South China Sea thoughts?

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Nothing has jelled anti CCP attitudes throughout liberal democracies more than their economic bastardry against Australia.
Their actions against a partner in a free trade agreement (FTA) has shown that any economic treaty with China is worth nothing if the CCP leadership take issue with any action or utterance they deem to be against their political interest.
It also sends a message to any country considering an economic partnership of any dimension (Belt and Road) that unless the host country becomes subservient to CCP interest the consequences could be dire.

The unintended consequence of Chinese trade embargo’s against some Australian products, notably thermal coal, timber, wine and barley is that;
a. Other markets have replaced China with the exception of wine (great benefit to domestic consumers), and;
b. Our exports to China are at record levels driven by iron ore which is at record prices well over US$200 per tonne.
I’m sure this failed punitive action has caused some angst amongst the CCP leadership
 

Musashi_kenshin

Well-Known Member
The unintended consequence of Chinese trade embargo’s against some Australian products, notably thermal coal, timber, wine and barley is that;
a. Other markets have replaced China with the exception of wine (great benefit to domestic consumers), and;
b. Our exports to China are at record levels driven by iron ore which is at record prices well over US$200 per tonne.
I’m sure this failed punitive action has caused some angst amongst the CCP leadership
Not only that. You might recall a Czech parliamentary delegation to Taiwan that really angered China. The Global Times had an article saying how the Czech economy would be damaged as a result of the visit, citing cancellation of orders of pianos and potential further "action".

Then a Czech millionaire bought the pianos up, and no further action was taken by China.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
IMHO the backyard advantage sort of negates the experience factor, especially if any confrontation is more or less in the Chinese sphere. American and Japanese submarine assets may be the PLAN’s biggest problem.
Well it does have an advantage for the PLA especially WRT the USN and USAF because the PLA are fighting within their own IADS and Rocket Forces cover. They also have the logistics advantage of home basing. Whereas the Americans are at the end of a very long logistics chain fighting under the enemies air and missile cover.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
ngatimozart,

You mentioned Mahan in a previous post. Thought you might find this interesting; if you haven’t already read it.


Those are somewhat dated but nonetheless worth watching.



 
Last edited:

STURM

Well-Known Member
Whereas the Americans are at the end of a very long logistics chain fighting under the enemies air and missile cover.
Another issue is that until Chinese defences have been degraded to sone extent; USN carriers will have to maintain a certain distance from the coast and this will have an affect on air ops.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
A high stakes game for all involved.
Indeed John. Let’s hope nothing happens as there’s always the nuclear element if things really get bad for either side. We can argue that during the Cold War the U.S. and the Soviet Union really understood each other but can we sat the sabe if the U.S and China?

Not only will it be the 1st time the U.S. is engaged in conflict with a nuclear power but one which actually has the means to target every U.S. military facility in the region; from Guam to Okinawa to Pearl. Yes the U.S. can also hit back but China has a variety of options not available to other countries the U.S. has fought against.

Meanwhile new ICBM silos have been discovered in Xinjiang.


The expansion of China’s nuclear force would likely factor into any U.S. calculations for potential military confrontations over flashpoints such as Taiwan or the South China Sea.”
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
I dont know how accurate and correct this map is, but if it is, than those two chinese 'coast guard vessels' are doing something illegal in Indonesia's EEZ.

It doesn't look like that the Indonesian Navy or Coast Guard will do much to prevent the chinese to survey and analyze the Indonesian EEZ.

Update
 
Last edited:

Ananda

The Bunker Group

This article also take materials from that Duan Dang guy. Basically talking on how similarities of Chinese tactics on using their vessels whether Para Military or Survey vessels loitering around any Geological Survey vessels that been contracted by other countries in SCS.

Seems they try to create situation to push other countries to conduct Joint Operation for Geological operation. In sense getting bilateral acknowledgement that China has the rights for LCS. So far their tactical move work with Philippines, but not yet with anyone else within LCS neighborhood.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Australia still has some cold war era planning and infrastructure in this space.

There is a huge bunker in the Sydney CBD, assessible through St. James station. Every high rise building in Australia has extensive underground carpark areas. Buildings in Australia are typically quite strong, with brick, or double brick being quite popular and steel frames and steel roofs. Australia high standards for flammability and bushfire preparedness probably are massive strengths in this area. Many homes have tank water. RFS/SES are exactly the sort of civilian organisations to deal with this on the ground. Our telecommunications networks are being upgraded to be more survivable of bushfires and outages. Older telecommunication infrastructure was very robust. Old exchanges etc were very solid buildings.

Older military facilities often have hardened aspects to them. Newer ones tend to be a bit more fragile. However, they are all designed to withstand bushfires and cyclones. Australia has a large network of widely dispersed bases. Melbourne is closer to Antarctica than it is to Darwin.

Most government buildings are overbuilt. Parliament house in Canberra is probably one of the most survivable places of government. With masses of steel, concrete, and built essentially underground.

In terms of active protection, its impossible to protect the entire continent. However, the continent has taken nuclear hits before. The reasons nuclear weapons testing was stopped at Emu fields was it was "too remote for nuclear testing". If they targeted JORN or the US communications base, few would know strikes have even occured.

Sydney would likely be protected from what ever was in FBE. Perth by FBW. There is talk about having some sort of fixed capability in Darwin.


Either one Aegis ashore, or two or more THAAD. IMO If you were to put Aegis ashore in Australia, Darwin/Tindal are would be the location.
While I am not really into hardened aircraft hangars in Australia, Tindal is probably the only location that merits them, as its likely to become a very important hub in war time, and is the closest major base to China and her interests.

However, there is a lot of other base infrastructure to upgrade as well, all round the country. Typically that is how we have mitigated risk, through multiple bases far apart.

However, Australia is still very far away, very spread out and very low value targets. Very few missiles could reach Australia. Essentially no Chinese aircraft unless they are landing and refueling in Australia (even then its transport and similar). Most of the targets in Australia are further than continental US targets from China. Why target Sydney, when you could target the Boeing factory in Seattle? Why target Tindal when Guam/Hawaii is right there?

Australia is at that awkward range where its beyond most of their missiles, except their extreme range ones. Those extreme range missiles would be for high prize targets.


View attachment 48547
While China has some longer range missiles there are 10's of them and are ICBMs. Some other long range missiles are in development DF-31 (some ~25 launchers of all types and mods operational).

Things may change, but for the moment, Australia has some strategic depth. Closer countries are not in that situation. Australia is physically as far away from China as western Europe is. Italy and Greece are easier targets for Chinese attacks that even Darwin is.
Just one little problem with those firing arcs for China's missiles, that is based on the mainland, Subi Reef is the real issue for us that is hear and now, the majority of the Australian mainland is in striking distance !!



Cheers
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Just one little problem with those firing arcs for China's missiles, that is based on the mainland, Subi Reef is the real issue for us that is hear and now, the majority of the Australian mainland is in striking distance !!



Cheers
I don’t think that the SCS island bases pose a strategic problem.
I’m optimistic enough to think that the first targets in any hot war will be those islands, easy to target, vulnerable to damage hard to defend.
They are tactical pawns in the long term CCP thrust into SE Asia causing maximum attention and angst in the grey zone but of no real strategic value.
IMHO naturally.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I don’t think that the SCS island bases pose a strategic problem.
I’m optimistic enough to think that the first targets in any hot war will be those islands, easy to target, vulnerable to damage hard to defend.
They are tactical pawns in the long term CCP thrust into SE Asia causing maximum attention and angst in the grey zone but of no real strategic value.
IMHO naturally.
Yep and agree, they are on the initial target list, as are places like Guam etc. Subi is specifically on the Australian radar.

It would be a tit for tat start, but the capability is there and needs to be taken into account in the matrix, give it a few more years and some of these island chains, like Guam may not be a push over. From a reach POV it gives them the range, all depends on how it may start ?

Taiwan is looking like the starting point, but who knows, the CCP is erratic, anything that does occur could come from left of field.

But was just pointing out that the capacity and capability to launch is not just restricted to mainland China, nor their boomers, adds more to the equation.

Cheers
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I don’t think that the SCS island bases pose a strategic problem.
I’m optimistic enough to think that the first targets in any hot war will be those islands, easy to target, vulnerable to damage hard to defend.
They are tactical pawns in the long term CCP thrust into SE Asia causing maximum attention and angst in the grey zone but of no real strategic value.
IMHO naturally.
I'm surprised some of those "island" bases have survived a couple of typhoon seasons. They must be expending considerable effort retaining the sediment that they dredged to form them.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Yes but not majorly so. Supplying those islands is not as easy as supplying mainland China.
As the interpreter states:

The problem should not be overstated. China operates large rocket forces, but there are more important targets for them than deployed ADF units or mainland Australia. And ballistic missiles are a wasting asset. Once fired, they cannot be reused. Neither can stocks be easily replenished, given any war is likely to be short, not allowing enough time to manufacture new missiles.
Those islands are more useful in pre-conflict times, where pressure can be applied to nations that can't seriously threaten them. China also didn't build the bases to threaten Australia, that isn't even in their calculus.
 

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member
| "It was surely not unintentional that in its statement issued last week regarding the latest situation around Natuna waters, the Navy mentioned the presence of both Chinese and United States vessels in the international waters around the territory.

With that statement Indonesia not only sought to protect its sovereignty and national interests, but it also chose to conduct a delicate balancing act in a region that has just entered a new era with the signing of a nuclear submarine deal involving the US, Australia and the United Kingdom." |

Maybe the Indonesian government wants to look neutral and objective, but the survey vessels sailing in analyzing patterns in Indonesia's EEZ in Laut Natuna Utara all belong to china.

 

vonnoobie

Well-Known Member
Not to mention that the Chinese them selves think they aren't useful in a conflict

China's manmade islands in the South China Sea are vulnerable to attack and may not be worth much in a war

Chinese military linked monthly magazine has listed out why they wont work with out even mentioning the sinking but rather distances involved, inability to support enough aircraft, and no true hardened defences along with that they can be attacked from multiple routes.

As for any Chinese missiles launched from those SCS bases (Subi is slightly further away, Mischief is closest I believe) ignoring the nuclear missiles the DF-26 is the conventional one with most range (Which according to wiki - Yes I know its wiki ugh- only 80 are in use) they could strike from Penong SA thought to Calen QLD and anything to the North-West of that line. Not really enough missiles if numbers accurate to strike at those targets once off before their island wiped out.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member

Nothing changes, Malaysia will summon the Chinese Ambassador and lodge a complaint. At sea the overstretched RMN and MMEA will continue to intercept and monitor incursions but the Chinese will continue doing what they have been doing.


"Greg Poling, senior fellow for Southeast Asia at CSIS, said he expected Malaysia’s government was taking action to protect Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. Beijing claims nearly all of the waterway as its own. They do it out of the public eye,”.
 
Last edited:

Sandhi Yudha

Well-Known Member

Nothing changes, Malaysia will summon the Chinese Ambassador and lodge a complaint. At sea the overstretched RMN and MMEA will continue to intercept and monitor incursions but the Chinese will continue doing what they have been doing.


"Greg Poling, senior fellow for Southeast Asia at CSIS, said he expected Malaysia’s government was taking action to protect Malaysian rights in the South China Sea. Beijing claims nearly all of the waterway as its own. They do it out of the public eye,”.
Like Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam, also Malaysia have to take the modernisation of the navy seriously.

Besides speeding up the construction of the Gowind frigates, also the installation of the FFBNW-systems into the MEKO 100 Kedah class will increase the RMN's firepower in a relative short time.
 

STURM

Well-Known Member
The eventual entry into service of the LCSs and up arming the Kedah class will be welcomed by the RMN but it still doesn't change things with regards to Chinese intrusions. Extra assets will be a boost, improving the RMN's ability to monitor and intercept intrusions but the fact remains that the Chinese will still keep coming. This is a major problem faced by various countries.

For Malaysia, the lead agency when it comes to dealing with Chinese [non PLAN] intrusions, is actually the MMEA but until the MMEA is fully capable it falls on the shoulders of the RMN.
 
Top