Military equipment & technology used in the war

[Samseau]

That isn't so much the issue though. It's that America's force projection strategy relies on carrier groups that are effectively obsolete because they don't have any effective defense against China's land based hypersonic missiles. We'd have a hard time bringing land troops into combat without massive casualties on the way in.

Do you know what submarines are? Those hypersonic launchers won't do anything if subs surface out of the water at 2 AM, launch missiles and destroy them.

All that matters in a coming naval battle is sub superiority. Whoever wins the sub battles controls the seas.

 

[get2choppaaa]

Do you know what submarines are? Those hypersonic launchers won't do anything if subs surface out of the water at 2 AM, launch missiles and destroy them.

All that matters in a coming naval battle is sub superiority. Whoever wins the sub battles controls the seas.

With respect... I'm not sure you have a complete understanding of Naval Warfare and Amphibious assualts. Being a resident Marine, and having deployed via a naval vessel as my taxi.... I can assure you that if you dont see the significance of the aircraft carrier being rendered obsolete due to lack of defenses agains surface to ship missels.... you're missing the boat.

Until 2016 and Houthi's shot at some american ships (you can find the story on fox news... its not exactly what happened, but the gist is close enough) The US navy didn't know if the CWIS even worked against incoming regualr surface to ship missles. Now a hypersonic missle? Zero defense that we have seen tested on this.

I am sure the 1000 lb brains at DARPA are working on a countermeasure... but so far nothing seems to be presented.

Here's the thing.

Lets accept your postulation that submarines are going to hit multiple surafce to ship missle sites that fire hypersonic missles. Subs are fine to sink other subs/ships. At a certain point, war has to transition from naval to land if we are talking about maintainig a foothold on a piece of land. You cant put boots on the deck from a sub.

They are a compliement to the Naval Fleet. Not the end all be all however.

You only need 1 or 2 missles to hit an aircraft carrier. It is not possible to shoot all of them down. How many air craft carriers is the US going to sacrifice for Tiawan? 1? 2? 5?

Do you honestly think we have intel such that we can identify every launcher site? No I dont. More likeley we are going to identify this after the launch by finding radar signatures at the POO site (Point of Origin) . I'm not going to get too indepth on all that here for obvious reasons, but all China would have to do is turn off their radar at launch sites until right before launch. The kill chain loop is too fast to identify and kill these targets in a matter of minutes from a submarine.

Youre also assuming that China wouldn't have sophisticated ADA / Anti Air defenses such as S-300 or S-400's with radars on during times of launch. When we shot multiple Tomahawks from Subs against Syria in the 2017-2018 timeframe, it was the JASSM-ER missles that were launched from B1's which actually struck the target.... Not the tomahawks.

The Pentagon’s New Strike Missile Just Saw Its First Combat

JASSM, used in the attack on Syria's chemical weapons cache, can strike targets with pinpoint precision from hundreds of miles away.

www.popularmechanics.com

Syria Strike Marks Combat Debut for JASSM-ER | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The April 14 (local time) US, UK, and French strike on Syrian chemical weapons research and storage facilities marked the first combat use of the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range, according to the Pentagon.

www.airandspaceforces.com

You have to put boots on the deck to maintain any foothold on a peice of land. The air craft carrier is the equipment that does that. Unless you think we are going to fly all our troops into a neighboring country whom would allow this... but who is going to let us land and then launch an attack against China from bases we already have a presence.

Japan? South Korea?

The Tiawan conflict is simply not one The US is set up for success with.

Island Hopping style campaigns... which is something the Marine Corps is resturctured around, is one thing.... but placing boots on the deck on Taiwan at the threat of hypersonic missles when China is committed to mainting a 1 China Policy (something we originally recongized under Nixon) aint a thing.

 

[Samseau]

With respect... I'm not sure you have a complete understanding of Naval Warfare and Amphibious assualts. Being a resident Marine, and having deployed via a naval vessel as my taxi.... I can assure you that if you dont see the significance of the aircraft carrier being rendered obsolete due to lack of defenses agains surface to ship missels.... you're missing the boat.

Until 2016 and Houthi's shot at some american ships (you can find the story on fox news... its not exactly what happened, but the gist is close enough) The US navy didn't know if the CWIS even worked against incoming regualr surface to ship missles. Now a hypersonic missle? Zero defense that we have seen tested on this.

I am sure the 1000 lb brains at DARPA are working on a countermeasure... but so far nothing seems to be presented.

Here's the thing.

Lets accept your postulation that submarines are going to hit multiple surafce to ship missle sites that fire hypersonic missles. Subs are fine to sink other subs/ships. At a certain point, war has to transition from naval to land if we are talking about maintainig a foothold on a piece of land. You cant put boots on the deck from a sub.

They are a compliement to the Naval Fleet. Not the end all be all however.

You only need 1 or 2 missles to hit an aircraft carrier. It is not possible to shoot all of them down. How many air craft carriers is the US going to sacrifice for Tiawan? 1? 2? 5?

Do you honestly think we have intel such that we can identify every launcher site? No I dont. More likeley we are going to identify this after the launch by finding radar signatures at the POO site (Point of Origin) . I'm not going to get too indepth on all that here for obvious reasons, but all China would have to do is turn off their radar at launch sites until right before launch. The kill chain loop is too fast to identify and kill these targets in a matter of minutes from a submarine.

Youre also assuming that China wouldn't have sophisticated ADA / Anti Air defenses such as S-300 or S-400's with radars on during times of launch. When we shot multiple Tomahawks from Subs against Syria in the 2017-2018 timeframe, it was the JASSM-ER missles that were launched from B1's which actually struck the target.... Not the tomahawks.

The Pentagon’s New Strike Missile Just Saw Its First Combat

JASSM, used in the attack on Syria's chemical weapons cache, can strike targets with pinpoint precision from hundreds of miles away.

www.popularmechanics.com

Syria Strike Marks Combat Debut for JASSM-ER | Air & Space Forces Magazine

The April 14 (local time) US, UK, and French strike on Syrian chemical weapons research and storage facilities marked the first combat use of the AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile-Extended Range, according to the Pentagon.

www.airandspaceforces.com

You have to put boots on the deck to maintain any foothold on a peice of land. The air craft carrier is the equipment that does that. Unless you think we are going to fly all our troops into a neighboring country whom would allow this... but who is going to let us land and then launch an attack against China from bases we already have a presence.

Japan? South Korea?

The Tiawan conflict is simply not one The US is set up for success with.

Island Hopping style campaigns... which is something the Marine Corps is resturctured around, is one thing.... but placing boots on the deck on Taiwan at the threat of hypersonic missles when China is committed to mainting a 1 China Policy (something we originally recongized under Nixon) aint a thing.

So as long as the US figures out a way to bait out hypersonic missiles, then they can win.

Do you honestly think we have intel such that we can identify every launcher site? No I dont. More likeley we are going to identify this after the launch by finding radar signatures at the POO site (Point of Origin) . I'm not going to get too indepth on all that here for obvious reasons, but all China would have to do is turn off their radar at launch sites until right before launch. The kill chain loop is too fast to identify and kill these targets in a matter of minutes from a submarine.

If what you say is true, yes China wins, but if missile launches from a very powerful, stationary target are identifiable, either by drone or satellite recon, then it's an easy target for a sub to pop out of the water and launch a missile at.

Unlike the Ukrainian war, a naval war against China is completely stacked against China. Either they have some secret weapons up their sleeve we cannot counter or else they will get ruined in a naval war (like they did against Britain).

And yes, by the way, Japan will absolutely be used as a staging ground.

 

[get2choppaaa]

So as long as the US figures out a way to bait out hypersonic missiles, then they can win.



If what you say is true, yes China wins, but if missile launches from a very powerful, stationary target are identifiable, either by drone or satellite recon, then it's an easy target for a sub to pop out of the water and launch a missile at.

Unlike the Ukrainian war, a naval war against China is completely stacked against China. Either they have some secret weapons up their sleeve we cannot counter or else they will get ruined in a naval war (like they did against Britain).

Let me give you a little more so you can see where I am coming from on why the isnt a battle the US can win.


Its more than just an Aircraft Carrier. The ARG (amphibious ready group) and Carrier Strike Group (CSG) is what is becoming obsolete if the hypersonic missles arent dealt with.

While a portion of these missles may be at fixed sites, mobile launch sites, and other counter measures to prevent detection will be used.

Basic targeting value anaylsis is all you need to see this lense in for accurate understanding of the two sides approach to this. TVA is a standard set of doctrine in fires planning (something I've taught in the school house) tells you that High Value Targets (items critical to the threat commander's bid for success, are indcluded on the HPTL, High Payoff Target List, which prioritizes fires by target classfication/function ect ect ect.

China knows how our doctrine for fires planning works... just like we know how the Russian military planning works. Our doctrine is published and available on line. Just like what is done with air defense systems, why would China not take their undertanding of our doctrine and deteremine methodology to prevent destruction of their critical assets?

They dont need super secret weapons. They just need to sink 2 or 3 air craft carriers. Defense is always the stronger form of warfare when an intelligent strategy is used.

For China looking a the US, the Air Craft Carriers and troop transport ships (LPD's/LHDs/LSD's are all all HVT. Critical to our bid for success, in the sense that it carries manpower.

It is much easier to tarket and sink a series of large vessels, which are slow than it is to wipe out every potential launch site for missles.

Think about this:

2 Men get into a gun fight. One has a Shotgun (USA), hes slow, has to get close to you, and is easy to track if youre getting shot at. Once you get hit with 2 rounds of buckshot, you're dead. T

The ARG/CSG carries a shotgun blast's worth of force. Once it's in range and brings both barrels to bare it's devestating. Decentralized air and naval gunfire coupled with on the deck controllers of air/naval guns and beach head footings in place.

VS

The other has a hunting rifle with a scope. (China) Can sit back, and snipe you before you get close.

And yes, by the way, Japan will absolutely be used as a staging ground.

If I"m china.... wouldn't I just place missles on all these man made islands I"ve got close to Japan? Wouldn't I expect the US to do that, and therefore target the ports and Japanses facilities where US bases are located?

Its about what level of escalation is CHINA willing to go into over Taiwan.

All this is why I don't think China is willing to go to war yet. The US is in decline and China is in rising status. Both countries are still actually quite fragile.

The more likely thing that will happen is for the BRICs system to take hold, the US to lose reserve currency status, and then China to make the move once they are decoupled from the dollar.

The smarter move for the US is to use economic retaliation against China. Focus on crippling their economy through tarrifs instead of ramping up the rhetoric.

 

[Samseau]

The smarter move for the US is to use economic retaliation against China. Focus on crippling their economy through tarrifs instead of ramping up the rhetoric.

The time for tariffs and sanctions is over. They won't be effective much longer without an application of enforcements. This means an embargo, which spells naval war.

All that will happen is US ships will park far outside of hypersonic missile range while the sub fleet kills any ship coming or going to China. China will face starvation within 3-5 years under these situations. No need to even use manpower to invade, unless China makes moves to try and expand naval control outside of hypersonic range so their trade ships can operate unimpeded.

And yes I know an embargo of China will cause hyperinflation in the USA, but the effects of this and why the chews won't care is better discussed in another thread (like escalation of world war thread), I mention this here to discuss how the next stage of military equipment will be. It's going to be naval warfare against China and it will be decided by the subs.

 

[Elipe]

All that will happen is US ships will park far outside of hypersonic missile range while the sub fleet kills any ship coming or going to China.

Not going to happen.

1. The US is run by hostile foreigners whose agenda is whatever hurts the US. If that means pretending to be "humanitarian" and not using subs in that fashion, then subs won't be used in that fashion.
2. Even if it did happen, China isn't just going to sit still. They will take action, and they will retaliate against the US.
3. Also, don't forget that China doesn't exist in isolation. A war against China in the next 10 years is WW3. It will be an opportunity for Russia. In fact, the war with Russia is already giving China opportunities. The US would be opening up Clown World to flank attacks by getting involved with China.
4. Finally, the Western dissidence cannot be ignored. It's one of the things that constantly worries (((them))). If they look away for even a minute, they risk losing it all to the dissidence.

 

[DanielH]

Do you know what submarines are? Those hypersonic launchers won't do anything if subs surface out of the water at 2 AM, launch missiles and destroy them.

All that matters in a coming naval battle is sub superiority. Whoever wins the sub battles controls the seas.

China's mainland based hypersonic missiles (DF-17) are fired from trucks, meaning they are mobile, meaning a submarine has no ability to take them out unless given real time information on their location. The DF-17 range is also over twice the range of any of our fighter jets. Add the range of the missiles one of our jets can fire, and it's still far short of the Chinese coast. China is also rolling out ship launched hypersonic missiles. I don't see a way our aircraft carriers can play any role, except perhaps to provide support to submarines which may get closer to the mainland.

I agree the only thing that can touch the Chinese mainland is our subs, but they are not in high enough numbers to make a significant impact, just by my estimation. They are expensive, and many are quite old. China has a comparable number of submarines. Most are diesel electric and far inferior to our nuclear submarines, but this propulsion distinction doesn't matter much in Chinese waters as they can easily refuel/resupply them, and I am not confident in the ability of our submarines to be completely undetected in Chinese waters. Also diesel electric submarines are just as silent or more silent than nuclear submarines when submerged and running on battery power. A diesel electric sub has no moving parts outside its propeller(s), whilst a nuclear submarine is still spinning its turbines.

Essentially, depending on a high number of variables, it cannot be said that in a US/China conflict that the US would have either naval or air superiority as long as the conflict is within range of the Chinese mainland.

 

[Easy_C]

Do you honestly think we have intel such that we can identify every launcher site? No I dont. More likeley we are going to identify this after the launch by finding radar signatures at the POO site (Point of Origin) . I'm not going to get too indepth on all that here for obvious reasons, but all China would have to do is turn off their radar at launch sites until right before launch. The kill chain loop is too fast to identify and kill these targets in a matter of minutes from a submarine.

Besides which, these hypesonic missiles are plane launched.

 

[get2choppaaa]

Besides which, these hypesonic missiles are plane launched.

Yes... I doubt we are going to impose a no flyzone over mainland China airpsace...

My understanding is that they have both air launched (like the Russian Kinzal) as well as launched from a warship, and hypersonic glide platforms which are mobile... so they seem to have multiple options for delivery.

 

[Samseau]

Essentially, depending on a high number of variables, it cannot be said that in a US/China conflict that the US would have either naval or air superiority as long as the conflict is within range of the Chinese mainland.

Even if mainland China is able to protect itself, that won't help Chinese trade ships that go anywhere else in the world. It would certainly be a major diminishment of what former US Naval power could do, however. Such a situation could be a grinding stalemate, and while America is currently on a losing trajectory, it could very well be the case that our enemies somehow mess it up more than we do. So in a stalemate situation it is impossible to fully predict the winner.

 

[get2choppaaa]

Even if mainland China is able to protect itself, that won't help Chinese trade ships that go anywhere else in the world. It would certainly be a major diminishment of what former US Naval power could do, however. Such a situation could be a grinding stalemate, and while America is currently on a losing trajectory, it could very well be the case that our enemies somehow mess it up more than we do. So in a stalemate situation it is impossible to fully predict the winner.

Except why would the world support China embargo? You're describing WWIII scenario with out a WWIII resource pool.

I do believe the US Navy is still superior to the othe Navies by a longshot on the open seas... but a naval blockade requires staying power isnt going to occur with out other countries support.

I am doubtful, due to the belt and road initiative, the rest of the world, particularly the global south, would be supportive of the US emargo against China.

This is the same thing that's happening with Russia right now. Black market fleets are transloading crude oil on the open seas, changing vessels standards all sorts of shenanigans...and this IS costing Russia and money.

BUT...

Russia and China arent the same here. Our dependence on them is nil compared to our dependence on China.

Pharma/Auto Parts/industrial parts/food processisng/manufactoring and all sorts sorts of things are completely intertwined into shipping goods to China. Infastructure and minerals for petroleum and fetalizer refining is not currently here, and needs another 5-10 years to be able to withstand that sort of demand of a full scale war.

Basically the reality is we would have to retool our society for a military conflict against Russia or China, to a degree that hasn't happened since WWII, and right now, with out an answer to the hypersonic missles, our 20th century warfare methodlogies are not going to prevail.

The Ukraine War has been an example of how very sophisiticated and complex small unit tactics can be overwhelmed by massing fires (something that all artillery men knew) and cheap suicide drones. Would US forces, who are trainined to a different standard and have different logistical skill sets, have been more effective against Russain/DPR/LPK troops. Absolutely. BUT.... the main thing here is that this war has allowed for Russian and Chinese military strategists to develop tactics/training/proceedures on how to more effectively fight a NATO army with an unlimited budget on land.

Part 2 would be a NATO Navy. I do not see this hapening period.

For the War Pigs.....Soldiers are cheap. Air Craft Carriers are not...and our aging fleet, while superior to anything out there, cannot afford to lose multiple ships in the current construct of our society. Since War is politics manifested in violence, or poltics with other means (to paraphrase von Clausewitz) which country has a stronger more unified base and belief system?

Americans do not care one bit about Tawain. I certainly dont. Heck they only care a little bit about Ukraine because they believe the TV and what Russians are lied about right and left.

Once 1 air craft carrier is sunk by a hypersonic missle, the entire force is going to have a gut check momement. That's the reality of the war we would be entering. Death from the skies with out any countermeasures....

Doesn't seem to be an intelligent way to fight wars to me.... but I've been out for 4 years so maybe there's the next best thing out there to counteract.... if so, wonderful. But we havent seen it yet. These missles do really revolutionize the current battlefield enviornment.

The drones, while annoying, can be worked through with changing tactics. The missles... I dont see it for now.

 

[Towgunner]

So, we're more or less in WWIII. We all know about the balloons, but, I found the footage of the green lasers over Hawaii very interesting and even chilling. I suspect there's a lot of new technology that we're not even aware of. As this continues we'll probably see more. And as it progresses innovation will accelerate, as it did in WWII. There are some mitigating factors that are different this time. I recall hearing about the impressive industrial expansion and reconfiguration of places like Detroit MI, which underwent a rapid transformation in response to the war. Today, I think the US probably has a lot of interesting ideas, but, we lack the industrial capacity to really make a difference. At any rate, the satellite lasers hinted to me that there is some very interesting technology. I recall the US Navy saw a triangular "UFO" somewhere in the Pacific. Maybe that was aliens or maybe that was a suborbital craft. After all, it flew directly over a carrier battle group.

 

[donovan]

This is a concerning (and probably accurate) perspective.

"The United States is preparing Australia to go to war against China."

Basically, Australia will at some point in the near future become the next Ukraine. The warmongering pigs in Washington will sit back while they arm Australia with nuclear subs and long range missiles in Darwin, then let China decimate the Australian people and infrastructure (the same way they've used Ukrainian civilians in their proxy war against Russia). Low risk to the US policy makers (who cares if Sydney gets annihilated by Chinese missiles). They get to weaken or distract China.

https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/us-is-preparing-australia-to-go-to-war-against-china-claims-former-diplomat/news-story/33cc01cd8b99c721ae5c792da5948e70

 

[Samseau]

Except why would the world support China embargo? You're describing WWIII scenario with out a WWIII resource pool.

They won't have a choice. At some point the American navy will become the pirates of the high seas, just like every declining Naval power resorts to brute force to try and hold onto power.

 

[CaliforniaBased]

This is a very interesting article on the semiconductor industry, and Russia's attempts to produce their own equipment for the manufacture of computer chips:

https://en.topwar.ru/210790-russkij-fotolitograf-nevozmozhnoe-vozmozhno.html

Russia plans to prepare processes for the 360 and 130 nm processes (but it may take a decade). "Beijing has long been under "photolithographic" sanctions, and is not yet able to independently produce products smaller than the 45-nanometer process technology." Russia does have domestic designed processors (but manufactured by TSMC) in the 28nm range. They also do manufacture domestically in the 65 nm range but using foreign equipment.

This is a year range in which the West developed different technology:

 

[get2choppaaa]

They won't have a choice. At some point the American navy will become the pirates of the high seas, just like every declining Naval power resorts to brute force to try and hold onto power.

Yeah I dont see that when the BRICS folks push back on the dollar.

Our plays are not never ending, and economic warfare always outlast military might unless sheer destruction is employed.

I don't see that.

Who's going to go along? The Five Eyes? Yea.... not sure about that. Australia needs China just as much as we do.

 

[get2choppaaa]

What sort of aid will this be?

 

[TruckDriver9]

What sort of aid will this be?

 

[TruckDriver9]

Czech made inflatable M270 MLRS, HIMARS and M777 decoys.

 

[TruckDriver9]