"US subs would stop Chinese invasion of Taiwan" Topic

For years, Chinese military planning assumed that any attack by the People's Liberation Army on Taiwan or a disputed island would have to begin with a Pearl Harbor-style preemptive missile strike by China against U.S. forces in Japan and Guam. The PLA was so afraid of overwhelming American intervention that it genuinely believed it could not win unless the Americans were removed from the battlefield before the main campaign even began.

That was then. But after two decades of sustained military modernization, the Chinese military has fundamentally changed its strategy in just the last year or so. According to Fuell, recent writings by PLA officers indicate "a growing confidence within the PLA that they can more-readily withstand U.S. involvement."

America possesses by far the world's most powerful submarine force — one poised to quickly sink any Chinese invasion fleet. In announcing its readiness to hold off the U.S. military, the PLA seems to have ignored Washington's huge undersea advantage.

The Navy has 74 submarines, 60 of which are attack or missile submarines optimized for finding and sinking other ships or blasting land targets. The balance is ballistic-missile boats that carry nuclear missiles and would not routinely participate in military campaigns short of an atomic World War III.

Thirty-three of the attack and missile boats belong to the Pacific Fleet, with major bases in Washington State, California, Hawaii, and Guam. Deploying for six months or so roughly every year and a half, America's Pacific subs frequently stop over in Japan and South Korea and occasionally even venture under the Arctic ice.

According to Adm. Cecil Haney, the former commander of Pacific Fleet subs, on any given day 17 boats are underway and eight are "forward-deployed," meaning they are on station in a potential combat zone. To the Pacific Fleet, that pretty much means waters near China.

America has several submarine types. The numerous Los Angeles-class attack boats are Cold War stalwarts that are steadily being replaced by newer Virginia-class boats with improved stealth and sensors. The secretive Seawolfs, numbering just three — all of them in the Pacific — are big, fast, and more heavily armed than other subs. The Ohio-class missile submarines are former ballistic missile boats each packing 154 cruise missile.

U.S. subs are, on average, bigger, faster, quieter, and more powerful than the rest of the world's subs. And there are more of them. The U.K. is building just seven new Astute attack boats. Russia aims to maintain around 12 modern attack subs. China is struggling to deploy a handful of rudimentary nuclear boats.

Able to lurk silently under the waves and strike suddenly with torpedoes and missiles, submarines have tactical and strategic effect greatly disproportionate to their relatively small numbers. During the 1982 Falklands War, the British sub Conqueror torpedoed and sank the Argentine cruiser General Belgrano, killing 323 men. The sinking kept the rest of the Argentine fleet bottled up for the duration of the conflict.

America's eight-at-a-time submarine picket in or near Chinese waters could be equally destructive to Chinese military plans, especially considering the PLA's limited anti-submarine skills. "Although China might control the surface of the sea around Taiwan, its ability to find and sink U.S. submarines will be extremely limited for the foreseeable future," Cliff testified. "Those submarines would likely be able to intercept and sink Chinese amphibious transports as they transited toward Taiwan."

So it almost doesn't matter that a modernized PLA thinks it possesses the means to fight America above the waves, on land, and in the air. If it can't safely sail an invasion fleet as part of its territorial ambitions, it can't achieve its strategic goals — capturing Taiwan and or some island also claimed by a neighboring country — through overtly military means.

link

You spelled "could" wrong in your title.

The US don't even have to attack Chinese naval vessels.

They could just declare that they would sink any civilian ships -- which would pretty much spell the end of any ships attempting to sail to Taiwan, given that it would be effectively suicidal.

Has unrestricted submarine warfare improved.

How would one or two submarines cope with a thousand refugee junks, each laden with people desperate to flee the painting rooms of (insert plastic preprint collectable range of choice)

I'm not sure submarines on their own are the answer, but a blend of surface, undersea, and aerial assets, could defend against Chinese aggression

You still need to control the skies and ground…….

If the Chinese can't land troops they can't occupy the island. They don't have to cope with 1 or 2 submarines, there's always 8 in the area (as the article points out). Those 8 submarines can sink a lot of troop ships.

-Will

The Subs would certianly do much damage to a landing force. Remember over 50% of the IJF ships were sunk by USN subs in WWII … But yes, the subs would only be part of the package. Air and surface assets would do their share as well … And if the landing force made it to landfall, how will they get supplied, with all the US and other allies naval and air assets still available ? Not to mention, the US has more experience in naval warfare than any one else on the planet … The PRC … not so much …

here is an article on a possible US-China war that I recently came across: link -- How to Have a Big Disastrous War with China -- good discussion of strategies and tactics and the military doctrines in play. Excerpt: "U.S. submarines possess many qualitative advantages and would be very effective in interdicting Chinese shipping on a modest scale, but the geography, the lack of air and surface support, and the ability of the Chinese to concentrate their antisubmarine efforts on finding U.S. attack submarines without fear of disruption by surface and air assets will make these operations much riskier."

The Chinese are not going to fight such a war in a symmetrical way that US planners expect.

And I would guess any attack on Taiwan would involve a high level of airborne assault troops and seizure of airfields and local supply assets, not at all be wholly dependent on seaborne elements. There is not going to be a ponderous American-style supply chain that would be so vulnerable to interdiction.

couple of layers of things you need to be thinking about in that article, piper909. one, that is a conservative magazine, and that often means the articles will claim that we are not ready and need to spend more of defense.

once you peel that one back, you get to another one … that the article is arguing against a specific strategy of denying chinese regional power, and arguing in favor of a different strategy. it is an advocacy article, so not a very objective review.

And I would guess any attack on Taiwan would involve a high level of airborne assault troops and seizure of airfields and local supply assets, not at all be wholly dependent on seaborne elements. There is not going to be a ponderous American-style supply chain that would be so vulnerable to interdiction.

And then how do they supply the troops?

How do they feed Taiwan, and keep it supplied economically?

The idea that somehow the Chinese can have a modern military, yet fight "lean" is ridiculous. All modern armies have "ponderous" supply chains. At least if they don't want to walk around, and if they want to eat without having to forage.

The military aspect of taking Taiwan is the easy part, just as taking the Falklands was for Argentina, and Egypt for Napoleon. What to do after your supply chain is cut is the hard part.

How would one or two submarines cope with a thousand refugee junks, each laden with people desperate to flee the painting rooms of (insert plastic preprint collectable range of choice)

Ask the crew of the Ehime Maru. link Wooden ship versus multi-inch thick HY80 steel is a losing proposition.

I suspect the first wave of Chinese troops/vessels would get into Taiwanese waters to land their forces, in a surprise attack, before the USN could react.

They could also press into service numerous civilian vessels and merchants to resupply their forces on Taiwan, ala a reverse Dunkirk move. I doubt the SSNs in the Asia/Pacific Theater have enough torpedoes and SSMs to stop such a flotilla, if the Chinese really decide to play hardball.

"Merchant and/other 'non-combatant' vessels crewed by Chinese civilians" being fired on and sunk by the USN will not look very good on the evening news, or on the world stage.

You can count on China to play up the images of Chinese "civilians" trying to provide humanitarian aid to their countrymen during such a conflict to the fullest.

After that, resupply and reinforcements could be conducted by air, if desired. Difficult, granted, but not impossible.

Can USN SSNs fly, and do they carry AAMS, or SAMS?

And Piper909 what is all the various radars doing while all these aircraft full of Chinese paras are in the air ? And as noted, how do they get resupplied ?

"And Piper909 what is all the various radars doing while all these aircraft full of Chinese paras are in the air?".

Perhaps they will be jammed, or taken out using radar homing missiles, or neutralized by Chinese hackers, or an EMP pulse.

"And as noted, how do they get resupplied?"

Numerous Chinese junks and impressed merchant vessels, cargo planes air-dropping supplies, or landing on roads and airfields captured by their advanced forces, etc.

Possible … however, I think it is highly unlikely all systems would be jammed, fail, etc. … And if trying to resupply those a forces by the methods you mentioned, again, would be very difficult at best … The entire invasion would be very, very costly … Trying to sneak a large invasion force past the USAF and USN in the region would almost be impossible … IMO …

A better invasion scenario is a coup that puts in a China friendly new leader. You only need pre-placed light special forces assets. Subs can't stop that.

I suspect the first wave of Chinese troops/vessels would get into Taiwanese waters to land their forces, in a surprise attack, before the USN could react.

The chances of the Chinese being to prepare for such an attack in secrecy is zero, not with satellite recon. The US and Taiwan might not know the exact embarkation date, but you aren't going to gather that many ships together and not be really, really obvious that something is going on.

They could also press into service numerous civilian vessels and merchants to resupply their forces on Taiwan, ala a reverse Dunkirk move. I doubt the SSNs in the Asia/Pacific Theater have enough torpedoes and SSMs to stop such a flotilla, if the Chinese really decide to play hardball.

Eight SSN's, accounting for some difference in loadout between different classes, could probably account for ~240 enemy cargo vessels between them, which would effectively gut Chinese resupply capability for the first few weeks; that's over 10% of the *entire* Chinese merchant marine on the bottom extremely quickly. This isn't counting whatever else Taiwan does sink with it's own defenses. Whatever Chinese troops do land are going to be serious trouble in a few days. And of course this assumes the US isn't tipped off and slips in another couple of submarines in the weeks before the balloon goes up…. And then there's everything else that also might be brought to bear.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for the Chinese to get troops on the island, but it's really a long shot that they could actually capture it.

-Will

Who writes this garbage? Oh wait it's the clueless hacks at War Is Boring blog.

According to these jokers, US subs would be unopposed as China has no navy, no destroyers, no submarines, no ASW assets, blah, blah. It's also good the idiot Chinese would never concetrate force in Taiwan Strait.

They don't have to sink a sub, just prevent it from getting kills.

And have these idiots ever seen a map of Taiwan Straight?

Strait of Taiwan or "Black Ditch" isn't exactly a massive and deep ocean either where subs can hide.

At its narrowest point it's 130 kilometers wide and about 180 km on average – obviously in range of virtually an ASW aircraft and also even small ASW ships.

It's average depth is 50 metres with 100 metres at it's deepest.

Not exactly great submarine hunting ground now is it?

------------------

The key to stopping a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is:

1. Ballistic missile defence to stop Chinese from annhilating Taiwanese assets on groung.

2. Effective Taiwnese mobilisation including ability to quickly disperse assets.

3. Above 2 lead to 3 which is maintenance or at least heavily contest air superiority.

Problem here is Taiwan is struggling big time. Air force dates from mid-1990s and no new fighters have been forthcoming.

Plans to upgrade F-16 fleet got shafted by USAF slashing it's own fleet upgrade.

4. Usage of lots of smaller missile armed attack ships to harrass enemy preparations. Taiwan has already done this in the form of Kuang Hua VI missile boats and new Tuo River stealth corvettes.

It's all reliant on Taiwan and not US submarines

-------------

In reality, why would China invade Taiwan when Taiwan is already so depdendent on China economically (over 50% of Taiwanese exports go to China).

Also Taiwanese military is in free-for-all with cutbacks of up to 20% announced in 2013. This follows other cutbacks since 1990s. Indeed current budget is $9.8 USD billion compared to $9.57 USD billion in 1996 (growth of mere 2% in 18 years!).

Problems also arise with something else mentioned in the article – rapidly ageing Taiwanese population and lack of interest in careers in Taiwanese military. In 2013 Taiwan only managed to recruit 8,600 news recruits out of 28,000 it needed. As such conscription has been maintained.

Don't mention that to the War Is Boring crowd.

At its narrowest point it's 130 kilometers wide and about 180 km on average – obviously in range of virtually an ASW aircraft and also even small ASW ships.

They don't have to be in the strait- all modern US SSN's carry Tomahawks and other anti-shipping missiles and can engage ships inside the strait from well outside of it.

Any way you cut it, it's going to be mess. But China's success is not preordained.

-Will

Exactly … TLAMs could do as much damage as torpedoes … Also as mentioned, Ortbital Assets would probably pick up a huge PRC invasion force mobilizing. Of course again, let me quote Sun Tzu …
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
-Sun Tzu

Again the assumption is one of passive, idiot Chinese.

In an anti-shipping capability the Tomahawk is radar guided (most land attack ones are GPS and INS).

Radar guided means that target has to be illuminated by radar. That makes both the targetting system (the sub or a ship or an aircraft) and then missile visible to enemy systems.

The Chinese have a couple of advantages here – geographic, close location to home territory (including access to land based large radars) as well as being on the initiative.

Unless they're mentally retarded it can be safe to assume such a fleet would be covered by fleet based air defence systems as well as land based defences.

This includes large and powerful land based air defence radars as well AESA equipped destroyers.

Contrary to popular belief the Chinese navy is not wooden junks and their air defence is not kites.

Instead they have acquired reasonable numbers of modern systems to at least maintain some sort of numerical superiority and at least some level of technological parity in the Strait area. This includes a reasonably large fleet of AESA equipped destroyers (and certainly large enough to provide coverage of Taiwan Strait area).

So the Tomahawks would be subject to being discovered (they are after all illuminating ships) and then subject to PLA and PLAN defences ala missiles, electronic counter measures and CIWS.

Equivalent Western developments was the reason that Soviet anti- shipping operations were based around regiments of supersonic bombers packing numerous cruise missiles backed up by ECM aircraft, with further antishipping punch provided by large cruisers and submarines. In essence saturation tactics with assumption most weapons won't get through. And then goal wasn't killing dozens of landing craft and transport ships but rather smaller carrier groups of a dozen ships or less.

The point is it's not so clear cut as the article above states.

Never underestimate your enemy!

Or to quote Sun Tzu:

He who exercises no forethought but makes light of his opponents is sure to be captured by them.

Some far more balanced articles though dating back to 2011-2012 about PLAN capabilities:

e-ir.info/2011/08/27/the-undersea-balance-in-the-western-pacific-chinese-submarines-and-u-s-anti-submarine-warfare-capabilities

defencereviewasia.com/articles/155/Anti-Submarine-Warfare

The other thing everyone is ignoring is that unless the Taiwanese Navy hightails out of the strait, the situation will be confused and not a free fire zone.

The US has not interoperability with Taiwan – there are no joint exercises, no joint command structures etc.

Hence lobbing Tomahawks/Harpoons at anything that moves in Taiwan Strait is liable to cause damage to ROCN assets in region too.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.

As stated China has already won – Taiwan is completely economically dependent on China.

The Chinese also have stated no invasion unless independence is declared and the US doesn't guarantee defence of Taiwan if they declare independence.

And the US support for Taiwan is crippled too – no real capability boosts are available to Taiwan (e.g. request for 66 F-16C/Ds was not allowed until the point the F-16C/D was starting to become obsolete in the context of Taiwan).

The Taiwanese know it too – hence massive defence cuts since 1996.

But China's success is not preordained

I agree.

But neither is the USN going to obliterate China with 8 subs and no losses.

US has got too used to smacking around defenceless third world borderline failed states or AK armed insurgents.

In a war with another major powered, the situation is unclear.

In any case war is far more likely over Senkakus than Taiwan which as stated has already been won by Chinese using other more beneficial methods ala economic integration.

I totally agree, Never underestimate your enemy … However, I know US military planners generally have OPLANs for many of the most likely or not so likely scenarios. I'm sure the PRC invasion of Taiwan, has been "on-the-books" so to speak for some time … To quote General "Buck" Turgidson: "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed."

As stated China has already won – Taiwan is completely economically dependent on China.

That is a case for why China won't attack Taiwan … But I'm sure OPLANs exist in both China and the US … just in case …

US has got too used to smacking around defenceless third world borderline failed states or AK armed insurgents.

US has lost 5490 in Iraq and Afghanistan and over 58,000 in Vietnam, not to mention losses in Somalia, etc. … "defenceless" … I think not …

The thing that stops china from invading Taiwan is economic dependence.

China dosn't work with out the USA and vice versa. Any conflic of any scale would send the entire world into a new great depression.

No matter what overwhelming preponderance of technologically superior hardware you have, if you don't have the will to actually use it against someone, it's all just very expensive junk.

It always makes me smile when I see the argument about economic interdependence meaning there will never be a war.

There was a bestselling book about that subject in the years before 1914.

Not exactly great submarine hunting ground now is it?

The USN quite liked the Taiwan Straits back in WW2, and modern subs don't need to fire a spread of 6 torps to get one ship kill. The WW2-era Mk14 torp had a max range of 9000 yards, when a modern Mk48 has a range of more like 50,000 yards.

Those "old, obsolete" 688s carry 24 torpedoes plus a dozen Tomahawks, and the slightly newer Seawolves carry 50 torps. The top-line Virginia-class carry 27 torps and a dozen Tomahawks. (The Seawolves are much larger in beam and have 8 torpedo tubes with no VLS).

And this doesn't count the 2-4 Ohio SSGNs that will come out to play. Sure, they might only carry 13-17 torpedoes (depends on whether the center tray was rated/tested to carry a couple extras or not), but they also bring 65 SEALs and 140-odd Tomahawks. Two SSGNs are home-ported in the Pacific, the other two are in the Atlantic, but given sufficient notification the Atlantic ships could make a visit. The two Pacific SSGNs could be on-scene in less than a week from kickoff, depends on where each one is when the party starts.