Go Back   DefenceTalk Forum - Military & Defense Forums > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence


Chinese Navy News and Discussion

This is a discussion on Chinese Navy News and Discussion within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Ananda Sorry, but owning mining rights on other countries does not means strategically can control the mines ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old December 16th, 2010   #61
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ananda View Post
Sorry, but owning mining rights on other countries does not means strategically can control the mines like in your own country. In short any country can strategically keep the minerals mined in their land regardless who own the mining company. Thus even China own mining company in Africa (for example), US can influence that particullar nation to hold the shipment even to China it self.
I'd add that ananda is already being proven correct as the general public in some of the central african states are demonstrating increasing anger towards chinese mining companies. In australia there are also calls for the govt to stop the sale of majority ownership of foreign comanies with australian resource companies.

the bottom line is that at the first sign of a major problem (eg a war) then states are likely to seize those assets irrespective of who has paid for majority rights.

sovereign rights will trump financial rights every time - the issue of majority foreign ownership of chinese companies already exists in china - and no foreign country can majorioty own chinese resources - so china will not be a position to complain anyway if countries start seizing their resources back to restrict foreign ownership.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2010   #62
The Wanderer
Major
robsta83's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 932
Threads:
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/12/official-evidence-cited-china-buildin

China's Building First Indigenous Aircraft Carrier Galrahn at Information Dissemination has the link and analysis.
Quote:
Asahi Shimbun is citing an official report published by the State Oceanic Administration that says Chinese leaders decided last year to back plans to build China's first aircraft carrier. Despite numerous official references in the past, this would represent the first official validation of an aircraft carrier construction effort...Continued
This article gives a great overview of the PLAN's plan over the next few years. Interesting times coming up as Nations start to play for the Pacific.
________________
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
robsta83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2010   #63
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by robsta83 View Post
China's Building First Indigenous Aircraft Carrier Galrahn at Information Dissemination has the link and analysis.

This article gives a great overview of the PLAN's plan over the next few years. Interesting times coming up as Nations start to play for the Pacific.
Getting back on the original topic, the Chinese Navy, it seem by the published reports that could be only be propaganda or they could be true, is that their strategy is to use as a major component of their strategy large numbers of land based missiles sonic, supersonic, and perhaps ballistic missiles. Thou these things have been used in war before they have never been a major component of a military strategy except as used as a terror weapon. Their effectiveness in convention sustained warfare I believe is still very unproven. Sure you can hit big civilian targets and kill a lot of civilians but what would be there effect on military operations?

So you have five thousand missiles, assume that they work correctly and hit their targets after you fire them, then they are gone and they are expensive and time consuming to replace while a squadron of aircraft can deliver the same amount of ordnance a two weeks and keep on going. I understand the value of fast guided weapons for use against high valued targets that have no defenses but when an attack is expected the military targets will be mobile and dispersed.

Isn’t this untested strategy a dangerous one to base you counties future on? What it the confidence level?
rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2010   #64
Junior Member
Private First Class
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 87
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rip View Post
Getting back on the original topic, the Chinese Navy, it seem by the published reports that could be only be propaganda or they could be true, is that their strategy is to use as a major component of their strategy large numbers of land based missiles sonic, supersonic, and perhaps ballistic missiles. Thou these things have been used in war before they have never been a major component of a military strategy except as used as a terror weapon. Their effectiveness in convention sustained warfare I believe is still very unproven. Sure you can hit big civilian targets and kill a lot of civilians but what would be there effect on military operations?

So you have five thousand missiles, assume that they work correctly and hit their targets after you fire them, then they are gone and they are expensive and time consuming to replace while a squadron of aircraft can deliver the same amount of ordnance a two weeks and keep on going. I understand the value of fast guided weapons for use against high valued targets that have no defenses but when an attack is expected the military targets will be mobile and dispersed.

Isn’t this untested strategy a dangerous one to base you counties future on? What it the confidence level?
Propaganda from whose side? China?

Ballistic and cruise missiles would be used to target military bases and ships and aircraft carriers, not civilian settlements... In any combat scenario in the western pacific the PLA and the 2nd Arty would use ballistic and cruise missiles to destroy enemy airbases, naval bases, before the ships and aircraft could leave.
And how are cruise missiles terror weapons? The US used tomahawks extensively during the gulf war with great success against military targets.

The PLA/PLAN policy isn't only cruise missiles, they also have a large number of strike and multirole fighters with a large range of PGMs which will start to be inducted in mass in this decade. (J-10, J-11, Su-30MKK/MK2, JH-7/A, H-6 variants are all capable of strike)
Blitzo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2010   #65
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17
Threads:
Red face

Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzo View Post
Propaganda from whose side? China?

Ballistic and cruise missiles would be used to target military bases and ships and aircraft carriers, not civilian settlements... In any combat scenario in the western pacific the PLA and the 2nd Arty would use ballistic and cruise missiles to destroy enemy airbases, naval bases, before the ships and aircraft could leave.
And how are cruise missiles terror weapons? The US used tomahawks extensively during the gulf war with great success against military targets.

The PLA/PLAN policy isn't only cruise missiles, they also have a large number of strike and multirole fighters with a large range of PGMs which will start to be inducted in mass in this decade. (J-10, J-11, Su-30MKK/MK2, JH-7/A, H-6 variants are all capable of strike)

Looks like there is an arms race in the Asia-Pacific which could lead to major conflicts. There are really NO WINNERS in any war these days, as ultimately the Nuclear weapons would be used. So, as we approach Christmas & the New Year, let us wish one and all (including those responsible for creating this web site) "A MERRY CHRISTMAS, PEACE & GOODWILL TO ALL". Have a "HAPPY & PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR, & MAY 2011 BE PEACEFUL".
advill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2010   #66
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 364
Threads:
This is soposely the third pair of 052C detroyers getting constructed. If this is true its now 4 new destroyers that will join the navy in 2011.

20ztctc.jpg
Wall83 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2010   #67
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by advill View Post
Looks like there is an arms race in the Asia-Pacific which could lead to major conflicts. There are really NO WINNERS in any war these days, as ultimately the Nuclear weapons would be used. So, as we approach Christmas & the New Year, let us wish one and all (including those responsible for creating this web site) "A MERRY CHRISTMAS, PEACE & GOODWILL TO ALL". Have a "HAPPY & PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR, & MAY 2011 BE PEACEFUL".
Speculation on what China is building does not make an arms race. There is no evidence China is out to challenge the USN or threatern Japan/S Korea, in fact if one believes the recent US leaks, China is as frustrated as the rest about N Korea. Lets not forget China's wealth is based on exports to the developed world, unlike the old Soviet threat, China is interdependent on its customers.
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2010   #68
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzo View Post
Propaganda from whose side? China?

Ballistic and cruise missiles would be used to target military bases and ships and aircraft carriers, not civilian settlements... In any combat scenario in the western pacific the PLA and the 2nd Arty would use ballistic and cruise missiles to destroy enemy airbases, naval bases, before the ships and aircraft could leave.
And how are cruise missiles terror weapons? The US used tomahawks extensively during the gulf war with great success against military targets.

The PLA/PLAN policy isn't only cruise missiles, they also have a large number of strike and multirole fighters with a large range of PGMs which will start to be inducted in mass in this decade. (J-10, J-11, Su-30MKK/MK2, JH-7/A, H-6 variants are all capable of strike)
When I said it might be propaganda I meant that there is some doubt that the strategy of using very large numbers of missiles is an important part of their military doctrine or is not. I do not know or pretend to know the truth. My question was simply if it is true, is the very concept of using large numbers of conventional missies strikes really the game changer that it is assumed to be? Is the idea itself way over hyped?

As to your observation that that cruse missiles as used by the US in the gulf war were effective? Yes they were effective in blowing up unoccupied government buildings of a supporting defense nature, some bridges, and a few air defense installations but in fact then soon ran out of worthy targets. And those targets were not the critical nodes of the countries defense. The US did attack several of the command bunkers one of which was filled with civilians killing several hundred of them. A very counterproductive event I might add.

As a terror weapon I was thinking of the Iraq’s missile attack upon Israel in gulf war one that had no military value at all but political ones.

As to the effectiveness of land based anti-ship missiles they so far do not have a great track record in combat. When you streach out the ranges that you plan to use them to hundreds of miles I do not think there has even be a hit in accrual warfare, hence though it is an attractive idea on paper and works great in war games, it is still unproven in the real world. Do you have any idea how many ships are at sea off the cost of China at one time? Well over a thousand potential targets perhaps two with only a few of them military and not all of the military are the ones are your enemies. Some of them are even Chinese. Friendly fire and firing on neutrals is a demonstrated fact and the problems of correctly identifying real targets from others, is the single hardest part of this new kind of warfare. The political Consequences of killing the wrong people, especially in a sneak attack can far out way any military benefits.


And assuming that the targets will all be caught sleeping like they were at Pearl Harbor might be wishful thinking. It is certainly not something you can count on as a strategy.

I might be wrong but the idea of a massive convention missile attack to obtain decisive victory; even a quick victory is not a sound one no matter who is shouting the missiles or who is being shot at.
rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2010   #69
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: roanoke
Posts: 27
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rip View Post
When I said it might be propaganda I meant that there is some doubt that the strategy of using very large numbers of missiles is an important part of their military doctrine or is not. I do not know or pretend to know the truth. My question was simply if it is true, is the very concept of using large numbers of conventional missies strikes really the game changer that it is assumed to be? Is the idea itself way over hyped?

As to your observation that that cruse missiles as used by the US in the gulf war were effective? Yes they were effective in blowing up unoccupied government buildings of a supporting defense nature, some bridges, and a few air defense installations but in fact then soon ran out of worthy targets. And those targets were not the critical nodes of the countries defense. The US did attack several of the command bunkers one of which was filled with civilians killing several hundred of them. A very counterproductive event I might add.

As a terror weapon I was thinking of the Iraq’s missile attack upon Israel in gulf war one that had no military value at all but political ones.

As to the effectiveness of land based anti-ship missiles they so far do not have a great track record in combat. When you streach out the ranges that you plan to use them to hundreds of miles I do not think there has even be a hit in accrual warfare, hence though it is an attractive idea on paper and works great in war games, it is still unproven in the real world. Do you have any idea how many ships are at sea off the cost of China at one time? Well over a thousand potential targets perhaps two with only a few of them military and not all of the military are the ones are your enemies. Some of them are even Chinese. Friendly fire and firing on neutrals is a demonstrated fact and the problems of correctly identifying real targets from others, is the single hardest part of this new kind of warfare. The political Consequences of killing the wrong people, especially in a sneak attack can far out way any military benefits.


And assuming that the targets will all be caught sleeping like they were at Pearl Harbor might be wishful thinking. It is certainly not something you can count on as a strategy.

I might be wrong but the idea of a massive convention missile attack to obtain decisive victory; even a quick victory is not a sound one no matter who is shouting the missiles or who is being shot at.
Good point about the missiles. It still going to be about technology and how far the PLAN is in this field. It gets me back to this point the PLAN has to have modern technology to be a effective force. In technology China is raising but at small pace compare to modern military forces. This missile stuff is a cover up for its lack of technology if you look at western forces there not about missiles it about technology. Western forces have missiles in the nuclear areas but not so many in the conventional area they dont need them with modern technology. With modern technology you have ability to hit target with great accuracy especially with good satelites in space and that why know one able hit a US CBG it had modern technology. Now if you add this technology in the conventional missiles it greatly improves your force it will take alot of satelites to do this and alot technology with your missile force.
godbody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2010   #70
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,996
Threads:
You guys do realize you've lost all traction with reality at this point, yes? I mean if you don't know how target discrimination is achieved, I'm not sure how you can even have a conversation on the subject.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 18th, 2010   #71
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
SASWanabe's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 541
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by godbody View Post
Good point about the missiles. It still going to be about technology and how far the PLAN is in this field. It gets me back to this point the PLAN has to have modern technology to be a effective force. In technology China is raising but at small pace compare to modern military forces. This missile stuff is a cover up for its lack of technology if you look at western forces there not about missiles it about technology. Western forces have missiles in the nuclear areas but not so many in the conventional area they dont need them with modern technology. With modern technology you have ability to hit target with great accuracy especially with good satelites in space and that why know one able hit a US CBG it had modern technology. Now if you add this technology in the conventional missiles it greatly improves your force it will take alot of satelites to do this and alot technology with your missile force.
HUH? here i was thinking "guided" missiles were technology
SASWanabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2010   #72
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: roanoke
Posts: 27
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SASWanabe View Post
HUH? here i was thinking "guided" missiles were technology
I wasn't talking about "guided" missile talking about SCUDS. They don't use alot of technology just put in your target.
godbody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2010   #73
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 460
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
You guys do realize you've lost all traction with reality at this point, yes? I mean if you don't know how target discrimination is achieved, I'm not sure how you can even have a conversation on the subject.
Long range target detection and discrimination by various means and technologies is a very complicated subjects all of its own. That and the various countermeasures and conter-contermeasures that can be used to deceive, disrupt and confuse targeting (called cover and deception in the USN). It deserves a thread all of its own but it seems that most people are all hoped upon platforms and weapons thinking that is where the action is and neglect the most important aspect in all forms of warfare. Those things that effect the decision making process. How decision cycles are influenced by information, good, bad, incomplete, planted, and scrambled. It is worse than a fog.

If there are enough people out there who want to discuss this subject I am willing contribute what I know but most people are fixated on the guns.
rip is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 19th, 2010   #74
Super Moderator
General
Feanor's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Under your bed. No seriously, take a look.
Posts: 14,996
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rip View Post
Long range target detection and discrimination by various means and technologies is a very complicated subjects all of its own. That and the various countermeasures and conter-contermeasures that can be used to deceive, disrupt and confuse targeting (called cover and deception in the USN). It deserves a thread all of its own but it seems that most people are all hoped upon platforms and weapons thinking that is where the action is and neglect the most important aspect in all forms of warfare. Those things that effect the decision making process. How decision cycles are influenced by information, good, bad, incomplete, planted, and scrambled. It is worse than a fog.

If there are enough people out there who want to discuss this subject I am willing contribute what I know but most people are fixated on the guns.
Why don't you start us off, with a poignant critique of PLA, PLAN, and PLAAF capabilities in the realm of maritime patrol and reconnaissance.
Feanor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 20th, 2010   #75
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 17,997
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rip View Post
If there are enough people out there who want to discuss this subject I am willing contribute what I know but most people are fixated on the guns.
Most of the long termers on here aren't focussed on the guns and the may day parade bling....
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/

gf a.k.a. ROBOPIMP T5C
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:35 PM.