01-28-2017, 10:37 AM
Quote:That requires local air superiority. That's difficult to get with 10 carriers, which means 3 on station at a time. We could surge but we'd need to get everything coordinated just right, and then stage an actual invasion so we ended up holding the territory. Or we could use cruise missiles, but cruise missiles are more expensive than run way patches, so that's a losing technique in the long term, unless it enables us to stage an invasion.
We may have given up formal control, but the USAF/USN still has access to Clark AFB and Subic Bay, and 3 supercarriers is a formidable force. The trouble with holding the islands is that, unlike ships, they are fixed positions, and within the range of Chinese conventional missiles/American counter-attacks. In an actual war they could prove difficult for either side to hold.
Quote:I agree it's an open question with respect to carriers versus attack submarines. It doesn't matter that much since we've got the advantage in both - for now.
Which might provide a back-of-the-mind incentive for America to stake out a stronger position now, as opposed to 20 years from now.
Quote:If they don't use their navy, they might as well not have built it in the first place.
There are tremendous uses for even a green-water or brown water navy, and they are actively trying to build theirs up.
Quote:As previously discussed, the Chinese mainland isn't close enough to control the entire South China Sea, especially the reaches such as near the Philippines.
The Taiwan Strait is a different story. The relevant forces would be based on the mainland and Taiwan.
The Daoyu are basically a nearly irrelevant sideshow, serving only as a possible irrational flashpoint
That was the whole point of the "trench warfare at sea" analysis I linked to earlier. Given the terrain, you could have the sort of conflict that lends itself better to defense than offense, with China and the First Island Chain constituting the trenches and the ECS/SCS a no-man's-land of missiles, planes, drones, mines, submarines, and fast attacks boats (something a little heavier than those Iranian speed-boats you mentioned, something more like this or the LCS). At which the conflict becomes a question of endurance, resources, and will.
Quote:From the US standpoint, it's the South China Sea that is relevant, not just for its resources, but because it contains critical routes for America's global trade empire. The trade routes are more important to the US; the resources are more important to China. There ought to be a win/win here somewhere; it's just a matter of whether we can get to it.
It would be nice. Am not sure it is in the cards. As you and I have both mentioned previously, there's a lot of room to fuck things up and bring about a sub-optimal outcome for everyone.