China Naval Modernization (Implications for US Naval Capabilities)

[SABRE]

Following is the report by US state department regarding the modernization of Chinese Navy aka PLAN. Even though such articals belong in Prof.forums I am taking liberty to post it here. If felt necessary the thread might be moved to Prof. Forum [Limiting it to only expert members & the administration (Admin & Mods)]





China Naval Modernization: Implications for US Naval Capabilities


US State Department
Thu, 1 Dec 2005, 00:33


Concern has grown in Congress and elsewhere about China’s military
modernization. The topic is an increasing factor in discussions over future required U.S. Navy capabilities. The issue for Congress addressed in this report is: 'How should China’s military modernization be factored into decisions about U.S. Navy programs?'

Several elements of China’s military modernization have potential implications for future required U.S. Navy capabilities. These include:


Theater-range ballistic missiles (TBMs)
Land-attack cruise missiles (LACMs)
Anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs)
Surface-to-air missiles (SAMs)
Land-based aircraft
Submarines
Surface combatants
Amphibious ships
Naval mines
Nuclear weapons
and possibly high-power microwave (HPM) devices.
China’s naval limitations or weaknesses include:


Capabilities for operatingin waters moredistant from China
Joint operations
C4ISR (command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance)
Long-range surveillance and targeting systems
Anti-air warfare (AAW)
Antisubmarine warfare (ASW)
Mine countermeasures(MCM)
and Logistics
Observers believe a near-term focus of China’s military modernization is to fielda force that can succeed in a short-duration conflict with Taiwan and act as an anti-access force to deter U.S. intervention or delaythe arrival of U.S. forces, particularly naval and air forces, in such a conflict. Some analysts speculate that China may attain (or believe that it has attained) a capable maritime anti-access force, or elements of it, by about 2010. Other observers believe this will happen later.

Potential broader or longer-term goals of China’s naval modernization include asserting China’s regional military leadership and protecting China’s maritime territorial, economic, and energy interests.

China’s naval modernization has potential implications for required U.S. Navy capabilities in terms of preparingfor aconflict in theTaiwan Strait area, maintaining U.S. Navy presence and military influence in the Western Pacific, and countering Chinese ballistic missile submarines. Preparing for a conflict in the Taiwan Strait area could place a premium on the following: on-station or early-arriving Navy forces, capabilities for defeating China’smaritime anti-access forces, and capabilities for operating in an environment that could be characterized by information warfare and possibly electromagnetic pulse (EMP) and the use of nuclear weapons.

Certain options are available for improving U.S. Navy capabilities by 2010; additional options, particularly in ship-building, can improve U.S. Navy capabilities in subsequent years. China’s naval modernization raises potential issues for Congress concerning the role of China in Department of Defense (DOD) and Navy planning; the size of the Navy; the Pacific Fleet’s share of the Navy; forward homeporting of Navy ships in the Western Pacific; the number of aircraft carriers, submarines, and ASW-capable platforms; Navymissile defense, air-warfare, AAW, ASW, and mine warfare programs; Navy computer network security; and EMP hardening of Navy systems. This report will be updated as events warrant.


The full report of 77 pages, in PDF format, is available here at DefenceTalk. If you are interested in the full report, follow the following link.

Link: http://www.defencetalk.com/news/publish/article_004328.php
Source: DT News

[Crusader2000]

All I can say is the arms race is on.........:unknown

[KGB]

Perhaps the India's leasing the Akulas from Russia has more to do with the PLAN than the Pakistani Navy. It seems that todays navies regard the submarine as the big budget version of asymetric warfare, the same way the Germans did in WW2 and the USSR did during the cold war.

KGB have you even read the artical ? The artical is refering to the implications of PLAN modernization over USNavy not India (or Indian Navy) or any other country (or any other Navy). Stay focus on topic, do not derail it. I am leaving this post intact as a messege to other posters. Next off topic post would be deleted.

[Crusader2000]

I wonder how much of the Chinese Navy's Modernization has to do with India's expanding Military? :gun

[hesidu]

I wonder how much of the Chinese Navy's Modernization has to do with India's expanding Military? :gun
China Navy's Modernization don't target at India. So don't be panic, man !.

[SABRE]

I wonder how much of the Chinese Navy's Modernization has to do with India's expanding Military? :gun

Crusader2000 what part of the messege I left under KGB's post you did not understand. Its not like I have writen some thing in Chinese, Hebrew, Aramic or Arabic. Its in english the Language it seems you very well know.

The Topic is based on implications of PLAN modernization on USNavy not Indian & you are attempting to divert the discussion. Let this be your 1st warning & remember 3 warnings & you are banned (thats the rule).

To me it seems like the 'topic' & the 'artical' is too much technical for the mind set of most of the members. I think it would be better to move it to Prof.Forums but I am giving it another shot. One more diversion & the thread would be out of regular member's hands.

[Crusader2000]

Crusader2000 what part of the messege I left under KGB's post you did not understand. Its not like I have writen some thing in Chinese, Hebrew, Aramic or Arabic. Its in english the Language it seems you very well know.

The Topic is based on implications of PLAN modernization on USNavy not Indian & you are attempting to divert the discussion. Let this be your 1st warning & remember 3 warnings & you are banned (thats the rule).

To me it seems like the 'topic' & the 'artical' is too much technical for the mind set of most of the members. I think it would be better to move it to Prof.Forums but I am giving it another shot. One more diversion & the thread would be out of regular member's hands.


The title is China Naval Moderization (Implications for the US Navy) While this article maybe from a US point of view. My point was that other factors may influence China's Modernization? Which, inturn leads back to the original posting. I would sincerely hope we have some latitude...................:(

[SABRE]

The title is China Naval Moderization (Implications for the US Navy) While this article maybe from a US point of view. My point was that other factors may influence China's Modernization? Which, inturn leads back to the original posting. I would sincerely hope we have some latitude...................:(

Crusader2000 you must understand that the rules of the DT forums do not allow out of context & off topic discussions. The thread is based on PLAN & USNavy, therefore the discussion must be based around the two.

We understand that you & many other members want to discuss the implications of PLAN modernization on other Navies but we can not allow you or any one else to do so. How ever you can open up another thread & discuss implications of PLAN modernization on different navies & take some elements from the above artical to make your point.

[Jeff Head]

[LEFT]Following is the report by US state department regarding the modernization of Chinese Navy aka PLAN. Even though such articals belong in Prof.forums I am taking liberty to post it here. If felt necessary the thread might be moved to Prof. Forum [Limiting it to only expert members & the administration (Admin & Mods)] For a pictorial representation of much of this...please take a look at the following site:

THE RISING SEA DRAGON IN ASIA (http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon/)

Hope its informative for anyone viewing the pages there. Took quite a bit of work.

[Crusader2000]

Crusader2000 you must understand that the rules of the DT forums do not allow out of context & off topic discussions. The thread is based on PLAN & USNavy, therefore the discussion must be based around the two.

We understand that you & many other members want to discuss the implications of PLAN modernization on other Navies but we can not allow you or any one else to do so. How ever you can open up another thread & discuss implications of PLAN modernization on different navies & take some elements from the above artical to make your point.



Understood...........................

[tphuang]

China's immediate threats are USA and Japan. India is probably on its mind, but nothing more than that. All of China's naval expansion has pretty much being aimed at incuring damage on US pacific fleet.

[Crusader2000]

China's immediate threats are USA and Japan. India is probably on its mind, but nothing more than that. All of China's naval expansion has pretty much being aimed at incuring damage on US pacific fleet.


I would have to think that India is a little more than just on China's mind? Especially, with her closer Military ties with the US.:rolleyes:

[WebMaster]

Folks, we are all grown ups here, right? So, why take the thread into off topic land when it doesn't need to go there?

For Indians: No body is after India, this thread doesn't even concern India. It deals with CHINA Navy > Implication on > US Navy < see NO INDIA at all. And with the subject title clearly saying China navy's implication on US Navy, any five year old can figure out that this topic isn't about India, so why experiment? :unknown

Sorry if you feel like crying but sometimes we have to treat some adults as if they are kids to make them understand because it is very frustrating that multiple people have to point out same thing plus the title clearly mentioning but still people want to try their luck and want to drag the topic to what 'they' want to discuss.

Now, I don't want anyone to feel apologetic or feel sorry for us or themselves, all we need and request is that we stick to the topic which is? Guess? CHINA NAVY implications for US Navy. There is no 3rd navy involved, there is no middle man, US has not outsourced its Navy to India, yet. SO relax.

Please carry on!

[Crusader2000]

Sorry, but in my opinion your making any debate way to narrow. The title "China Naval Modernation (Implication for the USN) Well, the USN Stratergy always includes Regional and Global Allies. You can't just narrow such a broad topic to just two parts. (i.e. black and white) Your talking about a large and very complex subject. While I can surely understand why you need to keep members on topic. On the otherhand the whole point of the Forum is to have a meaningful discussion........................Personally, I will comply as long as I am a member. If, it continue to be so restrictive I may decide to go elsewhere..............:(

[WebMaster]

Crusader, thanks for understanding. It is not being strict but only allowing people to keep the subject in perspective. I understand that people from all countries have high patriotic values and I respect that but they belong and should be discussed when such topic arise and they do. Which is completely fine.

I also know that you can't discuss black and white and there is always that gray matter which is also okay but we must not forgot the subject. How does China's implication on US navy effect India? Thats a good question and who could better answer but you or many other participants here?

Indian Navy is a potent force but that does not mean it needs to be discussed in any topic talking about Navy or even rival navies.

Regards

[PhillTaj]

China is building all this hardware, but they have yet to demonstrate any sort of effective supply of units in a blue water environment. It seems to me that China has caught the virus that all non western militaries have: Too much teeth, not enough support structure. It is the US politicans, and not the military itself, that is terrified of the "Red Threat".

I also see China's naval expansion as a way to protect its SLOC's. The country, like Japan and South Korea is totally dependent on sea borne energy. Not having the assets to ensure economic security is national suicide. With the 3 biggest Asian economies dependent on congested sea lanes, it leads to a pretty intense naval arms race.

However, thats a bit off topic. So what does this modernization mean for US Naval power? Personally, I believe that the USN does, and will enjoy utter superiority for decades to come. New developments, like the purposed family of manned and unmanned hypersonic systems, is light years ahead of anything in the wildest dreams of any PLAN staff officer in Beijing. China, if I remember correctly, cannot even manufacture its own gas turbine engines? SSN numbers will remain low until at least 2025, and domestic Chinese technology is still in the 1980 timeframe. I know that many individuals are worried about the recent rash of Chinese spying in the US, alot of it aimed at critical USN systems like AEGIS and new Sonar developments. Development of any stolen technology in China, however, is hampered by several key factors. Firstly, rigid state control hampers R&D efforts to a certain degree. Furthermore, the system, hurt by state planning, is chaotic and inefficient when it comes to advanced research. Lastly, historical precedence lends the rationale that all previous reverse engineered platforms have proven to be inefficient, expensive, and a "Brain Drain" on resources better spent on pure R&D. China does not wish to reform its structures and invest in many years of its own development, and continues to believe that it can reverse engineer western systems to suit its needs.

The only way the PLAN will be able to pose a threat to the USN will be in the tight waters of the Taiwan Strait. There are no simple solutions there. As the Falkands showed us, ASW is extremely difficult. The PLAN's Kilos are sufficent enough to keep any carrier battle group far away, not to mention shore based air and missile assets. I dont have the answers for such a situation, not being a naval officer, Im just an undersexed grad student :), but I would imagine something along the lines of a cruise missile campaign against PLAN bases with a concurrent anti submarine campaign. However, attacking the Chinese mainland may be too much for an American government to swallow. Its hard to say if the US would get involved to a great degree in any conflict in the Taiwan Strait. America may be more content with just basing air and ABM assets on Taiwan only.

Nevertheless, in any other action beyond Taiwan, the PLAN is, and will for decades, be disadvantaged. Remember too that Japan and South Korea are firm US allies dedicated to rolling back China, and they currently posses far more capable navies than the present PLAN.

Also, continuing Chinese naval build ups is dependent on one thing: The overbloated,teetering Chinese economy. I've noticed on these boards, and many others, that most of the Anti-China crowd, such as Mr.Head, fail to take into account China's internal problems when discussing Chinese aspirations.

The Politburo probably pray to Mao every morning that their economy has not collapsed. The problem is the banking system. China has for years been giving out massive loans to entities that will never, ever be able to pay back. Their solution to the problem, in typical Maoist fashion was to hand out more unrepayable loans!

Any large amount of free capital Beijing possess seems to be spent on foreign arms or enegy rather than the reform of the banking system.

That is why America is giving China such leeway in terms of its currency. If the Chinese currency goes too high, loans will be called back in, and the whole thing collapses.
A supposed vibrant economy is the only thing keeping the Chinese middle class from demanding more power.
If the economy collapses, the communist government may well fall. China, being very regionalist, with a significant problem of "political" generals in the various military districts, could revert back to warlordism. This is a major concern for any future US involvement with China: having to intervene in a civil war caused by the downfall of the communist regime. The USN may very well go into action against China, but not against any coherent national navy.

Still, this may not happen. A smaller recession would very likely smash China's massively expensive naval expansion and leave the USN with nothing to contend with.

Regards,

[Crusader2000]

If, China is not careful with in Naval (Military) Modernization. Many (including the US) will take it as a threat. Which, will inturn lead to a major arms race. This of course can't be won by China and is just a waste of her valuble resourses................IMO:smash

[Jeff Head]

...I've noticed on these boards, and many others, that most of the Anti-China crowd, such as Mr.Head, fail to take into account China's internal problems when discussing Chinese aspirations. Regards,Well, since I was singled out, I suppose I'd best respond.

1st, I am not anti-Chinese. I have been to China and Taiwan on several occassions and met some truly wonderful people. I am anti-communist or totalitarian government...so, it is probably fairer and more correct to say that I am anti-CCCP.

2nd, I do take into consideration the Chinese economy. The fact is, they have managed to modify their econoimic model away from the absolutely fatal Maoist model that would have already had them bankrupt, and changed over to a command market economy that, IMHO, is much more fascist in nature. With the promise of very cheap labor leading to cheap product costs...and the apple of a potential huge market "someday", they have wooed and attracted tremendous investment and capitol into their nation and economy.

However, it is not the masses and common Chinese who are benefiting from it. It is the group of people who belong to the CCP and their adherants who are benefiting. That happens to be a very large number of people because 6-7% of more than 1.2 billion is a large number...and they are benefiting and they are able to show a lot of progress in China in a lot of areas...while the masses of people languish.

My own opinion is that the CCP does not intend to allow the economic prosperity...with all of its pitfalls (particularly as regards the currency) to ever benefit the masses of citizens to the point that they have true economic freedom, or political freedom for that matter. I feel they will lead them along, using nationalistic issues (such as Taiwan) to energize them at the appropriate times from the CCPs perspective.

If they fail...they may well have a revolution on their hands, particularly if the economy fails in general, which it may well do.

If they are successful, they will walk that tight rope to economic self sufficiency and more regional hegonomy and a contually growing miltary...which would pit us against them economically and perhaps ultimately militarily. A powerhouse fascist economic machine can produce some significant results, as we saw with Germany ion the 1930s and 1940s. I pray iot does not go that way.

But that is just my own opinion, nothing more.

Hope that helps clarify my own position and some of the background for my own more intrinsic interests in the military side of things.

[hesidu]

Well, since I was singled out, I suppose I'd best respond.
However, it is not the masses and common Chinese who are benefiting from it. It is the group of people who belong to the CCP and their adherants who are benefiting. That happens to be a very large number of people because 6-7% of more than 1.2 billion is a large number...and they are benefiting and they are able to show a lot of progress in China in a lot of areas...while the masses of people languish.


I don't want to change your point of view of CCCP, but I have to point out that you have mis-understood of China's economy reform. I'm not of those people who "belong to the CCP and their adherants" as you mentioned in last reply. I live in a town where most of people make socks. This type of town is quite common in the China. The annual socks output of my town is up to six billion, and most of these is for export. Thanks to this industry, our living level is dramatically improved. So we benefit from the economy reform not because of "belong to the CCP and their adherants".
Though not all the Chinese benefit from China's economy reform, this situation will be changed. The chinese government is going to reduce the incoming gape between different area and different people. One policy has recently been issued is that Chinese government is going to offer a nine years of free education for all the kids in China in two years. That is to say primary school and junior high school(nine years of education in all) will be free. This will benefit most for the low incoming people.
I suggest everyone here should do some investigate before jump into conclusion.

[crobato]

However, it is not the masses and common Chinese who are benefiting from it. It is the group of people who belong to the CCP and their adherants who are benefiting. That happens to be a very large number of people because 6-7% of more than 1.2 billion is a large number...and they are benefiting and they are able to show a lot of progress in China in a lot of areas...while the masses of people languish.

That's what you call trickle down capitalism, and that is something many countries have gone through (Victorian England, the US in the twenties and thirties). It's a simple fact that in a free capitalist economy, there are those who will rise to the top of the pyramid, and then the effects will trickle down to the rest of the population even as the general well being of the population improves.

Maybe you should read a bit more from business journals like Businessweek, The Economist, even magazines like Time, Asiaweek or Newsweek. There is a new rising entrepreneur class in China, first developing among the coastal cities, then into the inner cities. The rural still tends to lag, but that is also true of every developing country I have seen and you can't make 1.2 billion people middle class overnight. There are also plenty of rich overseas Chinese from Taiwan, Singapore, the US and other Asian countries, as well as foreign expats.

Maybe you should check the CIA's own figures of GDP/PPP and find out what is the average capita per person China as been getting for the last 20 years or so. Anyone can tell you China has done much better than any third world country under the leash of the World Bank or IMF such as the Philippines, Indonesia, and various Latin American countries.

If indeed China is so poor, then how come 300 million mainland Chinese could afford to subscribe to a celphone service?

[crobato]

China, if I remember correctly, cannot even manufacture its own gas turbine engines?

It does as a matter of fact, not a big line though. All the engines used in J-6, J-7 and J-8 fighters are made completely domestically, as well as for its JL-8 trainers. It already has stationary gas turbine designs used for power plant generation. More ominously, it also makes miniture gas turbine engines for its anti ship missiles, cruise missiles and drones.

[crobato]

If you want to find out who is getting rich in China today, you can get a list from Forbes.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-10/30/content_488834.htm

Forbes to publicize new China richest list
(Xinhua)
Updated: 2005-10-30 11:34


The American business magazine Forbes Global is to publicize its new rich list in China next Thursday, and the number of people listed may be doubled to 400.

Forbes magazine, having compiled China's richest persons lists for ten years, was reported as saying the wealth threshold for thelist this year will be 500 million yuan (61.7 million US dollars).

In the first Forbes China rich list ten years ago, the wealth of the No. 1 rich, the brothers of Liu Yongmei, Liu Yongyan, Liu Yongxing and Liu Yonghao, was only 600 million yuan.

The 200th richest person in China this year has 1 billion yuan,350 million yuan more than his peer last year.

Many of those on the list this year are engaged in Internet services, and half of the first ten richest are aged below 40, according to the Beijing Daily.

The newspaper said 25 women are to appear on the list, accounting for 6 percent of the total, compared with 4 percent last year.

-----------------------------------------------------


Sounds more like internet geeks to me instead of the CCCP members.

[Jeff Head]

I don't want to change your point of view of CCCP, but I have to point out that you have mis-understood of China's economy reform.I base most of what I said on what I have observed with my own eyes.

I am glad that you and others are experiencing improving conditions. I hope and pray that continues. There will be, as I stated, some of that no matter what.

In my estimation, the CCP will not giove up the reigns of power easily. I feel that they are walking a serious tight rope and that they will deal with the masses of citizens as best they can while holding on to power. It is possible for them to do so and still minimize the freedoms and economic benefits the people experience. I hope they are wholly unsuccessful in that effort.

If they are...it is quite likely at some point to lead to upheaval as the people desire (and naturally so) more liberty.

As I said, if they are successful (and I hope they are not) it is likely to lead to upheavel externally, which in the end, would be worse for everyone involved.

[Jeff Head]

That's what you call trickle down capitalism....

Maybe you should read a bit more from business journals...

If indeed China is so poor, then how come 300 million mainland Chinese could afford to subscribe to a celphone service?Actually, what I spoke of has nothing to do with trickle down capitalism or a trickle down economy. What you refer to is something people like Reagan talked about in the US with respect to a free society based on a true free market...that is not something the Chinese on the maibnland have yet.

As to being well read, I do. Refer to my post 23 (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=51377&postcount=23) for my feelings in this regard.

We may well disagree on current conditions in CHina...I believe we probably agree on our hopes for the people there coming into economic prosperity and liberty. I believe as long as the CCP holds to the reigns of power and continues its one party policy (which is its very nbature) that will not happen.

[SABRE]

ATTENTION all members. This is not an ECONOMIC thread. If you want to discuss economic issues you can go to our sister site www.globaltalknetworks.com (http://www.globaltalknetworks.com) . Please stay with the topic.

thank you !

[Jeff Head]

ATTENTION all members. This is not an ECONOMIC thread. If you want to discuss economic issues you can go to our sister site www.globaltalknetworks.com (http://www.globaltalknetworks.com) . Please stay with the topic.

thank you !Thanks.

[crobato]

Actually, what I spoke of has nothing to do with trickle down capitalism or a trickle down economy. What you refer to is something people like Reagan talked about in the US with respect to a free society based on a true free market...that is not something the Chinese on the maibnland have yet.

As to being well read, I do. Refer to my post 23 (http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=51377&postcount=23) for my feelings in this regard.

We may well disagree on current conditions in CHina...I believe we probably agree on our hopes for the people there coming into economic prosperity and liberty. I believe as long as the CCP holds to the reigns of power and continues its one party policy (which is its very nbature) that will not happen.

I quite disagree a lot. I have been in mainland China many times and done business there quite lot. The lot of the average person there imiproved tremendously in the fifteen years of so, and often there are marked changes noticeable even after a year or so when you travel to the same region. The average growth rate if computed using power consumption and trade figures rather than using official government data should be closer to 10 to 13% annually. No economy beats that kind of growth and I dare say, nothing in this century has uplifted more individuals from destitute to a livable condition.

You have a free market in China. In many ways, it's a lot more free than in the US in respect you can do a lot more things and is less encumbered by the rules than in the US. Economies in Asia feel a lot more free and dynamic than in the US as they are not encumbered by unions, stacks of regulations like the EPA, liability lawsuits and all that. Why do you think multinationals are moving factories en masse to China and other parts of Asia? Because they can get away scott free on things and issues you're not going to get away with a plant in the US.

In respect, China is not just a free market, it is also become, the ultimate capitalist society. Everything is extreme capitalism. Everything is extremely competitive. There is actually so much defacto economic freedom due to the lack of regulation and regulation enforcement that it leads to such abuses of freedom, such as rampant piracy and neglect for employees and the poor. It's become extremely Darwinistic. The abuses in China is actually the result of the abuses of free markets---true Darwinistic Capitalism---as opposed to the lack of it. The strong hand of the government is needed at times to counter the abuses of one of the most aggressively mercantile and Darwinistic cultures on Earth that is Chinese culture.

Politically free societies does not breed free markets. India is an example of a politically free society with a highly socialist market and suffered for it. So are many Latin American countries such as Brazil. On the other hand, in Asia, it's not just China, but also Singapore, S. Korea, Malaysia, and Taiwan that created successful free markets while they were under authoritarian regimes. China actually looks at Singapore for its model of growth. Hong Kong created its envious economy while under a colonial regime, which is not democratic the least. The funny thing is, its free markets that tend to create politcally free societies and not the other way around. That's why political authoritarianism in China is eroding away just like it did in S. Korea, Taiwan and Malaysia when these countries prospered.

[Francois]

Crobato,
National pride put aside, I really suggest you read Sabre's warning.
Your life span in this forum is at stack. (He is THE mod!).

[Jeff Head]

I quite disagree a lot.Out of respect for the owners and moderators of this forum, who have made their wishes very evident regarding this topic of economics that you continue to discuss...I decline to respond.

If you would like to discuss the military/naval issues raised by this thread, I will be happy to do so. You can find my views on that at the following site:

The Rising Sea Dragon in Asia (http://www.jeffhead.com/redseadragon)

and, more general, clinical information about aircraft carriers specifically at:

World Wide Aircraft Carriers (http://www.worldwideaircraftcarriers.com)

Thanks in advance for discontinuing the drift to the economic issues which we clealry disagree on.

[PhillTaj]

Well, since I was singled out, I suppose I'd best respond.

1st, I am not anti-Chinese. I have been to China and Taiwan on several occassions and met some truly wonderful people. I am anti-communist or totalitarian government...so, it is probably fairer and more correct to say that I am anti-CCCP.

2nd, I do take into consideration the Chinese economy. The fact is, they have managed to modify their econoimic model away from the absolutely fatal Maoist model that would have already had them bankrupt, and changed over to a command market economy that, IMHO, is much more fascist in nature. With the promise of very cheap labor leading to cheap product costs...and the apple of a potential huge market "someday", they have wooed and attracted tremendous investment and capitol into their nation and economy.

However, it is not the masses and common Chinese who are benefiting from it. It is the group of people who belong to the CCP and their adherants who are benefiting. That happens to be a very large number of people because 6-7% of more than 1.2 billion is a large number...and they are benefiting and they are able to show a lot of progress in China in a lot of areas...while the masses of people languish.

My own opinion is that the CCP does not intend to allow the economic prosperity...with all of its pitfalls (particularly as regards the currency) to ever benefit the masses of citizens to the point that they have true economic freedom, or political freedom for that matter. I feel they will lead them along, using nationalistic issues (such as Taiwan) to energize them at the appropriate times from the CCPs perspective.

If they fail...they may well have a revolution on their hands, particularly if the economy fails in general, which it may well do.

If they are successful, they will walk that tight rope to economic self sufficiency and more regional hegonomy and a contually growing miltary...which would pit us against them economically and perhaps ultimately militarily. A powerhouse fascist economic machine can produce some significant results, as we saw with Germany ion the 1930s and 1940s. I pray iot does not go that way.

But that is just my own opinion, nothing more.

Hope that helps clarify my own position and some of the background for my own more intrinsic interests in the military side of things.


Yes...that does clear things up niclely. For the record, I did not mean that you were anti chinese persay.

Anyways, Jeff, in your opinion, what is the single greatest asset China will rely on in any near future confrontation with the USN?

[Hussain]

:uk The implications in general for the US navy will be that the US will be more and more involved with the navies of other nations around China. India will be provided more and more US weapons for it naval arm. This process has already begun. The Taiwanese, Japanese, S Koreans, Thais and possibly Vietnamese will be given a more of an offensive capability and increased compatibility with the US navy. The US is now trying to checkmate China.

At the same time the US has expressed a desire for the Chinese to get involved in international peace keeping duties through the use of the Chinese navy. This may be a desire by the US to use China's growing military muscle to benefit the strategic policies of the US administration. This is strange but true (refer to CNN). I however don't think this will wash down well with the Chinese especially when the US is arming all of China's traditional foes.

The other scenario the the US navy has to prepare for is a full fledged naval conflict with China in the not too distant future around the South China Sea.
The US has no desire to invade China but merely stop its growing military, economic and political growth around the region and world. The US is at present in a position to launch a pre emptive attack on the Chinese navy using its aircraft carriers . Similar to what the Japanese did in Pearl Harbour. The naval air arm will have a massive advantage over the Chinese in terms of the technolgy on its F18 Hornets . The US will also have advantage, at this moment in time anyway, of the numbers of high tech naval warplanes it has at its disposal . The Chinese with the further induction of the F10 willl begin to close the technological gap, as recent US defence documents have highlighted.

Reason for the US to attack China:
The EU has been getting very close to China and the British especially are keen for the Chinese to have more access to the British econonomy, henceforth the red carpet welcome for the Chinese premiere recently. The Europeans realise that the Chinese are the big koi of the ever smaller world pond. The Europeans also see US technology and goods as in direct competition with their own products in the growing economies of the world and especially in Asia. Airbus must have been very happy to see a multi billion dollar order from China.

What must be of great concern to the US is sale of dual technology equipment being sold to China via the EU as laws on dual technology transfers are open to interpretation, with each EU state having its own interpretation (particularly the French). As time goes the EU may start supplying the Chinese with sophisticated military technology in order to expand the western European defence industry and also to have further access to the massive Chinese economy. This will abe at the cost of the US economy and military standing in the region. Will the US stand by? I doubt it very much.

[tonbo]

Hussain >> those are rather careless remarks .. saying the US is trying to checkmate China . mind you , such words could be used by undesirous factions in their efforts to advance their own biased agenda .

the US has every reason to be concerned abt China , what with it's growth potential and all . but concern need not translate into distress . good thing both sides enjoy rather robust diplomatic ties . ^^;

[Jeff Head]

Jeff, in your opinion, what is the single greatest asset China will rely on in any near future confrontation with the USN?Their first line, if there is to be such a confrontation, will be political. They will wait to see who is in the White House because, sadly, depending on who is there, they may feel that their prospects of forcing the issue of Tawian will fair better. They may evern try to influence it to whatever extent because it is in fact...again, IMHO, sadly, probably the option with the most potential for them.

Outside of that, in terms of pure military, it will be their sub force, their large numbers of land based air, their growing surface action capability, and their many ballistic missiles with which they will hope to force a conclusion to the matter before the US can effectively respond.

That's just my opinion as well and I hope it does not come to that.

As to their carrier designs and plans, that is more of a long term issue for later influence outside of their littoral waters. It is also a prestige and piolitical tool. If they do get the Varyag operational, I would expect to see it make a presence during the Olympics purely for a political statement. It will be years before they are proficent enough, or have the numbers, the logistics, and the maintenance issues worked out to the point of hoping to challenge the USN in that regard directly.

[Hussain]

Hussain >> those are rather careless remarks .. saying the US is trying to checkmate China . mind you , such words could be used by undesirous factions in their efforts to advance their own biased agenda .

the US has every reason to be concerned abt China , what with it's growth potential and all . but concern need not translate into distress . good thing both sides enjoy rather robust diplomatic ties . ^^;

Please explain what you mean by 'advance their own biased agenda.'

Furtheremore, some of what I have stated in my original quote is based upon recent American documents regarding China's miltary and economic growth. So I have taken into account the opinions of others that have some sort of influence in the US. My opinion is neither pro/biased against the US or China.

[tonbo]

Hussain >> point taken . the first line of your post already stated that all things are implied and ought to be taken as such . rest assured that my thots were not directed solely toward you but more a reflection of future trends , considering how we can be misquoted , misunderstood ( as i did you ) or how our words can be misused by others ( may it never happen ) .

as i see it , the US Navy has a tough job ahead of them , what with budget-cuts eating into proposals for a future fleet , one that maintains its lead in technological advancements and war fighting capabilities ahead of other navies of the world ... regardless who the adversary may be . nowadays , every step that is taken is done with close reference to the amount of dollars that they have ; so it has been mooted that the Navy and the Marines operate as one ... one of the myriad of changes within the services .

the rise of China might have actually given new relevance to the US Navy . should China go rogue ( i would hate that ) , who can and will reign em in ? and by what means ... ? so we see the US rapidly adopting a '' Prepare for the worst , 'strive' for the best '' mindset toward China's rapid advancements

[tphuang]

Why would you people assume that China would go rogue? Peoplare passing judgement on China just because it has been expanding its navy after years of neglecting it. Only in the past 10 years has China really expanded its military. It's just making up for lost time. If America looks at PLAN's expansion in that manner, then it would not be so alarmed. After all, is there anything wrong with China wanting to have the 2nd best navy in the world? It drives Chinese people crazy to see that the Japanese navy is so much more advanced. I just don't like how America is only commenting on PLAN's modernization when Japan and India are doing expansion of their own. It's natural for a country's navy to grow as its economy grows.

[PhillTaj]

Why would you people assume that China would go rogue? Peoplare passing judgement on China just because it has been expanding its navy after years of neglecting it. Only in the past 10 years has China really expanded its military. It's just making up for lost time. If America looks at PLAN's expansion in that manner, then it would not be so alarmed. After all, is there anything wrong with China wanting to have the 2nd best navy in the world? It drives Chinese people crazy to see that the Japanese navy is so much more advanced. I just don't like how America is only commenting on PLAN's modernization when Japan and India are doing expansion of their own. It's natural for a country's navy to grow as its economy grows.

China is an authoritarian dictatorship, while India and Japan are liberal democracies, that is why the US supports them. If China was a free society, and India was not, the US would support China.

Im not saying its that black and white, but yes, thats the gist of it.

[KGB]

China, whatever its government is now, has historically been a great power and is used to being one. It makes perfect sense for the US to be concerned with China's growing power; the biggest fish in the ocean wouldn't be happy to see a potential rival emerge, would it? It also makes sense for China's neighbors to also be concerned; after struggling to shake off western imperialisim they'd fear being dominated by a resurgent china.

As China's navy grows, it becomes more likely for the US to get greater cooperation from SE asian countries, as the latter would seek to balance the powers in the region. The paper states that part of the new ASW strategy of the USN would be to deploy a networked sensor field; presumaby a next generation SOSUS that would enable a few weapons platforms to cover a large area. This system of that magnitude will presumably need cooperation from the countries they are deployed near. Whether covert or open, this arrangement will be attractive especially for countries that have limited ASW assets.

To counter this threat of isolation, China's fostering regional ties. Military expansion in the Spratleys and bellicose statements are giving way to investments. China's building a railway in the Philippines for example. The statement is that only the US and Taiwan need fear China, that China intends to be a benign power.

How the south east asia reacts to this will greatly affect the US plans. The paper states that basing closer to China will enable it to maintain a credible force using less assets since its ships would spend less time going to and from the area. If China's sub force does increase to the number expected (50+) and if China does intend to be a "first class submarine power", the US would have to increase it's ASW in the area. In this case the US would be at a disadvantage because it's 5O submarines an its ASW forces have to cover both the atlantic and pacific sies of the US, while China can concentrate its forces in the south china sea and the pacific. Furthermore, the region has lots of littoral areas which may be favorable for SSKs. There are crowded congested shipping lanes, and there are national airspaces to consider. IMHO (I'm no defence professional), China's thrust towards submarines is very clever. It can project power, it can maintain assets in sensitive areas without being detected (or at least publicly detected; a sonar picture of a PLAN sub near Taiwan for example wouldn't be as good on the newspaper headlines as a photo of a surface ship). And the regional geography seems to allow SSKs to be used optimally. Since SSKs are relatively cheap and can be fitted with dangerous weapon systems, this undersea arms race might not be as expensive for china as was the cold war submarine arms race was for the Soviets. It might not bankrupt China.

My last observation is on the US's perception that China would be willing and able to use its submarines as a "access denial" force in the event of a war with Taiwan. It is clear from the paper that the US regards this to be a suicide mission. I'm sure that the PLAN planners have no illusions about this either; they'd be confronting a navy with a huge amount of experience and a huge budget. But historically, submarine forces have been willing to accept atrocious odds: The U-boat force had an 80% death rate but kept operating; the US Silent Service had the highest loss rate in WW2; and the soviet submariners confronted the US navy in the cold war with admittedly inferior and dangerous ships.

All my observations for now. Please forgive the rambling. And if i got anything wrong about submarines I'd appreciate finding out.

[hesidu]

Anyway this is just a talk about "Implications for US Naval Capabilities", why so many people talking about war between China and US. Nobody in China and US want such war happen.
If this war happens unfortunately, there will be no "actual winner". I think both Chinese and US government are recognize of this.

[tonbo]

China isn't a dictatorship , certainly not when power rests on the party , not any one man alone . there are rules to be followed , and no one is above the rule of law . the selfish whims of any one man that might affect the course of the country's future will most certainly not go unpunished . but let us stay on topic .

what the US has repeatedly asked for is greater transparency in the way China goes about modernising its forces , while at the same time encouraging China to participate more actively in UN missions . China , on its part , has not publicly refused ... not when the general public has access to Google Earth ... ^^;

tho the short term goals for the US Navy may be largely centered around the question of China : questions like how , if need be , it could hold China's forces in check ... but that need not be an end in itself .
with the advent of China , along with other up-and-coming nations , the US may have finally realized it cannot rest on its laurels and become complacent , thus we see renewed efforts at R&D and force modernisation , despite the much publicised '' budget cuts '' . oddly enuf , its all these efforts that make the world , not just China , pay greater attention to the US and have cause to imitate , follow suit or learn frm and seek self-improvement , even conduct exchanges with ...

[PhillTaj]

I highly doubt that China will instigate a naval arms race with the US. The Communist leadership is resisting the idea of building a true blue water navy. China cannot win such an arms race. Remember, even by 2025 China's real GDP will still only be 30 percent of the GDP of the United States (sorry to bring economics into it again, but I feel that it is relavent:smash ) and this is barring any sort of economic downturn in China itself. China probably could have had the Varyag operational by now.....lacking an air wing of course, but still sailing. I believe that China thinks that by operating a carrier, it will spark an arms race it can't hope to win against the USN and to a lesser extent, the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Force.

China is increasingly looking towards submarines to counter the overwhelming maritime might of the USN, but even in this critical arm they are lacking. They have the worst subsurface safety record in the world, and horrible crews. The Yuan class, their latest boat, can at best be used in the sea denial role. China is going to increasingly rely on Russia for advanced submarines. We are already seeing this trend coming to fruition with the purchase of kilo boats instead of the local Song class. The USN for their part, are making advances in anti-submarine warfare.

Some of you are making the argument that the PLAN is trying to achieve a blue water capability through their latest acquisitions. I however, think that the new capabilities are only intended for a coastal sea-denial capability that is useless in the open ocean. Also, remember that China has made almost no advances in a fleet replenishment and support capability. China is also utterly lacking any sort of effective guidance capability for its anti-ship cruise missiles. Its ASM technology still reflects the 1970s.

I just do not see a credible threat arising from the PLAN.

[tphuang]

Sorry PhillTaj, you are absolutely wrong here. If you really want to compare GDP, you should look at the country's PPP. And China's PPP is more than half of America's PPP right now. And also, with the possible revaluation of Yuan, the GDP will also rise that way.

As for subs, I don't know where you got "they have the worst subsurface safety record" from, ever heard of Russia?

The Yuan is designed to be better than the improved Kilo. So, the part about China relying on Russian for advanced submarine is not true. If Yuan meets its original standards, then you are unlikely to see China purchasing another Russian SSK. As for kilo and Song, you are wrong even more here. China has a huge old sub force that it needs to replace. Kilo and Song are different types of subs. Just check their displacement. In fact, there are 12-14 Songs as we speak and they are being built at 2-3 a year. Kilo on the hand, it's stopping at 12. I'm not saying that PLAN poses a credible threat to USN, but that your assessment is incorrect.

[PhillTaj]

Sorry PhillTaj, you are absolutely wrong here. If you really want to compare GDP, you should look at the country's PPP. And China's PPP is more than half of America's PPP right now. And also, with the possible revaluation of Yuan, the GDP will also rise that way.

As for subs, I don't know where you got "they have the worst subsurface safety record" from, ever heard of Russia?

The Yuan is designed to be better than the improved Kilo. So, the part about China relying on Russian for advanced submarine is not true. If Yuan meets its original standards, then you are unlikely to see China purchasing another Russian SSK. As for kilo and Song, you are wrong even more here. China has a huge old sub force that it needs to replace. Kilo and Song are different types of subs. Just check their displacement. In fact, there are 12-14 Songs as we speak and they are being built at 2-3 a year. Kilo on the hand, it's stopping at 12. I'm not saying that PLAN poses a credible threat to USN, but that your assessment is incorrect.


I got my GDP statement from a Pentagon report? Im talking real GDP, not purchasing power.

Right now, from what I've seen the Yuan class, like so many other Chinese domestic hopefuls, is already outdated, but yes, the export kilo. As I understand it, its hiding and attack capabilities are less advanced. Song should have been cancelled, I highly doubt that the PLAN have worked out the Song's problems? The PLAN will rely on its kilos for all its non-sea denial missions. The Song relies on 1980 era technology, but I have heard that China has been fitting capable foreign sonars on to them.

Misunderstanding on the submarine safety record, but currently the PLAN has the worst record, they lost a submarine last year did they not? I know fires are a regular occurence on PLAN boats. One boat has also been completely disabled at sea recently.

[rickusn]

Phil dont waste your breath.

According to all the Naval Discussion boards(5),that I am now in the process of erasing from my computers memory including this one, that I have contributed to, much to my chagrin, have already fought WWIII and the U.S. and its allies have been ttally destroyed by the superior technology of China and Russia.

LOL

Why have I ever bothered.

Only U.S. bashing is allowed and tolerated.

Its an internet fantasy world where no objective, factual, realistic data is needed or wanted.

Good Bye

[Francois]

This statement from rickusn sadden me, but is not very surpring in the actual trend all around the Net.
"Pseudo-nationalist experts" are just closing the debates everywhere, and knowledgeable people are just erading like never.

I guess the game is getting over, no more debate, no more dicussion.
And this is not characteristic of THIS forum, unfortunatly.

Sad, so sad. But there is no issue. :(

[wp2000]

I got my GDP statement from a Pentagon report? Im talking real GDP, not purchasing power.

Right now, from what I've seen the Yuan class, like so many other Chinese domestic hopefuls, is already outdated, but yes, the export kilo. As I understand it, its hiding and attack capabilities are less advanced. Song should have been cancelled, I highly doubt that the PLAN have worked out the Song's problems? The PLAN will rely on its kilos for all its non-sea denial missions. The Song relies on 1980 era technology, but I have heard that China has been fitting capable foreign sonars on to them.

Misunderstanding on the submarine safety record, but currently the PLAN has the worst record, they lost a submarine last year did they not? I know fires are a regular occurence on PLAN boats. One boat has also been completely disabled at sea recently.
I agree with your main point. If china wants to have an arm race with US, there's no hope.

Just a minor correction, contrary to common belief outside china, Song's serial production started from 2002, now 14 have been built and in service.

Also, in the last 20 years, china lost one sub in 2003, not last year. IIRC, they lost 2-3 boats in their whole history (less than 50 years) of operating subs. Not a good record, but I don't know whether that's the worst record or not.

And obviously you were told that a boat was on fire recently (this year right?), but that boat was actually doing a fire drill. I can understand why you didn't know the truth, since I noticed the development of that event as well. Originally it was a shocking news and quite a few newspaper reported it. But when the truth was unveiled, only several of them had some very brief reports. Quite normal, isn't it? But most people would still think that one boat was on fire.

Or maybe you mixed up the British built Canadian sub?

[PhillTaj]

I agree with your main point. If china wants to have an arm race with US, there's no hope.

Just a minor correction, contrary to common belief outside china, Song's serial production started from 2002, now 14 have been built and in service.

Also, in the last 20 years, china lost one sub in 2003, not last year. IIRC, they lost 2-3 boats in their whole history (less than 50 years) of operating subs. Not a good record, but I don't know whether that's the worst record or not.

And obviously you were told that a boat was on fire recently (this year right?), but that boat was actually doing a fire drill. I can understand why you didn't know the truth, since I noticed the development of that event as well. Originally it was a shocking news and quite a few newspaper reported it. But when the truth was unveiled, only several of them had some very brief reports. Quite normal, isn't it? But most people would still think that one boat was on fire.

Or maybe you mixed up the British built Canadian sub?


God dammit, I thought the essays in The National Interest would have more accurate information!

And I dont want to be reminded of the Victoria's problems lol.
I know that a substantial number of songs have been built, but from a historical perspective, Chinese produced platforms are rarely severe problem free, even in mass production.

I have also noticed that alot of boards have nationalistic elements. I've even read posts where Indian nationalists state that once the ATV becomes operational, the IN will be able to beat the USN causalty free!

[Whiskyjack]

From what I have read, and I am no means an expert in this area, the PLAN main strategy is based on the facts before them.

1 Be capable of taking Taiwan, this provides leverage for negotiations in the future.

2 As the US has indicated that they will defend Taiwan, the PLAN has also added the capability to deter USN operations around Taiwan to achieve the above point.

Let me be clear on this, I am not saying that armed conflict is the main game here of either China or the US. However a military is the one arm of a countries power, along with economic and political. It is natural and right for a military to train and equip in a way that will best defend its national interests as their Govt sees it.

The modernisation of the PLAN will raise the risk for the USN to operate around that area and that is something that always has to be factored in. It will also mean that greater forces will be needed in the future.

I am also fascinated by the following observation by a PLAN officer (sorry can’t remember where I read it that went basically like this).

If the PLAN has 80% of it’s naval strength destroyed but takes Taiwan who will have won?

[hesidu]

Frankly speeking, China Navy's yuan class SSK is not advanced in technical aspect, comparing to the outstanding SSK of westen countries. But it meets the China's national strategy -- protecting national security. As China is not a country which is seeking for world wide power, there is no need of those sharped tooth.

[PhillTaj]

Frankly speeking, China Navy's yuan class SSK is not advanced in technical aspect, comparing to the outstanding SSK of westen countries. But it meets the China's national strategy -- protecting national security. As China is not a country which is seeking for world wide power, there is no need of those sharped tooth.

I'll agree with you there. I highly doubt it that China will ever attempt to challenge the USN ship for ship, capability to capability.

Really, I just see China expanding to the point where it can secure its SLOC's-but only to a certain extent. The PLAN is currently being eclipsed by India naval wise, and the Chinese cannot afford to deterr the IN while at the same time confronting the USN, JMSDF, Taiwanese Navy, etc.

Its a lose lose situation.

[hesidu]

It's hard to explain China's international policy which is involved in national security and taiwan strait to a westerner, since there is large cultural gap between the west and east. I suggest you to get some knowledge of China's classic tactics.

[Crusader2000]

I believe many consider China's Naval Modernization as a threat. Esp. the US, Japan, and Taiwan. Further, many other nearby countries are also modernizing there respect of Navy's. Which, will (is) leading to a Asian Arms Race.

[Crusader2000]

It's hard to explain China's international policy which is involved in national security and taiwan strait to a westerner, since there is large cultural gap between the west and east. I suggest you to get some knowledge of China's classic tactics.


Well, I guess it works both ways? Which, is to bad for all parties..............:(

[WebMaster]

This statement from rickusn sadden me, but is not very surpring in the actual trend all around the Net.
"Pseudo-nationalist experts" are just closing the debates everywhere, and knowledgeable people are just erading like never.

I guess the game is getting over, no more debate, no more dicussion.
And this is not characteristic of THIS forum, unfortunatly.

Sad, so sad. But there is no issue. :(

The trend around the net is that no body likes to admit that they are wrong and it is not just the naval discussions or defence, it is like that on every topic that you can discuss. Thanks to the information available to everyone on the net everybody has some type of answer, which makes things more complicated.

Of course, those who have served in the military hold upper hand and much much accurate information than anything available on the internet and my suggestion to our military friends would be to give your opinion based on what they observed and experienced and not let the kids make you feel like you are not contributing anything as far as discussions are concerned. As we all know it, majority of the people read and they appreciate what you have to say.

Rick, US bashing? Please PM me links to posts so we can take care of it. Many of our moderators are away (holidays, exams, out of town, etc.) these days and I am busy as well with the newborn.

[hesidu]

I believe many consider China's Naval Modernization as a threat. Esp. the US, Japan, and Taiwan. Further, many other nearby countries are also modernizing there respect of Navy's. Which, will (is) leading to a Asian Arms Race.

I'm depressed to find that many guys in this site is trend to neglecting Chinese people's feeling. In our point of view, China's naval modernization is for the national security. You can 't imagine that those Ming type of SSK can protect the coastal security. So it is essential and urgent.

[Crusader2000]

I'm depressed to find that many guys in this site is trend to neglecting Chinese people's feeling. In our point of view, China's naval modernization is for the national security. You can 't imagine that those Ming type of SSK can protect the coastal security. So it is essential and urgent.



I was simply expressing a opinion. Personally, I have no negative feelings towards China and surely not for its people. The issue here has more to do with misunderstandings! In my opinion China would be better served to have more of a defensive Military. Maybe something along the lines of the JSDF. Also, from a political stand point. She needs to get more involved in international security and/or peace keeping operations. (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc.) From the West's and RIMPAC point of view modernization of her Military with talk of Aircraft Carriers. Plus basing surface to surface missiles and aircraft right across from Taiwan. Only causes others to wonder of China's true attentions?????:rolleyes:

[hesidu]

I was simply expressing a opinion. Personally, I have no negative feelings towards China and surely not for its people. The issue here has more to do with misunderstandings! In my opinion China would be better served to have more of a defensive Military. Maybe something along the lines of the JSDF. Also, from a political stand point. She needs to get more involved in international security and/or peace keeping operations. (i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, etc.) From the West's and RIMPAC point of view modernization of her Military with talk of Aircraft Carriers. Plus basing surface to surface missiles and aircraft right across from Taiwan. Only causes others to wonder of China's true attentions?????:rolleyes:

I have mentioned before that China has her own military tactics and strategy. Of cause, It is one of China's national security strategy to stop taiwan breaking off from China. However I think those surface to surface missiles which is target at Taiwan should repealed. Chinese mainland should use her "soft power" instead of "military muscle", since it is more acceptable.

[tonbo]

indeed . resorting to open military action would be the least appealing and most difficult to justify , since China had suffered exactly that frm its neighbours Japan and Tsarist Russia / later Stalinist Soviet Union ( border skirmishes with Russia & the whole Manchurian affair that lead up to and eventually became the sino-japanese war ) . however i have been told that if not for involvement in the Korean War , China's own civil war might have lasted far longer . war is nasty and that's the nicest thing i can say abt it .

i'd rather there be a strong PLAN raised on the virtues of war and of peace than a PLAN that is backward and under-funded , giving it reason to engage in activities akin to privateering .

modelling itself after the JSDF , JMSDF , might not be so bad , since the JSDF are true professionals . sadly the current political climate has resulted in scant interaction between the two counterparts

abt the incident with the SSK that lost its entire crew to carbon monoxide(?) poisoning just becuz someone forgot to open the vents when it surfaced to recharge its batteries . the ship was in good order and all the crew died at their stations or while carrying out their duties onboard ship . a freak incident , it was deemed .

when US key interests abroad face imminent dangers , it's military can be called upon to take apropriate action if necessary . China on the other hand still cannot do so , despite its interests spanning the globe now ...

[tphuang]

I got my GDP statement from a Pentagon report? Im talking real GDP, not purchasing power.

Right now, from what I've seen the Yuan class, like so many other Chinese domestic hopefuls, is already outdated, but yes, the export kilo. As I understand it, its hiding and attack capabilities are less advanced. Song should have been cancelled, I highly doubt that the PLAN have worked out the Song's problems? The PLAN will rely on its kilos for all its non-sea denial missions. The Song relies on 1980 era technology, but I have heard that China has been fitting capable foreign sonars on to them.

Misunderstanding on the submarine safety record, but currently the PLAN has the worst record, they lost a submarine last year did they not? I know fires are a regular occurence on PLAN boats. One boat has also been completely disabled at sea recently.
purchasing power is a better indicator than GDP. Let's put it this way, it cost 4 times as much to develop software in silicon valley compared to Ontario, Canada. Do you honestly think you can get the same dollar in America as you do in China?

I'm not going to sit here and say there isn't a gap between China and the Western world. There is. But you've been stating a lot of stuff without any kind of evidence.

For a comprehensive idea of China's sub force, check this article by Richard Fisher
http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.83/pub_detail.asp
"The PLAN now has about 12 to 14 modern Type 039 SONG attack submarines and recently expanded production of this type to a second shipyard, that could support annual production of 2 to 3. The Type 039 has benefited from some foreign assistance, including Israeli electronic and design assistance, German diesel engines and very likely, German design assistance to correct the Israeli assistance. It incorporates modern quieting technology like a 7-blade skewed propeller, anechoic tiling, and is equipped with extensive digital command and sonar processing equipment, and is armed with the YJ-81Q, and perhaps the YJ-82Q anti-ship missile."
"But in 2004 the PLAN launched the first of its new YUAN class, which bears a suspicious resemblance to Russia’s new Project 677 LADA class SSK. Inasmuch as the 677 incorporates improved crew-reducing automation, better sonar, and in the future, AIP systems, it can be surmised that the YUAN may benefit from all these technologies. This analyst estimates that by 2010 the PLAN could possess at least 35 new and far more capable SSKs."

As for the attacking capabilities of these subs, Song has the ability to fire 120 KM AShM missiles and anti-radiation missiles. 636M has the ability to fire 220 KM supersonic sea-skimming missile, shkval torpedoe and SAM. Yuan has the ability t handle the same missiles as 636M. I don't see what's weak about that.

As we've shown already, your statement toward a lack of safety for Chinese subs is completely groundless. It's true that quality has not been a trademark of Chinese products in the past, but it is getting much better now. China produces parts for airbus and Boeing and will get a assembly line setup for A320 in a few years. If the quality is not up to standard, these things will not be possible. China is the world's 3rd largest shipbuilder and approaching a 3-way tie with Japan and South Korea. If the quality is not up to par, then other countries would not be buying its ships. As I said, you can't say just because China had a bad safety record for ships 20 years ago, it will have a bad safety record for the next 10 years.

To Rickusn, don't make a judgement for everyone just by some nationalists. If any of my statement is unreasonable, feel free to point them out.

Crusader2000, maybe you should tell the same thing to InN?

[Francois]

The trend around the net is that no body likes to admit that they are wrong and it is not just the naval discussions or defence, it is like that on every topic that you can discuss. Thanks to the information available to everyone on the net everybody has some type of answer, which makes things more complicated. ... Rick, US bashing? Please PM me links to posts so we can take care of it. Many of our moderators are away (holidays, exams, out of town, etc.) these days and I am busy as well with the newborn.
Dear WebMaster,
The fault is not you or this forum. RickUSN and Jeff are only examples.
It is more generally. Internet present trend.
Nobody respects nothing and basta.
So now, the few knowledgeable people are leaving, and I can't blame them.
When I see what Rick or Jeff have done, and one or more small guy comes and throw it all overboard, it is just that.
The pseudo-nationalistic feelings are enveniming any if not all discussion.
I haven't seen my country for months (years) but I don't boast myself each time a discussion goes by.

So now, let's the kids play their game!

[coolieno99]

... etc .... China is the world's 3rd largest shipbuilder and approaching a 3-way tie with Japan and South Korea. If the quality is not up to par, then other countries would not be buying its ships. ... etc ...


China is in the process of building the largest shipyard in the world. She plans to overtake South Korea as the world's largest shipbuilder.

[KGB]

China is in the process of building the largest shipyard in the world. She plans to overtake South Korea as the world's largest shipbuilder.

Of course you realize that building megatankers and megacargo ships (which Hyundai of SK does) isn't the quite the same as building ACs and SSNs.

Navies are expensive. Countries whose security/economy aren`t heavily dependent on the sea but build a big navy anyway can in the end find them an expensive, ultimately unsustainable white elephant, Germany in WW1, USSR during the cold war for example. A crude illustration: Germany at the beginning of the 20th century wanted to challenge England's mastery of the sea, and embarked on a shipbuilding program. It however, had to split it's resources since Germany needed to maintain a powerfull standing army as well. England had no such conflict as it knew exactly where its priorities were.

[tphuang]

Of course you realize that building megatankers and megacargo ships (which Hyundai of SK does) isn't the quite the same as building ACs and SSNs.

Navies are expensive. Countries whose security/economy aren`t heavily dependent on the sea but build a big navy anyway can in the end find them an expensive, ultimately unsustainable white elephant, Germany in WW1, USSR during the cold war for example. A crude illustration: Germany at the beginning of the 20th century wanted to challenge England's mastery of the sea, and embarked on a shipbuilding program. It however, had to split it's resources since Germany needed to maintain a powerfull standing army as well. England had no such conflict as it knew exactly where its priorities were.
the point being, having a lot of orders make sure that the quality of ship building is good. It makes sure that the shipyard will be filled with experienced shipbuilders and quality tooling. One thing you can say is that the new PLAN ships will definitely be well built.

[sidious]

I got my GDP statement from a Pentagon report? Im talking real GDP, not purchasing power.
Right now, from what I've seen the Yuan class, like so many other Chinese domestic hopefuls, is already outdated, but yes, the export kilo. As I understand it, its hiding and attack capabilities are less advanced. Song should have been cancelled, I highly doubt that the PLAN have worked out the Song's problems? The PLAN will rely on its kilos for all its non-sea denial missions. The Song relies on 1980 era technology, but I have heard that China has been fitting capable foreign sonars on to them.
Misunderstanding on the submarine safety record, but currently the PLAN has the worst record, they lost a submarine last year did they not? I know fires are a regular occurence on PLAN boats. One boat has also been completely disabled at sea recently.

china relies on the kilos to make up for the numbers caused by a delay in the song production they only arrived now because the russian sucks at delivering on time

they also lost only 2 subs in 50 years much better then the russians

no fire do not regularly occur on PLAn boats the news japs reported is a fire drill

also almost all PLAN boats can launched the C-803 missile under water they have also proven to be quiet enough to reach japan undected

END NOTE learn more about the PLAN before posting

Mod edit:Path: Not many of us are experts on the Chinese navy, but they are encouraged to expressed their opinion in a logical manner. I would appreciate it if you change your attitude.

[KGB]

The worst safety record would have to go to the Soviet navy for the sheer number of accidents. But of course you have top put it into perspective; they were running a pretty large fleet.

[gf0012-aust]

The worst safety record would have to go to the Soviet navy for the sheer number of accidents. But of course you have top put it into perspective; they were running a pretty large fleet.

A good reference book on the Soviet/Russian Submarine Service is "Rising Tide" This is a book where Soviet/Russian submariners were interviewed - its not a book written on an authors assumptions, but based on actual recall by sailors who served in the Sov/Russian navy.

The Soviets/Russians unfortunately had/have an appalling record on quality control - it just wasn't due to the size of their Submarine Service. When you look at the comparative ratio of losses against the USN it's almost criminal.
Rising Tide

The Untold Story Of The Russian Submarines That Fought The Cold War
by Gary E. Weir (http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/westview/author_detail.jsp?id=1000016373), Walter J. Boyne (http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/westview/author_detail.jsp?id=1000015328)


Oct 15, 2003
Hardcover
US $26.00
CAN $39.50
0465091121
Published by Basic Books (http://www.perseusbooksgroup.com/westview/imprint_redirect.do?imprintCid=BA)

Description

For devotees of the submarine espionage stories in Blind Man's Bluff, Rising Tide tells the Soviet/Russian side of the most secretive operations of the Cold War. For the first time, seven Soviet admirals, along with leading naval historian Dr. Gary Weir, reveal the successful spying missions, the technological breakthroughs, the confrontations with U.S. forces, and the undersea disasters that killed many hundreds of sailors. With decades of experience on submarines or commanding submarine fleets, these seven senior admirals, many highly decorated, give us the inside stories. They detail the undersea successes such as the blockade of the U.S. submarine base in Bangor, Washington, and the innovative surveillance techniques they developed to trail the U.S. Sixth fleet in the Mediterranean. They reveal the development of the first nuclear submarines, profiling Dr. Peregudov, the father of the Soviet nuclear submarine and the internecine battles among Soviet bureaucrats that led to the deaths of many Russian sailors. And they give first hand accounts of deadly confrontations, such as the sinking of K-219, off Bermuda and the collision of USS Taurog and the Soviet K-108, including unpublished photos of the incident's aftermath. Rising Tide also reveals the many catastrophes and the occasional heroic rescues, and answers many questions surrounding the sensational loss of the Kursk, the most advanced vessel in the Russian fleet. Covering submarines from the first advanced diesel subs in the 1950s to the Kursk in 2000, with the authority only senior naval officials could deliver, Rising Tide is the complete story of the Soviet side of the gripping, secret life of the submariners in the Cold War.
Reviews



"I read Rising Tide in one huge gulp: it is a long-overdue record of the disastrous history of the Soviet and Russian submarine force. Weir and Boyne give a superb account as related by those gallant men whose submarines exploded, burned, and sank around them--a full and precise account of the poison legacy of a failed system."
— Peter Huchthausen, author of October Fury
"You don't have to be a fan of Tom Clancy novels or military history to be sucked in by this fascinating work, based on first-hand Russian accounts of submarine "warfare" during the Cold War. Full of chilling revelations about this most secret front in the US' 40 year war with the Soviet Union."
— Russian Life
"This is the kind of information that during the Cold war the United States spent billions trying to get. It is another peek inside the Soviet Navy's mind."
— Sherry Sontag, , co-author of Blind Man's Bluff
"Weir and Boyne have written an important book. More than just collecting these fascinating stories, they give us the background to understand them. These submarine captains were the best the Soviets had, and understanding them though this book, gives us a look into a formerly hidden part of the Cold War."
— Larry Bond, , author of Day of Wrath and Red Phoenix
"Drawing on newly available archives and interviews with former Soviet submarine operators, Rising Tide is the first book available to Westerners revealing the secrets of Soviet submariners during the Cold War."
— Sea Power
"Weir and Boyne offer a fascinating and fluid narrative of the Cold War from the perspective of the navies of Soviet and post-Soviet Russia."
— Edmonton Sun
Rights


World Excluding UK & Commonwealth

welll worth buying if you're a fan of Sov/Russian Naval history.

[KGB]

I read that ;), more than once actually. I'd really like to see some NATO skippers from that time frame comment on the book though. There are some assertions made there that are in conflict with many other sources.