torpedo boats.

Also, looks like the PLA's Central Military Commission just issued a new operational doctrine. This would be the first one since 1999. Nothing specific just yet (and the statement is written in officialese anyway), but at a glance, it seems to include a shift from campaigns to operations as its basic building block. Which, combined with their new focus on a modern iteration of Tukhachevsky-esque "systems warfare", makes it look like they're reinventing a lot of Soviet ideas through convergent evolution (after spending much of the previous century pointedly resisting Soviet influence).

Edited by eagleoftheninth on Nov 13th 2020 at 2:50:23 AM

No, it seems that the Russians have been getting more aggressive in that region recently.

I just hope this doesn't escalate to outright shooting.

If I understand you correctly, this means the military is moving away from large scale battles to smaller more covert espionage missions?

What eagleoftheninth posted is a Chinese flavored approach to the old Soviet/Russian "operational art". To whit - the goal is to keep the eyes on the prize. Everything is done toward a goal. Victory is not measured by a units performance but how every engagement, battle or mission works to implement a goal.

The Chinese are shifting away from the large scale attack. The Gulf War -with Saddam's Army melting like snowflakes in the sun - put the old idea of a large "battle hardened army" to rest.

What the PLA has made official is their take on the "keep your eyes on the prize" operational art.

They are looking to get operational systems working together to fight enemy systems - e.g. how to defeat say a US carrier battle group with tactics and weapons as opposed to just throwing aircraft and ships at it and hoping it sinks.

Now the US has learned from the mistakes of the past - an American Carrier Battle Group has it's own systems: the CVN and it's escorts and sub, friendly units (ships, airplanes and land units) plus a network of ports and airfields to fall back on.

So the system vs. system battle is the PLA Navy's attempt to attack not just the carrier and it's battle group but all the ships and airplanes supporting it and the ports and airfields it needs.

Espionage, missiles, aircraft, subs and ships would be tasked with disrupting the American system - the ability to ruin a carrier's to fight - over just keeping a tally of American ships sunk. Afloat or underwater - if a carrier can't launch planes or ships can't fire missiles the battle is over.

Edited by TairaMai on Nov 13th 2020 at 5:39:01 PM

You think they're planning something?

No, they're just keeping up with the times and modern warfare. The Soviets did the same too when they were still around. The military evolving their doctrine is normal.

China is always planning something - but not this minute.

The CCP and PLA are all about the long game. They are looking at the next ten years while we're all about the next election.

What they're "planning" is on being a relevant military and economic force in the future.

China can't sustain the enormous standing army or build the kind of heavy armor their current doctrines require.

That too.

Army activates Iron Dome batteries at Fort Bliss to test Israeli-built air defense systems

If the C-47 and C-130 can, I wonder if the An-224 can become a gunship too.

The An-124 is a big boi. The An-225 is a singularly big boi. Both are extremely heavy, bulky jet-powered aircraft with significantly higher wing loading than the old Herk. Not the kinds of platform you'd want for tight orbital loitering.

But it's definitely doable with lighter prop craft. Jordan worked with Orbital ATK (a subsidiary of Northrop Grumman) to develop a gunship variant of the CN-235 twin-engine transport, and I think I heard the Russians planning something similar with the An-12.

The Soviets/Russians traditionally put more emphasis on short-range air defence than most NATO powers and assume that anyone they'd fight (including non-state powers) would be well-equipped in that regard as well. So their CAS tactics generally call for high-speed, low-altitude strafing runs by both jets and helicopters, with a liberal application of flares and other countermeasures; though they've also come up with standoff-capable CAS platforms like the Su-34, plus the aforementioned An-12 project.

The AC-47 was developed to counter a lightly-armed guerrilla force with few AA weapons; it's evidently a common enough type of conflict that several other countries have come up with their own C-47 gunship rigs, but it's also very vulnerable to any adversary packing actual AA weapons. The AC-130 series itself is moving towards guided munitions like the AGM-176 Griffin that it can lob at standoff ranges. And with the spread of cheap, light and spammable guided munitions (like the Roketsan MAM that Turkish and Azerbaijani drones have been dropping in recent conflicts), it looks like gun-based CAS will have a more limited role to play.

Marine Corps stands up space unit at Offutt Air Force Base.

Edited by TuefelHundenIV on Nov 14th 2020 at 10:57:38 AM