undefined | Better HN

0 pointsdexen6y ago0 comments

>How well situated is the US to do a cross-Pacific amphibious invasion of Taiwan?

Parking an invasion+battle fleet off of Taiwan's coast would probably lead to huge US ship losses to Chinese missiles.

However, island hopping campaign is a thing. Islands make for good unsinkable carriers.

Assuming war isn't concluded permanently in a couple months[1], the real advantage is self-sufficiency in regards to raw materials (especially oil[2]) and ability to ramp up and then build out military production. High tech is secondary issue, and would be only slightly on the US' side. Probably the most important advantage would be in submarines and to extent in carriers, again as it was historically. Lastly, the presumable advantage in comms crypto protection, and codebreaking/backdooring could make or break any long term war, by repeatedly giving better starting positions before each battle or campaign; again to historical precedent.

All in all, US would do just fine, however the local allies would suffer a lot.

[1] i.e. excluding an overwhelmingly effective ABC attack on mainland China or US

[2] both previous and current administration helped ramp it up

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

somesortofsystm6y ago· 2 in thread

Weapons to defeat US' carrier advantage have been long developed and deployed in the field.

The US' carriers would be sunk in the first few minutes of open warfare.

They are useless in case of open war - and only of use as a threat of war/policing device. All-out war means the carriers get sunk, first.

dexenOP6y ago

>Weapons to defeat US' carrier advantage

Snark first: weapons[1] to defeat rockets and free-falling bombs have been operational for quite a while now. Next gen (laser) is being made operational; both shipboard versions and air versions for the CAP. Next next gen (railgun) is on the horizon, but still uncertain.

Serious reply: a carrier is a highly mobile, flexible airport. Like any other major fleet element, it's a threat in being, and best used that way. Might even be best used by always being held beyond radar horizon, to keep the opposing forces spread thin and deployed overtime, preventing any transports from resupplying the enemy troops deployed to Taiwan.

A carrier is also by its nature an anchor point for a whole battle group, with flexible capabilities of long range detection, jamming, attack, and defense, including major ASW threat. It can also make a 300 mile dash at 30kn to deliver several dozen F35 to an island. An overnight miracle.

[1] anti-rockets and CIWS

somesortofsystm6y ago

Feast your eyes on the Carrier Killer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-26

There is no known defense yet fielded against this missile.

Lasers might do it, but those aren't going to be ready for deployment for a few years yet .. none of your "rocket/free-falling bomb" defenses are relevant against this thing.

And, then there's this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3M22_Zircon

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-tests-missiles-us-no-defense...

This is why the US desperately needs to complete its laser program ... until then, the Carriers are a complete and utter liability in all-out-war ..

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse