Little opinion. Aircraft and aircraft carriers are very good and cool. But as the Russian-Ukrainian conflict has shown, ships can practically do nothing against the drone horde. Need to seriously rethink ship defense strategy and tactics, increasing the number of machine guns, installing radio jammers, possibly emi, etc. But first of all, this is not a quick matter (and bureaucracy slows it down many times). And the main thing is that until the generals feel it on their own skin, they will not change anything, thinking that they are already protected from everything.
Yes, but there were no drones at all then, nor were drones used in Syria(the most recent conflict involving the U.S. Army). I've seen so many videos, plus I've talked to people using drones. These weapons are really changing the tactics and strategy of modern warfare. Only long-range missiles and aircraft located several thousand kilometers away will be safe. And even then, bringing a few drones closer to the location and launching them is a simple matter in any country.
The high prevalence of smaller drones in Ukraine is due to the Russian Military's combat philosophy more than anything else. They so completely botched the initial 2022 operation that they've default to WW1 artillery warfare. To the point that bunker and trench building have been really big topics for the last 2 years. Drone combat, in response, has been extremely effective first for Ukraine and then Russia in response. War is always an Industrial Base competition, and Drones are really good for Ukraine from a Cost/Benefit analysis. In nearly any other conflict, the use will be very different.
As for Syria, drones were & are still everywhere there. Drones primary utility will always been information gathering with a secondary for direct combat. The "Drones as cheaper Hellfires or Tomahawks" movement is what people are really talking about with "drone warfare". Note those American systems I'm mentioning are from the 70s/80s. The approach isn't new or technically all that interesting, it's just cheaper now. Everything that goes with a Tomahawk to launch it is the expensive bit. That's why slow moving drones are an order of magnitude cheaper.
The issue is that they haven't let Western Weapon Autists really at the problem of FPV-type drones. You need 2 gimbles, a cellphone that's 3 years old, a couple of cameras and 2 Mossbergs with Bird Shot. 500m Local Air Space Area Denial isn't really that expensive. What matters with Guided Drone Warfare is an enemy that is caught off guard. That's why it works more as War Crimes and cleanup operations than as a primary frontline approach. There's currently bombing campaigns in Indonesia against Papuan populations and Mexican Cartels against random local villages.
That said, the Russia-Ukraine war's drone usage is an extension of the introduction of JDAMs and what it's done to warfare generally. Everything is becoming extremely hyper-targeted because it turns out it's actually far more useful to hit things you need to take out rather than reducing buildings to rubble and not getting anything useful out of the exchange. I.e. the opposite of the Russian Military Doctrine.
I thought that was what they were building those big-ass microwave laser cannon things for, was drones? The US was so worried about them that they completely cut out the military industrial complex during the design process to get them on ships sooner IIRC. I'm not particularly up-to-date on military news or anything, but I do remember hearing that they've already got quite a few "drone destroyers" out and about. Inb4 they start making smaller nuclear ships again to power their new lasers...
...And then comes the drone carrier submarine concept which just shits out 500 drones to blow up the destroyers anyways.
But yeah I still think we're still at least decade out from open conflict with China over Taiwan, it's fucking hard to take an island.
A West Taiwan-Taiwan conflict isn't likely unless Taiwan just decides it wants to give up on life. As much as everyone talks about it, I still don't get how really important details always get lost. The South China Sea is actually where roughly 80% of the world's submarines operate. Everyone in the region runs small subs all over the place. Taiwan has 4 modern, diesel-electric subs that would actually be a critical opening engagement target for China. Given China's completely unproven capabilities, their actions in the southern Sea region is almost assuredly going to sink multiple unrelated sea vessels and by Day 2 it will be a Regional War. And that's before the opening salvos from China requiring targeting South Korea, Japan and The Philippines.
Then there is the reality that an invasion of the island would require the single largest amphibious invasion in human history into one of the worst places in the world to try it and with an incredibly hostile population. It'd be like trying to take Iwo Jima, just many, many times bigger with a population that'll kill you the instant you try to move. Which means it'll first be a paratrooper invasion of multiple airbases followed by a sea landing at one of only a couple of spots. Which is something the Taiwanese are well aware of and their defenses are built around it.
Even the professionals doing analysis always wargame an invasion like it's USA-Iraq. The operation would have to be a copy of the D-Day Invasion of Normandy, not some paradrop primary approach. Which is why China would need to open with tactical nukes. It's as short and simple as that. Which would also render any benefit from taking Taiwan pretty moot. Especially as plenty of other actors would destroy TSMC's fabs (the 2nd most valuable asset to controlling Taiwan), while at the same time they'd lose access to most of their imports.
Could China invade Taiwan? Yes. Would the CCP survive it? If done militarily, no. Would it be counted among history's 5 greatest military blunders? Yes.
Though there's always one, to me, funny part of the topic. If it was somehow protracted, there'd be a chance for a US-backed Vietnamese invasion of Gaungxi and an attempt to take Hainan. Part of me just finds that factoid in a history book 200 years from now hilarious to think about. China would also very quickly have actual separatist fighting in multiple areas. It'd be land grab time, which brings every old grudge out of the woodworks.
