China's rise to a naval power

[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.

[Kapitan]

Some rough numbers for you, I havent included very minor ships in this like barges tugs etc.

But you can see while China has major numbers of warships it has very few auxiliaries to sustain them.


Type Ship Type Active Sea Trail Building Developing Decom Total Planned Notes

Aircraft Carriers
T001 CV 1 1
T002 CV 1 1
T003 CV 1 1
T004 CV 1 1
Amphibious Units
T076 LHD 1 UKN Ocean Capable
T075 LHD 2 1 3 8 Ocean capable
T074A LSM 12 UKN Regional Capability Small landing craft 800t
T074 LSM 9 3 12 Regional Capability small landing craft 800t
T073 LSH 11 4 14 Regional Capability includes 073 I,II,III, A Varients
T072 LSD 30 Regional Capability includes 072 II,III,A Varients
T071 LPD 6 2 Ocean Capable
T271 LCU 10 UKN Regional Capability all varients numbers estimated
T958 LCAC 6 UKN Local Capability based on Russian Zubr
T067 LCU 60 UKN Local Capability numbers are estimates
T068/9 LCU 120 UKN Local Capability numbers are estimates
T722 LCAC 10 UKN Local Capability
T724 LCAC 26 UKN Local Capability many for research
T726 LCAC 16 1 5 UKN Local Capability
Destroyers
T956 DDG 4 4 Ocean Capable Based on Russian Sovremenny class
T051B DDG 1 1 Ocean Capable
T051C DDG 2 2 Ocean Capable
T052 DDG 2 2 Ocean Capable
T052B DDG 2 2 Ocean Capable
T052C DDG 6 6 Ocean Capable
T052D DDG 18 2 5 25 Ocean Capable
T055 DDG 5 1 2 16 Ocean Capable
Frigates
T053 FFG 10 10 Ocean Capable all are H3 Varient
T054 FFG 32 1 50 Ocean Capable includes A varient
Corvette
T056 FFL 72 72 Ocean Capable includes A varient
Coastal Vessels
T022 PCM 83 2 85
T037 PCM 123 1 1 130 Export only building all varients
T062 PC 17 30 47 All Varients
Mine Warfare
T010 MCM 6 UKN All are obsolete based on soviet T43
T081 MHCM 12 2 12 Regional Capability possibly more planned
Submarines
T092 SSBN 1 1 Chinas first SSBN
T094 SSBN 6 2 8 Main SSBN
T096 SSBN 8 8 Currently in development
T091 SSN 3 2 5 Chinas first SSN
T093 SSN 6 6
T095 SSN 1 5 6 Potentially more to be built
T039 SSK 30 3 35
T032 SSA 1 1 Test unit Qing class
877/636 SSK 10 2 12 Imported Russian Kilo class 2 877 type scrapped
T035 SSK 18 1 21 Based on Soviet Romeo Exp 2 bangladesh 1 decom
Auxilaries
Pearl RoRo 4 4 In civilian service STUFT if required
Chang da PCTC 1 1 In civilian service STUFT if required
Revival RoRo 1 1 In civilian service STUFT if required
Zhong RoRo 1 1 In civilian service STUFT if required
Container AKX UKN UKN Unknown number of container ships STUFT
Qiongsha A 4 2 6 Troop carrying ships STUFT
T901 AOR 2 2 Ocean going replensihment ship
T904 AKS 6 6 Dry store no Underway replenishment capability
T903 AOR 10 1 11 Ocean going replensihment ship
T908 AOR 1 1 Ocean going replensihment ship

[mapuc]

For once I want only to believe that one of you could be right in what you have posted, than knowing that exactly you were correct.

Markus

[Jeff-Groves]

That is a pretty pathetic list.

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by Jeff-Groves

That is a pretty pathetic list.

I will upload screen shots seems the forum doesn't like spread sheets.

The Ukrainian Neptune-class anti-ship missiles are essentially Russian copies of the Harpoon missile. They are subsonic missiles with about a 145 kilogram warhead. To be fair, the Moskva did not have it's air defense radars in operation. This is incompetence and ineptitude on a whole new level. It's a matter of conjecture if the Moskva could have stopped the missile attack if it had been alerted in time. This is based on photos taken after the attack that show it's radar emitters were stowed.

The point is Subsonic missiles under the right circumstances are still effective. The Russian Frigate Makarov has also been hit with Ukrainian missiles and certainly, it was aware of the dangers that the Ukraine posed and yet, was unable to stop the attack. The photos and video are courtesy of Turkey.

Certainly, the U.S will apply hyper-sonic technology to it's next generation Tomahawk ASM inventory. Tomahawks employ a much larger warhead yield over Harpoon missiles.

Not nessaserily incompetence, EMCON would mean your passively listening so your air and surface search active radars would be switched off its a very common practice even in the RN and USN, its so you don't betray your position.

The down side to that is if you miss something like a incoming missile you have no time to react not to mention no time really to counter either.

If you take Sheffield's incident as an example her radars were off before the attack to make a communications call to London, she basically didn't see the missile coming and even if she had and been able to power up the radars it would have been all over anyway she simply wouldn't have been able to counter it.

Yes subsonic missiles still have a role but if your up against a switched on crew, with a decent AAW platform it simply wont get through, China today has a decent AAW platform(s) the crew is another matter.

There was a trial on HMS Diamond fairly recently (2018) the crew were practicing against drones, now yes they were switched on but the drones were fired over 100nm away, Diamonds crew could see the target all the way in then just fired at it.
The control room was quite active but looking at the AWO checking his watch wondering how long be before its in range of the Aster missiles is quite something.

Point is this would have been a completely different scenario had it been hypersonic.

They have a role yes but against a decent platform with a decent crew its unlikely they would get through.

[Skybird]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tion_Army_Navy


Considering that in a war over the South Chinese Sea or Taiwan most of that ^ would be amasse din a relatziuv ely small amount of space with added supportr by missiles and airpowers based on shores, and then those short supply lines, I must - despite your diagnosis - disagree with yoru conclusions on some things, Kapitan. The closer to China the battles talke place, the bigger that is an advanatge for China. They can amass their comboiat power whereas the US sti8ll needs to cosnider their inteersts in othe rreigons of the globe, and must split forces, "scatter them around", as I put it. Only a part of the US Navy cpould join direct ly the war, whereas the Chiense can send ALL theior navy, and most of their land-based air power, while being still save on the contient and along the borders with Russia.



Also, until the war breaks out, they will have collected even more small shifts of the balance in their favour. How they accioeve that, is a combnaiton of factors the vidoe decribes, and an increasingly aggressive use of their dominant business position in the world to get what they want.



They got the nsoth Chiense sea pratcially for free and the US let it happen. This has sent a signal throughout the region. We see more and more small steps by some neighbourign states that accept to fall into appeasement policies against their overwhelming huge and aggressive neighbour of theirs. Whether the Philippines did demand higher fees for harvbouring Us forces or not, is not the issue, it doe snot matter. That the US did nothing but symbolic policies so fa to stop the "land taking" by the Chinese - that is what resonates through the region currently, even mroe so after the Trump years which were a big sobering regarding the US reliability in Asia and in the Gulf states. Trump may be gone for the time being, but the damage was done, and is still there.



I see the Japanese growth in militarizaition in that context, too, The Japanese understood that maybe the US will be less reliably than for decades was thought. Right becasue the Us population is so inwilling to accept high losses in a war far away anymore. I do not judge or condemn this - I just take note of that it is like this. The general mood seems to be set for growing isolationism. Lets face it, a war with China at sea will be most likely short, and very brutal. Much like what Gorshkov already described future naval wars to be.

[mapuc]

Some thoughts

1. How fast/quick can China take Taiwan

2. How fast can USA and its allied come to the rescue

3. If China takes Taiwan before USA and its allied arrive-Will USA then liberate Taiwan or will they see it as a Chinese problem ?

Markus

[Kapitan]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Some thoughts

1. How fast/quick can China take Taiwan

2. How fast can USA and its allied come to the rescue

3. If China takes Taiwan before USA and its allied arrive-Will USA then liberate Taiwan or will they see it as a Chinese problem ?

Markus

With China watching all whats going on with Ukraine v Russia I am pretty sure they wont make the same mistakes so:

1. Once a beachhead is established and supply lines established were talking maybe a week or two before the Island falls.

2. I am skeptical that they will it would be much easier to leave Taiwan to its fate than try and fight that close to China and in shallow waters of the SCS where China has every advantage.

3. I would say they would see it as a Chinese problem and Taiwan will just be another enclave of the PRC.

[Kapitan]

Considering that in a war over the South Chinese Sea or Taiwan most of that ^ would be amasse din a relatziuv ely small amount of space with added supportr by missiles and airpowers based on shores, and then those short supply lines, I must - despite your diagnosis - disagree with yoru conclusions on some things, Kapitan. The closer to China the battles talke place, the bigger that is an advanatge for China. They can amass their comboiat power whereas the US sti8ll needs to cosnider their inteersts in othe rreigons of the globe, and must split forces, "scatter them around", as I put it. Only a part of the US Navy cpould join direct ly the war, whereas the Chiense can send ALL theior navy, and most of their land-based air power, while being still save on the contient and along the borders with Russia.

Always up for discussion, but I will point out my initial post was based on a much broader global style rather than focusing on the SCS, it was mainly in answer to the global reach.

To turn to your points, yes the closer to China the harder it will be as they have land based aircraft and can amass forces that is a given however by doing so you deny yourself freedom of movement which is a key element in order to keep momentum in battle.

While the USA has certain commitments elsewhere a major confrontation of that kind would see the USN focus its forces and cut loose some of its priorities or give them to another nation such as Canada or Belgium to handle.

Like the USN China cannot send its entire navy to sea all at once, simply put there's always going to be ships in dock for repairs and maintenance or out of service the best your going to get is roughly 2/3 of any navy.

The USN has large surface forces and is more than capable of using allied forces as well, the USN wouldn't simply be scratching their heads wondering where the assets are coming from they know that they can take x from here and Y from there and there's always roaming groups on independent patrol.

Also, until the war breaks out, they will have collected even more small shifts of the balance in their favour. How they accioeve that, is a combnaiton of factors the vidoe decribes, and an increasingly aggressive use of their dominant business position in the world to get what they want

Which is no good to China if they cant get raw materials for production, or ship out finished goods, its why China would have to keep its supply lines open otherwise its economy would tank.

They got the nsoth Chiense sea pratcially for free and the US let it happen. This has sent a signal throughout the region. We see more and more small steps by some neighbourign states that accept to fall into appeasement policies against their overwhelming huge and aggressive neighbour of theirs. Whether the Philippines did demand higher fees for harvbouring Us forces or not, is not the issue, it doe snot matter. That the US did nothing but symbolic policies so fa to stop the "land taking" by the Chinese - that is what resonates through the region currently, even mroe so after the Trump years which were a big sobering regarding the US reliability in Asia and in the Gulf states. Trump may be gone for the time being, but the damage was done, and is still there.

I don't disagree Trump did do a lot of damage in the region, and its why I believe USA wont act if China invades Taiwan or if it does it'll be sanctions or something of the like.

I see the Japanese growth in militarizaition in that context, too, The Japanese understood that maybe the US will be less reliably than for decades was thought. Right becasue the Us population is so inwilling to accept high losses in a war far away anymore. I do not judge or condemn this - I just take note of that it is like this. The general mood seems to be set for growing isolationism. Lets face it, a war with China at sea will be most likely short, and very brutal. Much like what Gorshkov already described future naval wars to be

They are growing as are the South Koreans and the reason they are growing is not because of lack of willing with the USA its more to do with Chinas massive build up, in any war were likely to see the Europeans hold the Atlantic theatre while the USA would dedicated a good portion of the Atlantic fleet into the Pacific.

Any war with China and it will be costly not just economically.

[Kapitan]

The point is Subsonic missiles under the right circumstances are still effective. The Russian Frigate Makarov has also been hit with Ukrainian missiles and certainly, it was aware of the dangers that the Ukraine posed and yet, was unable to stop the attack. The photos and video are courtesy of Turkey.

I am very skeptical about the video mainly because the Radars of the ship in the video do not fit those of Makarov, on top of that the profile of the ship also doesn't seem to be that of Makarov in fact its more like a Krivack and there's only one Laddny that's active but in port.

Then add to that several western sources have confirmed Makarov is still sailing and showing no damage

Right now the OSINT network is claiming this video is from a computer game called Arma 3

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by mapuc

Some thoughts

1. How fast/quick can China take Taiwan

2. How fast can USA and its allied come to the rescue

3. If China takes Taiwan before USA and its allied arrive-Will USA then liberate Taiwan or will they see it as a Chinese problem ?

Markus

1 and 3: everybody currently recalculates things in the light of the Ukraine experience.



2 The only force that could "come to the rescue" is the US, and the US alone, all others simply do not have the weight and numbers. Maybe some day Japan will be, but right now I dont think so. Taking Taiwan probably is more costly than previously thought, but then the whole Island is in range of intense missile barrages from China. China can let missiles rain down on them all day and all night long.



How long it takes? It depends. China bases on the bet that it can keep US carrier groups far enough away to beocmne effedctive, and if they get close enough to become effective they would be in range of Chinese land power or get detected os that carrier killers can be zeroed in on them. Those logn chains of islands will be the first frontline. Chiona wants to keep save all water west of it, the US want to be able to break through it. Later, China may want to break thorzugh it and further East to be able to operate a globally active blue water navy, the US will then see these island as an obstacle to contain China west of these islands. Thats why Taiwan is so inportant, it is the lock in this chain of islands. The one side wants to break it open, the other wants to keep it locked.

[mapuc]

Thank you Kapitan and Skybird for your answer to my 3 questions.

Markus

[Commander Wallace]

Originally Posted by Kapitan

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.

.

The Ukrainian Neptune-class anti-ship missiles are essentially Russian copies of the Harpoon missile. They are subsonic missiles with about a 145 kilogram warhead. To be fair, the Moskva did not have it's air defense radars in operation. This is incompetence and ineptitude on a whole new level. It's a matter of conjecture if the Moskva could have stopped the missile attack if it had been alerted in time. This is based on photos taken after the attack that show it's radar emitters were stowed.

The point is Subsonic missiles under the right circumstances are still effective. The Russian Frigate Makarov has also been hit with Ukrainian missiles and certainly, it was aware of the dangers that the Ukraine posed and yet, was unable to stop the attack. The photos and video are courtesy of Turkey.

Certainly, the U.S will apply hyper-sonic technology to it's next generation Tomahawk ASM inventory. Tomahawks employ a much larger warhead yield over Harpoon missiles.



https://news.usni.org/2022/05/05/war...analysis-shows


https://www.skynews.com.au/world-new...9a86deee92f996