Posted on 07/27/2021 7:14:19 AM PDT by RomanSoldier19
To have any chance of conquering Taiwan, China might need to transport as many as two million troops across the rough 100 miles of the Taiwan Strait and land them under fire at the island’s 14 potential invasion beaches or 10 major ports.
That’s a lot of people—far, far more than the People’s Liberation Army Navy can haul in its 11 new amphibious ships. To transport the bulk of the invasion force, Beijing almost certainly would take up into naval service thousands of civilian ships.
To that end, the Chinese Communist Party has created a legal and bureaucratic framework for taking over control of commercial shipping. Meanwhile, naval engineers have begun modifying key vessels to make them better assault ships.
All that is to say, the vast flotilla that would be both the vehicle for China’s assault on Taiwan—and the biggest target of Taiwanese forces and their allies—is taking shape.
“If the PLA invasion force was a million or more men, then we might expect an armada of thousands or even tens of thousands of ships to deliver them, augmented by thousands of planes and helicopters,” Ian Easton, an analyst with the Project 2049 Institute in Virginia, wrote in a recent report.
The PLAN’s eight modern Type 071 landing docks and three Type 075 big-deck assault ships together can haul around 25,000 troops. A drop in the bucket. To transport the balance of the invasion force, the Chinese navy can take up around 2,000 large commercial vessels crewed by around 650,000 mariners.
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
If what you say is fact then you will have very little controversy in supporting it on its own thread.
I think it’s simply bullshiite.
Those 12 year olds are only average geniuses. Weretalking about simply targeting. 12 year olds can do it.
Lifting capability is a completely separate matter, which makes your assertion a straw argument.
Why is it so difficult to focus on what is ACTUALLY ARGUED?
Their mothers are hamsters and their fathers smelt of elderberries.
My bet is before the Nov 2022 midterms.
So using Panamax size ship, with 5000 TEU capacity. Each 40 foot container holds 80 troops, or 200,000 troops for the ship. Note one TEU is a 20 foot container, so a 40 footer is 2 TEUs. One million troops equal 5 ships. Taiwan has seven international seaports. So just two ships per port is 2.8 million troops.
Also note there are much larger container ships which can hold over 14,000 TEUs. That would equal 560,000 troops be ship. So these are very conservative numbers. So, one ship per seaport, would mean 1.4 million troops offloaded in a few hours.
Taiwan army is about 170,000 troops. So an 8 to 1 ratio before Chinese reinforcements arrive. Japan or South Korea are at least two days away by fast ship.
it’s just math.....
Carriers can be stopped quite quickly - - no need to kill them.
USS Forrestal fire. 137 US Sailors killed in fire. Thanks, John McCain.
1984 USS MIDWAY
USS Fitzgerald. Last year, gonna scrap it as a result
But it's not, it's travelling slow enough (Mach 2) to be shot down by US Aegis missiles.
Sorry about that.
For the terminal phase, it would appear it’s slow enough. Our current capability is to be able to shoot down one. All they gotta do is shoot 5 or so. A helluva lot cheaper than an aircraft carrier.
BTW, that doesn’t mean the 12 year old couldn’t target the 60 knot ship.
When an aircraft carrier has a dozen supersonic missiles coming at it, whether ground based or ship based, the Aegis system will be overwhelmed.
US carriers are surrounded by escort vessels of all types intended to address every known threat above or below water.
The US has dozens & dozens of Aegis equipped destroyers & cruisers, each carries something like 100 missile launchers and each launcher can hold four missiles -- a 4-pack.
And that's not to mention the carriers' aircraft themselves, including unmanned drones that carry missiles able to shoot down others moving at speeds over Mach-2.
I'm only saying: the Chinese are not that good, and we're not that bad, so don't automatically assume the worst.
You’re correct about the scale. When I first started tracking this technology we were lucky to shoot down 1 missile. It has grown in capability and at least the radars can now track about a hundred targets.
I agree with your approach, that the enemy aint that good and we aint that bad.
But it only takes one of those missiles to make it through to do the damage that the American public will shrink from.
In the past, America was simply lucky that muzzies who hate us didn’t gang up on our aircraft carriers - a hundred Sahib in his Cessna with 1 antiship missile apiece. But we easily could still be susceptible to low-tech swarming. For instance, today our soldiers face the threat of dozens of off-the-shelf drones dropping 40mm grenades on them.
When we go up against China over Taiwan, it will be against a determined enemy. Not like those hundred or so Iraqi fighter pilots who flew / defected to Iran rather than face us.
Here’s the danger. It may not be as fast as once thought; it also may be faster than originally thought.
I'm no expert on ABMs, but I do remember when Pres. Reagan started "Star Wars" ABMs in the 1980s.
Seems like there are three different categories -- 1) Booster phase 2) outer space and 3) reentry phase, and the idea is we have weapons to defend at each phase.
Aegis & Patriots are for reentry, other weapons try to stop them sooner.
My point is the US has now had about 40 years to think, design & build anti-missiles and so far nobody claims we have an "iron dome" to stop all incoming.
But they do say we can stop some, and my guess is we'd stop more than they claim -- still not a perfect shield, but enough to make our enemies pause & think twice.
A failed attack on us would be worse than no attack.
Like you said , nobody claims we have an iron dome.
If we luze 5 Aircraft Carriers in one day , America will luze stomach for the fight, especially over an ally who has not yet declared independence.
Isn't that just what the Japanese high command told Admiral Yamamoto in early 1941?
How did that work out for them?
Big difference. YUGE. The Japanese sneak-attacked American Territory.
We would be defending internal Chinese renegade territory that hasn’t even declared independence.
Gigantic difference. Can you see the difference?
Tacit al nukes all along the coast of Taiwan take out all coastal defenses, they were all prior-targeted. Troops landing will be wearing NCB gear. Ditch gear once past bast zone, and keep on moving toward assigned targets. Easy peasy for CCP.
This will not be conventional.
It will be fast, think Blitzkrieg x10.
SS1`
Tactical!
Well, first Taiwan claims to be the legitimate government of all China -- so do you think the Chi-Coms are legit?
When did they ever hold a legitimate election?
Second, are you sure about our defense of Taiwan?
You think the US will send five aircraft carriers to patrol up & down the Taiwan straight?
And that will make it easy for Chi-Com missiles to sink all five?
What if there are no US aircraft carriers anywhere near Taiwan?
What if the Chi-Coms really are as good as you fantasize, and sink five US aircraft carriers while they're in port, on the US west coast, or Pearl Harbor?
Kevmo: "Gigantic difference.
Can you see the difference?"
Only in your wet fantasies.
Nukes are game-changers, would unite the world in opposition to Chi-Com insanity.
Nothing good would result from their first-use.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.