View Full Version : China's future at sea?
If you haven't noticed, lately china has been undertaking a huge buildup of its naval forces. They have launched several new classes of stealthy surface ships including one with a phased array AAW radar and VLS like an aegis. They have also built a new diesel sub and are working on two new nuclear sub designs. Add to that continued purchaces of Russian hardware like Sovremmennyys, Kilos, perhaps TU-22M Backfires in the future and the ex-ukrainian aircraft carrier Varyag that they appear to be fixing up in order to return to sevice, as well as possible and it would seem the Chinese are definately looking to become major players on both the regional and global naval stages. With the United States preoccupation in the Middle East and shifting focus from big high intensity wars to smaller low level wars against far weaker opponents and Donald Rumsfeld's willingness to cut ship and submarine levels and have the navy concentrate more on stikes against land targets, rather than prioritizing sea contol, it would seem that America is in a poor position to respond to a future conflict in east asia over perhaps Taiwan or the Spratly's involving China. Should the US and her allies be paying more attention to the situation, I say yes. What do you think?
Some links to more info:
http://www.sinodefence.com
http://www.china-defense.com
http://www.varyagworld.com
Good questions...I would like to know what people think there future intentions might be.I don't know jack about this country really.If memory serves me Japan attacked them in WWII...I know they had some sort of civil uprising yrs back in Tinamen square I think....that was put down?To me maybe they are just playing catch up being as big a player as they are maybe they feel theyre military is inadequate..or maybe do they have thier eyes set on all of the cultures of Korea Vietnam or Japan ..I don't know but really things could probably be alot worse from them being as big as they are...Really if they did decide to take over some of the aforementioned countries what would Anyone be able to really do about it...I am thinking probably not much.
P.S. Thanks for giving some linkys there....links to more info is always appreciated.
I would like to know what people think there future intentions might be.
The purpose of a navy is to project military power beyond the shores of ones country. That should give you a pretty good idea.
Kapitan
10-02-05, 01:29 AM
the chinease millatery is out dated and obsolete even today in saying that the numbers could cause problems but its doubtful
china even in 10 years time its quite doubtful that china's navy will be any where near as advanced as americas in fact i dont even think it would happen in 20 years.
the new submarines are based on old russian designs not new ones the new SSN is reportedly based on the victor 3 and the new SSBN the yankee SSBN so i dont think america and britian will have too much trouble finding them and sinking them if nessasery.
The Avon Lady
10-02-05, 01:37 AM
This subject has many existing threads at SubSim. A quick search for "china" digs up:
China tests new ballistic missile submarine (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=43026&)
Chinese Navy and rising tensions on Taiwan (http://www.subsim.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=41101)
Squabbles between China and Japan [u]continue[/urll]. There have been many over the last year.
Ghost Dog
10-02-05, 04:21 PM
I might jump in on this topic myself if nobody minds. Im a graduate student with a degree in history (mainly russia/china) and political studies (strategic and defense studies).
i have written extensive works on the chinese military thier modernization programs. so rather than invite you all to read multiple 40 pages essays, I'll break it down for you.
I might be inclined to disagree with what kapitain has already said, somewhat. I dont consider china's navy to be 'obsolete'. while it lacks some of the capability of the U.S Navy, it could be considered the 3rd most powerful force in the region, after Japan and the U.S 7th fleet.
that being said, I have made some observations about the PLAN and come to the following conclusions. given the design trends of recent, it can be said that China appears to have the following goals for its naval force in the next foreseeable 20 years.
1. A primary goal of being a defensive littoral force. this includes high numbers of fast attack patrol craft and diesel subs which will defend China's coastline. after all, its the primary job of any navy to defends its parent country's coast.
2. A secondary, limited blue-water capability to project power into regional waters. This mission is currently being developed. new chinese ships, such as the Type 052C Aegis cruiser and Shang class SSN will provide the PLAN with some ability to project a naval force into the deep water areas of the pacific for a limited time. Many see this happening in two possible scenarios.
a. PLA military action against taiwan. The naval force will project its power outwards, while the coastal navy conducts operations against taiwan. The blue-water force will attempt to confront the U.S Navy and keep thier carrier air wings from directly striking the Chinese mainland. Even chinese defense experts agree, this will be a time saving measure, that eventually the U.S navy will overcome the PLA fleet, but perhaps the island of taiwan will have been secured by such time. giving the americans the politcal choice of no longer 'aiding' taiwan, but now going to war against china as 'one country'.
b. Limited blockade action against japan. This is more low-intensity conflict wherein the Chinese fleet is able to exectute a blockade action against japan to bring about political talks or trade treaties. combat may be sporadic or low-intensity. China's fleet is expanding the ability of its ships to operatate at sea for longer periods and the new ships are showing improvement in speed. enabling them to rapidly retreat to coastal waters should the situation warrant.
essentially, you can break down the two missions into a primary mission of sea denial, and secondary of sea control.
as for the type 093 SSN and type 094 SSBN, I will submit the following. some estimates compare the 093 to the Victor III. this is a rough comparison at best and more intended to give an idea to its mission and capabilties, not its acoustic loudness or sensors. Essentially it will be a multi-mission submarine, but its primary function will be to attack U.S carrier groups. many speculate the vessel will have a Wide Aperature Array, like the seawolf and virginia class. I think acoustically, she will be more similar to a Sierra I or Mike class. I think her diving depth will be somewhere around 500m. I think she will able to make just over 30 kts and I think her sonar set will be the same as the improved kilo class, with a possible towed array.
The type 094 SSBN, is much more speculative. comparing her to a yankee class may be a bit underrated. some estimates put the 094 more closer to Delta III, or even IV levels. this remains to be seen as its doubtfull the class has even been laid down yet.
Kapitan
10-02-05, 06:00 PM
couple of questions
where did china get agis tech from only japan and america have agies on thier ships
secondly the new SSBn is to carry 12 missiles is it not so there fore can only be en par with Delta one or Yankee 2
no reports of an 094 have been made but thats china i mean they launched the yuan before any body knew about it and the thing was already at sea before we heard
Ghost Dog
10-02-05, 06:42 PM
The type 052C 'aegis' destroyer appears to mount a phased-array radar system similar to the U.S SPY-1D. it is not known if this system uses russian X Band or a western style bandwidth. it is believed that the technology for this system was aquired through intelligence means. in other words, they stole it using spies. likely from the Japanese would be my personal guess.
this destroyer will also mount VLS HQ-9 SAM missiles, similar to the Russian land based S-300 (SA-10b Grumble) but reportedly using stolen US patriot technology for the guidance system.
The type 094 SSBN will carry 16 JL-2 missiles. the JL-2 SLBM will have a range of roughly 8,000 km, allowing the continental US to be targeted while operating within chinese waters.
hope this helps
XabbaRus
10-03-05, 03:23 AM
couple of questions
where did china get agis tech from only japan and america have agies on thier ships
secondly the new SSBn is to carry 12 missiles is it not so there fore can only be en par with Delta one or Yankee 2
no reports of an 094 have been made but thats china i mean they launched the yuan before any body knew about it and the thing was already at sea before we heard
Wow, you can't compare capabilities based on how many missile tubes it has. So it has 12, but more than likely they have benefitted from modern Russian tech from the Delta IV at the least.
Basically I think China is looking to be in a position to kick ass 10 years from now...
Kapitan
10-03-05, 09:02 AM
possibly but in terms of tech america has it and thats what won the cold war and in fact every war previous
so im kinda in the middle
Damo1977
10-03-05, 10:05 AM
Well basically who cares?
One is run by the Empire, which is US money. Get over it arrogant servicemen and women, for I don't care, seen done that, so **** that talk, no con here. America is dying!!
Gizzmoe
10-03-05, 10:41 AM
possibly but in terms of tech america has it and thats what won the cold war and in fact every war previous
Every war? They´ve lost the Vietnam war and Korea cannot be called a success. Iraq also shows that technology isn´t everything. And that the Cold War was "won" by "us" and not "them" had political reasons, tech had not much to do with it.
To me the most disconcerting thing about what the Chinese are doing is their targeting of areas the USN has softened up on as of late like ASW (Building a whole slew of diesel and nuke subs) and AAW ( The possible purchase of Backfires coupled with the retirement of the F-14 which was specifically designed to deal with them). Also sheer numbers is of concern, if the chinese can crank out a whole bunch of relatively modern subs and the aegis-like destroyers, they could overwhelm the US in a battle at sea. :o
A link to a site that illustrates this-
http://usships.org
Well basically who cares?
One is run by the Empire, which is US money. Get over it arrogant servicemen and women, for I don't care, seen done that, so frick that talk, no con here. America is dying!!
Well aren't you just a lovely bit of sunshine.
Kapitan
10-03-05, 05:16 PM
if any more hurricanes hit the gulf america will go under and thats from bloomberg and CNBC americans have said it once wall street crashes america will drop like a stone and so will most over countrys
however britian and its remaining commonwelth intrest could remain afloat as it did the last time
its happend once can happen again
bradclark1
10-03-05, 06:45 PM
possibly but in terms of tech america has it and thats what won the cold war and in fact every war previous
Every war? They´ve lost the Vietnam war and Korea cannot be called a success. Iraq also shows that technology isn´t everything. And that the Cold War was "won" by "us" and not "them" had political reasons, tech had not much to do with it.
Vietnam was a political loss not a military loss. Name one action America lost militarily. But yes everyone knows it was a cluster f...... Thats what happens when wars are commanded by politicians.
Korea was called before things got out of hand for both communist and western powers. This is putting it in a very simplified manner.
What political reasons led to the fall of the USSR? Besides running out of money.
Europeans have been forecasting Americas imminent doom since 1776. yet we remain.
Europeans have been forecasting Americas imminent doom since 1776. yet we remain.
:up:
Ghost Dog
10-03-05, 09:14 PM
not sure how this turned into another america bashing/america trumpeting thread. but, i'll throw in a bit here.
first off, the United States will not, in the forseeable future, fall. it will not crumble apart nor cease to exist. It may, however become significantly weakened. it may not remain the sole world superpower. it may not retain its high standard of living. america is not infallable, nor is it a paper tiger either.
second. Because Vietnam was not a conventional war, measuring victories and defeats becomes quite difficult. Kissinger himself said that the objective of a guerilla war is not to win, only not to lose. which is what the communist geurilla movement did. The united states suffered horrible casualties in a war of containment that ultimately failed. taking and holding ground is not a victory in an insurgency war, when the enemy can just reoccupy that same ground next week or next month. The 1968 Tet Offensive was not a victory for either side. how, you may ask? it was not a victory for communist forces, because it had no real attainable objective. its purpose was mass violence and attrition. to attack as many locations as possible for as long as possible. its only real purpose, to cause as many US casualties as possible and make them leave. they achieved this, but years later. you can not call this a true victory in itself. For the US, they merely just stood there and bore the brunt of the assault. they lost ground and took it back. they were attacked and counter-attacked. sure, they 'stopped' the offensive, but no offensive lasts forever and it was never intended to be a war-ending offensive. both sides did thier job. communists attack en masse as planned, US defends.....as planned. just plenty of dead and wounded which the vietnamese could bear and eventually the US, could not.
so, the U.S was not defeated in vietnam. but they did fail in thier mission to protect the republic of vietnam from communist takeover. they simply quit.
was anything gained by this for the US? maybe. did they prove to the Soviets that they were willing to fight to stop communism? perhaps. Did they gain valuable lessons about counter-insurgency warfighting and not underestimating your enemy? definately. Did the war in vietnam bring about social change in america at home? for certain. Did the vietnam war improve american democracy and accountablity of its leaders? I think so.
but although not defeated, they did lose.
micky1up
10-09-05, 06:36 PM
the target of the china naval build up has got to be taiwan thats where there going to go and i dont think there is much we or anyone can do about it
Kapitan
10-10-05, 01:44 AM
if we help tiawan we could end up in nuclear war (possible)
if we dont we loose a good trading nation and stocks will suffer and economys will to
either way i suppose we cant win
While I do belive that Taiwan is first on China's "things to do list", I also think that they have other goals as well, particularly in securing the oil and gas fields in east and southeast asia, perhaps launching some sort of expedition ino Siberia (Did anyone read Tom Clancy's The Bear and The Dragon?) and the overall goal of becoming a superpower with influence around the world, much like the United States is today. :o
John Channing
10-10-05, 07:32 AM
The next war, if it comes, will probably not be a conventional war. It will more likely be a combination of an IT war and an economic one.
Western economies and consumers have become far too reliant on China in their quest for a cheap standard of living. The next time you are in a store take note of how many products that you buy that are made in China. Couple this with the fact that the largest retailer in the world, Walmart, has actively sided in court with China against American companies that were trying to protect their patents, and you begin to see the extent of the hold that the Chinese exert over the American economy. It wouldn't take very much for the Chinese govt. to send the Western economies into a tailspin.
One of the key problems is that the Chinese leadership thinks in terms of centuries when developing their plans. Western "leadership" won't think past the next election cycle.
JCC
Kapitan
10-10-05, 08:12 AM
for china to get to siberia it has to first go through russia and that will not be easy not least of all because the russian fleet out numbers the chinease by 3 to 1 and the russians have superior ships although kind of inferior to american.
russia wont let siberia go siberia is part of main land russia and is acctualy russian controled its not a seperate country it has no president it has no royal family its just a named piece of land.
i dont think china will be so stupid as to go and invade russia seeing that russia has at least eight nuclear missile submarines parked on thier dorstep 24 / 7 / 365 and the land based bomber and missiles
for china to go for siberia would probly be suicidal for them
bradclark1
10-10-05, 09:30 AM
I think the next major war would be an economic war. Real war is just too expensive. Iraq case in point. I also think China is thinking in the long term as far as it's military build-up is concerned. It wants to be a super power. I also don't believe that Taiwan has anything to worry about in the short term(say next twenty years at least).
I also think that "if" China invaded Taiwan the U.S. would fight the "invasion" calling it short of war and if China gained a foothold in Taiwan the U.S. would turn to the United Nation's as a way of backing away and of course nothing else will happen except for a bunch of lip service. Hong Kong didn't fall apart when the lease ended there and reverted back to China.
I think the same thing would happen to Taiwan. China would want the present goverment gone but they would try and keep everything else business as usual.
Not to mention China has "most favoured" status for trade so that should be enough to put the brakes on an invasion.
So all in all I'd say invasion would be a lose/lose situation.
U-552Erich-Topp
10-10-05, 12:02 PM
:ping: Does the build up of the chineese subs suggest the possibly that another bigger battle is looming on the horizon?????
micky1up
10-10-05, 05:08 PM
well you see china has most things in its favour if it tried to take taiwan
1. combat area is close and well known to them
2. china has the worlds largest standing army
.3 mines they have a huge stock of sea mines they could close the approaches to the combat area
.4 they have not fought alot lately so we have hardly any information on their weapons and aircraft capabilitys
.5 all they have to do is keep to the KISS method (keep it simple stupid)
.6 i dont think the US has the stomach for a protracted war versus china (not the military the civilian population would not be happy)
Ghost Dog
10-10-05, 05:21 PM
good points. easy to overlook if youre too analytical. I dont remember the person who said it, but the quote went something like this: "The 19th centry belonged to Britain, the 20th belonged to the United States and the 21st will belong to China"
its not really fair to say that the sole purpose of the Chinese military is aimed at taiwan. I think chinese leaders want to create a military with 'western' qualities. the ability to perform different missions in different regions. Taiwan is one of them, sure if need be. But Korea is a concern, so is Russia and even Vietnam.
micky1up
10-10-05, 05:25 PM
yes i agree but there are only a few lucky nations that have won wars where the logistcal train was extremely long , us brits in the falklands being the most recent everything is in their favour and i think they would use taiwan as a way to bloody their army and navy before they expand to taking on anyone else
Would the US step in if China went against Taiwan?
Probably not...even though they have a CVBG in the area as time goes on and China slowly improves it's ASuW capability then I guess that the US might be more and more reluctant to take that step, after all...what's one little island compared to risking the loss of a CVN?
Admittedly that 'one little island' produces a heck of a lot of US trade, but then again so does China, well, it certainly produces EU trade...so that'd be another strain on US/EU relations.
China going north? That would be...messy, very messy. They might make some good inroads to begin with...but when the bear wakes up, it'll be pissed, and a pissed bear is not a good thing.
(Bear and the Dragon :up: )
So, if China IS going to do anything, then it'll start with Taiwan, maybe go on to some of the smaller 'oil islands' nearby (SSN anyone?), it'll basically push it's luck until the US says 'OI!' and then it'll back down...for now.
For it to call the US's bluff...would be dangerous.
Ghost Dog
10-11-05, 05:56 PM
to talk about bluffing or not bluffing is a little off the mark. Many assume that if China were to attack taiwan in some way that it would mean instantaneous U.S military response. This may or may not be true. First, the United States would look at its current taiwan policy, whatever that happens to be at the time. Then they would carefully weigh thier military options. Also, dont forget that other countries might have an opinion in the matter. The UN security council might also have an opinion.
Perhaps the next U.S president would prefer a diplomatic approach to dealing with a PLA attack against the ROC.
if military action between the U.S Navy and the PLAN did occur, I could see the United States employing a strategy similar to the Lehman Doctrine of the 1980s by sending multiple carrier groups 'into harms way' to project power directly onto the Chinese mainland.
If I were in command of U.S Naval forces, here is what I would do.
1. dominate the theatre airspace. Using carrier based and land based assets in theatre. I would NOT use any US air units stations in Korea, this would be meant not to threaten the DPRK into doing anything silly.
2. My first strikes would be against the PLAN surface fleet.
3. once there is suitable safety of air and surface operations I could turn my attention to hunting the chinese subs. These would be the toughest to find, therefore waiting till I have more freedom of action in the battlespace makese sense.
4. if PLA forces have not ceased thier hostilities against taiwan or US forces, I would begin conducting airstrikes against military and logistical facilties that support operations against taiwain.
5. I would consider surgical strikes against Beijing but only utilizing stealth aircraft. these strikes would be primarily directed against command and control sites.
6. I would NOT strike against any PLA nuclear forces. I want to send a message to beijing that this conflict is conventional, I am not pursuing regime change or threatening the survial of China as a nation. I dont want to put chinese leaders into a 'use it or lose it' mindset.
thats my two cents.
micky1up
10-12-05, 04:29 AM
i dont think u have your tactics down right to stop an invasion of taiwan attacking plan naval forces wont stop it the invasion force would be the target to take out,argentina made the same mistake in the falklands campaign they attacked the frigates and destoyers when the should have attacked the troop ships china would have no problem closing the surrounding waters and air space remember we dont have enough info on the fighter capabilitys they have some home grown figthers and bombers that we dont know enough about and as i said i dont think the US public would have the stomach for a protracted war vs china there are alot of unknowns to ponder but the fact remains the bulk of chinese forces are close to the combat area there for they have the advantage
micky1up
10-12-05, 04:30 AM
i dont think u have your tactics down right to stop an invasion of taiwan attacking plan naval forces wont stop it the invasion force would be the target to take out,argentina made the same mistake in the falklands campaign they attacked the frigates and destoyers when the should have attacked the troop ships china would have no problem closing the surrounding waters and air space remember we dont have enough info on the fighter capabilitys they have some home grown figthers and bombers that we dont know enough about and as i said i dont think the US public would have the stomach for a protracted war vs china there are alot of unknowns to ponder but the fact remains the bulk of chinese forces are close to the combat area there for they have the advantage
bradclark1
10-12-05, 03:41 PM
5. I would consider surgical strikes against Beijing but only utilizing stealth aircraft. these strikes would be primarily directed against command and control sites.
If that didn't start a possible nuke war I don't know what would.
Ghost Dog
10-12-05, 04:12 PM
of course im going to attack the troop ships, assuming they havent already dropped off thier cargo or going back to get more.
i figured that was pretty obvious. I would probably have submaries go after the troop ships ahead of my surface group.
my tactics assume that the PLA invasion is a bit of a surprise and that US forces take a few hours or days to reach the battle area.
As for Beijing, I said I would consider it not necessarily do it. of course I realise its risky. though I dont know if striking select targets in the capital would press the chinese for immediatly nuclear release. after all, the point of nuclear weapons is not to use them, its to deter others from using against you.
The americans and soviets thought long and hard about conventional attack and escalation. Lets says its 1989 and war breaks out between the superpowers, and lets also say that the Soviets attack London or Paris with conventional cruise missiles. Would that prompt French or UK nuclear release? I dont think so.
Terrorists attacked New York AND washington but the US certainly didnt respond with nuclear strikes.
I dont believe that if a handfull of key targets were attacked in Beijing that chinese leaders would authorize nuclear use. My first question would be, "If I hit this building in Beijing, will it cripple the nuclear authority of the PLA?" if the answer is yes, I would likely avoid it. I know what youre thinking, dont you want to cripple the PLA ability to authorize nukes? No, I want to keep it intact. I want to make sure they absolute control over thier nukes, so that theyre are no accidental launches or an automatic launch order if a leadership decapitation. I want to keep thier upper command structure intact so that I have someone to sign the cease-fire with.
micky1up
10-12-05, 05:36 PM
i dont get ur train of thought terroist attacks are completely different from a nation taking action terroist cannot be assumed as a national army navy or air force and another point because taiwan is an obvious target i would expect us and other nation not to be surprised by china doing this so they could be ready to take action during the build up i wouldnt expect china to achieve surprise in attacking taiwan
bradclark1
10-12-05, 07:17 PM
The americans and soviets thought long and hard about conventional attack and escalation. Lets says its 1989 and war breaks out between the superpowers, and lets also say that the Soviets attack London or Paris with conventional cruise missiles. Would that prompt French or UK nuclear release? I dont think so.
You are talking about asians not europeans. To attack anything in that nations capital would be an embarassment to them, or to any country come to think about it. Also they would not know what those planes are carrying and remember they are stealthy not invisible and it would not be as easy as Iraq to destroy their air defence system.
What are you going to do call them and say that the inbound planes to your capital are going to bomb you but they aren't carrying nukes so don't worry about it?
Terrorists attacked New York AND washington but the US certainly didnt respond with nuclear strikes.
I'd say there is a bit of difference between China and a terrorist organization.
There is a world of difference between attacking a 2 bit country and a modernized giant.
PeriscopeDepth
10-12-05, 07:49 PM
I dont believe that if a handfull of key targets were attacked in Beijing that chinese leaders would authorize nuclear use. My first question would be, "If I hit this building in Beijing, will it cripple the nuclear authority of the PLA?" if the answer is yes, I would likely avoid it. I know what youre thinking, dont you want to cripple the PLA ability to authorize nukes? No, I want to keep it intact. I want to make sure they absolute control over thier nukes, so that theyre are no accidental launches or an automatic launch order if a leadership decapitation. I want to keep thier upper command structure intact so that I have someone to sign the cease-fire with.
You're very optimistic, Mr. Dingo. I think if they went to Beijing with B-2s, it's possible that they might not consider nukes because they wouldn't know until stuff started exploding. If they saw cruise missiles coming Beijing's way, they'd have to assume the worst though.
I think the PRC plans to use nukes against CSGs anyhow.
Ghost Dog
10-12-05, 09:18 PM
First of all, if you actually knew chinese nuclear policy you would know that they have a stated "No First Use" policy. So, its highly unlikely that they would order a launch the minute they detected something coming to thier capital.
next, I do remember saying that I would use stealth aircraft and not cruise missiles. I envisage that attack to be a one time thing, to hit military command directorate HQ or something to that effect.
Furthermore, I said I would consider it. I was careful to make that distinction.
I have a degree in Asian Studies and a degree in International Relations(and 5 years of miltary service), of course I know the difference between a terrorist attack originating in a failed state country and a precision military attack against a modern industrialised nation. I was trying to say that an attack against one's captial city does not necessitate the use of nuclear weapons.
so, to clarify my point that seems to be irking people: I would carefully examine the possibility of using a surgical stealth strike against a high value target in beijing if the following criteria were met.
1. The target's destruction is critical to the success of my campaign.
2. The chinese have not made statements to counter thier existing nuclear policy. i.e if they say attack our capital and everyone gets it type thing, then we dont do it.
3. There is minimal or no chance the strike will decapitate the nuclear command authority to a degree where autonomous counter-attack is launched. My research has shown that China would CONFIRM that nuclear weapons have been used against it before authorising thier own use.
if all 3 of those conditions are met to my satisfaction, then I would do it. if there was compelling evidence NOT to, certainly I would hold off on attacking assets in thier capital city.
Chinese nuclear policy may change in the future, and many experts have concluded that china is moving from a deterrent nuclear force to a force more suited to actual nuclear warfighting. Quite frightening if true, although I still have my doubts about this one.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.