>On July 31st, the Shuiqiao class Landing Platform Utility (LPU) barges continued their verification exercises at Beach One, located north of Hepu Dasha Beach, Nantian Island.
It seems like these LPUs can really operate in extremely shallow waters, opening the entire coastline of Taiwan for an amphibious assault:
https://x.com/SinoTalk/status/1951038514864505080?

Wow this is groundbreaking
You should tell someone important about it

>>64069912
You're right because modern US JLOTS is shit, just look at what happened to the Gaza pier.

>>64069927
Wa0w
This should be priority one, hurry and get it to the people who need it the most
Who would that be btw?

>>64069906 (OP)
implessive

>>64069931
Think tanks and top brass at the DoD who are advocating for a Pacific war assume it will be a cakewalk, are all ignoring the U.S. military's atrophied Joint Logistics Over-the-Shore (JLOTS) capabilities since Desert Storm. The Gaza Pier debacle serves as clear evidence of this decline, yet their warnings go unheeded.

>>64069951
wow you should go tell them about that right now!

>>64069951
Its interesting how you focus on, of all things, the "gaza pier debacle" and not the multiple US military exercises going on in the pacific right now as we speak
Do you think they might be doing to JLOTS training there perhaps?

>>64069951
You NEED to tell the major brass right the fuck MEOW ANON GOGOGOGOOOOO!

>>64069906 (OP)
>sending your entire invasion force through narrow bridges on sinkable platforms
I can't wait to watch the webms.

>>64069906 (OP)
This is bizarre seeing China leading military innovation.
This technology (jack up ships) was here in offshore minig for long but China were first who adopted it for their upgraded Mulberry Harbors.
Props to China I guess.

>>64069971
try to be less obvious next time

>>64069970
>>64069927

On the other hand: I went on an escalator yesterday and it didn't eat anybody, that's space magic to ChiComs

>>64069975
Not an argument.
Jack up barges mobile piers are massive improvement of ships to shore logistics, together with utilisation of civilian ro-ro ships they push naval logistical capabilities to whole new levels.

>>64069983
>Not an argument.
I wasn't arguing, I was pointing out your blatant samefagging and shilling

>>64069977
What's your point? Yeah their bridge looks a bit nicer but at the end of the day if they plan to use these things there is going to be a ton of troops moving through those narrow bridges, Taiwan just needs to focus fire on those bridges and it's going to be a blood bath. If China sticks with their plan of having multiple platforms all linked together it's going to be a cluster fuck if even one of them goes down because the others need to lower themselves back in to the sea and reposition which will take a ton of time and leaves a ton of troops vulnerable to being sunk.

>>64070008

>>64069906 (OP)
>>64069927
What happens when you put a JDAM through one of the bridge segments after it's all deployed and locked in place?

>>64070146
Or one of the pillars holding it up

>>64069970
>>64070008
You achieve air superiority BEFORE you send this in. And yes, you do need some platform to sustain logistics. You can either have ports or some kind of amphibious bridge. What else do you think can be done? Constantly sending a stream of amphibious trucks to and from the shore?

just updated my chinkshill spam filter

>>64070146
One JDAM? Probably you make a hole and that's it.

>>64070180
You could nail one of these with an ATACMS/PrSM no problem. Shit I bet some guided 155mm arty could do the job.

>>64070185
And what do you do when there's a hole in the middle of your single lane landing bridge?

>>64070191
Pour some noodle dust and some superglue.

>>64070191
You fix it. Like I said, you achieve air superiority before. There's literally no other way do sustain an amphibious invasion until you capture a port.

>>64070191
Cry, seethe, and eat lead paint

>>64070201
>just fix it
oh I guess its that easy

>>64070180
yes. china would need naval and air superiority prior to any actual landing, along with being confident that they've taken out most assets that can serious threaten said landing. that's the hard part for them, but they could do it.

the issue for them is if other nations step in.

>>64070186
You couldn't nail one of these like that. Firstly, you'd actually destroy enemy enplacments in the area. Second, this is a 50,000 ton steel structure. Artillery, rocket or conventional, would be extremely ineffective. You'd minimally need sustained precision bombing

>>64070210
Yeah pretty much. If you don't destroy the fundamental structural integrity of the support pillars, fixing it is as easy as parching a hole in a road.

>>64070216
>You couldn't
Yeah I could

>>64070213
and for taiwan, they need to cause enough damage to chinese naval assets that the whole thing can't go ahead. they'd need to rely on conventional and asymmetric means (houthis) to have a chance at this.

if they have 1000s of asuw missiles and a heap of surface and aerial surface drones to go, they could do it.

>>64070213
The only nations that could actually project a non negligible amount of power in the region is Japan and the US. Japan legally cannot do so as it is not in self defense, which leaves the US. The relevant US assets would be Okinawa and aircraft carrier groups. Okinawa is 700km from Taiwan, the F 35A combat radius is ~1000km, could be 1700km with external fuel tanks with less stealth and weapons. So CAP, SEAD or air superiority missions would be significantly weakened by the distance. ACGs would almost definitely be loitering on the western side of Taiwan and project power from there

>>64070240
First thing is Taiwan must be able to maintain air superiority, or at least severely contest it. If they cannot, China will destroy all their radar, missile sites and air fields, which would leave them blind and defenseless.

This wumao has made the same thread three times already

>>64070248
they won't be able to get air superiority. though there's a chance they can scoot and shoot missiles, along with controlling the drones remotely, akin to houthis in the red sea [and what ukraine copied in the black sea]. it's hard to hit remote firing positions with air power quickly enough before they fire.

i don't think taiwan can do it, but they possibly could with enough training and munitions/drones.

>>64070308
Scoot and shoot will be insanely difficult compared to the Houthis. Houthis are hard core trained guerilla fighters, Taiwan is very much a centralized army. The US was exerting a minimum of effort honestly. China will exert ten times the sorties, payload and sensors because it's both far more importantly AND it's very close to China.

>>64069906 (OP)
>IS THAT A TOMAHAWK I HEAR A WHISTLIN?
NO, ITS THREE

>>64069906 (OP)
>yet another implessive bridge ship thread

John Colorado from Nevada province here, I am vely concerned and impressed by the might of the red dragon, I write to party official to make peace to the mighty dragon before it’s to late

>>64069931
It's hilarious you think one of China's pier ships can survive a trip to Gaza when it won't even survive a trip to Kinmen.

>>64070032
I don't see a lot of useful cargo on that cargo ship, boy.

>>64070255
you see gweilo, bullet hit side on so do more damage. Better than wimpy NAFO round, yes? this is result of most implessive heavenly assault rifle tech!

>>64070032
That is a whole Rube Goldberg machine of fuck fuck that could go wrong.

>>64070439
Yeah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expeditionary_Transfer_Dock

>>64070146

>>64070549
The Chinese think we won't waste some of our Tomahawk stockpile hitting these and turning them into multi-billion dollar smoldering shit piles in the ocean.
Gonna learn today Timmy

>>64070549
>Put sheet metal over it
>Invasion resumed

>>64070213
>the issue for them is if other nations step in.
That's becoming less of an issue

>>64070563
General purpose bombs would be pretty ineffective against larger military ships. They don't have the blast fragmentation penetrator to penetrate the outer hull and rip apartment the inner compartments. Quicksink is meant for mass deployment against low value ships

>>64070569
It's really not, and you should pay more attention before claiming something like this. The USA will never let China take Taiwan.

>>64070588
But they would let Russia take Ukraine?

>>64070241
>Japan legally cannot do so as it is not in self defense
They actually can and can just say it was self-defense anyways. Who will stop them?

>>64070580
Quicksink != quickstrike
Quicksink allows the us to mine the strait at standoff range
Also
>General purpose bombs would be pretty ineffective against larger military ships
lol
lmao
Dumb chink

>>64070592
Obviously not considering all of the equipment we gave Ukraine to fight Russia.
>>64070598
Taiwan is the first step, South Korea and Japan are next. China isn't amassing military assets to attack Taiwan.

>>64070600
*Quickstrike allows the us to mine the strait at standoff range

>>64070588
Zion Don: "We're never gonna let China take Taiwan, beautiful Island Taiwan, lots and lots of Chips there, I promised them that Xi's never gonna get his hands on those chips"

Xi: "Don't defend Taiwan or we'll put 100% tariffs on American exports"

Zion Don: "The Taiwanese have been ripping us off! They pay us nothing and they expect us to defend them, they've been stealing tech jobs from silicon valley, I went over there last year and asked them to invest $1 trillion in chip factories in America, THOUSANDS of new jobs for Americans, Sleepy Joe would never do that, and can you believe what the Taiwanese said? They said they could only invest $500 billion! That's it! That's what they think of our gratitude, and they expect us to defend them? Forget it! Let China have Taiwan until they learn to respect us!"

>>64070598
If it was a bumfuck dictatorship than yes. Civilized countries actually uphold the law. The JSDF swears an oath to the constitution, including article 9.

>>64070600
You should actually read about the physics of ship warfare. Protip: trying to sink a giant compartmentalized steel structure is not easy.

>>64070602
>All the equipment
Wasn't the biggest thing the US gave like a half dozen F 16s? Which has a whole bunch of weird restrictions so it's rarely ever used?

>>64070606
he can even come out and say that, but the moment China amasses troops we're going to be airdropping 30,000 US marines in Taiwan and the Chinese can find out how hard it is to take an island from fucking marines.

>>64070549
Nice OC.

>>64070248
If Ukraine is anything to go by denying the chinks air superiority wont be that hard

>>64070618
>69.5 billion dollars in equipment
>31 M1A1 Abrams(monkey model)
>45 T-72B Tanks we got from czechoslovakia or something
>Over 300 Bradleys
>900 M113 APCs, 300 medical vehicles, 400 M1117 ASVs, 400+ Strykers, 4 Bradley FST, 10 command vehicles,
>440 M1224 MaxxPro MRAPs, 37 Cougars, Some OshKosh MRAPs, and 500 something other MRAPs,
>5,000 HMMWVs,
>180 M777s, we use these btw, 72 other howitzers
>18 Paladins
>20 HIMARS MLRS
>3 Patriot batteries, some MIM-23 hawks for some reason, 12 NASAMS, 20 Avengers,
>3000+ Stingers, 10,000+ Javelins, 10,000+ TOW missiles, 120,000 other
>a shit ton of missiles
>17 Mil Mi-17s,
>a shit ton of UAVs
>16 Mark 6 patrol boats, and they can drop one off at my house when they're done with it

>>64070633
Also we donated half a billion packs of cigarettes courtesy of Philip Morris.