Saw that on a USNI mailout. It's not a silly idea when you think about it. Well worth some other navies considering it if their ground forces have amphibious vehicles.
There probably would be high losses in amphibious ships in case of a war. But using converted civilian shipping would be very dangerous, as they'd have very little way of protecting themselves. Might be worth considering towards the end of a conflict where it was almost won, but sending them in with the first or second wave could be suicidal. (Then again the Chinese government might not give a damn.)Seems they know their own amphibious assets will not enough to transport divisions wide strength accross Taiwan straits. Perhaps they have calculate there will be significant casualties on the transport assets, thus adding the number with civilian ferry will be needed.
Civilian vessels could prove instrumental on the east coast of taiwan and to establish cut offs or even a second island chain grab. They would be the pre - positioning, in place before the plan fleet units move into their assembly points. Pretty sure this was in both versions of assymetric warfare.Amphibious operations in the era of high performance missiles is a worrisome scenario for any assaulting force. The big question is how effective are defensive systems that will counter an attack. Highly classified for sure. Mines and submarines further complicate amphibious operations. I agree, the PCR threshold for acceptance of high losses is an order of magnitude higher (at least) than the allied opposition to an invasion of Taiwan, IMHO.
Not necessarily depending upon the escorts. Don't discount it just because it doesn't fit in with your particular worldview, because that's sloppy thinking. Read your Sun Tzu Ping Fa again because even though it's been years since I have read my copy, I am sure that Sun Tzu talks about the unexpected. Always expect the unexpected and the enemy is never going to play by your rules or comply with your plans unless they are fools and idiots. And for all the things that the CCP and PLA may be, fools and idiots isn't any of those.There probably would be high losses in amphibious ships in case of a war. But using converted civilian shipping would be very dangerous, as they'd have very little way of protecting themselves. Might be worth considering towards the end of a conflict where it was almost won, but sending them in with the first or second wave could be suicidal. (Then again the Chinese government might not give a damn.)
I don't discount anything in the slightest. I was talking about risk to civilians, not a certain outcome. In my personal opinion, the issue with using civilian ships in the Taiwan Strait is the large number of anti-ship missiles there, which are only increasing. That doesn't even consider the risk from Taiwan's new submarine project and other countries' submarines.Not necessarily depending upon the escorts. Don't discount it just because it doesn't fit in with your particular worldview, because that's sloppy thinking.
I'd say the CCP has objectively acted incredibly foolishly in the last few years. They've given up the vast majority of the goodwill with the developed world that they painfully created over the last 20-30 years for no obvious gains.And for all the things that the CCP and PLA may be, fools and idiots isn't any of those.
Eh, I think they've gained a lot, to be frank. They are considered one of the world's premiere militaries, and are able to force other regional powers to contest their views in a coalition environment (with the assistance of the world's premiere military) or not at all. 20 years ago, we would have laughed about the PRC's ability to forcibly take Taiwain in the face of combined US-ROC efforts; now the question of whether the US would even bother to defend the ROC is openly discussed.I'd say the CCP has objectively acted incredibly foolishly in the last few years. They've given up the vast majority of the goodwill with the developed world that they painfully created over the last 20-30 years for no obvious gains.
Is this purely a product of good decision making though? Or simply a natural consequence of their continued economic growth? To my mind they would really have had to drop the ball for their military expansion not to correlate strongly with their economic one.Eh, I think they've gained a lot, to be frank. They are considered one of the world's premiere militaries, and are able to force other regional powers to contest their views in a coalition environment (with the assistance of the world's premiere military) or not at all. 20 years ago, we would have laughed about the PRC's ability to forcibly take Taiwain in the face of combined US-ROC efforts; now the question of whether the US would even bother to defend the ROC is openly discussed.
Agreed. The JSDF and ROK military are also leaps and bounds above where they were 20 years ago, and I'd also tie that more to their massive economic growth rather than any uniquely brilliant moves.Is this purely a product of good decision making though? Or simply a natural consequence of their continued economic growth? To my mind they would really have had to drop the ball for their military expansion not to correlate strongly with their economic one.
The problem is I can think of at least one very close example (India) which has also had significant economic growth in the time frame; they have struggled to figure out how to buy 155mm artillery pieces. Yes, that is an oversimplification, but not the worst one. India's military is fine...but it has also been demonstrated not to be China's, either.Is this purely a product of good decision making though? Or simply a natural consequence of their continued economic growth? To my mind they would really have had to drop the ball for their military expansion not to correlate strongly with their economic one.
Fair point. That said I still have to question whether that growth is due to good strategic planning (the type being discussed earlier?) or just effective economic management & force structure planning.The problem is I can think of at least one very close example (India) which has also had significant economic growth in the time frame; they have struggled to figure out how to buy 155mm artillery pieces. Yes, that is an oversimplification, but not the worst one. India's military is fine...but it has also been demonstrated not to be China's, either.
Mexico has also experienced a pretty significant GDP growth over the last 30 years; they cannot even exercise autonomy over their own country and are in the neigborhood of being a failed-state.
Brazil also has experienced a ton of economic growth, and while its military is fine...it's not a superpower (most importantly, it probably doesn't want to be).
China has almost uniquely decided that in addition to the economic growth and march forward, they must also become a martial superpower-and pulled it off! Granted, they don't have many of the same issues that India or Mexico or Brazil have, and they have lots of things going for them that those countries don't- but by no means was their path to the where they are now assured. Maybe they were just lucky-and that's always a criteria-but I think it's beyond evident that the PRC did something right (which is no guarantee they will keep doing it right, but it's at least a testament to their skill in getting there).
It’s not to take anything away from China - they certainly did things right on their end.The problem is I can think of at least one very close example (India) which has also had significant economic growth in the time frame; they have struggled to figure out how to buy 155mm artillery pieces. Yes, that is an oversimplification, but not the worst one. India's military is fine...but it has also been demonstrated not to be China's, either.
Mexico has also experienced a pretty significant GDP growth over the last 30 years; they cannot even exercise autonomy over their own country and are in the neigborhood of being a failed-state.
Brazil also has experienced a ton of economic growth, and while its military is fine...it's not a superpower (most importantly, it probably doesn't want to be).
China has almost uniquely decided that in addition to the economic growth and march forward, they must also become a martial superpower-and pulled it off! Granted, they don't have many of the same issues that India or Mexico or Brazil have, and they have lots of things going for them that those countries don't- but by no means was their path to the where they are now assured. Maybe they were just lucky-and that's always a criteria-but I think it's beyond evident that the PRC did something right (which is no guarantee they will keep doing it right, but it's at least a testament to their skill in getting there).
Very much agree with this part.Fair point. That said I still have to question whether that growth is due to good strategic planning (the type being discussed earlier?) or just effective economic management & force structure planning.
What I still suspect is that, at the end of the day, their authoritarian and coercive approach to foreign relations does create vulnerabilities. A number of important countries (India, Japan... even UK/France) seem to have woken up to this approach in a way they were seemingly oblivious to earlier, and it is pushing them away from a more conciliatory stance on China. "Might is right" certainly has its perks, but I'm not sure the west's capacity to create and sustain alliances is pure decadence in action..?
Just my 2c.
At the present point in time drones give off electronic signatures that are different to biologics, so it should be relatively easy to tell from the EM signature if it's a drone or a biologic. I would think that with current technology it will be somewhat difficult to mimic a biologics EM signature and fully suppress the drones EM signature. That's my 2 cents worth.I have seen quite a few bird drones as well. It is hard enough to defend against drones as it is, but when just about everything that flies or swims could be potentially a drone it becomes near impossible.
I can see future military conflict being very tough on wildlife as just about any living thing approaching a ship, airfield, soldiers or what ever could be a disguised drone. Pretty much the premise of the Terminator movies.
Interesting that the species of fish chosen is a Saratoga, an Australian species. Similar species exist in SE Asia, the Arrawana and in South America.Not yet an operational part of the PLAN (officially), but i am sure the PLAN is very interested in it. The possibilities are endless:
- collecting information and intelligence for military purposes, but also to spy on foreign companies.
- locating individuals which are regarded as 'enemies of the state'
- arming with explosives or capsuls with biological/chemical stuff.
- and much more.
Quite frightening.
Yes I watched it last night. Even putting the propaganda component aside it was still quite interesting.
Bit few months old, but seems interesting still to see. This is the english language version of CCTV coverage on Shanghai based Jiangnan shipyard. Offcourse as it's CCTV is only shown the 'glorious' performance of the yard.
However Jiangnan is still their primary yards for any naval development, thus the importance for PLAN. In similar thing can be compared the importance toward Newport News for USN. Thus it's still interesting to see media exposure on that yard.
One has to be impressed.
Bit few months old, but seems interesting still to see. This is the english language version of CCTV coverage on Shanghai based Jiangnan shipyard. Offcourse as it's CCTV is only shown the 'glorious' performance of the yard.
However Jiangnan is still their primary yards for any naval development, thus the importance for PLAN. In similar thing can be compared the importance toward Newport News for USN. Thus it's still interesting to see media exposure on that yard.