20:15 as a former airman, you NEVER cut away safety procedures, you modify them. Safety is a balancing act between efficiency and security and cutting security for efficiency is a fool's bargain.
Completely right. The sentence about dropping or reducing safety to be more efficient made me squirm a bit. It does make sense to think through potential differences between major airbase procedures and light, diverse peripheral basing. Maybe fewer personnel are involved, the list of operations that will be performed. Perhaps there will be much more emphasis on refueling and rearming and minimizing the time aircraft are on the ground. Using knowledgable and experienced analysts, it might make sense modify procedures so they are a better fit while maintaining very safe environment.
Meanwhile, Ukraine enjoying great succes with FPV drones where if you accidentally nudge an exposed wire, it goes boom under your hands during launch, with a safety rating anywhere between "It's not good news" and "Hahaha YOLO".
As a Swede in active service, it's interesting and encouraging to see the mighty USAF start pivoting more towards how we've always been doing things. Not just with the dispersion etc, but also the more independent operations working "in the spirit of higher command", as well as the Multi-Capable Airmen concept which is the standard-by-necessity for all of Swedish Armed Forces. USAF definitely knows their game, and them adopting a mindset that more resembles that of the Swedes and Finns feels like a nice stamp of approval. We certainly feel very welcome in NATO, and that we have good things to contribute with.
The force that touts itself as being the best in the world is doing what small countries faced with impossible odds were doing, and you're .. encouraged?
@@johnd2058 Powerful? What does Sweden really bring to the table? A few wings of aircraft? A dozen coastal vessels? A division or two? Enough material to last the first month of a major war then it's just another major commitment for the U.S. It's more about controlling the Baltic than actually adding power to our alliance. Not that I think there's any backing away from American hegemony status quo at this point.
As a British man I'm proud to have Sweden & Finland as allies. We've always seen the Scandinavians and Northern Europeans as friends and they're always welcome here. NATO is the most powerful & successful military alliance in the history of humanity, even more so now
@@jonny-b4954Sweden has the ability to put 72 mechanized battalions into action on the ground, their territory can host hundreds of not thousands of NATO aircraft and their defense industry adds another source of replacement equipment and ammunition supply for NATO. Meanwhile there are founding members of NATO that can't do half of that anymore.
Haven't heard the term "ACE" since I retired last year. Your description of it is spot on. Some people were also kinda referring to it as a Whack a Mole concept using the Army's FARP technique on steroids.
Elephants in the room: 1: The pacific is huge! 5000 mile logistical chain is hugely vulnerable, almost impossible. 2: Short range of US stealth fighters. Refueling in contested airspace is suicidal,
@Sentient.Legacy.2024 There are bases in the first and second island chains. The chinese airforce have not demonistrated ability to perform in all weather conditions They don’t fly at night too They lack experience in combined domain warfare. Their missiles & aircraft have not been tested in a war as well.
@@ricky1231 Anything the US has currently has not been tested in modern warfare against a peer enemy either. There is as much advantage for the US Navy and air forces as there was for the Japanese navy and air forces against lesser experienced US Navy of 1941-43
Taking out ships is going to be a real problem, when we don't have enough tankers and supply ships as is. And it's not like we can rely on a robust industrial base and shipbuilding capacity in the United States, since we got rid of it over the last 40 years.
If Korean war didn't deter China from fighting against major nuclear power like US along with its NATO allies, what kind of drug making people believe a modern PLA force will deter by a relatively weaken US army, while the playground is basically within its missile bubble.
The thing is, China actually believes the US lost the Korean War, and China (along with North Korea) won. The Chinese population is told this in school.
Distance is the greatest hindrance in the Pacific. I'm looking at force dilution. Yes your assets survive but they are either too few or so spread out to deal effictive results.
the USAF will have to greatly expand some unit types--comms squadrons, log squadrons, engineers (Red Horse), and BASEOPS units. I suspect this will also require considerably more jointness with the Army, Navy, and Marines. These bases will all have to be multi-service in nature.
just in terms of POL storage, this is a huge undertaking...port facilities, roads, warehouses, bunkers...not to mention, can the US Def industrial Base support it?
@@KirkFickert the us should invest in european, asian and australian shipyards, especially those that proved itself capable of more technical stuff. Like for an instance, here in croatia, one big shipyard is bancrupted and couldn't sell again. But others are still somehow surviving, and we know how to build ships, even in socialistic yugoslav times we've built for domestic needs, and the rest for wesyern buyers mostly. Even today, we build ore carriers for great lakes, we build polar cruisers and luxury yachts, we are also maintaing and rebuilding hull for the us navy, aluminium hulls to be precise, this info is maybe few years old, maybe 4-5 even, but then the number was 11 us navy ships that were done here. Those capabilities exist elsewhere in europe too, and asia, australia also. We need our defence treaties more integrated and more connected in a strategic way.
After WW1 Poland was granted land access to the Baltic Sea, via territory that had been part of Germany (and also isolating East Prussia from Germany). The “Polish Corridor” territory was seen by Germans as taking native Germans from their native Germany. Germans weren’t happy about this, (especially somebody named Adolf Hitler), and wanted it reunited with Germany. Things didn’t work out too well.
Interesting comment when I considered Prussia was the cultural birthplace of 20th century German culture, especially in the minds of the German warrior class. Likewise, Kiev is seen by Russians as the cultural birthplace of a strong and militaristic society that arguably saved Europe from the Mongols. Russians are also deluded by the idea they save Europe from Adolph in WWII. When considered in context, it’s easy to see why Russia views their current war as sancrosanct.
This won't be WW2, this will be more like the Pacific War but with the sides switched. China as the industrial superpower, US as the hubristic empire going to find out.
Chris, don't forget the est. 1000+ plus Mig-19 drones (old fighters converted to Kamikaze / bait drones) fielded in bases close to Taiwan as part of a first wave of attack.
During the cold war Sweden developed a cult of mission tactics to the extent that old officers now think Swedens younger officers last decades with thing like involment in Afghanistan has lost some of its way with more rigid and low initiative US and NATO structures. Maybe not often you hear US militray called rigid and low on initiative, but that is the cult of mission tactics for you.
What is aggression man? Back 50, 60, roc fighters jet always invade mainland China, bombed power plants in Shanghai, is that aggression? PRC and ROC still in the civil war.
This is why it’s so complicated even from a neutral perspective. You don’t get to declare independence after almost losing a civil war. Taiwan is not ethnically, linguistically, religious, culturally, or anything distinctively different from China. It is true that most Taiwanese no longer see themselves as Chinese, but the main reason is political. I just hope they can solve this peacefully.
@@SomeoneFromBeijing Just because they are ethnically the same doesn't mean they want to be ruled by Bejing. Do the Chinese in Singapore want to be ruled by Beijing or the Chinese in Australia?
Pay no attention to the paltry amount of fuel US can ship, or how would resupply even work with Chinese satellites being able to provide targeting data against merchant shipping far out in the Pacific.
I'm more worried about the non-military diplomatic picture. There's a lot of countries that refused to condemn Russia for its obvious aggression against Ukraine. If America doesn't improve its image and win over more friends and allies, the war with China could be over before the first shot is fired.
@@0thPAg The question for the Chinese is, what's it going to look like the first time they've actually been tested? All of their s00per d00per systems they've developed, all of the numbers, performance claims, etc., what happens when Xi has to make decisions in the middle of a conflict? In fact, hasn't Xi been 'purging' the Chinese military of their top command in recent history?
Excellent video. I'm impressed how the war in Ukraine is reviving concepts which were very much in use in the 80s. We lost much in the past 30 years, and are playing catch-up since the beginning of the war in Ukraine. Hopefully we'll manage 🙏🏻
I'm currently and active duty Air Force officer, and your description of ACE is really spot on. I would also add that the Air Force is also shifting its deployments away from the way we used to do things under the Air Expeditionary Wing concept to the Air Force Force Generation (AFFORGEN) model, which is placing a much greater emphasis for deploying an entire wing into theater at a time. Also, some of the conversations that are going on now have to do with how to defend these bases not only on air, land, and sea, but also how do we increase resilience in cyberspace.
Multi capable airman doesn't mean to overburden those airmen but of course it does. Luckily the solution is simple, reduce their duty time on their regular job to train in other roles rather than expecting them to add it on top. It just costs money and requires more airmen per role but if you want actual redundancy you need that anyways.
Multi capable diplomat: "No more trade with Korea, Japan, NATO if you do stupid things. No more coal, no more oil, not a single chip. Are your REALLY that hellbent on starting a fire ?"
I mean, is that so surprising? Military draw downs always erode capacity, & that erodes capability, & that erodes the hard won peace from the last kerfuffle. But try telling that to blinkered idealists & disconnected billionaires looking for a lower tax rate on their plunder.
I mean, is that so surprising? Military draw downs always erode capacity, & that erodes capability, & that erodes the hard won peace from the last kerfuffle. But try telling that to blinkered idealists & disconnected billionaires looking for a lower tax rate.
ACE is literally the doctrine the Soviets had with the Mig-29 / Su-17 / Mig-27 squadrons .... In fact Mig-23 was designed specifically to take advantage of this.
What about the Philippines? Are bases there being taken into consideration as a way to disperse aircraft while keeping them reasonably close to the area of combat?
Interesting how people seem to act like M.A.D. still isn't a thing. How do you big military experts imagine a direct conflict between superpowers would play out without escalating into nukes?
They don't HAVE to use them. Assuming MAD covers all bases is like saying "well duh how would anyone ever have a fistfight when the other guy has a gun?" I think the chances are better than we think that everyone plays conventional unless certain lines are crossed - as things have been in E. Europe lately
@@frankgerlach4467 distant blockade only works if the one been blockaded is heavily dependent on sea lane for resources. In China’s case, while sea lane is important to bringing in additional resources, what’s produced locally and traded from land routes are more than enough to support a war time economy. It will work as well as sanctions on Russia.
@@frankgerlach4467 During Korean war China didn't have any nukes yet and Russia had just got them. If Trumans threats of using nukes in Korea would have actualized, there would not have been a nuclear counter attack. Also no ICBM-s yet. Vietnam stayed a proxy war.
does the DoD know that a war with China may very likely consist of more than one battle? And can the US industrial base replenish losses when required.
According to a 2018 DoD study, China is “the sole source or a primary supplier for a number of critical energetic materials used in munitions and missiles.” The munitions supply chain also features an alarmingly high number of single points of failure: of 198 second- and third-tier suppliers in the industrial base, 98 percent rely on a single or sole source. And the materials that are produced in the United States tend to be made in in a handful of outdated, government-owned facilities using 20th century equipment. Even worse, the United States has fallen behind our adversaries in deploying advanced energetics. Both Russia and China employ CL-20, the most powerful non-nuclear explosive in the world. American scientists invented CL-20 in the 1980’s, but bureaucratic hurdles, coupled with complacency as the Cold War ended, meant that DoD never deployed it at scale. Instead, the US military still relies on many of the same materials it used during World War II.
Does this youtube channel have a website or facebook page? - The reason is, the topics you are discussing are very topical and (from my perspective) need a deep dive article to augment such presentations as this. Great presentation Chris and crew!
One thing that isn't mentioned (or maybe hinted at), is the value of the bases. In 2023, CSIS published a report titled The First Battle of the Next War, and it emphasized the importance of bases in Japan, while pointing out that bases in Guam would be of limited value. The problem is distance, which limits time on station. A flight from Guam to central Taiwan is over 2,700 km. Put it another way, that's the same distance to reach the southern end of Hokkaido. ACE is a good idea, but you still need bases close enough to provide meaningful airpower while far enough to reduce the effectiveness of ballistic missile strikes from the PLARF. That means investing in bases in the Philippines, the Ryukyu Islands, Kyushu and maybe South Korea and Honshu. The bases on the second island chain and beyond are more likely to be useful for the strategic bombers. The good news is that standoff missiles, such as the JASSM-ER and JASSM-XR, would put critical Chinese targets within range of pretty much any aircraft based in the theater.
Or use diplomacy and show them the consequences of dumb actions. And end of world trade, essentially. "you can have your bone and after that starve to economic death, what do your think ?"
Bases could just show up with allied support. We saw that with Operation Desert Shield. Within a couple of months, Saudi Arabia had the largest military base in the world.
just this month US and the Philippines tested the theory of possibly deploying Typhon Medium Range Ballistic Missile the Northern Island of the Philippines. Typhon is capable of firing SM-6 Air to Air Missile and a ballistic missile that is able to reach a maximum range of 1,600 kms. That technically puts China's southern provinces Xinjiang, Macau, Hainan, etc. along the crosshairs of the Typhon. This angered China. These missile system is necessary just in case USAF plans to deploy its combat aircrafts in the Philippines as it will protect the ACE deployed combat aircrafts in the Philippines
@@johannesalexandrius5749 The problem with relying on ballistic missiles is that China launching ballistic missiles at Taiwan and/or remote island bases in the Pacific is not an existential threat to the US, whereas the US or any of its allies launching ballistic missiles at China _is_ an existential threat to China that might provoke a nuclear response because they'd have no way of knowing whether the missiles had nuclear warheads until they hit. Is Taiwan worth risking a nuclear war?
@@brucetucker4847 is China willing to take a risk of a nuclear attack retaliation from US and its allies? How many countries does China have mutual defense treaties that has nuclear arms compared to US? Are China's allies willing to fire nukes for China? I'm not sure with Russia, North Korea, and Iran if all of them have a defense treaty with China. What I am sure is if US is attacked, NATO, Japan,and South Korea are willing to defend US in case of a nuclear attack retaliation. Is China willing to risk energy sanctions from UN not to mention. potential war criminal charges from the Hague?
5:32 Which might also be the point. Mainland China might want to start a war with Taiwan, but having a US base there would mean attacking Taiwan would mean directly attacking a US base by default. Which is a whole other level of escalation that China might now want right now. Conversely not having any US bases on Taiwan might mean that China could conceivably start a war without involving the US. But at this point the US re-establishing a base on Taiwan might put China in such a position that they feel compelled to attack. It would be like China putting a base on Cuba.
With the US military struggling to meet its recruitment goals from a shrinking qualified pool, adding more bodies and more training may present more of a challenge than equipping them. Maintaining a B29 was a lot different than an F35, as is operating a Patriot batter compared to flac guns.
You can disperse all you want - a missile is still much cheaper than a base. With todays recon environment where everybody sees everything, you're just waiting for the impact in your bases.
This is a very important topic not just for the pacific area for all potential areas of conflict. I would like to see it talked about and evaluated in depth on both air and naval air.
It should be noted that the Chinese J-20 'mighty dragon' was locked on by Indian fighter jets, even though they were supposedly stealthy! The US missile defense system was tested in Israel vis a vis Chinese/Russian style missiles. And the US has massive amounts of aerial refueling.
before you say anything about putting military base in taiwan, lets talk about turkey's jupiiter missile and cuban missile crisis. DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT
I struggle with the idea of supplying bases over the vast Pacific against China and its much shorter logistic chain. Unlike WW2 we just don't have ships and tracking of ships is so much easier today
Dispersal worked for Sweden and Finland because they were neutral countries that needed to deter Soviet attack. They were not the main theater and all they had to do was be resilient enough and not be a tempting target. The USAF didnt bother with dispersion in the Cold War because their objective was to stop a Soviet invasion, not merely to survive. Dispersion in a Taiwan scenario means the objective is not to defend Taiwan, but rather to carry out a protracted blockade afterwards.
ACE sounds like one of those military operational concepts that makes no strategic sense, but is still valuable because it provides great training for Airmen until an actually sound operational concept is developed. The main issue is what missions can effectively be flown while operating in a dispersed manner, and are those the missions that the United States actually needs. The fundamental problem with that concept is that it's not designed to win a war, but instead to cause as much attrition as possible to the enemy. Sweden developed that concept when looking at how to fight the Soviet Union that had a much larger army and air force. Aerial guerrilla tactics make sense in that situation because there really isn't anything better. If what the United States actually needs are complex operations with many moving pieces to work then you'll need the strict structure that the US and NATO have always used. The main thing this video makes clear is that the Air Force really needs Japan's support if it wants to play a major role quickly. The active support of Japan joining in would be great, but the passive support of Japan letting the US use its air bases would also work. The plan the Air Force is looking at really seems to be the worst-case scenario where all better options have failed. It's great that they're training for this and trying to make it work, but I still don't see this concept actually working as planned without years, if not decades, of dedicated focus.
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 passed in 1971 recognize China (PRC) not Taiwan (ROC). Resolution was passed with ~70% of countries of this earth voting “Yes”to one China. As such legally from UN perspective based on majority votes Taiwan is a province of China. If China wants to retake Taiwan by force, it would not be considered an Invasion of another country but a continuation of China’s internal civil war during WW2…
@@DavidSternburgYt Im afraid I have to confirm your fear 😅 It's an F16, American fighter jet. Typhoon is recognizable by 2-hole square Air intake, solid big wings at the rear and little wings just behind the cockpit.
@@Sire.English God your right how embarrassing on my part, the very top of ghr 16 wing looked like a canard to me plus the rear tail of the f16 is obviously visible 😔
F22 replacement NGAD is around the corner, Boeing Chinese diversity hires are fired. US, Canada and Australia has abundant of rare earths, USA alone has one of the biggest Lithium reserve in the planet.
It has to be remembered the US military isn't going to be sitting on its hands whilst China interdicts its airfields & logistics. They & their allies going to be hitting back at least as hard
@ftboomer1 there is absolutely a chance because nato has proven their capabilities of weilding inordinate amounts of forces from the other side of the globe. It just needs to have a framework planned for it. The task forces themselves will be a big part of it as independent and mobile elements but what is currently missing is credible staging points for the organisation of local force structures.
@@ftboomer1 There's a very good chance against China. Until two years ago, I'd have said the US advantage would have disappeared by 2030 but Putin's adventurism has been a huge wake-up call for the whole free world & we're once more, gearing up for active defence & cooperation. Should China choose aggression, their economy will collapse as market access is cut off.
@@mobiuscoreindustries beside the point of NATO being an alliance based around "North Atlantic" and the fact that every one of the NATO nations recognizing Taiwan as a part of one China based in Beijing, the fact they have to go across the globe to stage forces against the largest industrial power on earth in their home territory makes this idea suicidal. You people that think this can work need to find another hobby because you are grossly wrong. We cannot win against China in Taiwan.
Fake. Western countries only acknowledge the positions of the CCP and the ROC on Taiwan and China. They do not endorse them. “U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and. U.S. policy [considers] Taiwan's status as unsettled.” Aggression is a military attack, as Putin is doing to Ukraine, or greyzone warfare, as XJP carries out against Taiwan, Japan, ASEAN, India and Bhutan.
It's fascinating because it suggests they woke up to the problem recently. I remember reading naval officers complaining about this exact issue - overmatch in missiles, bases /ports are toast at least back in '16. Yeah, ngmi.
All of the US islands in the Pacific should be upgraded with infrastructure to potentially support military operations. There are a lot of them. These are mostly a long distance away from China however they could serve useful purposes to support a conflict in Asia. Most of them could be unmanned and open to the public during peace time. This keeps ongoing costs low and keeps potential adversaries guessing about where you might place your mobile assets. They should each have an airstrip, E berm parking spots, a perimeter berm near the shore, a dock, semi hardened primitive shelters, storage facilities, and remote security with solar powered cameras and satellite communications. These could be used by tourists for day trips and primitive camping. Many of these islands are already designated as parks. But if the threat of war is high, then military assets could be moved in quickly. Some potential uses are as safety airstrips for potential emergency landings, temporary bases for Marines to practice amphibious invasion and defense, supply caches to support operations in the Western Pacific from beyond the reach of most missiles, emergency repair and rearming points for the Navy, sensor outposts to monitor the air and sea around them, air defense networks to monitor and potentially engage threats as they cross the Pacific, and forward staging areas for large scale air operations. They also provide a defense in depth to mitigate against the potential of damage to West Pacific US and ally bases. Furthermore they provide at least a minimally defensible prepared fighting position constellation to potentially defend against an invasion attempt. The Aleutian islands in particular are worth fortifying because they are the gateway to the Arctic and are under the likely flight paths of hostile aircraft that would approach the West Coast. But the Hawaiian islands and the mid and South Pacific islands should not be neglected either. If all of the islands are improved up to a level ready for military use, it would significantly complicate the planning of adversaries and can provide outposts to monitor and constrain the movements of adversary forces.
Northern Australia too. There were 300 airfields there in WW2, supporting ops into SEA and SW Pacific. And more again in PNG, which is reactivating some with the US and Australia.
Things you might want to consider from the present Ukraine conflict. The battlefield is transparent, what can seen can be destroyed. Only distance matters. Infrastructure, supplies and supply lines are targets. Attrition. Casualties, evacuation, rotation and mobilisations. Air superiority, engagement distance, ISR. With a country as powerful as China, the only bases that will survive and remain operational are those outside of the engagement circle, Hawaii, Guam and Australia. Forget about the rest, they are a liability. Supplying them will cost more ships and men than it is worth. What US needs to lots of submarines, combat ships and aircraft carriers. And loads of mens, at least 3 times that of China. Remember that you are the attacking force. And a ship is only one missile away from the bottom of the Pacific, no matter how big it is. You need more ships. A frigate will take out a destroyer as easily as the other way around. And they don't need to see each other to sink each other.
@@olderchin1558... You're also forgetting amongst the biggest lessons from the war in Ukraine. Numbers isn't everything. Building up your numbers is useless if the quality is dubious at best, and poor at worst. Remember two years ago, we thought Russia had the numerical superiority and gave Ukraine like two days to a week before they'll fold. Well, it didn't happen now; did it? Plus the second one is experience. Are the Chinese forces well trained, or are we going to face the situation that befell Putin's troops in the early part of the war? Where they took ground, but at a cost of heavy casualties due to their underestimation of their opponents and incompetence?
ACE: When USAF finally admits support for decentralized austere airfield operations like Grippen, A-10, and Soviet airframes have was the objectively correct doctrine all along, because centralized airfields are just cruise missile magnets, just like everyone else in the world said it was.
The A-10 stopped production in 1984 and the company that made it went out of business 20 years ago. It got worn down in the GWOT. It can't fight another war.
@merlesmith6794 after the Germans had very much invaded others and made it clear they were trying to take land and resources and us was attacked by one of their allies...
Thanks Chris. If the USN doesn’t get its LSM project right those bases will be logistically be unviable along with the whole US Pacific concept of operations. At the moment that project is a total flustercluck.
I believe USA became emboldened in the vast Pacific theatre with an advent of their laser interception systems we still know almost nothing about. There is something about cheap missile interceptions that is making this whole ramping up of operations possible like never before. China does have thousands upon thousands of sophisticated missiles well capable of hitting far away targets, so something must give the allies this much confidence.
The point being missed I think is it took a HUGE logistics force to sustain and supply the forces across the Pacific. And that logistics force does not exist anymore. And it can't be built up in a short time. When W W II ended all the supply ships carrying stuff went to the closest US base and unloaded what ever it was. They then reconfigured to carry people in bring our forces back home. We used up all those supplies, what ever was not lost over time, in Korea and Vietnam.
the book in the background is the topic of next week? How long can the carrier fleet realistically sustain itself before Air Force bases in a reasonable vicinity have to be up and running? Logistics and combat wise another interesting aspect would be to which extend each base should have electronical warfare capabilities and how they should be implemented
Allies could be involved in order for the U.S. to stay focused on the fight. For instance, Australia could be tasked with retaking or repairing the base on Guam while the Philippines builds airfields for U.S. use. China loves to have its rivals mad at it so weird things could happen such as recovery sites in Vietnam and Cambodia. There might be U.S. air bases in India if China and the U.S. face off.
This kind of argument is pointless. You are talking how to maintain a superiority that is rapidly disappearing. The real issue is relative national strength. As China grows stronger, equipping their military with more advanced equipment, the US advantage diminishes. What used to be a chain of bases blocking the mainland is becoming a list of targets. No matter how you juggle the resources, the problem remains and keeps growing. Basically tactics cannot fix strategic problems. Strategy cannot fix national policy problems. What to do? I quote Field Marshall von Manstein: "Make peace, you fools."
Lolno. The Aussies & every European partner with investments/technical dependencies in Taiwan would also get involved. So... pretty much all of NATO excluding the Baltics & Poland. And if it did? Well, assuming a diplomatic failure that huge (because the strength of the US is its friends more than its muscle) the US has set itself up for prolonged, long range power projection. China hasn't. I mean, the PLA/N literally uses fishing boats as part of its strategy, & thus claims them as part of its active hull count. It's kinda silly.
@@Milo-id9qd - Not true. US is going for cheap mass attritables with its Replicator program. And Chinese tech is unproven and Soviet-based, like the Russian. Which turned out to be not very impressive, even before you deduct for corruption and incompetence.
China's 'no first strike' policy applies to foreign first strikes. China, the US, and for the most part all countries in the world consider Taiwan as a part of China, so China considers any occupation of Taiwan as an 'internal' affair, no different than say what the US would do if Texas declared its independence from the US.
Used to, like with Clark and Subic for USN. But even with the new Defense deals with the Philippines with the EDCA I wonder if it's ready for a Kinetic situation in Taiwan. Not to mention that there's a significant Chinese lobbying in Philippine politics with politicians wanting to end the recent US and Philippine defense deals
@@alwayscurious3357 - Philippines is already being attacked, having their sailors injured, their ships damaged, theri territory stolen. They would be more than happy to have their war fought for them.
Hub and spoke I heard from my logistics course. More in the scope of passenger aviation. I think there's a few things worth saying, repeating, reinforcing. So give me a moment to chew through this. I think it swung too far in the COIN/low intensity side of things. Assumptions that were never tested become accepted thought and people didn't seem to remember they were assumptions in the first place. I'd also make the point that a proactive, defended/resilient and stable chain of command should be able to trust the people on the field to do their part of the mission, the job, the act of fighting. Resource management is always a problem and always needs to be watched and managed. Who, where, how and why changes the question and changes the outcome. So more planning, less assumptions, more games to test and check it, all of that sounds good. And all the better if it's tested before, used before. Engines still need to be checked and fuel gotten there, whether it's a prop or turbojet doesn't really change the question on some level.
As an American who has worked in manufacturing for over 20 years I can tell you that we are in serious trouble. We shipped our steel mills, ship yards, and manufacturing to China and Mexico and now we couldn’t fight a large scale conventional war against China. The numbers don’t lie so take a look at shipyard capacity, steel production, and industrial output. Modern wars are not fought with small numbers of tanks, planes or ships. If China wants Taiwan they are going to have it. The USA is not going to send millions of our young men and women to die for Taiwan.
@@OzIan1983 China capabilities is over. Western investors left China leaving Millions of chinese are jobless, millions of stores and factories are closed, CCP real estate is collapse, CCP EV vehicles are getting banned in USA and Europe which are the biggest EV customers, Its over for CCP go back to planting rice and embrace another century of humiliation. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@spvlinn9009 sending to whichever corners of the Earth is not really the main issue. your government needs to brainwash (hence the task of propaganda) your people first to agree on sending their love ones to a very bloody fight
How great is the fear that China might attack satellites in orbit during a war with the US over Taiwan? The US military seems to be very interested in SpaceX's Starlink network, which proved its usefulness in Ukraine and is very resilient against attack, unless the aggressor is willing to risk the Kessler Syndrome by destroying a lot of Starlink satellites. China first demonstrated anti-satellite capability in 2007. Thank you for the very interesting video.
China faces the same problem with satellite strikes as everyone else - it is possible but it comes with the likelihood that cascading debris swarms will cut off one's own access to space for decades probably generations. The only viable approach if you want to keep access to space is physically interacting with enemy satellites to de-orbit them one way or another. Which is pretty slow and targeted.
First and foremost one question needs to be answered when discussing war vs China which affects everything. Is mainland China going to be attacked? Is it fair game? Because make no mistake. If sny part of mainland China is attacked, mainland USA will also be attacked. same with Europe, Japan, Australia etc. there is no situation where mainland China is attacked but mainland USA is untouched. My opinion is that Taiwan is not even close to being worth trading one US city for. Not even half a city for the whole Taiwan island. So under such an assumption as move onto the fight itself. But before we fight, we must ask a simple question. what is usa fighting for? How do we define winning and losing? Most will claim that the goal is to defend Taiwan. Ok. agreed. But does that mean? Is it defending the government and people and system and infrastructure? Because that seems impossible. China can just keep launching missiles and can destroy it from the mainland with just MLSR and. Like long range artillery with rocket assisted munitions..or they can just use cheap drones like Iranian style shaheeds, which are made using off the shelf components bought from.. China. If you don't attack China mainland, china can just produce millions of them and turn it into a war of attrition, and you aren't going to out produce China or beat them in cost effectiveness. You can't even beat Russia.. and Russia is no china. So yeah. "defending" Taiwan in a contained proxy war just over Taiwan is literally impossible, and it would literally be the worst location one can pick to engage china in such a war, even if the goal was just to "bleed China" like usa and west are doing to Russia in Ukraine. Even with Russia, the West has failed to bleed Russia and take Russia down and out..they are growing at 3%+(highest in Europe), while UK, Germany, Japan etc are in recession. Militarily, Russia can keep going indefinitely. Russias economic future seems fine. UK. Germany, Japan? Doubtful to put it mildly. But I digress. My point was you can't even beat Russia directly or indirectly. But you want to beat china who is basically 10 Russias combined in a contained war to "defend" an island 100km from their coast and 10,000km from usa? A war they been single mindedly focused on and preparing for over 3-4 decades now? Think about if Russia had 30 years to dig in their position in Ukraine, and had mapped out, mined out, and zeroed in all their artillery for all the kill zones, build obstacles and made if impossible for anyone to approach except for routes that go through the above kill zones. That is basically China's A2AD defensive strategy, combined with China's dominance in standoff range missiles and J-20 having long combat range where usa Carriers can't even get close, and if they do, they will be sitting ducks in a barrel. Not to mention that in the above analogy, it would be even worse and would be like if Ukraine had a 10,000km logistics line, and instead of attacking Russia in Ukraine, they are attacking in a straight line through a choke point(Carriers, land based airbases, naval ports) which china has eyes on 24/7, and can do saturation attack and destroy with 100% certainty anytime they want. And imagine Ukraine also was isolated and had no land borders with friendly states and had about 2-3 weeks worth of energy reserves. Now also factor in that china is the world's factory, and Ukraine is using Chinese dji drones. Same as Russia, and even usa military.. even iran. Everyone is. Now take that away for China's enemies, and add that capacity towards China and bump it up even more to become a war time capacity. China could destroy Taiwan with just drones and rocket assisted artillery, dumb bombs with cheap wing kits added on to extreme their range. These can be fired from Chinese mainland or not far off it. Covered by land based anti air systems, Chinese navy, and their whole air force. It is a suicide mission to "defend Taiwan" or to fight China just off their coast. No one would even consider fighting Russia because of nukes, but i bet even if China gets 10,000 nukes people will still be talking about fighting China and winning. Normal rational people in the West seem tjntnjn cjjjs is still in the 1800s or something. Not even 1960s since China got nukes by then already. Or even in 1950. China had no nukes. Remember Korean war? Usa, SK, and 17 other UN countries combined.. China had no air force, no navy, no tanks, no economy, couldn't even make a bicycle. But they could not beat China back then in a neighboring country and still got destroyed and forced to flee halfway across the whole of korea. Fled so far it still holds the record today for the longest retreat in USA military history. Do you want to break that record and have all us overseas bases from first island chain retreat all the way back to usa mainland? Because that's what will happen, with usa hoping that China will not escalate to a total war with mainlands being hit as well and then escalating to MAD. Fighting china off their coast today is suicide. And fighting china in neighboring country on land has been suicide since 1950. Usa already knows this from personal experience. That's why they never stepped one foot into north Vietnam for the whole Vietnam war.. which of course USA lost. USA can't even defeat houthi rebels and too scared to escalate vs Yemen and houthis or Iran or NK or Russia. But they will go to total war vs China over Taiwan. And also win? Hahahahhaha. People, even respectable intellectuals seem to lose all rationality when it comes to China. Even "realists" like John Meirsheimer become idealistic egotistical blathering idiots pushing total nuclear war and disregarding MAD. There's definitely an unspoken, deep seated superiority complex and most likely has racial(if not racist) undertones involved when it comes to China or non white/Christian civilizations. It's not even a country thing anymore but a civilization thing for people like Meirsheimer.
"My opinion is that Taiwan is not even close to being worth trading one US city for. Not even half a city for the whole Taiwan island." - defending Taiwan or Philippines or Japan is just a pretext. if USD will to drop its value by 50% because of our country, China, you might call it losing a leg for the US depending on the perspective. if ur country does not want to lose a leg, then US will do anything to pester us & warring us is just one of many option
China is in a big conundrum tbh, the proper US bases are too far to seriously hamper its operations on Taiwan (basically bomber bases only) while the ones in The Philippines, Japan and South Korea can be used for tactical forces but… are in other nations… so would they just go to war with basically every nation to their East for Taiwan? And to get what? An empty shell of TSMC?
good comment. china would ofc not declare war on japan korea phillipines. why would they do that ? the raiwan issue is civil war thats not decided. so japan korea phillipines would need to deckare war on the china. otherwiae america cant use those bases ? or ?
@@mikael5938 it will have to hit targets in that area to prevent the US from interfering this violating the airspace of those countries with at least munitions (missiles). Each country involved might consider that an act of war not even including munitions possibly landing on Korean or Japanese or Filipino soil by mistake since it’s already happening with Russia in Ukraine (Russian missiles landing in Poland).
@@OpinionatedMatt but do south korea japan and phillipines want to deckare war on china ? its their largest and most dangereus country by far with 1500 million people and nukes. Much more powerfull then the US. Japan learned a big leason in last war getting nuked. I dobt think they wanna be nuked again. Its big chance they stay neutral in a cinflict.
If want to change tactics to dispersion like of by swedes, then also change to grippen, purpose designed for such use, instead of those whimsical & overpriced F35. By doing which increasing a lot from where jets can operate, simplifying and cheapening maintenance, increasing within budget plane count to offset absence of stealth.
They have bases …. Their mobile and called aircraft carriers, the problem they have is no fighter has the range to make them viable for Taiwan defence because they fall within the range of Chinese missiles defence and the general air defence bubble of China ….maybe in air drone refuelling will help and the fuel range of the new FA/XX program … but those are years off …. I can see the US upgrade to the F-22 as a response to fuel range , and reopening bases in the Aleutians should have happened years ago .
1 way to avoid strikes on AF bases is to have them underground with lifts & above ground antennas & wind socks,if feasible.Especially,if your crafts have VSTOL capabilities & you can camouflage the lift.Then you won’t need runways.If the hub & spoke idea is used,you should consider having some of the hub underground.
Lifts are a single point of vulnerability that can easily be disabled by bombs (whereas runways and taxiways are much more resilient). You cannot disguise bases underground, they will be discovered during construction by the amount of material being removed out of the ground, and will be hard to disguise given the need to transport POL and munitions to the base. VTOL halves range and payload.
Taiwan must have a tough time, as it is a smallish island, some of it has mountains. They don't have a great deal of available real estate for airstrips.
Could China attack Taiwan? Sure. Not a big stretch to say so. Would China then attack a number of U.S. air bases scattered throughout the region? Short of all out war between the two nations, no way. It would be unprecedented and immediately escalate to nuclear conflict.
I agree China may not attack U.S. airbases in a surprise strike. Although they should prepare for it. This is because the U.S. may just fold. If there's even a 5% chance the U.S. would decline to intervene militarily, I think China would be dumb to do so. However, America could also respond by sinking a Chinese carrier and troopship or 12. Then it would make sense. But I think China would be better off to try and avoid direct conflict with the U.S. Now if China wants to attack Japan . Yeah they are going to want to Surprise strike U.S. bases. I think it's not guaranteed to go nuclear. If the U.S. and China hold off on attacking each other's mainland (Alaska/Hawaii included) it might not, which means either side might risk it. That said the bases can't move. The U.S. sends a grain shipment to an interdicted Taiwan. China fires at or near it. A single person decides to fire back. It escalates from there. In fact a declared interdiction might be a planassault. ttempt at a straight asdault.
The ‘pearl harbor’ strategy has two major downsides for china- 1. it will bring in countries beyond just Japan and Australia. 2. It will cause a ‘day of infamy speech’ and assure a long war which China will almost certainly lose. I don’t see any president or political party pulling a denethor if 10s of thousands of Americans die in one day.
@@Matt.Willoughby Because at that point, assuming an undeclared first strike on a US military asset, the US would pursue a unilateral & unconditional surrender of the CCP. At least, so history suggests. The current government in Beijing would, at that point, be in a position in trying to preserve its very existence. They would be, at least according to doctrine, obliged to eventually escalate to nuclear deterrents. Which would, in turn, provoke a similar & overwhelming response by the US.
China would not launch first-strike on US bases, but if the US uses those bases to attack Chinese forces attacking Taiwan, then those bases become fair game. This way it gives US allies hosting bases a choice: are you going to allow US forces to conduct offensive missions against China from your territory and thus drag yourself into a war with China? As for nuclear escalation, current Chinese strategy is to ensure conventional military superiority within 1st island chain, while building up its nuclear deterrent. The goal is to put the onus of escalation on the US. If China can win conventionally in Taiwan, would US risk nuclear escalation to avoid losing?
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Texas decided to ceded from USA, and China sent in warships and war planes to support Texas decision to cede as an independent country. Would USA 1. allow Texas to break from the union or would a civil war ensue? 2. Accept China warships at its doorsteps supporting a state ceding from the union? It sounds crazy right? but in this reality that is exactly what USA is doing right now.
20:15 as a former airman, you NEVER cut away safety procedures, you modify them. Safety is a balancing act between efficiency and security and cutting security for efficiency is a fool's bargain.
The pilot is in my opinion infinitely more valuable than an aircraft, so I agree, pilot safety should be maintained as much as it can be
Completely right. The sentence about dropping or reducing safety to be more efficient made me squirm a bit. It does make sense to think through potential differences between major airbase procedures and light, diverse peripheral basing. Maybe fewer personnel are involved, the list of operations that will be performed. Perhaps there will be much more emphasis on refueling and rearming and minimizing the time aircraft are on the ground. Using knowledgable and experienced analysts, it might make sense modify procedures so they are a better fit while maintaining very safe environment.
Meanwhile, Ukraine enjoying great succes with FPV drones where if you accidentally nudge an exposed wire, it goes boom under your hands during launch, with a safety rating anywhere between "It's not good news" and "Hahaha YOLO".
As a Swede in active service, it's interesting and encouraging to see the mighty USAF start pivoting more towards how we've always been doing things. Not just with the dispersion etc, but also the more independent operations working "in the spirit of higher command", as well as the Multi-Capable Airmen concept which is the standard-by-necessity for all of Swedish Armed Forces.
USAF definitely knows their game, and them adopting a mindset that more resembles that of the Swedes and Finns feels like a nice stamp of approval.
We certainly feel very welcome in NATO, and that we have good things to contribute with.
As an American army veteran -- I am honored to have you as an ally, and giddily happy about how powerful NATO is with you and the Finns.
The force that touts itself as being the best in the world is doing what small countries faced with impossible odds were doing, and you're .. encouraged?
@@johnd2058 Powerful? What does Sweden really bring to the table? A few wings of aircraft? A dozen coastal vessels? A division or two? Enough material to last the first month of a major war then it's just another major commitment for the U.S. It's more about controlling the Baltic than actually adding power to our alliance. Not that I think there's any backing away from American hegemony status quo at this point.
As a British man I'm proud to have Sweden & Finland as allies. We've always seen the Scandinavians and Northern Europeans as friends and they're always welcome here.
NATO is the most powerful & successful military alliance in the history of humanity, even more so now
@@jonny-b4954Sweden has the ability to put 72 mechanized battalions into action on the ground, their territory can host hundreds of not thousands of NATO aircraft and their defense industry adds another source of replacement equipment and ammunition supply for NATO. Meanwhile there are founding members of NATO that can't do half of that anymore.
Haven't heard the term "ACE" since I retired last year. Your description of it is spot on. Some people were also kinda referring to it as a Whack a Mole concept using the Army's FARP technique on steroids.
FARPs are less vulnerable than AF bases, but still not really "maneuverable"...LOL
6:20 "Maybe if I turn around and pretend I didn't see it, I won't have to get involved."
What I call the "cat strategy" 😅
When Lincoln decided to take South back, nobody intervened. I don't see why US has to if China decides to take TW back.
cat strategy is the best 😂😂
Elephants in the room: 1: The pacific is huge! 5000 mile logistical chain is hugely vulnerable, almost impossible. 2: Short range of US stealth fighters. Refueling in contested airspace is suicidal,
Under the best circumstances the PLA is effective at 500NM from it's shore. Anything which contradicts this is literally the People's properganda.
Sure, you and your ChiComm masters keep thinking like that.
The difference is that the U.S. has dealt with these logistic issues for 80 years.
@Sentient.Legacy.2024
There are bases in the first and second island chains.
The chinese airforce have not demonistrated ability to perform in all weather conditions
They don’t fly at night too
They lack experience in combined domain warfare. Their missiles & aircraft have not been tested in a war as well.
@@ricky1231 Anything the US has currently has not been tested in modern warfare against a peer enemy either. There is as much advantage for the US Navy and air forces as there was for the Japanese navy and air forces against lesser experienced US Navy of 1941-43
Taking out ships is going to be a real problem, when we don't have enough tankers and supply ships as is. And it's not like we can rely on a robust industrial base and shipbuilding capacity in the United States, since we got rid of it over the last 40 years.
If Korean war didn't deter China from fighting against major nuclear power like US along with its NATO allies, what kind of drug making people believe a modern PLA force will deter by a relatively weaken US army, while the playground is basically within its missile bubble.
Putler talked big too but his war machine turned out to be corrupt incompetent mess. Dictatorship is the weakest form.
The thing is, China actually believes the US lost the Korean War, and China (along with North Korea) won. The Chinese population is told this in school.
Very good point
China didn't fight just NATO allies, China fought the entire United Nations command.
@@vlhc4642 yes, it was.
Distance is the greatest hindrance in the Pacific. I'm looking at force dilution. Yes your assets survive but they are either too few or so spread out to deal effictive results.
the USAF will have to greatly expand some unit types--comms squadrons, log squadrons, engineers (Red Horse), and BASEOPS units. I suspect this will also require considerably more jointness with the Army, Navy, and Marines. These bases will all have to be multi-service in nature.
just in terms of POL storage, this is a huge undertaking...port facilities, roads, warehouses, bunkers...not to mention, can the US Def industrial Base support it?
The USN will need a new class of escort ships...a new class of cargo vessels...by the time you tally up the bill, it will be ten digits of dollars.
@@nco_gets_it dollars aren’t the problem: lack of shipbuilding facilities is…
@@KirkFickert the us should invest in european, asian and australian shipyards, especially those that proved itself capable of more technical stuff.
Like for an instance, here in croatia, one big shipyard is bancrupted and couldn't sell again.
But others are still somehow surviving, and we know how to build ships, even in socialistic yugoslav times we've built for domestic needs, and the rest for wesyern buyers mostly.
Even today, we build ore carriers for great lakes, we build polar cruisers and luxury yachts, we are also maintaing and rebuilding hull for the us navy, aluminium hulls to be precise, this info is maybe few years old, maybe 4-5 even, but then the number was 11 us navy ships that were done here.
Those capabilities exist elsewhere in europe too, and asia, australia also.
We need our defence treaties more integrated and more connected in a strategic way.
Apparently 853 billion yearly budget isnt enough😂
The China/Taiwan situation is beginning to sound more and more like the “Polish Corridor”. We all know how well that turned out.
For the 3 % of us who don't know, could you elaborate?
@@LOBricksAndSecrets he is victimising himself again
After WW1 Poland was granted land access to the Baltic Sea, via territory that had been part of Germany (and also isolating East Prussia from Germany). The “Polish Corridor” territory was seen by Germans as taking native Germans from their native Germany. Germans weren’t happy about this, (especially somebody named Adolf Hitler), and wanted it reunited with Germany. Things didn’t work out too well.
Interesting comment when I considered Prussia was the cultural birthplace of 20th century German culture, especially in the minds of the German warrior class. Likewise, Kiev is seen by Russians as the cultural birthplace of a strong and militaristic society that arguably saved Europe from the Mongols. Russians are also deluded by the idea they save Europe from Adolph in WWII. When considered in context, it’s easy to see why Russia views their current war as sancrosanct.
This won't be WW2, this will be more like the Pacific War but with the sides switched. China as the industrial superpower, US as the hubristic empire going to find out.
Chris, don't forget the est. 1000+ plus Mig-19 drones (old fighters converted to Kamikaze / bait drones) fielded in bases close to Taiwan as part of a first wave of attack.
During the cold war Sweden developed a cult of mission tactics to the extent that old officers now think Swedens younger officers last decades with thing like involment in Afghanistan has lost some of its way with more rigid and low initiative US and NATO structures. Maybe not often you hear US militray called rigid and low on initiative, but that is the cult of mission tactics for you.
they learned tons from Ukrainian command nodes most recently, and I do believe semi-autonomous command structures are the name of the new game.
What is aggression man? Back 50, 60, roc fighters jet always invade mainland China, bombed power plants in Shanghai, is that aggression? PRC and ROC still in the civil war.
Whatever narrative that suits the u.s. geopolitical needs. 😁😁
This is why it’s so complicated even from a neutral perspective. You don’t get to declare independence after almost losing a civil war. Taiwan is not ethnically, linguistically, religious, culturally, or anything distinctively different from China. It is true that most Taiwanese no longer see themselves as Chinese, but the main reason is political. I just hope they can solve this peacefully.
@@SomeoneFromBeijing Just because they are ethnically the same doesn't mean they want to be ruled by Bejing. Do the Chinese in Singapore want to be ruled by Beijing or the Chinese in Australia?
@@Andy-P Was Singapore ever a part of China? I have no idea what you are talking about.
@@SomeoneFromBeijing Phillipines EEZ wasn't part of China
I am working on this exact problem set with the Air Force. Your analysis is spot on.
You Americans should get a handle on your own corporations. They made the problem happen in the first place.
Pay no attention to the paltry amount of fuel US can ship, or how would resupply even work with Chinese satellites being able to provide targeting data against merchant shipping far out in the Pacific.
I'm more worried about the non-military diplomatic picture. There's a lot of countries that refused to condemn Russia for its obvious aggression against Ukraine. If America doesn't improve its image and win over more friends and allies, the war with China could be over before the first shot is fired.
@@0thPAg The question for the Chinese is, what's it going to look like the first time they've actually been tested? All of their s00per d00per systems they've developed, all of the numbers, performance claims, etc., what happens when Xi has to make decisions in the middle of a conflict? In fact, hasn't Xi been 'purging' the Chinese military of their top command in recent history?
@@delta5297 🤣 Oh c'mon...
Excellent video. I'm impressed how the war in Ukraine is reviving concepts which were very much in use in the 80s. We lost much in the past 30 years, and are playing catch-up since the beginning of the war in Ukraine. Hopefully we'll manage 🙏🏻
I'm currently and active duty Air Force officer, and your description of ACE is really spot on.
I would also add that the Air Force is also shifting its deployments away from the way we used to do things under the Air Expeditionary Wing concept to the Air Force Force Generation (AFFORGEN) model, which is placing a much greater emphasis for deploying an entire wing into theater at a time.
Also, some of the conversations that are going on now have to do with how to defend these bases not only on air, land, and sea, but also how do we increase resilience in cyberspace.
With today's missile technology you can't defend any of these bases. They're just big immovable targets for the missile forces.
Multi capable airman doesn't mean to overburden those airmen but of course it does. Luckily the solution is simple, reduce their duty time on their regular job to train in other roles rather than expecting them to add it on top. It just costs money and requires more airmen per role but if you want actual redundancy you need that anyways.
Multi capable diplomat: "No more trade with Korea, Japan, NATO if you do stupid things. No more coal, no more oil, not a single chip. Are your REALLY that hellbent on starting a fire ?"
How does that square up with the recruiting problems the military is having? Where would you be getting more airmen to fill those roles?
TLDR of the video: What’s old is new again!
I mean, is that so surprising? Military draw downs always erode capacity, & that erodes capability, & that erodes the hard won peace from the last kerfuffle. But try telling that to blinkered idealists & disconnected billionaires looking for a lower tax rate on their plunder.
I mean, is that so surprising? Military draw downs always erode capacity, & that erodes capability, & that erodes the hard won peace from the last kerfuffle. But try telling that to blinkered idealists & disconnected billionaires looking for a lower tax rate.
Except for the presence of nuclear tipped hypersonic missiles
ACE is literally the doctrine the Soviets had with the Mig-29 / Su-17 / Mig-27 squadrons ....
In fact Mig-23 was designed specifically to take advantage of this.
thx to the sponsors👍； see where this treatise is going， thx，very useful deep dive really
Are these bases going to have any restaurants or entertainment? Because some of them seem kinda remote.
More importantly, will there be barracks bunnies
What about the Philippines? Are bases there being taken into consideration as a way to disperse aircraft while keeping them reasonably close to the area of combat?
Interesting how people seem to act like M.A.D. still isn't a thing. How do you big military experts imagine a direct conflict between superpowers would play out without escalating into nukes?
They don't HAVE to use them. Assuming MAD covers all bases is like saying "well duh how would anyone ever have a fistfight when the other guy has a gun?"
I think the chances are better than we think that everyone plays conventional unless certain lines are crossed - as things have been in E. Europe lately
Both sides believe that they can win the war and don't need to destroy the world
See Korea and Viet Nam. Having said that, there are low-kinetic options like a large distance Sea Blockade".
@@frankgerlach4467 distant blockade only works if the one been blockaded is heavily dependent on sea lane for resources. In China’s case, while sea lane is important to bringing in additional resources, what’s produced locally and traded from land routes are more than enough to support a war time economy. It will work as well as sanctions on Russia.
@@frankgerlach4467 During Korean war China didn't have any nukes yet and Russia had just got them. If Trumans threats of using nukes in Korea would have actualized, there would not have been a nuclear counter attack. Also no ICBM-s yet. Vietnam stayed a proxy war.
does the DoD know that a war with China may very likely consist of more than one battle? And can the US industrial base replenish losses when required.
According to u.s. generals, no land battle can be expected from u.s., at all costs.
美国先把自己国内的铅制水管子换掉好吗？含铅的水喝多了影响智商😂
一天的光想着打别人，自己老百姓的日子过得咋样一点儿都不管吗？
According to a 2018 DoD study, China is “the sole source or a primary supplier for a number of critical energetic materials used in munitions and missiles.” The munitions supply chain also features an alarmingly high number of single points of failure: of 198 second- and third-tier suppliers in the industrial base, 98 percent rely on a single or sole source. And the materials that are produced in the United States tend to be made in in a handful of outdated, government-owned facilities using 20th century equipment.
Even worse, the United States has fallen behind our adversaries in deploying advanced energetics. Both Russia and China employ CL-20, the most powerful non-nuclear explosive in the world. American scientists invented CL-20 in the 1980’s, but bureaucratic hurdles, coupled with complacency as the Cold War ended, meant that DoD never deployed it at scale. Instead, the US military still relies on many of the same materials it used during World War II.
Does this youtube channel have a website or facebook page? - The reason is, the topics you are discussing are very topical and (from my perspective) need a deep dive article to augment such presentations as this.
Great presentation Chris and crew!
One thing that isn't mentioned (or maybe hinted at), is the value of the bases. In 2023, CSIS published a report titled The First Battle of the Next War, and it emphasized the importance of bases in Japan, while pointing out that bases in Guam would be of limited value.
The problem is distance, which limits time on station. A flight from Guam to central Taiwan is over 2,700 km. Put it another way, that's the same distance to reach the southern end of Hokkaido.
ACE is a good idea, but you still need bases close enough to provide meaningful airpower while far enough to reduce the effectiveness of ballistic missile strikes from the PLARF. That means investing in bases in the Philippines, the Ryukyu Islands, Kyushu and maybe South Korea and Honshu. The bases on the second island chain and beyond are more likely to be useful for the strategic bombers.
The good news is that standoff missiles, such as the JASSM-ER and JASSM-XR, would put critical Chinese targets within range of pretty much any aircraft based in the theater.
Or use diplomacy and show them the consequences of dumb actions. And end of world trade, essentially.
"you can have your bone and after that starve to economic death, what do your think ?"
Bases could just show up with allied support. We saw that with Operation Desert Shield. Within a couple of months, Saudi Arabia had the largest military base in the world.
just this month US and the Philippines tested the theory of possibly deploying Typhon Medium Range Ballistic Missile the Northern Island of the Philippines. Typhon is capable of firing SM-6 Air to Air Missile and a ballistic missile that is able to reach a maximum range of 1,600 kms. That technically puts China's southern provinces Xinjiang, Macau, Hainan, etc. along the crosshairs of the Typhon.
This angered China.
These missile system is necessary just in case USAF plans to deploy its combat aircrafts in the Philippines as it will protect the ACE deployed combat aircrafts in the Philippines
@@johannesalexandrius5749 The problem with relying on ballistic missiles is that China launching ballistic missiles at Taiwan and/or remote island bases in the Pacific is not an existential threat to the US, whereas the US or any of its allies launching ballistic missiles at China _is_ an existential threat to China that might provoke a nuclear response because they'd have no way of knowing whether the missiles had nuclear warheads until they hit. Is Taiwan worth risking a nuclear war?
@@brucetucker4847 is China willing to take a risk of a nuclear attack retaliation from US and its allies? How many countries does China have mutual defense treaties that has nuclear arms compared to US? Are China's allies willing to fire nukes for China? I'm not sure with Russia, North Korea, and Iran if all of them have a defense treaty with China. What I am sure is if US is attacked, NATO, Japan,and South Korea are willing to defend US in case of a nuclear attack retaliation.
Is China willing to risk energy sanctions from UN not to mention. potential war criminal charges from the Hague?
5:32 Which might also be the point. Mainland China might want to start a war with Taiwan, but having a US base there would mean attacking Taiwan would mean directly attacking a US base by default. Which is a whole other level of escalation that China might now want right now. Conversely not having any US bases on Taiwan might mean that China could conceivably start a war without involving the US. But at this point the US re-establishing a base on Taiwan might put China in such a position that they feel compelled to attack. It would be like China putting a base on Cuba.
你的逻辑很混乱，重新组织你的思路
u call it aggressive defense
Or it would be like an even more escalated version of what caused the Ukraine war
Excellent video, Chris. Thank you for the mature and in depth coverage on this very sensitive, possible time bomb of an event in our lifetime.
It's interesting - why isnt air base defense handled by USAF ground forces? Cost cutting?
Not the USAF responsibility, that's the responsibility of the US army with the USAF secure police, that's their job to defend the air base
Does the USAF want to resurrect the "composite wing" as it had one in the 366th?
With the US military struggling to meet its recruitment goals from a shrinking qualified pool, adding more bodies and more training may present more of a challenge than equipping them.
Maintaining a B29 was a lot different than an F35, as is operating a Patriot batter compared to flac guns.
The dispersion model of USAF versus the actual dispersion model of the swedes is totally different.
You can disperse all you want - a missile is still much cheaper than a base. With todays recon environment where everybody sees everything, you're just waiting for the impact in your bases.
@@mananaVesta Its not as simple as you think.
@@pigmoonk2545 With the US so eager to start this war, we will find out within the next few years
As a former US Soldier, I freaking love the Air Force. Good food and better weapons.
This is a very important topic not just for the pacific area for all potential areas of conflict. I would like to see it talked about and evaluated in depth on both air and naval air.
It should be noted that the Chinese J-20 'mighty dragon' was locked on by Indian fighter jets, even though they were supposedly stealthy!
The US missile defense system was tested in Israel vis a vis Chinese/Russian style missiles.
And the US has massive amounts of aerial refueling.
Really good content. Thank you.
Maybe it is a good idea to clean up the left behind weapons from ww2 as a goodwill gesture Pacific Island people
Really an eye opener. As a Brit I would love to hear the analysis mentioned re the Nordic countries and dispersal
How can an airplane flew,when it is fueled with water?
before you say anything about putting military base in taiwan, lets talk about turkey's jupiiter missile and cuban missile crisis. DONT EVEN THINK ABOUT IT
It would pretty much be a declaration of war
😆
True lmao😂😂Dude was so sad that uda didn't had bases in taiwan
I struggle with the idea of supplying bases over the vast Pacific against China and its much shorter logistic chain. Unlike WW2 we just don't have ships and tracking of ships is so much easier today
Their aircraft were made in China, they'll break apart before entering the battlefield.
Dispersal worked for Sweden and Finland because they were neutral countries that needed to deter Soviet attack. They were not the main theater and all they had to do was be resilient enough and not be a tempting target.
The USAF didnt bother with dispersion in the Cold War because their objective was to stop a Soviet invasion, not merely to survive.
Dispersion in a Taiwan scenario means the objective is not to defend Taiwan, but rather to carry out a protracted blockade afterwards.
Air Force's problem is 90000 dollar bag bushings.
That and a crazy US leadership that is stuck in the 1990s and thinks they can bomb Russia and China just like they could bomb Serbia and Iraq
Nice coverage of the supporting logistics though my previous questions still stand. Any comments? Have I lost my mind?
Can someone tell me where this man got the camo F-16 for the thumbnail?
If the US is reopening Subic Naval Base, why not reopen Clark AFB too
How about Vietnam War ？
Thanks for sharing Chris 🇬🇧👍👍
ACE sounds like one of those military operational concepts that makes no strategic sense, but is still valuable because it provides great training for Airmen until an actually sound operational concept is developed.
The main issue is what missions can effectively be flown while operating in a dispersed manner, and are those the missions that the United States actually needs. The fundamental problem with that concept is that it's not designed to win a war, but instead to cause as much attrition as possible to the enemy. Sweden developed that concept when looking at how to fight the Soviet Union that had a much larger army and air force. Aerial guerrilla tactics make sense in that situation because there really isn't anything better. If what the United States actually needs are complex operations with many moving pieces to work then you'll need the strict structure that the US and NATO have always used.
The main thing this video makes clear is that the Air Force really needs Japan's support if it wants to play a major role quickly. The active support of Japan joining in would be great, but the passive support of Japan letting the US use its air bases would also work. The plan the Air Force is looking at really seems to be the worst-case scenario where all better options have failed. It's great that they're training for this and trying to make it work, but I still don't see this concept actually working as planned without years, if not decades, of dedicated focus.
By looking at the map of where military bases are located in relation to foreign countries, it is easy to tell who is truly the aggressor.
No, it isn't. It's easy to tell who people in most of the countries of the region are afraid of, and who they think is likely to be an ally.
Biggest problem with Chinese defense forces be it army, nay or airforce is they make everything with Chinesium
"Distributed in Time and Space"
_hums the doctor who theme_
Does anyone know of the best book for learning more about the bf 109?
Great video
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 passed in 1971 recognize China (PRC) not Taiwan (ROC). Resolution was passed with ~70% of countries of this earth voting “Yes”to one China. As such legally from UN perspective based on majority votes Taiwan is a province of China. If China wants to retake Taiwan by force, it would not be considered an Invasion of another country but a continuation of China’s internal civil war during WW2…
I wonder if someone in the USAF has allready decided to give "Aviamatka/Zveno" a look.
what others can do to counter America's expansion? how can we counter it.
what China can do to counter it.
nothing
Why did you put a typhoon in the thumbnail?
You're kidding, right? 😅
@@Sire.English that is a eurofigter no? Or am I being braindead 😂
@@DavidSternburgYt Im afraid I have to confirm your fear 😅
It's an F16, American fighter jet.
Typhoon is recognizable by 2-hole square Air intake, solid big wings at the rear and little wings just behind the cockpit.
@@Sire.English God your right how embarrassing on my part, the very top of ghr 16 wing looked like a canard to me plus the rear tail of the f16 is obviously visible 😔
That's... an f16...
How many F22s are there left? How is Boeing doing with quality control? Do you still have enough rare earth to build more fighter jest?
F22 replacement NGAD is around the corner, Boeing Chinese diversity hires are fired. US, Canada and Australia has abundant of rare earths, USA alone has one of the biggest Lithium reserve in the planet.
It has to be remembered the US military isn't going to be sitting on its hands whilst China interdicts its airfields & logistics.
They & their allies going to be hitting back at least as hard
Except the war is on their doorstep and the logistic tail for the US is very long. There is no chance against China.
@@ftboomer1 Ok...
@ftboomer1 there is absolutely a chance because nato has proven their capabilities of weilding inordinate amounts of forces from the other side of the globe. It just needs to have a framework planned for it.
The task forces themselves will be a big part of it as independent and mobile elements but what is currently missing is credible staging points for the organisation of local force structures.
@@ftboomer1 There's a very good chance against China.
Until two years ago, I'd have said the US advantage would have disappeared by 2030 but Putin's adventurism has been a huge wake-up call for the whole free world & we're once more, gearing up for active defence & cooperation.
Should China choose aggression, their economy will collapse as market access is cut off.
@@mobiuscoreindustries beside the point of NATO being an alliance based around "North Atlantic" and the fact that every one of the NATO nations recognizing Taiwan as a part of one China based in Beijing, the fact they have to go across the globe to stage forces against the largest industrial power on earth in their home territory makes this idea suicidal. You people that think this can work need to find another hobby because you are grossly wrong. We cannot win against China in Taiwan.
Since the US [and most of the world] acknowledge Taiwan to be a part of China, what aggression is there?
Fake. Western countries only acknowledge the positions of the CCP and the ROC on Taiwan and China. They do not endorse them. “U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC's sovereignty over Taiwan; U.S. policy has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and. U.S. policy [considers] Taiwan's status as unsettled.”
Aggression is a military attack, as Putin is doing to Ukraine, or greyzone warfare, as XJP carries out against Taiwan, Japan, ASEAN, India and Bhutan.
Fascinating, Chris. Excellent
It's fascinating because it suggests they woke up to the problem recently.
I remember reading naval officers complaining about this exact issue - overmatch in missiles, bases /ports are toast at least back in '16.
Yeah, ngmi.
All of the US islands in the Pacific should be upgraded with infrastructure to potentially support military operations. There are a lot of them. These are mostly a long distance away from China however they could serve useful purposes to support a conflict in Asia. Most of them could be unmanned and open to the public during peace time. This keeps ongoing costs low and keeps potential adversaries guessing about where you might place your mobile assets.
They should each have an airstrip, E berm parking spots, a perimeter berm near the shore, a dock, semi hardened primitive shelters, storage facilities, and remote security with solar powered cameras and satellite communications.
These could be used by tourists for day trips and primitive camping. Many of these islands are already designated as parks. But if the threat of war is high, then military assets could be moved in quickly.
Some potential uses are as safety airstrips for potential emergency landings, temporary bases for Marines to practice amphibious invasion and defense, supply caches to support operations in the Western Pacific from beyond the reach of most missiles, emergency repair and rearming points for the Navy, sensor outposts to monitor the air and sea around them, air defense networks to monitor and potentially engage threats as they cross the Pacific, and forward staging areas for large scale air operations. They also provide a defense in depth to mitigate against the potential of damage to West Pacific US and ally bases. Furthermore they provide at least a minimally defensible prepared fighting position constellation to potentially defend against an invasion attempt. The Aleutian islands in particular are worth fortifying because they are the gateway to the Arctic and are under the likely flight paths of hostile aircraft that would approach the West Coast. But the Hawaiian islands and the mid and South Pacific islands should not be neglected either. If all of the islands are improved up to a level ready for military use, it would significantly complicate the planning of adversaries and can provide outposts to monitor and constrain the movements of adversary forces.
You tell ‘em!
Northern Australia too. There were 300 airfields there in WW2, supporting ops into SEA and SW Pacific. And more again in PNG, which is reactivating some with the US and Australia.
Things you might want to consider from the present Ukraine conflict.
The battlefield is transparent, what can seen can be destroyed. Only distance matters.
Infrastructure, supplies and supply lines are targets.
Attrition. Casualties, evacuation, rotation and mobilisations.
Air superiority, engagement distance, ISR.
With a country as powerful as China, the only bases that will survive and remain operational are those outside of the engagement circle, Hawaii, Guam and Australia. Forget about the rest, they are a liability. Supplying them will cost more ships and men than it is worth. What US needs to lots of submarines, combat ships and aircraft carriers. And loads of mens, at least 3 times that of China. Remember that you are the attacking force. And a ship is only one missile away from the bottom of the Pacific, no matter how big it is. You need more ships. A frigate will take out a destroyer as easily as the other way around. And they don't need to see each other to sink each other.
@@olderchin1558... You're also forgetting amongst the biggest lessons from the war in Ukraine. Numbers isn't everything.
Building up your numbers is useless if the quality is dubious at best, and poor at worst. Remember two years ago, we thought Russia had the numerical superiority and gave Ukraine like two days to a week before they'll fold. Well, it didn't happen now; did it?
Plus the second one is experience. Are the Chinese forces well trained, or are we going to face the situation that befell Putin's troops in the early part of the war? Where they took ground, but at a cost of heavy casualties due to their underestimation of their opponents and incompetence?
🤣🤣🤣
All the west talk about is War 😂
Prepare for war , how to contain , control, etc . 🤣🤣🤣
ACE: When USAF finally admits support for decentralized austere airfield operations like Grippen, A-10, and Soviet airframes have was the objectively correct doctrine all along, because centralized airfields are just cruise missile magnets, just like everyone else in the world said it was.
The A-10 stopped production in 1984 and the company that made it went out of business 20 years ago. It got worn down in the GWOT. It can't fight another war.
I just read an intel warning talking about China is trying heavily to recruit nato us pilots I guess. Was a recent story.
Us is crossing an ocean to fight china but china is the aggressor. Lol.
Like crossing the Atlantic in ww2. lol
@@merlesmith6794 China has started a war and made intent known to conquer others like the nazis? Was the us attacked by a chinese allied state? No...
@merlesmith6794 after the Germans had very much invaded others and made it clear they were trying to take land and resources and us was attacked by one of their allies...
@@merlesmith6794History is written by winners.
@@thomasantn
Then re-written again by the “oppressed” because liberalism.
Thanks Chris. If the USN doesn’t get its LSM project right those bases will be logistically be unviable along with the whole US Pacific concept of operations. At the moment that project is a total flustercluck.
I believe USA became emboldened in the vast Pacific theatre with an advent of their laser interception systems we still know almost nothing about. There is something about cheap missile interceptions that is making this whole ramping up of operations possible like never before. China does have thousands upon thousands of sophisticated missiles well capable of hitting far away targets, so something must give the allies this much confidence.
The point being missed I think is it took a HUGE logistics force to sustain and supply the forces across the Pacific. And that logistics force does not exist anymore. And it can't be built up in a short time. When W W II ended all the supply ships carrying stuff went to the closest US base and unloaded what ever it was. They then reconfigured to carry people in bring our forces back home. We used up all those supplies, what ever was not lost over time, in Korea and Vietnam.
Wouldn't building and manning a few US airbases in taiwan, near strategic targets, have more deterrence effect than upgrading the military units?
All those problems from America provokes, escalated tensions every time every where.
Divide and conquer
the book in the background is the topic of next week? How long can the carrier fleet realistically sustain itself before Air Force bases in a reasonable vicinity have to be up and running? Logistics and combat wise another interesting aspect would be to which extend each base should have electronical warfare capabilities and how they should be implemented
Allies could be involved in order for the U.S. to stay focused on the fight. For instance, Australia could be tasked with retaking or repairing the base on Guam while the Philippines builds airfields for U.S. use. China loves to have its rivals mad at it so weird things could happen such as recovery sites in Vietnam and Cambodia. There might be U.S. air bases in India if China and the U.S. face off.
@@orlock20US bases in India lmfao
This kind of argument is pointless. You are talking how to maintain a superiority that is rapidly disappearing. The real issue is relative national strength.
As China grows stronger, equipping their military with more advanced equipment, the US advantage diminishes. What used to be a chain of bases blocking the mainland is becoming a list of targets. No matter how you juggle the resources, the problem remains and keeps growing.
Basically tactics cannot fix strategic problems. Strategy cannot fix national policy problems. What to do? I quote Field Marshall von Manstein: "Make peace, you fools."
You keep mentioning NATO, but Taiwan isn't a NATO member. The USA might find themselves defening Taiwan alone.
Lolno. The Aussies & every European partner with investments/technical dependencies in Taiwan would also get involved. So... pretty much all of NATO excluding the Baltics & Poland.
And if it did? Well, assuming a diplomatic failure that huge (because the strength of the US is its friends more than its muscle) the US has set itself up for prolonged, long range power projection. China hasn't. I mean, the PLA/N literally uses fishing boats as part of its strategy, & thus claims them as part of its active hull count.
It's kinda silly.
@@TrollOfReason NATO has nothing to do with Taiwan. There will be no direct intervention by NATO.
He didn't mention NATO a single time in that context. Which video did you watch?
There is SEATO and CENTO.
@orlock20 , no there ain't. Not since the 70s
chairforce 1000
so.. quantity as a quality all its own ?
Always has been?
@@jintsuubest9331 I think he's referencing the Soviet/US (of WW2 era) mindset which the US/Nato moved far away from.
@@Milo-id9qd Because as far as we know, quality has ended up smashing quantity.
@@ChucksSEADnDEAD Depends on where you get your information from i guess.
@@Milo-id9qd - Not true. US is going for cheap mass attritables with its Replicator program.
And Chinese tech is unproven and Soviet-based, like the Russian. Which turned out to be not very impressive, even before you deduct for corruption and incompetence.
China's 'no first strike' policy applies to foreign first strikes. China, the US, and for the most part all countries in the world consider Taiwan as a part of China, so China considers any occupation of Taiwan as an 'internal' affair, no different than say what the US would do if Texas declared its independence from the US.
Because we are asked to take China for its word?
Does anyone else remember planes on boats in WW2?
Sorry subs
Swede and Finns use the tactic to defend themselves, Americans use it to aggressively attack another country😂
Invasion? Do you know both sides are the rivals of an unfinished civil war!?
Very interesting synopsis,
USAF has multiple bases in the Philippines, too
Used to, like with Clark and Subic for USN. But even with the new Defense deals with the Philippines with the EDCA I wonder if it's ready for a Kinetic situation in Taiwan. Not to mention that there's a significant Chinese lobbying in Philippine politics with politicians wanting to end the recent US and Philippine defense deals
@@alwayscurious3357 - Philippines is already being attacked, having their sailors injured, their ships damaged, theri territory stolen.
They would be more than happy to have their war fought for them.
Philippine already is political pawn of USA. It will be thrown front by usa against China
Hub and spoke I heard from my logistics course. More in the scope of passenger aviation.
I think there's a few things worth saying, repeating, reinforcing.
So give me a moment to chew through this.
I think it swung too far in the COIN/low intensity side of things. Assumptions that were never tested become accepted thought and people didn't seem to remember they were assumptions in the first place.
I'd also make the point that a proactive, defended/resilient and stable chain of command should be able to trust the people on the field to do their part of the mission, the job, the act of fighting.
Resource management is always a problem and always needs to be watched and managed. Who, where, how and why changes the question and changes the outcome. So more planning, less assumptions, more games to test and check it, all of that sounds good.
And all the better if it's tested before, used before. Engines still need to be checked and fuel gotten there, whether it's a prop or turbojet doesn't really change the question on some level.
As an American who has worked in manufacturing for over 20 years I can tell you that we are in serious trouble. We shipped our steel mills, ship yards, and manufacturing to China and Mexico and now we couldn’t fight a large scale conventional war against China. The numbers don’t lie so take a look at shipyard capacity, steel production, and industrial output. Modern wars are not fought with small numbers of tanks, planes or ships. If China wants Taiwan they are going to have it. The USA is not going to send millions of our young men and women to die for Taiwan.
Even we want to send millions how? Through air or sea?
我认为你是少数认真研究过这个问题的美国人，向你致敬。话说回来，很多西方人不知道也不想了解中国的能力，当他们大放厥词时全凭他们的想象，非常蠢且可怜
@@OzIan1983
China capabilities is over. Western investors left China leaving Millions of chinese are jobless, millions of stores and factories are closed, CCP real estate is collapse, CCP EV vehicles are getting banned in USA and Europe which are the biggest EV customers, Its over for CCP go back to planting rice and embrace another century of humiliation. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@spvlinn9009 sending to whichever corners of the Earth is not really the main issue. your government needs to brainwash (hence the task of propaganda) your people first to agree on sending their love ones to a very bloody fight
How great is the fear that China might attack satellites in orbit during a war with the US over Taiwan? The US military seems to be very interested in SpaceX's Starlink network, which proved its usefulness in Ukraine and is very resilient against attack, unless the aggressor is willing to risk the Kessler Syndrome by destroying a lot of Starlink satellites. China first demonstrated anti-satellite capability in 2007. Thank you for the very interesting video.
China faces the same problem with satellite strikes as everyone else - it is possible but it comes with the likelihood that cascading debris swarms will cut off one's own access to space for decades probably generations.
The only viable approach if you want to keep access to space is physically interacting with enemy satellites to de-orbit them one way or another. Which is pretty slow and targeted.
First and foremost one question needs to be answered when discussing war vs China which affects everything.
Is mainland China going to be attacked? Is it fair game? Because make no mistake. If sny part of mainland China is attacked, mainland USA will also be attacked. same with Europe, Japan, Australia etc. there is no situation where mainland China is attacked but mainland USA is untouched.
My opinion is that Taiwan is not even close to being worth trading one US city for. Not even half a city for the whole Taiwan island. So under such an assumption as move onto the fight itself.
But before we fight, we must ask a simple question. what is usa fighting for? How do we define winning and losing?
Most will claim that the goal is to defend Taiwan. Ok. agreed. But does that mean? Is it defending the government and people and system and infrastructure? Because that seems impossible. China can just keep launching missiles and can destroy it from the mainland with just MLSR and. Like long range artillery with rocket assisted munitions..or they can just use cheap drones like Iranian style shaheeds, which are made using off the shelf components bought from.. China.
If you don't attack China mainland, china can just produce millions of them and turn it into a war of attrition, and you aren't going to out produce China or beat them in cost effectiveness. You can't even beat Russia.. and Russia is no china.
So yeah. "defending" Taiwan in a contained proxy war just over Taiwan is literally impossible, and it would literally be the worst location one can pick to engage china in such a war, even if the goal was just to "bleed China" like usa and west are doing to Russia in Ukraine. Even with Russia, the West has failed to bleed Russia and take Russia down and out..they are growing at 3%+(highest in Europe), while UK, Germany, Japan etc are in recession. Militarily, Russia can keep going indefinitely. Russias economic future seems fine. UK. Germany, Japan? Doubtful to put it mildly. But I digress.
My point was you can't even beat Russia directly or indirectly. But you want to beat china who is basically 10 Russias combined in a contained war to "defend" an island 100km from their coast and 10,000km from usa? A war they been single mindedly focused on and preparing for over 3-4 decades now?
Think about if Russia had 30 years to dig in their position in Ukraine, and had mapped out, mined out, and zeroed in all their artillery for all the kill zones, build obstacles and made if impossible for anyone to approach except for routes that go through the above kill zones. That is basically China's A2AD defensive strategy, combined with China's dominance in standoff range missiles and J-20 having long combat range where usa Carriers can't even get close, and if they do, they will be sitting ducks in a barrel.
Not to mention that in the above analogy, it would be even worse and would be like if Ukraine had a 10,000km logistics line, and instead of attacking Russia in Ukraine, they are attacking in a straight line through a choke point(Carriers, land based airbases, naval ports) which china has eyes on 24/7, and can do saturation attack and destroy with 100% certainty anytime they want. And imagine Ukraine also was isolated and had no land borders with friendly states and had about 2-3 weeks worth of energy reserves.
Now also factor in that china is the world's factory, and Ukraine is using Chinese dji drones. Same as Russia, and even usa military.. even iran. Everyone is. Now take that away for China's enemies, and add that capacity towards China and bump it up even more to become a war time capacity. China could destroy Taiwan with just drones and rocket assisted artillery, dumb bombs with cheap wing kits added on to extreme their range. These can be fired from Chinese mainland or not far off it. Covered by land based anti air systems, Chinese navy, and their whole air force. It is a suicide mission to "defend Taiwan" or to fight China just off their coast. No one would even consider fighting Russia because of nukes, but i bet even if China gets 10,000 nukes people will still be talking about fighting China and winning. Normal rational people in the West seem tjntnjn cjjjs is still in the 1800s or something. Not even 1960s since China got nukes by then already.
Or even in 1950. China had no nukes. Remember Korean war? Usa, SK, and 17 other UN countries combined.. China had no air force, no navy, no tanks, no economy, couldn't even make a bicycle. But they could not beat China back then in a neighboring country and still got destroyed and forced to flee halfway across the whole of korea. Fled so far it still holds the record today for the longest retreat in USA military history. Do you want to break that record and have all us overseas bases from first island chain retreat all the way back to usa mainland? Because that's what will happen, with usa hoping that China will not escalate to a total war with mainlands being hit as well and then escalating to MAD.
Fighting china off their coast today is suicide. And fighting china in neighboring country on land has been suicide since 1950. Usa already knows this from personal experience. That's why they never stepped one foot into north Vietnam for the whole Vietnam war.. which of course USA lost.
USA can't even defeat houthi rebels and too scared to escalate vs Yemen and houthis or Iran or NK or Russia.
But they will go to total war vs China over Taiwan. And also win? Hahahahhaha.
People, even respectable intellectuals seem to lose all rationality when it comes to China. Even "realists" like John Meirsheimer become idealistic egotistical blathering idiots pushing total nuclear war and disregarding MAD.
There's definitely an unspoken, deep seated superiority complex and most likely has racial(if not racist) undertones involved when it comes to China or non white/Christian civilizations. It's not even a country thing anymore but a civilization thing for people like Meirsheimer.
No western nation has been "white/Christian" in 50 years. You need to get with the times.
朋友你说出了所有真相，也戳中了白人的痛处，所以你看没有人来回应你 LOL
@@gfys756
Tell that to Poland.
"My opinion is that Taiwan is not even close to being worth trading one US city for. Not even half a city for the whole Taiwan island." - defending Taiwan or Philippines or Japan is just a pretext. if USD will to drop its value by 50% because of our country, China, you might call it losing a leg for the US depending on the perspective. if ur country does not want to lose a leg, then US will do anything to pester us & warring us is just one of many option
China is in a big conundrum tbh, the proper US bases are too far to seriously hamper its operations on Taiwan (basically bomber bases only) while the ones in The Philippines, Japan and South Korea can be used for tactical forces but… are in other nations… so would they just go to war with basically every nation to their East for Taiwan? And to get what? An empty shell of TSMC?
good comment.
china would ofc not declare war on japan korea phillipines.
why would they do that ?
the raiwan issue is civil war thats not decided.
so japan korea phillipines would need to deckare war on the china. otherwiae america cant use those bases ? or ?
@@mikael5938 it will have to hit targets in that area to prevent the US from interfering this violating the airspace of those countries with at least munitions (missiles). Each country involved might consider that an act of war not even including munitions possibly landing on Korean or Japanese or Filipino soil by mistake since it’s already happening with Russia in Ukraine (Russian missiles landing in Poland).
@@OpinionatedMatt but do south korea japan and phillipines want to deckare war on china ? its their largest and most dangereus country by far with 1500 million people and nukes. Much more powerfull then the US. Japan learned a big leason in last war getting nuked. I dobt think they wanna be nuked again. Its big chance they stay neutral in a cinflict.
Spot on
If want to change tactics to dispersion like of by swedes, then also change to grippen, purpose designed for such use, instead of those whimsical & overpriced F35. By doing which increasing a lot from where jets can operate, simplifying and cheapening maintenance, increasing within budget plane count to offset absence of stealth.
Chinese aggression but US haves 300 military bases surrounding China, what a double standard.
They have bases …. Their mobile and called aircraft carriers, the problem they have is no fighter has the range to make them viable for Taiwan defence because they fall within the range of Chinese missiles defence and the general air defence bubble of China ….maybe in air drone refuelling will help and the fuel range of the new FA/XX program … but those are years off …. I can see the US upgrade to the F-22 as a response to fuel range , and reopening bases in the Aleutians should have happened years ago .
Chris. Are you talking to Sal? About logistics?
There might be a naval involvement, sub this. Shooting first today is an unannounced moto.
He said this video was about the USAF.
I wonder how those cargo cults (if they're still around) are going to react to the WW2 base reactivations
China has already dealt with US 70 years ago in the Korean War with much less arm. It’s no biggie.
And China failed to take over South Korea. Millions of Koreans suffering in North Korea and all thanks to China.
1 way to avoid strikes on AF bases is to have them underground with lifts & above ground antennas & wind socks,if feasible.Especially,if your crafts have VSTOL capabilities & you can camouflage the lift.Then you won’t need runways.If the hub & spoke idea is used,you should consider having some of the hub underground.
Lifts are a single point of vulnerability that can easily be disabled by bombs (whereas runways and taxiways are much more resilient). You cannot disguise bases underground, they will be discovered during construction by the amount of material being removed out of the ground, and will be hard to disguise given the need to transport POL and munitions to the base. VTOL halves range and payload.
@@forcea1454 Not to mention the cost of an underground base.
Taiwan must have a tough time, as it is a smallish island, some of it has mountains. They don't have a great deal of available real estate for airstrips.
Their main airbase is under a mountain.
@@overworlder Good choice.
Free Tibet from CCP
Why? Tibetans in Tibet are happy. They are free.
@@rider2731Yeah? Did you ask them that yourself?
@@rider2731 Then let Tibet rule China
Could China attack Taiwan? Sure. Not a big stretch to say so. Would China then attack a number of U.S. air bases scattered throughout the region? Short of all out war between the two nations, no way. It would be unprecedented and immediately escalate to nuclear conflict.
That's a silly thing to say. Why would it immediately escalate to nuclear weapon use? I can't see any reason that could be true 🧐
I agree China may not attack U.S. airbases in a surprise strike. Although they should prepare for it.
This is because the U.S. may just fold. If there's even a 5% chance the U.S. would decline to intervene militarily, I think China would be dumb to do so.
However, America could also respond by sinking a Chinese carrier and troopship or 12. Then it would make sense. But I think China would be better off to try and avoid direct conflict with the U.S.
Now if China wants to attack Japan . Yeah they are going to want to Surprise strike U.S. bases.
I think it's not guaranteed to go nuclear. If the U.S. and China hold off on attacking each other's mainland (Alaska/Hawaii included) it might not, which means either side might risk it.
That said the bases can't move. The U.S. sends a grain shipment to an interdicted Taiwan. China fires at or near it. A single person decides to fire back. It escalates from there.
In fact a declared interdiction might be a planassault. ttempt at a straight asdault.
The ‘pearl harbor’ strategy has two major downsides for china- 1. it will bring in countries beyond just Japan and Australia. 2. It will cause a ‘day of infamy speech’ and assure a long war which China will almost certainly lose. I don’t see any president or political party pulling a denethor if 10s of thousands of Americans die in one day.
@@Matt.Willoughby
Because at that point, assuming an undeclared first strike on a US military asset, the US would pursue a unilateral & unconditional surrender of the CCP. At least, so history suggests.
The current government in Beijing would, at that point, be in a position in trying to preserve its very existence. They would be, at least according to doctrine, obliged to eventually escalate to nuclear deterrents. Which would, in turn, provoke a similar & overwhelming response by the US.
China would not launch first-strike on US bases, but if the US uses those bases to attack Chinese forces attacking Taiwan, then those bases become fair game. This way it gives US allies hosting bases a choice: are you going to allow US forces to conduct offensive missions against China from your territory and thus drag yourself into a war with China? As for nuclear escalation, current Chinese strategy is to ensure conventional military superiority within 1st island chain, while building up its nuclear deterrent. The goal is to put the onus of escalation on the US. If China can win conventionally in Taiwan, would US risk nuclear escalation to avoid losing?
Imagine a hypothetical scenario where Texas decided to ceded from USA, and China sent in warships and war planes to support Texas decision to cede as an independent country. Would USA 1. allow Texas to break from the union or would a civil war ensue? 2. Accept China warships at its doorsteps supporting a state ceding from the union? It sounds crazy right? but in this reality that is exactly what USA is doing right now.
Taiwan has never been part of China and is not part of China now. Simply because the Chinese government says so does not make it so.
That's not even close to this scenario, bozo.