SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - 1 US carrier and 18 US combatants sunk in 10 minutes

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - 1 US carrier and 18 US combatants sunk in 10 minutes (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=257800)

1 US carrier and 18 US combatants sunk in 10 minutes

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/3...r-game-minutes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...-money-report/

Oooops.

Quote:

[Die Welt] The "Millennium Challenge" exercise in 2002 took a worrying turn for the US armed forces. This is evident from documents that were kept secret for two decades and have now been released. The National Security Archive, an institution of George Washington University, has now put this information on its website; the Washington Post previously reported on it.

"Millennium Challenge 2002" was very complex, with over 13,500 participants in 17 locations, was prepared for two years and cost 250 million dollars. The exercise took place over a period of three weeks in July and August 2002, and consisted of computer simulations and practical maneuvers in real locations.

The virtual part included a group of US warships, including an aircraft carrier, in the Persian Gulf. The squadron came under fire in a surprise attack by the enemy. The missiles, which were fired from smaller merchant ships and aircraft under radio silence, penetrated the US ships' defense systems. Within ten minutes, 19 ships, including the aircraft carrier, were destroyed and sank.

The leaders of the exercise at the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk, Virginia, were perplexed and were forced to stop the exercise and restart it with changed rules. The course of the simulation was classified as not realistic. The subsequent practical parts of the maneuver, including shooting exercises at US military bases, would otherwise not have been able to take place.

Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper, who commanded the enemy forces in the simulation at the time and is now retired, has now criticized this decision in an interview with the Washington Post. For him, the maneuver was "manipulated" and its significance was thus distorted, a US victory was predetermined and the critical weaknesses of the armed forces that had been revealed were played down.

He also explained this in a 20-page report to his superiors at the time. In the official 752-page final report of the maneuver, it was nevertheless presented as a "major milestone" and the initial loss of the squadron was dismissed as only a "moderate" setback. According to Van Riper, the head of the maneuver found that the successful computer-simulated attack on the US ships "would not have happened like that" in reality and therefore resurrected the unit.

The ex-Marine Van Riper described his tactics at the time as a combination of ambiguity and asymmetry. He deliberately designed his leadership strategy in such a way that it could undermine the technological superiority of the US armed forces, including the ability to intercept enemy communications. Therefore, in the simulation, he used couriers to deliver important messages and he relied on light signals instead of radio.

After the virtual sinking of the US ships, the team at the Joint Forces Command in Norfolk was "shocked," says Van Riper. "There was just silence. Something like that had never happened in an exercise before. I don't think they knew what to do." After the simulation was restarted, the rules were changed. Tactics that were now considered unrealistic were no longer permitted: for example, Van Riper was no longer allowed to start the battle or use chemical weapons. He then resigned from his role as commander of the enemy units in the maneuver.

Half a year after "Millennium Challenge 2002," the Second Iraq War began on March 20, 2003. The USA and a "coalition of the willing" quickly took over the capital Baghdad. But US President George W. Bush's victory speech on an aircraft carrier under a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003 proved to be premature. During the occupation that followed, it was not possible to bring peace to the country for years. In various uprisings and skirmishes, US troops repeatedly fell behind - against technologically inferior opponents who resorted to simple and highly dangerous means in their guerrilla tactics.

In Daniel Suzarez' thriller "Kill Decision" from 2012 he describes autonomous drones that are self-organising their swarm attacks via swarm AI and that get launched from containers aboard containerships. Food for thought. Swarms of outononmous drones are being tested by militaries around the world.

With the wide availability of high tech gadgets on the global market, suich thigns will increasingly become available for non-state-actors as well: assassins. Criminal syndicates. Building somehtign with module comopnents form various producers also helps to mask the ID of an attacker. A government can strike - and not being held accountable for the attack.

wondering how many missiles were need?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadowblade (Post 2933009)

wondering how many missiles were need?

You need just one - the right one...! :sunny: :D

Van Riper seems to have thought some innovative thoughts. For example using chemical weapons against a ship in a naval battle is something that never has come to my mind - until reading the above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 2933010)

You need just one - the right one...! :sunny: :D

well, for 19 destroyed ships you would need the one with nuclear warhead :03:

I expect that for carrier group they used huge salvo of missiles to overload their anti missile defense.

A new game was played.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-invasion.html

Quote:

Exercises gamed out by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) showed how the US and its allies could derail an amphibious Chinese assault - but not without taking heavy losses themselves.

Fighting would claim some 10,000 casualties on all sides, CSIS projected. The US would lose 10-20 warships, two aircraft carriers, 200-400 warplanes and some 3,000 troops in just the first three weeks of fighting.

But China comes off worse, failing to regain Taiwan and losing most of its amphibious fleet, 52 major warships and 160 warplanes - a military humiliation that would imperil the country's communist leaders.

While that may sound kind of reassuring, the report concludes that in all scenarios they played a fast and direct involvement of the US would be paramount to win and that the US must have a strong presence on the island itself, else the aerial and maritime missile shield by the Chinese would prevent reinforcements and deliveries reaching Taiwan forever and keep any transports away.

The report also concludes that Taiwan needs more missiles. As I said somewhere else, they need missiles, missiles, missiles: anti-sea and anti-air. Thats better than big surface units and tanks.

Seen that way, Trump could really do massive damage by demanding deals on buying such big platforms - and that way making Taiwan distracted from what it really should buy: missiles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird (Post 2933969)

A new game was played.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-invasion.html

While that may sound kind of reassuring, the report concludes that in all scenarios they played a fast and direct involvement of the US would be paramount to win and that the US must have a strong presence on the island itself, else the aerial and maritime missile shield by the Chinese would prevent reinforcements and deliveries reaching Taiwan forever and keep any transports away.

The report also concludes that Taiwan needs more missiles. As I said somewhere else, they need missiles, missiles, missiles: anti-sea and anti-air. Thats better than big surface units and tanks.

Seen that way, Trump could really do massive damage by demanding deals on buying such big platforms - and that way making Taiwan distracted from what it really should buy: missiles.

New nah this war game is done on June 15, 2022, Dangerous Straits Wargaming a Future Conflict over Taiwan https://www.cnas.org/publications/re...t-over-taiwans

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLYc8-AVJbQ

So all the current wargaming shows a war with China over Tawain, is there any possible other scenario?

Immediate obstacle in my mind is the Jingoistic younger Chinese military, they want a fight.

Is there a possible realistic diplomatic solution to the US and China struggle over Taiwan?

Yes, a realistic diplomatic solution to the US-China struggle over Taiwan is conceivable but highly complex. Such a solution would require significant compromise, creative diplomacy, and cooperation from all stakeholders, including Taiwan. Below are some potential frameworks for a diplomatic resolution:

1. Status Quo Plus

The current de facto status quo—Taiwan operating as a self-governing entity without formal independence—could be maintained but enhanced with confidence-building measures.
Key Elements:

US Commitment: The US could reaffirm the "One China" policy while providing assurances of defensive support to Taiwan without crossing Beijing’s red lines.
Chinese Restraint: Beijing could pledge not to use force against Taiwan and reduce military provocations.
Taiwan’s Role: Taiwan could agree not to formally declare independence, while preserving its democratic governance.

2. Dual Recognition Framework

This approach would aim for dual diplomatic recognition of both the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the Republic of China (ROC, Taiwan).
Key Elements:

UN Membership for Taiwan: Taiwan could gain observer status or limited membership in international organizations.
Peace Accord: China and Taiwan could agree to a long-term peace treaty acknowledging each other's governance without unification or independence declarations.
Gradual Integration: Areas of economic or cultural integration could be strengthened over time, fostering trust.

3. "One China, Two Systems" Adaptation

China’s concept of "One China, Two Systems" (as applied in Hong Kong) could be reimagined with greater autonomy and safeguards for Taiwan.
Key Elements:

Enhanced Guarantees: Taiwan’s military and democratic institutions could remain intact under PRC sovereignty.
International Oversight: An international body could monitor adherence to the agreement.
Global Acceptance: The arrangement would require broad international backing, particularly from the US and its allies.

4. Neutral Taiwan Framework

Taiwan could be declared a neutral zone under international guarantees, akin to Austria post-WWII.
Key Elements:

Military Neutrality: Taiwan would renounce formal military alliances, including with the US.
International Recognition: Taiwan could secure recognition as a neutral state with its current political system.
Security Guarantees: The US, China, and others would commit to respecting Taiwan’s neutrality.

Challenges:

National Identity: Taiwan’s democratic population largely opposes unification with China.
US-China Rivalry: Taiwan’s strategic value makes it a proxy issue in broader US-China competition.
China’s Stance: Beijing views Taiwan as a core sovereignty issue and opposes any move toward formal independence.
Domestic Politics: Political pressures within Taiwan, the US, and China often fuel hardline stances.

The Path Forward:

The most viable path involves small, incremental steps to reduce tensions and build trust:

Establish direct communication channels between the US, China, and Taiwan.
Pursue joint economic projects that benefit all sides.
Limit provocative actions, such as military drills or arms sales, in sensitive regions.

Ultimately, a long-term solution will depend on sustained goodwill, strategic patience, and the recognition that an immediate resolution may be unattainable under current conditions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman (Post 2933971)

So all the current wargaming shows a war with China over Tawain, is there any possible other scenario?

Immediate obstacle in my mind is the Jingoistic younger Chinese military, they want a fight.

I am sure there are other scenarios, but Taiwan is clickbait for the media it is profit to write about Götterdämmerung. Be certain the US military plays war games for every possible scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman (Post 2933973)

Is there a possible realistic diplomatic solution to the US and China struggle over Taiwan?

It is the only option, a war would mean global economic collapse for all. This will not be a regional war like the Russia-Ukraine war consequences will be big to think both sides are not prepared to take this risk China needs us, and we need China for economic reasons, war is the utterly last option if all other options are exhausted.

The most realistic solution seems to arm Taiwan to the teeth so the Chinese hesitate to attack. Other than that is a slow or fast conquest.

Taiwan needs to establish an air force on par with Israel for the threat of a first strike like the 6 Day War.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Otto Harkaman (Post 2933976)

And make it a member of the Indo-Pacific Partners (IPP).

Missiles, missiles, missiles.Drones, drones, drones. More of both than China could ever hope to take out. Dont plant trees on Taiwan. Plant missiles instead.

Fighters, ships, tanks, will just get picked up and taken out one by one. China is numerically hopelessly superior, any air force or navy joining the fight will simply get wiped out. Like Russia can afford high losses in Ukraine, China can over Taiwan.

Taiwan uses to build its most modern chip production sites in the imminent vicinity of important military bases. So that any strike at these bears the uncalculated risk to take out these rroduction centres, too, and since Taiwan refuses to build the best of its best chip and wafer production outside Taiwan (they dont do it in Europe and they dont do it in the US, its just older second and third grade stuff they agree to build in overseas), such destruction would hurt everybody: the wiorld, the West, China as well.

However, Xi has made it a priority to become able to replace this top technology from Taiwan as well, with Chinese production. And sooner or later China will be abkle to do it, its just a quesiton of time. Then the best protection maybe that Taiwan has, is neutralized, the silicon defensive shield will no more be. And then things become interesting at the latest.

Taiwan would be insane to put trust in internaitonbal diplomatic mumbo jumbo. The last candidate doing that, were Ukraine, and before Honkong. Both pay for their naivety.

After Putin's attack on Ukraine, nothing should surprise us anymore. Possible that Xi attacks just for reason of some historic jubilee, absolutely imaginable. He is the most powerful Chinese leader since many centuries, and works on establishing a family dynasty, a new emperor house. Such scope of goals and timeplans is beyond what Western politics usually can grasp and understand. Especially a Trump who always thinks just in "deals". Xi does not do just "deals". Xi has a meeting with destiny itself. At least that is what he thinks. And what he thinks is what motivates him , not what we want him to tick by.

And with tiem apssing by, with every year and every month, China become sstronger and the US gets weaker and so does the whole West. Or does anyone think the Europeans will play a deciisve role in any war over Taiwan or the South Chinese Sea? Heck, we cant even keep our own house in order and then we play games on the other side of the planet? Dont make me laugh.

Europe is now nothing but a whining club of degenerate old nations, mourning their past empires and Europe's lost former significance. Not even a shadow of its former status, but only the echo of a memory that this shadow was what it ended with.

No I disagree there needs to be a moral purpose here and the populace will be more involved with a good air force opposed to a missile only arsenal that might as well be manned by robots. Yes a good missile and air defense but the flexibility of a good air force is unbeatable.