China's rise to a naval power

[Skybird]

This documentary from last week, 50 minutes, describes ^ . It illustrates the strategy of China to collect gains and advantages by staying just below the treshhold level that would trigger military reactions. By allowing this, the US has already given up considerable space and signalled its allies in the region that it does not stand by its word, for example regarding the defence of the Phillippines when China took the Scarborough Reef without shooting one round. The grab of territory in the South Chinese Sea is another example.

Things do not go well for America and its allies. Its behaving too indifferent and for too long time now.

The program was broadcasted on Arte, which is a French-German cooperation broadcaster. You can activated subtitles and then switch on automatic English translation, since the sound is in German.

[Buddahaid]

They still have a long way to go to be anywhere close to the US in naval power but they are closing the gap, and as far as the Phillippenes go, it was their choice to increase the lease costs to the point the US just said bye.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

They still have a long way to go to be anywhere close to the US in naval power but they are closing the gap, and as far as the Phillippenes go, it was their choice to increase the lease costs to the point the US just said bye.

Yep

[mapuc]

Aren't we forgetting something, some important difference..Yes Chinese Navy isn't as big as US is..but they have land based bomberplane, coastal longrange ASM and other things they can throw at the American navy if trouble should happen.

So when it comes to logistic I say China has an advantage towards US.

I'm not saying that China can take Taiwan or some other island as easy as piece of cake...no they will lose a lot in their effort to take it.

Markus

[Jimbuna]

A modern day carrier battle group is yet to be surpassed on the high seas.

[Skybird]

Just that the naval battles near China wont be fought on the "high seas", but in coastal areas. With coastal defences and land-based air defence shields. And the South And East Chinese Sea bears a whole armada of stationary Chinese aircraft carriers and missile platforms. We can safely assume that the Chinese AT LEAST are as technically capable as the Russians, in fact they seem to release more techcial patents per year these days than Germany, or the US. And w eknow they are obsessed with gaining the weapon technology to "kill" carriers, or keep nthem at bay with the threatening of such weapons. Aolso, they ahve the numerciual edge, and clearly. Their coast guard counts by HUNDREDS of boats and cutters.

After the sinking of Russian ships by Ukrainian forces it was said that the Chinese would watch closely at this, regarding their plans to attack Taiwan. But I say: the US also has reason to be worried by what it sees in these Russian losses. The whole war, both on land and sea, illustrates how easily now missiles dominate heavy weapon platform carriers, may it be tanks, or missile cruisers. And counter-missiles ammunitions get spend by ships at very alarming rates. And the US has some naval units classes in action now that have hilariously low ammo reserves, and run especially low on missiles of any sort. I think especially of these katamaran-type speed attack boats they operate in Asia in signficianbt numbers and that are known for a high rate of techncial breakdowns. Heck, the class name just does not come to my mind right now, but you probably know what I mean.

That all is why I do not share the sentiment of self-assurance that America could still win against China. It probably could offshore the American West Coast. But the war with China will be fought offshore China in waters dominated by Chinese air and naval forces and with much shorter logistical supply lines for China.

And one thing is clear. Chinese society could and would digest heavy losses easier and more willingly than American or Western societies.

Next I wonder about Chinas capabilty to wage war in space. Kill satellites, and the enemy falls blind, deaf and silent. For the US that would be a more serious issue than China, because: we talk of war near the Chinese land and coast.

[Jimbuna]

I think I'd start to worry only when China has the ability to project its power in far away places as can America at the present time.

China has yet to prove its self proclaimed might and look what Russia has shown the world regarding its conventional military frailties....were it not for its nuclear arsenal.

[Commander Wallace]

^

China hasn't been in the power projection long enough relative to the U.S, England or France. All of these countries, especially the U.S have honed their power projection abilities, especially the U.S, over many generations. Germany also knows how to build advanced submarines that can deploy equally advanced anti ship weapons. Finland and Sweden also build advanced weapon systems as well.

However, the Ukrainians have demonstrated just how effective anti ship missiles can be in an access denial scenario and or strategy. Power projection is one thing but using aircraft carriers in a contested area is another. Chinese carriers would be just as vulnerable and perhaps, more so.

These anti ship weapons can be delivered not only from the air but also submarines where the U.S has a decided technological advantage in deploying platforms like submarines and aircraft. The U.S has been in the submarine game longer than the Chinese as well and have the weapons and know how to show that.


The Chinese are watching the Ukrainian / Russian war unfold and understand the lethality of not only U.S made weapons but also the weapons of other NATO countries and also the indigenous weapons made by the Ukraine. Ships attacking Taiwan could effectively be reduced to smouldering hulks utilizing the same tactics and weapons supplied by the U.S and other NATO countries.

[mapuc]

First of all what is China's military doctrine ? Is their aim to become a navy superpower like USA ? Or is their aim to be a coastal superpower ?

Markus

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by mapuc

First of all what is China's military doctrine ? Is their aim to become a navy superpower like USA ? Or is their aim to be a coastal superpower ?

Markus

China is trying to create a " blue water " fleet to project power and challenge the U.S, especially in the Pacific oceans. China hardly needs aircraft carriers for coastal protection.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

China is trying to create a " blue water " fleet to project power and challenge the U.S, especially in the Pacific oceans. China hardly needs aircraft carriers for coastal protection.

Instead of putting my own I think that into writing I should have searched for information about their military doctrine and I found some pdf pages about China's military doctrine

https://setav.org/en/assets/uploads/2020/02/A56En.pdf

This one is huge

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_p...-000-WEB-1.pdf

Markus

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Instead of putting my own I think that into writing I should have searched for information about their military doctrine and I found some pdf pages about China's military doctrine

https://setav.org/en/assets/uploads/2020/02/A56En.pdf

This one is huge

https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_p...-000-WEB-1.pdf

Markus

^ Good information, Markus. Thanks for sharing.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by Commander Wallace

^ Good information, Markus. Thanks for sharing.

The first paragraph was interesting

THE STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENT
1-1. China’s view of the strategic environment mirrors that of the United States in many ways. There are,
however, key differences in both analysis of the strategic environment and the application of this analysis
that underpin important differences in perspective between the two countries. Both the People’s Republic
of China—commonly referred to as China—and the United States assess the key elements of the strategic
environment

This part made me more convinced that China is helping Russia with material

1-4. China will continue to seek improved relations with Russia and India, with Russia likely
proving a more amenable partner. China views improving these two relationships—particularly with
Russia—as very important both politically and economically. Border tensions with India complicate
bilateral relations and are often perceived by India as aggressive, requiring strong responses and
adjustments to its defense posture.

Markus

[Skybird]

I say again, the Chinese must not project their power over global distances when waging war against the US Navy. That war would be fought in close vicinity to China's landmass and many "island-carriers" and missile bastions and bases at the coast.

Its only a question of time anyway until China has a real blue water fleet with globla reach. They buy bases and airports and harbours in Europe, Africa... Do you think all that is only civilian trade effort?

Different to Russia, they are a real high tech nation - and different to Russia with enormous production capacities. And like Russia with a population ready to suffer great losses, if need be. And like Russia, their numerical defence budget value is not standardized to accoutn for lower prporeduciton costs, lower fatcor worker wages, and the ability to comamnd what the eocnomy shgould do and produce and when and at what cost. Take the published defenc ebdget, but to see what they can do with it comolared to Western budgets, multiply the Chinese budgets by several factors, most likely. Then you get an idea of their real defence spendings' condensate in material and effort.

Finally, do not forget that the US scatters its military power all over the place/globe, whereas the Chinese can and do focus their power all in a relatviely limited, small focus of interest region if clashing with the US Navy.

And Taiwan, it gets reported since years that the defence moral of the country has tremendously suffered in the recent decade(s). They talk the talk, but their military potence is such that I have some doubts that can walk the walk. And before Ukraine war at least it also was reported by foreign correspondents that they cannot really imagine to get attacked in all seroiusness. Like the Ukrainians did not belie it even days before the Russians invaded.

No side there - China, Taiwain or the US - has any reason to feel too self-assured when seeing how the Ukrainians deal with the Russians. The Ukrainian war shows all three of them just how vulnerable they are. Missiles and drones are the big equalizer.

[Kapitan]

Chinas military doctrine is predominantly focused on the regional sphere at the moment, in that while it has a very large navy, in fact the largest if your counting hulls it lacks the capability to keep its navy deployed beyond its borders in any major numbers for an indefinite period of time.
The bulk of Chinas navy is made up of smaller craft hence if your hull counting its why they have so many units.

Yes China has got an out station in the Indian ocean where some ships are based, however during any prospective conflict those ships would be swiftly dealt with as their means of reinforcement are lacking.

China is what Todd and Lindbergh calls a tier 3 blue water navy meaning that while they can deploy for extended periods of time around the world they would not be able to sustain that deployment.

It may come as a shock to some Americans to learn that the UK strategical logistical network for supplying our armed forces is substantially larger than that of the USA, while the UK doesn’t have the numbers of ships we do have enough to sustain a carrier group indefinitely anywhere on the planet.
Now I know some of our American friends will be jumping up and down spitting their coffee out but in terms of treaties, port usage, over flight rights, basing rights etc. the UK has a lot more options than the USA.
In terms of tactical logistics those being the auxiliary fleet such as the MSC and RFA of course the MSC is much larger.

China doesn’t have the treaties (yet) or basing rights / strategic logistics (yet) or the tactical logistical capability (yet) to match the UK and USA.

The fact is if you get the Chinese navy out to sea well beyond its regional waters it becomes a very vulnerable force.

So when it comes to logistics I say China has and advantage towards the US

In its local and regional waters yes it does but that’s due to geographic considerations, the shorter the supply chain the easier it is to manage and resupply.
The USA and UK on the other hand have centuries of experience handling vast elongated complex logistical supply chains.

The Albion group that sailed in 2017 that supply chain too us about 4-6 months to create, we had to work with multiple nations, calculate stores and resupply ports, refuel points, contingency planning, contact and organize civilian freight carriers the whole 9 yards there.
Because of the work we did with the Albion group the CSG21 deployment went off with only one hitch for its entire deployment. ( QE ran out of tea bags on the way home and we had to ask HMCS Winnipeg to re store her), In all that up scaling of the chain too around 2 months.

China while their people are very capable of doing exactly what we did they don’t have sea going capability to pull it off in great numbers.

Shows how easy it is to dominate a heavy weapon platform carrier

While the sinking of Moskva was a shock not just to the Russians but most of the world, there’s a lot of considerations to be aware of.
firstly the RN and USN damage control system is by far and wide superior to that of the Russian navy its night and day comparison, the Russians tend to use a small trained damage control parties where as the USN and RN every member of the crew is trained in damage control.

Moskva was also using equipment original to the ships build (1970s), a lot of the crew are conscripts doing their 12-month term.
Crew morale and their mindset must also be looked at, how are they treated and do they actually want to be there?

Was the ship sailing under EMCON conditions? What was the watch keeping like? There’s a raft of possibilities.

The UK got the short sharp shock of the above in 1982 when Sheffield was hit, we learnt a lot from that one sinking and it shaped not only the RN but the USN as well.

Hilariously low ammo reserves

Not quite, I will only say that I’m confident RN has sufficient numbers of weapons to fulfil any elongated conflict with a near peer rival and they are shall we say spread out.
What’s more when a warship goes on patrol in peace time its very likely they are not stored to the full only enough for a brief engagement to get out of the area, and it’s the same for the USN, in peace time patrolling warships do not store for war on every patrol.

But the war with China will be fought offshore China in waters dominated by Chinese air and naval forces and with much shorter logistical supply lines for China.

Naturally your going to want to fight on known grounds and areas, however while China does have substantial numbers and yes it will deplete defensive missiles and weapons faster the reality is with a combined force operating close to Chinas EEZ the surrounding navies have advantage.
Simply put the ocean is to their back there’s plenty of space to draw out Chinese assets and then slam the door shut for their way home.

Alternatively there is a blockading method the west can adopt so even though China can bring out the numbers and have shorter supply lines its no good when their navy is at sea and their limited ocean re supply ships are sitting at the bottom.
The other side to that one is China is heavily reliant on imported raw materials including food stuffs ores and minerals so cut that link off the manufacturing industry cant produce and if it cannot produce it cannot supply.

one thing is clear. Chinese society could and would digest heavy losses easier and more willingly than American or Western societies

.

I agree the Chinese will be willing to take heavier losses than the west.

These anti ship weapons can be delivered not only from the air but also submarines where the U.S has a decided technological advantage in deploying platforms like submarines and aircraft. The U.S has been in the submarine game longer than the Chinese as well and have the weapons and know how to show that.

This is true however there are some areas where we in the west lack namely AShM capability, we are still reliant on the subsonic 1977 Harpoon and a modernized version (Maritime strike) of the subsonic Tomahawk, LRASM is merely a stop gap, we actually need to start looking closely at this area.

As for the 2018 decision by the UK to remove harpoon from service from all RN ships its just one of those head in hands moments for me.

Its only a question of time anyway until China has a real blue water fleet with globla reach. They buy bases and airports and harbours in Europe, Africa... Do you think all that is only civilian trade effort?

Its not just for trade but you must consider any war between the west and china are those countries going to allow themselves to be out posts for China knowing full well they will simply just be a big X on the map for western powers? its likely they will just want to stay neutral.

Finally, do not forget that the US scatters its military power all over the place/globe, whereas the Chinese can and do focus their power all in a relatively limited, small focus of interest region if clashing with the US Navy

They do and like the RN they do it for very good reason, it will allow the USN and RN to cut routes to Chinese vessels / aircraft in time of war.

To give you an idea the 6th fleet in Rota along with the UK Gibraltar base can shut down the entire Med.

NATO fleets in the Atlantic can close down the entire ocean, the Falklands once again would be an out base for that usage, it would deny Chinese naval assets the use of the capes.

The units assigned in the Persian Gulf can shut that area down as well, denying the Chinese major oil imports.

Units in Singapore reinforced by the RAN would be able to close off the south end of the pacific and also entrap any Chinese units in the Indian ocean

US Bases in pearl and Guam are the spear head which can close off the northern pacific along with Japan and South Korea, these forces would likely be reinforced by west coast naval and air assets of the US.

The objective of all this is not simply taking out Chinese military installations but denying China trade and resources, any Chinese vessel in any port would likely be considered fair game especially if its in a western port, so all they have to do is detain the ship and crew.

Also by scattering your forces in peace time it means any surprise attack you launch will have to be simultaneous and in multiple directions which means that detection of an impending attack is more likely.

So scattering your forces makes strategical sense as if you keep them clumped up in a smaller area the chances of taking down large numbers becomes easier.