Again, even with all the shipbuilding, it is still not anywhere close to enough. And you still haven't solved the lack of aircover or air support problem...at all. And to answer your questions, those political risks stem from an inability to guarantee military success because, again, you have no concept of how much logistics go into an invasion and how unable China is doing that in the near future thousands of miles away from home.Did you really just clip only the top part of the DOD report and act as if thats all it says?!? The part on China's changing ability to launch an amphbious attack is several pages long and includes their new capabilities and how their new ships, like the Type 075 HD and LHD are comparable in size, power and ability as the US and I quote, from YOUR DOD link "The PLAN has four large YUZHAO-class (Type 071) amphibious transport docks (LPD). The YUZHAO LPD provides a greater and more flexible capability for “far seas” operations than the PLAN’s older landing ships. It can carry up to four of the new YUYIclass air-cushion medium landing craft and four or more helicopters, as well as armored vehicles and PLAN Marines for long-distance deployments"
Or right after that? "Potential Roles for Type 071 and Type 075 Ships Although larger amphibious ships such as the Type 071 and the expected Type 075 would be of value for conducting amphibious landings"
Oh wait, right after that? "Landing Craft In June 2013, it was reported that China in May 2013 had taken delivery of four large, Ukrainianmade Zubr-class air-cushioned landing craft (LCACs). The craft reportedly have a range of 300 nautical miles, a maximum speed of 63 knots, and a payload capacity of 150 tons. China in July 2014 used at least one of the craft in an amphibious assault exercise in the South China Sea.147 In February 2017, it was reported that China has begun mass producing a new type of LCAC, called the Type 726, capable of carrying a Chinese tank and moving at speeds of more than 60 knots.148"
Shit and after that? The long part about their ESDs? And right after that? The part about their AG-600s...or the part about their very large civilian fleet that can be used in an amphibious assault?
You know...all these things you left off to sound like you have a fucking clue...
Your entire list of links are including why China wont invade, because of "significant political and military risk" and are not a "capabilities" reports...you twat...also, you were not going off of "better resources", because you provided none before being challenged on it.
A proper military report is based on capabilities...your rand crap is filled with how it wont be done because of politics. Politics are not involved in military capabilities.
As for your idiotic ending. Australia has no ability to repel an invasion. A super trade tanker comes to a trade port...unexpected...do you think they would do that and just kick the doors open and scream "CHARGE!" the second they got there? No, fool. No one would do shit until some containers are off-loaded, enough to quickly take the port and keep offloading more. By the time any kind of force would be notified and mobilized enough would be offloaded to prepare for battle while the rest are offloaded.
And if they entered port with a small naval fleet 6-8 hours offshore, coming in the moment cargo was being unloaded, they would be at Australian shores in time to support them by the time a counter-force could try to fight them off. In fact, with their new helo carrier, they would have quick air support.
At any rate, how many successful, opposed amphibious assaults can you name after WWII? There is a reason they aren't attempted anymore (perhaps you should consider the earlier point about China having no ability to project serious airpower in Australia.)
