Red Team FRAGPLAN: “Typhoon Blade”

This is Part II, Part III tomorrow.

Yesterday I highlighted an imbalance in strategic approach and setup between Russia and Europe; and China and US. Today I present a Red Team FRAGPLAN to investigate areas for venture capital and traditional innovations. If that wasn’t clear: “Red Teaming” means we take the side of the PLA and try to exploit strategic differences in our warfare and systems.

Objective:
Exploit U.S./allied over-dependence on legacy naval mass, satellite ISR, and central C2 by deploying a tiered swarm to overwhelm, confuse, and disable force projection within 96 hours of kinetic initiation.

PLA Red Team Commander’s Intent:
Achieve temporary naval overmatch in first island chain and delay any carrier-based intervention force through:

  • Cognitive paralysis (decoy, data, and channel flooding)
  • Platform saturation (multi-axis, multi-domain strikes)
  • Strategic ambiguity (deniable cyber/space attacks to slow U.S. response)

1. TASK ORG – SWARM TIERS

TierPlatform ClassCountRole
AlphaUSVs (Unmanned Surface Vessels)1,000+Sensor spoofing, EW projection, decoy wake pattern
BravoUUVs (Unmanned Underwater Vehicles)300–500Harbor mining, hull damage, acoustic noise masking
CharlieFPV Drones (1st Person View)10,000+Munitions delivery on logistics and sensor nodes
DeltaLight Maritime Militias3,000 boatsISR masking, bait, sacrificial misdirection
EchoCommercial Container Killbox~50 shipsPreloaded with loitering munitions, C-UAS denial tech, decoys

2. CONOPS (Concept of Operations)

Phase I: Masking & Momentum (D–7 to D–1)

  • Massed “fishing” and container traffic shifts into first island chain.
  • Activate civilian ISR suppression network via distributed HF jamming buoys.
  • Cyber-recon of Western logistics ports and satellite ground relays.

Phase II: Saturation & Deception (D0–D+1)

  • Simultaneous launch of 1,000+ Alpha/Bravo drones from 6 key vector zones (Spratlys, Paracels, Pingtan, Wenzhou, Dongsha, and container ships).
  • Maritime militias create artificial ‘collision corridors’ to trigger U.S. de-escalation protocols.
  • FPV drones target radar domes, ESM nodes, and deck crew on alert U.S. ships.

Phase III: Disruption & Denial (D+2–D+4)

  • UUVs create false sonar returns around U.S. submarines and disrupt underwater communication cables.
  • Loitering munitions deployed from disguised merchant ships to hit port fuel nodes (e.g., Changi, Yokosuka, Darwin).
  • EW jamming of Link-16 / SATCOM using reusable low-orbit balloons with angle-agnostic emitters.

Phase IV: Cognitive Collapse (D+4 onward)

  • Western ISR overwhelmed with false returns, ambiguous engagements, and conflicting attribution (civilian? military?).
  • Public narratives (Twitter/TikTok/Weibo) flooded with misattributed footage of ship damage, reinforcing fog of war.
  • Cyber-attacks initiate disinformation targeting U.S. and Taiwanese civilian systems (e.g., train, finance, telecom).

3. INTEL ESTIMATE

  • U.S. satellites blind in first 36–48 hours due to ASAT + dazzle attacks.
  • 7th Fleet C2 delayed 12–24 hours due to comm-layer denial and swarm risk to replenishment vessels.
  • Taiwan’s layered air defense intact but sensor-fused targeting degraded by FPV and maritime drone saturation.

4. RED TEAM ASSUMPTIONS

  • U.S. will hesitate to destroy gray-zone assets (fishing vessels, civilian ships).
  • Allied coordination (e.g., Japan, Australia, UK) bottlenecked at political layer.
  • Media saturation + ambiguity = delayed Western force posture, loss of escalation initiative.

5. ENDSTATE

  • PLAN establishes temporary “Swarm Sea Denial Bubble”.
  • U.S. CVNs held at standoff range or delayed in Guam/Singapore.
  • Strategic window created for a decapitation strike or a “fait accompli” political seizure of Taiwan islets or digital infrastructure.

Implications for NATO/Allied Readiness

let’s consider:

  1. Maritime C2 redundancy without satellites.
  2. Counter-swarm doctrine (UAV-on-UAV interdiction).
  3. Civilian/maritime overlay detection (AI + multispectral radar).
  4. Real-time adaptive kill chain for ambiguous contacts.

For each of these areas, I’ll look at venture-backable startups versus traditional infrastructure.

1. Maritime C2 Redundancy Without Satellites

Venture-Backable Startups (Dual-Use, High-Growth Potential)

Company TypeDescriptionNotes
Edge mesh C2 overlaysDecentralized maritime command/control systems using HF, VLF, and LEO fallback nodesExamples: resilient mesh (think Helium meets DARPA), local radio packet fallback
Software-defined comms platformsField-configurable waveforms that switch between SATCOM, HF, 5G, troposcatterMust prove use in contested comms and integrate with NATO waveform standards
AI-based comms deconflictionAlgorithms for multi-band, multi-path optimization in real-time during EM-spectrum denialHyper-growth possible if adopted as NATO-standard plug-in

Traditional Infrastructure / Non-Venture

System TypeDescription
LEO satellite constellationsStarlink-like sovereign constellations (French Athena-Fidus, German Heinrich Hertz)
Submarine fiber relaysProtected, sovereign seabed fiber as terrestrial fallback
Hardened ground stationsNATO/Allied SATCOM infrastructure that is immune to dazzle, jamming, EMP

2. Counter-Swarm Doctrine and Platform Layer

Venture-Backable Startups (Dual-Use, High-Growth Potential)

Company TypeDescriptionNotes
Autonomous swarm defense OSPlatform-neutral OS to detect, track, and engage thousands of inbound autonomous threatsMust integrate with onboard EW, CIWS, drone nets
C-UxS munitions + launchersDirected energy, microwave, kinetic net, or swarming decoys launched from ships or trucksFast deployment + mass production + easy reload = high value
Blue force coordination platformsTactical cloud to link ships, drones, and infantry into a single swarm-resistant networkReal-time kill chain integrity matters more than single system precision

Traditional Infrastructure / Non-Venture

System TypeDescription
CIWS upgradesClose-In Weapons Systems adapted for high-saturation drone swarms
Aegis modernizationUpdating legacy C2 to handle 1000+ tracks/targets
Training pipelinesNavy/Joint force doctrine for man-unmanned teaming against mass drone threats

3. Civilian/Maritime Overlay Detection

Venture-Backable Startups (Dual-Use, High-Growth Potential)

Company TypeDescriptionNotes
Multimodal maritime ISR AIDetect & classify civilian-military behavior using AIS spoofing detection, EO/IR patterningMust fuse public + military sensor data in real time
Edge compute radar + EO nodesPortable systems to monitor choke points with sensor fusion (RF + optical + acoustic)Plug-and-play sensors for ports, island bases, and merchant ship integration
Synthetic data generation for ship typesAI models trained on simulated hybrid maritime behavior (civilian converted to military)Valuable as foundational model for ISR AI stack

Traditional Infrastructure / Non-Venture

System TypeDescription
Global maritime data sharing agreementsNATO-EU-private fusion centers for dynamic threat correlation
Port surveillance networksLong-range sensors and infrastructure hardening for Asian and NATO ports
Shipboard ISR retrofitsCivilian cargo ships with passive ISR/ESM for early threat detection

4. Real-Time Adaptive Kill Chain for Ambiguous Contacts

Venture-Backable Startups (Dual-Use, High-Growth Potential)

Company TypeDescriptionNotes
Kill chain orchestration AISoftware that reprioritizes targets, reassigns drones, and resolves ID in real-timeNeeds edge decision capability + explainability under ROE
Dynamic rules of engagement enginesLayered AI/ML to enable human-in-the-loop lawful targeting against ambiguous signaturesMust be certifiable under LOAC (Law of Armed Conflict) and IHL standards
Cognitive EW integrationAI that selects and activates optimal jamming / spoofing strategy per target profileFast-to-field, pre-configured EW behaviors as a service

Traditional Infrastructure / Non-Venture

System TypeDescription
Command authority review pipelinesLegal and strategic protocols for man-machine teaming in kinetic strikes
National-level SIGINT deconflictionEnsuring overlapping U.S., UK, EU SIGINT doesn’t produce conflicting ROE signals
Tactical HQ modernizationStaff augmentation with AI-aided targeting cell workflows

5. Defense of Cognitive Infrastructure

(i.e., protecting not just data centers, but attention, perception, and belief formation)

Venture-Backable Startups (Dual-Use, High-Growth Potential)

Company TypeDescriptionNotes
Deepfake detection and provenanceReal-time detection of synthetic videos/images used for tactical psychological opsHigh growth potential in military + commercial security sectors
AI models for intent attributionDetecting adversary cognitive shaping (not just disinfo), using pattern recognition across platformsDifferentiator: from “what was said” to “why it was seeded”
Secure digital identity verificationSystems to validate human operators in decentralized, denied environmentsEspecially relevant for military communicators, journalists, emergency responders

Traditional Infrastructure / Non-Venture

System TypeDescription
National digital information defense strategyIntegration of public broadcast, platform moderation, and military-grade detection
Civil-military media playbooksProtocols for coordinated, truthful rapid response to visual disinfo attacks
Cyber hardening of public utilities and narrative platformsDNS, cellular, and broadcast channels protected from spoof or hijack

Summary Table – Where Venture Fits

Readiness DomainVenture-Backable SystemsTraditional Only
C2 RedundancyComms OS, SDR, mesh networksLEO constellations, fiber links
Counter-SwarmC-UAS AI, portable DEW, swarm OSNaval upgrades, doctrine/training
Maritime DetectionISR AI, synthetic training dataPort infrastructure, AIS frameworks
Adaptive Kill ChainsAI-enabled targeting & ROE layersROE policy, staff modernization
Cognitive InfrastructureDeepfake detection, secure IDMedia strategy, civilian comms policy

This was Part II.

What’s missing is the underground layer — the shadow layer that enables, conceals, and subverts kinetic and digital operations. In doctrine and insurgency studies, this isn’t peripheral — it’s foundational. U.S. Army TC 18-01 and USASOC’s classic volumes (“Human Factors Considerations of Undergrounds in Insurgencies” and “Undergrounds in Insurgency, Revolutionary, and Resistance Warfare”) identify this as one of the core components of unconventional warfare (alongside auxiliary and guerrilla forces).

In the context of my NATO counter-swarm investment thesis or fragplan prep, underground systems would map to five strategic vectors that enable denial, deception, and resilience under high fog-of-war scenarios.

This will be Part III. Tomorrow.