Grand Danois
Entertainer
Read the thread and you'll find some thoughts on at least the PPP factordioditto said:
.
China's military power
- Thread starter long live usa
- Start date
- Status
.contedicavour said:
What you say may still hold true if you look at the future of the warfare still revolves around the half a century old carrier-based force projection doctrine.
But, I think the future isn't rest on this doctrine, and as with any new doctrine or technology, there will be new technology or doctrine discovered that's potentially disruptive (like all disruptive technology), and that's where China could leap forward, bypassing generations of previous research, methods, and infrastructure. I have read it somewhere that some defense analyst have concluded in the same sentiment that it is highly likely, that China or any other emerging global power does not require to have the conventional military assets to be comparable to USA in the future.
Last edited:
Your right, the future is not going to rely on this "doctrine". With the introduction of JSF to the fleet our strike packages are going to be significantly altered. The advances in CVN-21 will increase flight tempo and deplotyment rates by 30%. Her escorts and screeners will have stealth along with her JSF strike groups. The fleet will have defense lasers to shoot down incoming ASMs. Surface combatents will be equipped with EM railguns giving them a deadly long range bombardment capability. Not to mention the advances to the Tomahawk family of weapons.dioditto said:
The doctrine is also changing to operating in the littorals. Traditionally the USN has been a Blue Water force. DDG-1000 and LCS will bring the action to your coast. Spec Ops is also a new an integral part of our sub force as well. SEAL teams will be playing a much bigger role in the future than they have in the past.
I don't know why you think China will skip "generations" of research, methods and particulalrly infastructure, explain please.dioditto said:
As far as what you read you are refering to PROCs sea denial strategy. It basically consists of having long range super-sonic cruise missiles and saturating USN fleet defense. Along with sub launched missiles. It is the basic Soviet strategy. It would work if you have enough ASMs but PLAN does not at the moment.
You mentioned emerging global power, if China wants to be "comperable" to any of the super powers, she will need carriers. Sea denial is fine but it doesn't make you a super power.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
What I think he (dioditto) means is there will always be a new Dreadnought. That is true, however, leap of capability has always come from a proven industrial base ie not from secret leaps of technology in secret labs.
Tomahawk may not be supersonic yet, but it is stealth NOW.Viktor said:
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/acm.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-129_Advanced_Cruise_Missile
Big-E said:
I was refering to the building of super carrier battle groups, the strategy and tactics of it. China may not be required to build such fleet to be on par with US. As future of combat focus more on the longitivity you can loiter over your enemy/combat area for precision strike and damage assessment, I see the naval-carrier groups as more or less of a thing of the past.
As some in the forums have also mention and suggested that having manned fighter patrol/bomber mission are like having baby-onboard. The amount of time to travel, loiter over enemy area are significantly less than unmanned one. As I see it, as technology evolve, eventually we will reach the point to merge the missile technology with UAV. So, long range stand off weapons like UAV-like missiles or UAV-Bomber/fighter groups with extended combat radius and range could effective nullify the need for a carrier battlegroup. (Not unless you want to land ofcourse on the occupied territory)
That's what I am refering to. And I agree with your assessment that it is correct assumption that China currently have too few ASM to be fully effective to use such strategy. But we are talking about future here, with Chinese being the "biggest sweat shop in the world", I don't doubt they can mass produced such weapon if given the know-how.
As the development of UAV and missile tech for faster, longer loitering UAV, Don't you think extended range sea denial capability taking to the extreme is comparable to having naval force projection?
Well I think it certainly helps China maintain a "regional" hegemony. But I thought we said "super"power. The ability to keep the USN out of the Western Pacific is nice but it doesn't help PROC project her forces.dioditto said:
Your concept of UAVs is being developed right now, it's called the UCAV. The USN will be implementing many of them whenever they can decide on a service model. The USAF and Army keep messing with the requirements.
I'm sure far down the line China will get them but I (personally) am rather confident the USN will be able to interdict the target. USN tech isn't remaininig static.
Let's look at it this way, when I say extended range, I didn't mean just covering the coastal areas, I meant if it covers beyond continents. The US has already invested heavily in this area for the UAV, an example is the global hawk (I think the ultimate aim for it is to cover the majority of planet's surface) and which ever way you look at it, as the ICBM technology filter down (or more efficient super-cruise technology) become mainstream, the UAV/UCAV of the future can cover the whole planet and fight at any moment's notice and will never be tired. That means, you do not need to have manned carriers/crafts to be stationed in sea or near the theatre of combat that's slow to get there and takes WEEKS for deployment. The future is what the US is currently researching, it may be a tall order to integrate hypersonic + long loitering capability into one platform, but that is the ultimate aim of the US warplanners - Having a global strike capability. (I think doctrine is already enacted and relevent apparatus activated)Big-E said:
Last edited:
The reason those aircraft have such a long loiter time is because they don't carry any ordinance. If you want a platform like the one your talking about it's going to have to be space based. Unless they can figure out somekind of un-manned nuclear powered bomber.dioditto said:
Ofcourse, we are speculating the future hereBig-E said:
There are bound to be some disruptive technologies discovered in the future. So I will have to assume the technology gets better to enable such platform to exist (hypersonic to get there ASAP, long loiter time)Also I edited my previous post slightly and I am interested in what you think of Global Strike policy (and the subsequent funding into technology that applies to it)
Im going to go back to the original post since Ive been so busy I haven't been in the forum. Tibet? They could, and have, silence Tibet while riding Yaks. Having good tanks is nice but its mostly best when you have the ability to move them, protect them while moving them, and have a front for fighting them in the first place. The only frontier the Chinese have that I can see is the mineral rich frontier they share with Russia. I guess they can be used in North Korea should that flare up but first they would have to make it to the front lines against the Yank air forces in the first place. And why would they risk such a risky scenario?long live usa said:some say china is rising at a rate to challenge American military power and it already has become a major reginal power i want to know your opinions on its military power here is mine
PLA
So yeah tanks are nice. But the old ones ran over un-armed students just as good as the new ones will. The future wars they will fight will be decided in the air and the sea, so, I guess the tanks will be used mostly to run over their disagreeable citizenry.
The day China gets a first world carrier force will be a day we's all will be long dead. The problem with carriers is you have to have an awful lot of first rate assets to sheild and protect them. You need first rate aircraft to operate off the decks, and most of all, you need a blue water mission for them to justify building them in the first place. History is rife with examples of "Trophy Naval ships" built that do nothing more important then make good dinner party platforms if they dont have the assets and priorities attached to their building in the first place. I submit the Graf Zeppelin of Nazi Germany as an example. This was a carrier that didnt have the things a carrier needs sitting and rusting while facing two naval juggernauts. One in England, the other one rising in the USA.
In other words what in hell is a Chinese carrier going to do in time of war once it leaves its ground based air shield? It will face an armada of USN assets who will target it as enemy#1 and will in short order have it rusting with whats left of the other Imperial navy that tried the same thing 50 years ago.
And if you never allow the carrier to leave your ground based air cover what was the point of building it in the first place? Like the post-WWll Russians the Chinese will "probably" see that they have to much catch up to play against the USN to put to many eggs in its carrier force. The Russians concentrated on "other then carrier" carrier hunter/killers. And so will the Chinese. Unfortunately for the Chinese they would be facing a USN that's custom built for Pacific operations. Unlike the Russians/Soviets who mainly concentrated on severing the NATO north Atlantic re-supply lines.
so please i would like to know your opinions[/QUOTE]
This is a much wiser course of spending, "once you have enough tanks to run over students with". If I were them I'd spend a ton on air defense and building a modern tanker force which would extend the air strike range around their periphery. And most of all spending that increase their mobility, both air transport and amphib. I must say however that 20 years from now China may be fighting the same battle it is fighting now and that is to have the military ability to assert itself in a regional crisis. I have no doubt they will make some gains in this area, 20 years is nothing in a culture that "takes the long view" in world/military matters. 20 years is short term thinking to them.
But each day that passes that finds them still incapable of taking a Island 125 miles off their shore is a day they have lost a battle. They know it too.
Rich said:
Why China IMO will have carriers
China wouldn't need carriers to take Taiwan. In fact I imagine they won't even have to invade to reclaim it. The Taiwanese are split roughly 50/50 on reunification and support grows every year. I imagine within 5-10 yrs they will have another referendum and rejoin the mainland with certain autonomy stipulations. This however will put them in a very strong postition in the Pacific. The US containment effort to box PROC in will begin to collapse.
This will extend PROCs outrageous claims to her EEZ for inclusion of more gas and oil fields. To be able to project forces this far will require carriers. To have a credible force to deny Japan/USN forces will require task forces of 4 carriers. Given China's resources and access to naval aviation assets it really is just a matter of symantics for them to be successful in fielding them.
The most obvious area of conflict will be around the Malacca straights. The oil tankers that traverse it have to be protected and for China that oil will be like blood to the body. The China/Pakistan alliance will find India more inclined to be angry at China for supporting her traditional enemy. It wouldn't be unreasonable to find China supplying Pakistan (in a potential conflict with India) and India might react by attacking PROC oil tankers. Carriers would be China's only option.
The India/China bid for power in the region just goes to show the likelihood of China acquiring carriers for the prestige factor. They can't be shown up by India when she is on the Security Council.
I place this on top of the traditional PLAN carrier aspirations that started so many decades ago.
Unlike the Argentina debate I find China's need for carriers to be quite real. Her ambition along with her strategic position and energy needs demands it.
I think PLAN's needs for carriers far exceeds the USSR and her doctrine of coastal support.
I don't think they will end up unused like the mentioned Graf Zepplin.
A large carrier component is a must if they want a chance in heck of defeating the USN .
It is a must if they are to become Blue Water.
Your points seem to suggest you don't imagine China becoming anything more than a regional power... do you concure with this observation?
In our lifetimes? Yes! That is my assessment. And probably in our childrens lifetimes as well. There are a few things you havnt included in your excellent comments on Chinese intent. First off they will have to use most of their assets to protect their vital sea lanes which leaves far less left over to be tasked against the USN in other waters. This may sound nonsensical but a USN carrier group is a chess piece that has to be defended against no matter where it is, "within reason". Next....if war escalates to the point where China has to defend sea lanes against the USN, the mere fact such state of war exists will cause our Govt. to declare a Naval blockade of shipping heading towards China. The mere threat of which would prevent said shipping to even try it. This would be catastrophic to an economies like China's that is so dependant on importing oil and exporting goods to western nations.Big-E said:
As to their relationship with Taiwan there is a saying over there about giving a lot of soup with only little fish. The Taiwanese are giving a lot of soup but with only a little fish in it. They will never give up their right of self Government and it remains to be seen if what remains is good enough for their mainland cousins. It would appear that the economists have the most say nowadays in this relationship and the Nationalists the least. Still, the mainland Chinese have never taken back their stated goal of developing the means to take the Island by force if they deem they need to. I would say their amphib capability would make this scenario unlikely in the near future.
I would concur that the Chinese have a greater need of Carriers then the Soviets ever did. If your going to be a big player in the Pacific you need carriers, nothing has changed in this regard. What is questionable is their ability to build them in enough numbers, and of good enough quality, arm them, provide the escorts, the aircraft, the training...ect of an order high enough to confront the USN. And how long will it take? How well will their economy hold up? How well will they match the technological advances of the USN? I'm sorry but Chinese Naval History doesn't exactly leave me breathless with awe. Much of the technology they are building it with is imported in the first place.
So I mean....look....I'm almost 50 yo and I went thru the Red Scare, "a few of them actually", and have seen the defense Industry/Military and its bought Politicians running around with the hair on fire screaming about external threats. It would seem the Chinese have become the current boogeymen, "and not without some justification". I dont think we will ever see a China capable of outfighting the USN outside her green waters. I doubt our children will either. Yes they will build carriers and if we need to we will sink them. We will spend what we have to and do what we have to in order to maintain that edge. By the time they have four Hulls floating who knows what we will be able to throw at them.
Regarding the Graf Zepelin like the Germans the Chinese have no history of carrier operations and have/had a limited Naval history period. Both were/are facing Naval Juggernauts they were/will be never expected to match. It takes a lot more then "building a carrier" to be able to "fight" a carrier. And to protect one as well. Unfortunately for them they aren't just facing a "carrier modernization crisis". They are trying to modernize their entire military machine and only succeeding of doing so to about 10% of it.
I do not see a big blue water player, on a level able to challenge the USN, in the next 20 to 30 years. No, I do not.
Just read this on the news, that prompted me thinking....there is a possibility for the acceleration of chinese force build up including the naval force projection capabilities, due in part because of the very likelihood of Japan having the next priminister ultra-rightwing leaning. A more "assertive" japan, will see it most likely in conflict with a growing China. This compound with a "growing" india on its back, is most likely to accelerate it's force modernisation.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/20/world/main2024770.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/20/world/main2024770.shtml
Regarding Taiwan:
I just wanted to throw a little observation about Taiwan. Do you remember when ROC requested the Arleigh Burkes and we refused to give them? My suspicion is our government feels that Taiwan might very well rejoin the mainland and doesn't want our ABs to fall into PROC hands.
PROCs ability to field and protect CVs:
Like you say, to be a big player in PAC you NEED carriers. Necessity is the mother of invention... or theft. PROC spies have infiltrated our CA bases more than we will ever know. Most of our naval tech is tested and produced in that one state. All the dummy-cover companies they have been busting is only the tip of the iceburg. CIA and counter espionage ops have hit an all time low. I believe they not only have access to the technology but the expertise. Their engineers have been spending alot of time in Shipyard 444 (Varyags old shipyard). They have a carrier and are re-fitting her. They have heavy marine industry. They build 100,000t+ tankers all the time. Why would a 50,000t carrier be all that difficult?
As far as protecting a CV, why would PLAN be testing several variants of an early SPY radar? Sounds like they are trying to develop AEGIS. The most reasonable explaination would be for protecting a CBG.
Why is PLAN developing SSNs along with AIP diesel-electric? Seems like they want some SSNs to go on longer patrols for a... you guessed it, CBG.
PROC in history:
I submit that back in the 1930s, Russia would never have been considered a potential superpower after the crushing defeat the Germans gave them in WWI. It was almost embarassing how easily they were defeated and left them with the reputation as an easy kill. Everyone underestimated the Red Army and they came out of WWII as the second superpower.
PROC is being fueled by US trade surpluses. Her defense budget is now unofficially half of US expenditures. The US congress and DoD are now officially "concerned" with the growth and modernization of PROC forces. PROC is stealing US secrets at exponential rates. France is breaking the embargo sneaking her technologies. Israel is selling them as well. PROC sub forces are projected to be = in size to the USN in 10 yrs (not quality). PLAN is refitting Varyag at the very least for flight ops. PLAN is developing SPY type radar.
The thing that concernes me is PLAN is growing in size and technology at multiple times our levels. Our hull numbers decrease while theirs increase. They even have supersonic AShMs, we don't even have that. Not even to simulate an attack to protect against. For all we know our untested ship defenses against Supersonic cruise missiles could be less than effective, we just don't know for sure b/c no one in the SECNAV office thought it was necessary.:mad3 I'm affraid if PLAN saturated us with enough super sonic ASMs we'd be sunk.
While you make some good points, which I hope I addressed, I still see a 4 carrier PLAN fleet by 2020-25.
I just wanted to throw a little observation about Taiwan. Do you remember when ROC requested the Arleigh Burkes and we refused to give them? My suspicion is our government feels that Taiwan might very well rejoin the mainland and doesn't want our ABs to fall into PROC hands.
PROCs ability to field and protect CVs:
Like you say, to be a big player in PAC you NEED carriers. Necessity is the mother of invention... or theft. PROC spies have infiltrated our CA bases more than we will ever know. Most of our naval tech is tested and produced in that one state. All the dummy-cover companies they have been busting is only the tip of the iceburg. CIA and counter espionage ops have hit an all time low. I believe they not only have access to the technology but the expertise. Their engineers have been spending alot of time in Shipyard 444 (Varyags old shipyard). They have a carrier and are re-fitting her. They have heavy marine industry. They build 100,000t+ tankers all the time. Why would a 50,000t carrier be all that difficult?
As far as protecting a CV, why would PLAN be testing several variants of an early SPY radar? Sounds like they are trying to develop AEGIS. The most reasonable explaination would be for protecting a CBG.
Why is PLAN developing SSNs along with AIP diesel-electric? Seems like they want some SSNs to go on longer patrols for a... you guessed it, CBG.
PROC in history:
I submit that back in the 1930s, Russia would never have been considered a potential superpower after the crushing defeat the Germans gave them in WWI. It was almost embarassing how easily they were defeated and left them with the reputation as an easy kill. Everyone underestimated the Red Army and they came out of WWII as the second superpower.
PROC is being fueled by US trade surpluses. Her defense budget is now unofficially half of US expenditures. The US congress and DoD are now officially "concerned" with the growth and modernization of PROC forces. PROC is stealing US secrets at exponential rates. France is breaking the embargo sneaking her technologies. Israel is selling them as well. PROC sub forces are projected to be = in size to the USN in 10 yrs (not quality). PLAN is refitting Varyag at the very least for flight ops. PLAN is developing SPY type radar.
The thing that concernes me is PLAN is growing in size and technology at multiple times our levels. Our hull numbers decrease while theirs increase. They even have supersonic AShMs, we don't even have that. Not even to simulate an attack to protect against.
For all we know our untested ship defenses against Supersonic cruise missiles could be less than effective, we just don't know for sure b/c no one in the SECNAV office thought it was necessary.:mad3 I'm affraid if PLAN saturated us with enough super sonic ASMs we'd be sunk. While you make some good points, which I hope I addressed, I still see a 4 carrier PLAN fleet by 2020-25.
The PRC made some major diplomatic noise protesting the proposed sale. They regarded it as "provocative" I deduce that the US didn't complete the sale for diplomatic reasons. The US did sell them the next best thing eventually didn't it?Big-E said:
It says something about the techonological balance of power when a couple of ships are regarded as able to tip the regional balance of power. When the "Dreadnought" came out long ago, the reaction was similar.
If the PRC proceeds to try making a blue water carrier fleet, all the pacific neighbors would feel threatened. Such a move wouldn't be as diplomatically palatable than a less conspicous submarine fleet for example.
I remember it quite differently. And If I also remember right the request for four Aegis DDs is open ended and still being considered, based on Taiwan's defense requirements. There has also been a lot of good old fashioned capitalist haggling over money regarding Taiwan's defense purchases. The Island is an economic powerhouse so we aint about to give 'em anything for free. I also know there were hangups on the submarine deal, again the tieup was over technology transfers. Call it the boat equivalent of the current row over JSF software and systems. We yanks can be persnickety over transferring our top stuff to anyone and it doesnt necessarily point to a Doomday scenario of The Two Chinas holding hands and kissing. ANY transfer of high end technology is risky no matter who it goes to.
I dont need to tell a Navy man about the short and exciting life a Varag class carrier would have against a USN task force ordered to kill it. By the time they are able to figure out how to build the thing, how to arm and defend the thing, what kind of airplanes to put on the thing, what to float with the thing, how in hell to build a decent enough submarine to escort the thing, and what commissars son to command the thing.......say 10 years from now? Describe to me the typical USN task force this "thing" will be up against.
Take your time, give me all the Hulls, the weapons, aircraft, space assets, boats under the drink.........the whole shebang!, 10 years from now?
And as they are drowning the little commies will be saying, "I wish we had SPY-E"
Of course! And those Maytag washers will be first to swim with the fishes. I want to make another point here about the difference between Russia and China. Russia has a long, proud, and fairly accomplished naval history. Most of all with submarine operations. Not on our level of course, or the Brits, but still the Russians have paid their dues. The Chinese have paid none. When we graduate a sailor he/she is the accumulation of hundreds of years of tradition, experience, training, and most of all "evolution of doctrine".
The Chinese have none! Thats zero! zilch! nada! In our lifetimes their commanders will never be on the level of ours. The USN is the one who wrote the book on modern Pacific naval warfare. Once you get past all the bombs, planes, bullets, and boats, this is our most important edge. One that will take the Chinese a long, long time to come close to equalling.
Navy! Different ballgame the sea. War in the Pacific is a clash of navies.
Hard to pin down what they are spending. I agree they are cutting corners by stealing. But no matter how they do it to build a world class carrier navy from scratch is exceptionally difficult and will take a long time. And to do so while keeping within arms reach of the USN in technological terms??? Almost impossible.
For the record I am against any cuts in our military budget, most of all in the USN. I'm a student of history, albeit with a degree from a manure pile, and its obvious war is prevented thru the maintenance of strength. It might surprise a lot of people but Communists are among the most risk averse leaders ever to murder their way to power. The Chinese only invaded Korea because they had a spy in Enlgand who gave them advance notice we wouldn't nuke em for doing so. They were scared white of our nukes back then.
And they haven't forgotten how to count beans now 50 years later, and it dont matter if they have Play stations at home or not. The way to prevent war with China is to keep the military, most of all USN, strong!
In order for PLAN ships to hose up with these missiles they first have to survive long enough to fire them off. Then they would have to get thru the ring of RAM around the carrier. I agree with you the PLAN is a concern and should be watched. I'm just saying they are not a serious threat now, nor will they be in the near future. To make a situation even worse for them their command and control, navy bases, ship construction/repair centers...ect are not dispersed well and are heavily centralized per the communist model.
In short they have a long, long way to go. They are stuck in a phase of rebuilding an entire society of over a Billion people into a modern nation. Something we accomplished shortly after the Industrialized age began, the one we helped create. The Chinese have a myriad of problems to overcome besides the building of a blue water navy.
Last edited:
- Status