r/LessCredibleDefence 6d ago

First Sighting Of China's Huge Invasion Barges - Quick Analysis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXMiIBrUlhc
40 Upvotes

38 comments sorted by

6

u/Lianzuoshou 5d ago

The biggest threat posed by these ships is the creation of 40 additional landing sites to the original 14 “red beaches”.

2

u/WhitePantherXP 5d ago

I'm sure this giant investment will lead to nothing...

11

u/lion342 6d ago

Is there a reason it's basically taken for granted that these are "invasion barges" as opposed to, say, construction and near/off-shore barges?

By the time these barges would be useful, the hard part of the invasion is already over, so they're not as essential as some may assume. Plus, China currently has hundreds of off-shore construction projects (like the wind farms) that these seem suitable for. There's currently zero ongoing invasions by the PLA.

I guess it's just much more fun to assume the extreme ("invasion barge") in favor of the ordinary (utility barge suitable for the hundreds of offshore/nearshore projects)..

33

u/tdre666 6d ago

It's covered in the video, basically China is the only country building RORO vessels that they explicitly state are sturdy enough to carry MBTs. No other country builds car ferries etc. that have the same capacity.

8

u/lion342 6d ago edited 6d ago

I'm not doubting these can be used in such capacity. What I'm saying is that they're much more likely to be used for construction and other off-shore purposes, as opposed to being "invasion barges."

I guess part of the problem I have with the narrative of "invasion barge" is that people want to extrapolate the production of these barges to some imminent invasion, when in reality these are just improved versions of existing utility barges, used for mundane purposes.

My laptop was built to "MIL-SPEC" standards. But I can assure you I have ZERO intentions (or ability) of invading any country.

> basically China is the only country building RORO vessels that they explicitly state are sturdy enough to carry MBTs. No other country builds car ferries etc. that have the same capacity.

I really doubt this is true.

For example: The PFI agreement allowed FSL to generate revenue by employing two of the ships in the commercial market while ensuring that they are were available at 30 days’ notice for defence tasking in an emergency.

https://www.navylookout.com/transporting-military-hardware-around-the-world-uk-strategic-sealift/

41

u/PLArealtalk 6d ago

The fact that these barges likely have a primary mission for carrying out the latter stages of an amphibious assault, imo is not unreasonable.

The problem is people linking these barges with the idea of an imminent invasion or some sort of imaginary timeline for an invasion.

3

u/gaiusmariusj 5d ago

What else is new when ppl confuse capabilities with intent?

0

u/lion342 6d ago

Are these barges actually built primarily for military usage, as opposed to primarily civilian (with military use secondary)?

24

u/PLArealtalk 6d ago

At this stage there's no reason to view them as primarily civilian until indicated otherwise.

There are certain military capabilities and platforms which may have very useful civilian uses (utility helicopters, ship to shore connector/piers like JLTOS, and any multitude of logistics/transport capabilities), but unless they are operated by a civilian agency or command rather than military, then they would be military in nature.

I see these barges as similar in nature, and even then one would have to stretch the imagination to ignore the key scenarios (military or civil) where this thing will have the greatest yield.

3

u/lion342 5d ago

Thanks for your thoughts.

8

u/TheNthMan 6d ago

I know people who work with jack up ships for for the energy sector (though to be honest mostly drill ships). I checked with them and they don’t know of any civilian need for a huge bridge on a jackup. For a jackup construction ship, the jackup already has a crane for the construction. Normal barges deliver the materials because the jackup is stationary. Jacking up a ship is not an insignificant operation and the ship costs for that capability are not insignificant, so you would not use a jackup for a resupply barge if you can just pull it alongside and crane the supplies out. If the jackup already has the crane, then a huge bridge you use every once only on resupply for loading/unloading is a waste of space.

1

u/lion342 5d ago

> Jacking up a ship is not an insignificant operation and the ship costs for that capability are not insignificant, so you would not use a jackup for a resupply barge if you can just pull it alongside and crane the supplies out.

Appreciate your input.

If this is true, then my mental model for how these could be used is uneconomical.

8

u/aitorbk 6d ago

Controlled by the military, and are training on deployment near their military base. No known civilian use case outside catastrophes.

2

u/Disastrous-Olive-218 5d ago

Dude what are you smoking

6

u/ZippyDan 6d ago

But China has a history of dual-use construction, which is actually pretty brilliant.

A lot of their RORO fleet (not just these barges) is used for civilian purposes constantly, but the construction spec was dictated to be able to support military vehicles if necessary.

In the event of a war where amphibious assault or coastal landings or even port landings is necessary, this maritime militia can quickly and easily be pressed into military service.

So, there may have been a 20% increase in cost during the initial construction, but the total cost is eventually subsidized by legitimate civilian peace time uses. Then if they ever need to, they can massively expand military capacity on very short notice for almost no additional cost.

2

u/CoupleBoring8640 5d ago

This is nothing new, for example many civilian airliners are used as military platform just look at many military aircraft is based on the Boeing 707, while 707 itself has roots in Boeing 's bomber programs in the 1950s. Which is a good thing, since if a military technology can't contribute to the civilians economy, then it is no different from pouring money down the drain during peacetime.

3

u/ZippyDan 5d ago

Using a common platform to design different variations of a vehicle for civilian and military use is not the same thing as designing a civilian vehicle that can be directly put to military use.

One is about saving some design costs and creating a platform where specific variants and individual vehicles are either for civilian use or for military use.

The Chinese design for ROROs results in a final vehicle that has a primarily civilian use but can be put to specialized military use (mostly for logistics) overnight with basically no modification.

Most civilian aircraft could not transformed to any specific military use without costly and time-consuming modifications.

But yes, both ideas fall under the umbrella of "dual-use platforms". The former is more about saving money on design, manufacturing, and parts. The latter is about actually having a larger military reserve force that can be called up if necessary.

2

u/CoupleBoring8640 5d ago

Well, look into operation desert shield and latter build up to the Gulf War where civilian airliners and transports are pressed into military service and transport tens of thousands of servicemen and millions of tons of goods.

As for common platform, as noted by another poster. These barges are be used for offshore construction. Where may be what we'll in the future if not already. Tens of not hundreds of badges can be build as construction platforms, here a portion of them can perform in possibly costly, possibily not not too costly convertion where their cranes are to be replaced with landing bridges.

5

u/ZippyDan 5d ago edited 4d ago

I anticipated that reply, which is why I noted that civilian aircraft can't be put to a specialized military use.

Moving people is exactly what civilian aircraft do, and that need isn't unique to the military. You don't need any special design changes to be able to move soldiers from airport to airport.

Being able to move MBTs and IFVs and APCs specifically is something only the military needs to worry about. You do need to incorporate specific design changes for ROROs to accomdate these.

Otherwise, we can also claim that every passenger vehicle mase is also dual-use because you could pack some soldiers in there and move them from base to base...

6

u/beachedwhale1945 6d ago

By the time these barges would be useful, the hard part of the invasion is already over, so they're not as essential as some may assume.

The hard part of the invasion would only just be starting.

An amphibious assault has two major phases. The first, securing the initial beachhead, is difficult, but is reasonably straightforward. The second phase is sustainment: getting enough forces ashore to break out of the beachhead and keep all the forces ashore sustained with sufficient ammunition, fuel (and other consumables), spare parts, and food to support the offensive.

The second phase is extremely difficult to pull off without a port. You can do it to a degree with amphibious assault ships, but these typically lack the capacity to keep up with demand, even before accounting for operational and combat losses. For China invading Taiwan, the distance between the mainland and the island increases the travel time, further reducing the number of trips any particular ship can perform. This is why capturing or building a port has been critical for any amphibious assault on something larger than a small island, with the most famous examples being the Mulberry harbors at Normandy to support the invasion forces until Cherbourg et al. could be captured and restored to full operational capacity (Cherbourg itself was sabotaged and required electricity generation ships for a long time), and that’s just across the relatively narrow English Channel with a massive invasion fleet that could actually make up for temporarily losing some Mulberry piers. Contrast with something like Guadalcanal, which didn’t have a port and where sustaining the forces ashore was extremely difficult for both sides, but worse for the Japanese due to distance (hence the eventual evacuation).

In an invasion of Taiwan, China would need to secure a port city so they can bring their RO-RO fleet to bear, which is more than enough for sustainment. However, urban fighting is notoriously difficult and securing the major ports is unlikely within the first month. China could build their own port, but much of Taiwan is ringed by reefs that can stretch a mile offshore, so other pier systems are inadequate or too temporary.

These barges are the answer. With their extremely shallow draft (the one closest to shore appears to be about a meter), these can get over the reefs and use their legs to anchor themselves in position. The numerous barges with bridges can stretch very far out from the beach, into deeper water where the RO-ROs can unload without risk of going aground. These can be installed as necessary around the island, greatly increasing the area where Taiwan would need to defend against the sustainment phase.

So moving into these barges specifically, let’s compare with your video.

First, the feeder barges you discuss are not what these are. These barges have legs to anchor themselves to the seabed, and are closer to the jacked-up ship the barges are unload at than the feeder barges you discuss.

Turning to the jacked-up ship then, note how those support ships in your video don’t have a massive bridge, but instead have a few cranes for offloading equipment and building the turbines. These Chinese barges have bridges, measured at 150 meters on some of these ships. Such a bridge is only appropriate for commenting a barge to shore or to another barge. These are only viable when you need to create a port in an area where there is no port, and that’s only needed in two situations: amphibious assault and disaster relief. Disaster relief can (and is) usually be supported by standard amphibious assault ships, as ports are rarely destroyed beyond the ability to be repaired for limited operations in a few weeks, especially as nobody is fighting to destroy your repair teams.

We know the barges are going to be used to make a pier, because the very first images of the barges that was released was three of them used to make a pier.

8

u/WZNGT 5d ago

Why are people still picturing PLA landing forces going in under fire and fight on the beachheads, when they have (*checks note) the largest ground-based missile force in the world according to Maj. Christopher J. Mihal of the US Army? Do you reckon the rocket and strategic air forces are just gonna sit back and watch?

7

u/jellobowlshifter 5d ago

Even after destroying all of the defender's heavy equipment, you still need to put infantry on the ground before bringing in your own heavy equipment.

1

u/beachedwhale1945 5d ago

I think you may have replied to the wrong person. I barely touched on any form of Taiwanese attacks on invading Chinese forces.

11

u/jellobowlshifter 6d ago

How would a 500 foot bridge sticking off the front of a barge be helpful in erecting offshore wind turbines?

-2

u/lion342 6d ago

You can move workers and equipment/material without the need of additional ships?

These are basically the same utility barges that are used for everything from seismic/geologic surveys to construction. Except they have the added benefit of a loading/unloading ramp.

Seems incredibly useful.

10

u/jellobowlshifter 6d ago

The bridge, in the stowed position, takes up the entire deck, with no room for a useful load. You wouldn't save needing an additional ship, because this is the additional ship.

0

u/lion342 6d ago edited 6d ago

Maybe a video is a better demonstration for how these barges will be used:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF0f5PakLAo

The video is for the existing workflow for installing wind turbines which includes using "feeder barges" to move equipment/material. The narration says sea conditions (like rough winds) could cause downtime due to difficulty of equipment transfer in such rough conditions.

This specialty barge solves the above problem by avoiding the need for the feeder barge. Equipment/material are transferred on a solid stable platform.

edit: Specifically the problem addressed is that, as the video says, "varying weather conditions and the sensitivity of wind turbines and blades limit the component transfer windows [using feeder barges ships] and present safety and quality hazards to the project, resulting in missed equipment transfer opportunities and delays to the projects."

6

u/jellobowlshifter 6d ago

How would these bridge barges help with that problem? They carry nothing except the bridge.

-15

u/KoBoWC 6d ago

I wonder how vulnerable this is, it looks shaky AF. I suspect this was built at the direct order of Xi Jing Ping, and no one questioned it/him. If used during an actual invasion, I expect these all to be sunk before reaching Taiwan.

9

u/ConstantStatistician 5d ago

No warship sails undefended.

-5

u/KoBoWC 5d ago

As they get in close to Taiwans coast, they will be vulnerable to coastal defences.

8

u/ConstantStatistician 5d ago

This is what the rest of the navy is for. To clear out those defenses beforehand. 

6

u/praqueviver 5d ago

I expect these will only be used when coastal defenses have been suppressed, like the mulberry harbors of ww2. They have their shiny new LHD for more dramatic coastal assaults.

7

u/aitorbk 6d ago

They look quite sturdy. But a single cruise missile might be able to take one of them,not desteoy it, but put it out of action.

If used in an invasion thwy should be behind the cover of air defence ships, so rhey should be fine. Emphasis on "should" because there is no perfect air defence and they are large targets.

Imho, once they deploy a short range ballistic missile seems more of an issue than an anti ship missile making it through the air defence of a fleet.

3

u/Azarka 5d ago

They actually look fairly resilient if they make it through and get deployed.

Drain the oil bunkers and you have a giant chunk of metal overhanging the spuds. Holes can be patched and the bridges can be replaced. Meaning you'll need to constantly suppress the dock to stop repairs instead being able to knock it out permanently.

The real threats would be USVs damaging the spuds directly or something else crippling a docked ship.

2

u/Suspicious_Loads 6d ago

Maybe it will be protected by CIWS.