View Full Version : China's rise to a naval power
Skybird
05-09-22, 05:32 PM
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnCqjF6aGJw
Buddahaid
05-09-22, 07:01 PM
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
05-10-22, 12:17 PM
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 :yep:
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
05-10-22, 01:35 PM
A modern day carrier battle group is yet to be surpassed on the high seas.
Skybird
05-10-22, 02:16 PM
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
05-11-22, 05:58 AM
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
05-11-22, 07:02 AM
^ :agree:
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.
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
05-11-22, 07:17 AM
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.
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_pubs/DR_a/ARN33195-ATP_7-100.3-000-WEB-1.pdf
Markus
Commander Wallace
05-11-22, 07:33 AM
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_pubs/DR_a/ARN33195-ATP_7-100.3-000-WEB-1.pdf
Markus
^ Good information, Markus. Thanks for sharing.
^ 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
05-11-22, 10:27 AM
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
05-11-22, 12:24 PM
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
05-11-22, 12:25 PM
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
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
05-11-22, 12:41 PM
That is a pretty pathetic list.
:haha:
Commander Wallace
05-11-22, 01:02 PM
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/warship-moskva-was-blind-to-ukrainian-missile-attack-analysis-shows
https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/global-affairs/down-in-flames-second-putin-warship-reportedly-crippled-in-black-sea/video/4939bc5132bac0af789a86deee92f996
Skybird
05-11-22, 01:17 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_People%27s_Liberation_Army_Na vy
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.
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
05-11-22, 01:59 PM
That is a pretty pathetic list.
:haha:
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.
Kapitan
05-11-22, 02:03 PM
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.
Skybird
05-11-22, 02:09 PM
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.
Thank you Kapitan and Skybird for your answer to my 3 questions.
Markus
Kapitan
05-11-22, 02:19 PM
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
05-11-22, 02:24 PM
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
So here I am going through CNN to see if there's any new news about Ukraine and then I found this..Fits perfect here in this thread
"It's our view that (China is) working hard to effectively put themselves into a position in which their military is capable of taking Taiwan over our intervention," Haines said, declining to publicly provide further details on the intelligence community's timeline.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/10/politics/avril-haines-china-taiwan/index.html
Markus
Skybird
05-11-22, 03:38 PM
Kapitan,
I think China will fiorts need to break the "chain of islands" that contian it, with Taiwan being the lock keeping the chain locked, before they can seriously consider to operate a gobal fleet. All thos eislands currently are held by the US or allies by the US. Thats why I think the regional war will come before the stage of a globally seafaring Chinese fleet. And so I give concerns about that regional conflict priority for the time being. Not before that question has been asnwerd oine way or the other, the quesiton of a golobally navigating Chinese war navy nmeeds to be answered. Right now, gopobally the US wpuld run the Chiens efleet into the bottom of the sea. Globally. Regionally, at Chinese homeland - that is somehtign diferent, and China more and more clearly decides which colours will be played this round. The last summit between that Chiense and American delegation the video mentions, was a disgrace for the US, an open and unhidden gauntlet thrown at Blinken's face. I recall when I saw the news reporting it, and I thought "Damn."
The Chinese do not just want to play.
I give the US the advantage in training, combat experience, and leadership. But i think the chinese have learned from the third Vietnam war. They had high losses, yes, still delivered Vietnam a punishment, showing it its place. That shows that they can see a war through even if it runs not well for them. Its long time ago now, and they have moved on from there, no doubt. And I cannot see that their military is as corrupt as the Russian military obviously is. So the money they spend on it most likely has been much better used than it was used in Russia. Also, they spend more. Much more. Their military buildup over the past 20, 30 years, was breathtaking.
I found this page
https://chinapower.csis.org/military-spending/
Secondly and this is up to Skybird
That we merge this thread here with his Chn-thread.
What do you say we combine these two thread created by you ?
Markus
Commander Wallace
05-11-22, 04:30 PM
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
I was skeptical as well. That's the problem with " false news ." There were reports of landing ships hit as well as patrol boats. I'm not sure on those reports either.
I understand EMCON as well. The question is how wise it was to observe EMCON when you are in a state of war with an enemy that has abilities such as the Ukraine. Yes, I know, Russia never declared war on the Ukraine.
You make valid points, Kapitan. As always, it's good to have you Kapitan to clarify points that have been made. :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
Kapitan
05-11-22, 04:40 PM
I was skeptical as well. That's the problem with " false news ." There were reports of landing ships hit as well as patrol boats. I'm not sure on those reports either.
I understand EMCON as well. The question is how wise it was to observe EMCON when you are in a state of war with an enemy that has abilities such as the Ukraine. Yes, I know, Russia never declared war on the Ukraine.
You make valid points, Kapitan. As always, it's good to have you Kapitan to clarify points that have been made. :Kaleun_Thumbs_Up:
Personally if I was in command and that close to shore knowing that the enemy is likely going to know my location anyway I wouldn't bother with EMCON
So far we know of 3 ships hit which does include two small craft and Moskva
Commander Wallace
05-11-22, 04:49 PM
Personally if I was in command and that close to shore knowing that the enemy is likely going to know my location anyway I wouldn't bother with EMCON
That was precisely my point. Being that close to shore, a competent ship commander would have taken the appropriate precautions consistent with the safety of his command. Unless the ship commander wasn't briefed, he would have known the Ukrainians had access to the anti ship missiles and again, taken precautions.
Kapitan
05-11-22, 05:04 PM
Kapitan,
I think China will fiorts need to break the "chain of islands" that contian it, with Taiwan being the lock keeping the chain locked, before they can seriously consider to operate a gobal fleet. All thos eislands currently are held by the US or allies by the US. Thats why I think the regional war will come before the stage of a globally seafaring Chinese fleet. And so I give concerns about that regional conflict priority for the time being. Not before that question has been asnwerd oine way or the other, the quesiton of a golobally navigating Chinese war navy nmeeds to be answered. Right now, gopobally the US wpuld run the Chiens efleet into the bottom of the sea. Globally. Regionally, at Chinese homeland - that is somehtign diferent, and China more and more clearly decides which colours will be played this round. The last summit between that Chiense and American delegation the video mentions, was a disgrace for the US, an open and unhidden gauntlet thrown at Blinken's face. I recall when I saw the news reporting it, and I thought "Damn."
The Chinese do not just want to play.
I give the US the advantage in training, combat experience, and leadership. But i think the chinese have learned from the third Vietnam war. They had high losses, yes, still delivered Vietnam a punishment, showing it its place. That shows that they can see a war through even if it runs not well for them. Its long time ago now, and they have moved on from there, no doubt. And I cannot see that their military is as corrupt as the Russian military obviously is. So the money they spend on it most likely has been much better used than it was used in Russia. Also, they spend more. Much more. Their military buildup over the past 20, 30 years, was breathtaking.
China realistically can win a war without firing a shot, and simply just use trade and this looks like the angle they are going for right now.
Like the soviets they know they cant compete platform for platform on the world stage or deploy globally like the USA, but what they do have is a network where by a lot of economies are reliant on them.
This includes European and American economies, how has the cost of living and prices done since sanctions on Russia?
Now imagine we put the same sanctions on China or China embargos us that cost of living will double if not triple, inflation will go through the roof.
Take a look at what happened when the OPEC countries cut off oil to the west in the 70s.
With so much now being produced in China it makes you wonder if the USA would be able to claw everything back in a short space of time, Id doubt it.
If you look at the list I put up of their naval units you can see the type of navy they are creating, its what we would call sea denial, they are focusing on the regional area right now.
Taiwan will be in that mix, they have enough landing ships and amphibs to go for it now and overwhelm the forces on Taiwan.
But I think they are stopping and looking at just what's going on in Ukraine, western weapons are performing well and soviet / Russian equipment with its man power and also tactics are not.
And don't forget China is largely based on a quasi soviet model.
Chinese can be corrupt probably no where near the scale of the soviet union or Russia, and to be frank the USA can also be corrupt.
The USA logistical network isn't exactly efficient, its no where near many European countries and that can stifle an economy, China is also not near the top of the list they have a lot of inefficiencies too.
but while that is said if you build a lot of ships at roughly the same time you come to a big problem, those ships are going to have to be maintained and if you launch 10 ships the same year there going to need maintenance at the same time it causes a shipyard problem especially if your still building.
Guess which country is already suffering from that problem.
Overall training and experience I have to hand that to the west like Russia Chinas military is predominantly conscript, yes you may have 2.2million in the army however as has been shown a small group of professional soldiers who are skilled and combat hardened can over come the numbers issue.
The Falkland's showed that one clearly, so when Whang Doe sees a dozen of his friends killed is he going to want to carry on? I don't think so.
Having been to China they grow fast they have started adopting a westernized mentality, Shenzhen is an area that made my jaw drop in 5 years the city went from nothing to 3 million with major high rise buildings and is now one of the tech centers of China.
If they lost it due to missile or bombing attacks then I think the will of the people would eventually come forward in overthrowing Xi Ping.
The average Chinese person doesn't want war just like the average Russian, so even with surpression of news and control of the media would the Chinese stomach heavy losses? I would say yes more than the west but eventually it would outrage them, whats more the key would be who started it, the mood would be different if the USA started it and not China.
Times have changed and in some ways for the better.
Kapitan
05-11-22, 05:12 PM
That was precisely my point. Being that close to shore, a competent ship commander would have taken the appropriate precautions consistent with the safety of his command. Unless the ship commander wasn't briefed, he would have known the Ukrainians had access to the anti ship missiles and again, taken precautions.
For me it raises a lot of questions, Moskva from what I can deduce her position was mainly to provide air defense......well in this case total failure as we saw.
There seems to be no logic to their operation, their logistical supply chain is well non existent.
Their knowledge of what weapons Ukraine has should have given them a major advantage.
However now what were seeing is a "professional" :haha: army fighting a gorilla war.
That doesnt end well for any standing army they should have known that from their escapade in Afghanistan and also the US involvement in Afghanistan and Vietnam.
A co worker said to me its as if Putin is playing chess and Zelinsky is playing go.
For me it raises a lot of questions, Moskva from what I can deduce her position was mainly to provide air defense......well in this case total failure as we saw.
There seems to be no logic to their operation, their logistical supply chain is well non existent.
Their knowledge of what weapons Ukraine has should have given them a major advantage.
However now what were seeing is a "professional" :haha: army fighting a gorilla war.
That doesnt end well for any standing army they should have known that from their escapade in Afghanistan and also the US involvement in Afghanistan and Vietnam.
A co worker said to me its as if Putin is playing chess and Zelinsky is playing go.
I don't know how exact this is, 'cause it's taken from a book by Tom Clancy.
(Can't remember the title though)
In the book the author says that a SAM needs some sec after launch before being active-That's why Ships has CIWS or 40 mm anti air guns because the SM 2 need some sec or distance before getting active.
Can have remembered wrong though.
Markus
Kapitan
05-11-22, 05:32 PM
I don't know how exact this is, 'cause it's taken from a book by Tom Clancy.
(Can't remember the title though)
In the book the author says that a SAM needs some sec after launch before being active-That's why Ships has CIWS or 40 mm anti air guns because the SM 2 need some sec or distance before getting active.
Can have remembered wrong though.
Markus
The rotary SA-N-9 system (S300) can only fire 1 missile from each rotary VLS at one time, the onboard system can manage up to 6 missiles at once but, the system needs an active air search radar and also the targeting radar to be switched on.
The rotary VLS is not as clean as the MK41 which can launch multiple missiles in one go and the aegis system can handle a decent number of missiles in one go too.
The same is for the type 996 and sea ceptor missiles on the type 23 and the Sampson S1850 system on the type 45 with its Viper missiles.
They all do need to be a distance away from the ship before they activate that's more for safety reasons, and I wont confirm to you the actual ranges on that.
CIWS such as goal keeper or Phalanx are a great tool they are point defence weapons systems, this will include sea ram as well.
Imagine an onion
The outer layer and for this lets say 30nm is covered by your best SAMs these being something like Aster 30 or SM2 for example.
The next layer is your Aster 15 or ESSM these have a shorter range lets just say 15nm
The next layer is your CIWS these are the goal keeper Phalanx and sea ram
Obvious reasons I have just pulled numbers from my backside but I am sure you get the picture
when you look at detection its pretty much the same as the missile defense its a layered defense.
If you were going platform v platform it might look something like this:
beyond that outer layer your likely going to have a submarine which will pick up and track major units and contacts subsurface and surface this can be 600nm away from a carrier group
AWACS or an AEW capable aircraft be the next layer operating anywhere between 300-400nm from the group
Long range air and surface search radars they are out to 200nm
Short range search radar 75nm
Targeting radar 50nm
Its all layered defense it gives you multiple chances to detect an incoming threat, if my memory serves me right the type 45 has 8 radar operators on the surface and air search radars, the burkes have 8-10.
Again I have just pulled some numbers out the backside here as I don't want to give anything away.
Kapitan
05-11-22, 08:09 PM
Just done a quick tally on the list this is what is realistically ocean capable IE able to deploy anywhere on any ocean and having a range beyond 3,000nm now its a rough guide but it gives you some idea on rough numbers that China can deploy globally if their operational tempo went up.
Large warships
2 CV
8 LPD / LHD / LHA
40 DDG
42 FFG
72 FFL (corvette)
68 SSN / SSK (Haven't included SSBN)
Auxiliaries
13 Oilers
7 Equipment carrying ships (RORO or PCTC)
4 Troop ships
In Build
2 CV
2 LPD / LHA / LHD
10 DDG
1 FFG
4 SSK / SSN
Using the 1/3 rotation meaning at any one time only 2/3 of the fleet are available for use that brings the numbers too this for ocean going warships and auxiliaries.
1CV
3 LHA / LHD / LPD
14 DDG
14 FFG
24 FFL
23 SSN / SSK
2 RoRo / PCTC
3 Troop carriers
5 Oilers
Quite frankly given the size of the oilers 5 of them wont be keeping that lot going for very long.
Commander Wallace
05-11-22, 08:22 PM
For me it raises a lot of questions, Moskva from what I can deduce her position was mainly to provide air defense......well in this case total failure as we saw.
There seems to be no logic to their operation, their logistical supply chain is well non existent. Their knowledge of what weapons Ukraine has should have given them a major advantage.
However now what were seeing is a "professional" :haha: army fighting a gorilla war.
That doesnt end well for any standing army they should have known that from their escapade in Afghanistan and also the US involvement in Afghanistan and Vietnam.
A co worker said to me its as if Putin is playing chess and Zelinsky is playing go.
Again, you are very right. Traditionally, cruisers provide air support defenses within battle groups but their respective weaponry has a number of applications and the cruisers themselves can perform a number and variety of roles.
With regards to knowing what weaponry the Ukrainians can field, this is a good reason why I have my doubts as to how effective Ukraine receiving MiG- 29 fighters would have been. If Russia maintains records and I'm sure they do, they would know the block and lot number of the MiG-29's Poland has in their possession. With that knowledge, Russia would know how those MiG's were built including the algorithms on which their radar's and fire control suites were based and operating. Russia could jam those radars and those aircraft would be essentially flying and fighting blind. The Ukrainians have been doing fine with drones and anti aircraft and anti tank missiles. What they really need are cruise missiles.
I noticed you mentioned a " professional " army. A professional fighting force doesn't rape, murder and pillage. I know you and I'm sure everyone else feels the same way. However, the actions taken by Russian forces may well have been sanctioned by Russia itself. This may explain why there is such dissent within the rank and file members of the Russian military forces.
Imagine an onion
The outer layer and for this lets say 30nm is covered by your best SAMs these being something like Aster 30 or SM2 for example.
The next layer is your Aster 15 or ESSM these have a shorter range lets just say 15nm
The next layer is your CIWS these are the goal keeper Phalanx and sea ram
Obvious reasons I have just pulled numbers from my backside but I am sure you get the picture
The U.S refers to that as phased array systems with interlocking components. Your information as usual has been informative and concise. Great breakdowns.
Kapitan
05-11-22, 08:41 PM
With regards to knowing what weaponry the Ukrainians can field, this is a good reason why I have my doubts as to how effective Ukraine receiving MiG- 29 fighters would have been. If Russia maintains records and I'm sure they do, they would know the block and lot number of the MiG-29's Poland has in their possession. With that knowledge, Russia would know how those MiG's were built including the algorithms on which their radar's and fire control suites were based and operating. Russia could jam those radars and those aircraft would be essentially flying and fighting blind. The Ukrainians have been doing fine with drones and anti aircraft and anti tank missiles. What they really need are cruise missiles
While the Russian air force will know what the capability and flight envelope of the Mig 29 will be and know the block numbers etc, they cant account for the upgrades put into them by the west.
A lot of Poland's Mig 29s came from Germany, these have had avionics upgrades as well as system and engine upgrades, they very likely use different radars and sensors to the original soviet fit.
The US did a lot of upgrading of soviet equipment when former Warsaw pact countries joined NATO probably the best example was the Bulgarian Mig 21s
As for cruise missiles you would need land launched cruise missiles and realistically the only ones that can offer that is the US with the land launched tomahawk.
It would be good but it might cause Russia to go potty and target NATO countries and right now with the way Putin is in his alleged ill health do we tempt it, if it is true he is dying then do we give the man who has absolutely nothing to loose that carrot?
Again, you are very right. Traditionally, cruisers provide air support defenses within battle groups but their respective weaponry has a number of applications and the cruisers themselves can perform a number of roles
Cruisers do perform many roles, predominantly AAW but they have command and control functions the Slava was no exception, like the US cruisers they also have a ASUW ASW capability too.
Personally I do think the cruiser is at the end of its life, if you look at the modern DDGs they can do nearly everything a cruiser can do so is it worth the expense of having 2 classes of ships doing the same thing.
I noticed you mentioned a " professional " army. A professional fighting force doesn't rape, murder and pillage. I know you and I'm sure everyone else feels the same way. However, the actions taken by Russian forces may well have been sanctioned by Russia itself. This may explain why there is such dissent within the rank and file members of the Russian military forces.
Indeed which is why i put the "" around Professional with the laughing emoji because quite frankly no professional army does this sort of thing.
Unfortunately the USA and UK have engaged in some undesirable practices as well but id say they are isolated incidents and absolutely no where near the level of what were seeing.
They don't call the Russian red army the Romping Stomping red army for nothing :03:
The U.S refers to that as phased array systems with interlocking components. Your information as usual has been informative and concise. Great breakdowns.
Yep phased array layered air and surface defense, it is incredibly effective, the only warship that currently can beat the US Aegis systems are the type 45 DDG sampson S1850 combo when it comes to detection range and tracking, problem is we don't have the missiles for the range :haha: so thats where the US has the UK.
Commander Wallace
05-11-22, 08:56 PM
@kapitan.
I didn't want to assume the Fulcrum MiG-29's had their avionics and weapon control suites upgraded. Israel has upgraded the MiG's of various countries and has a great reputation with regards to those upgrades.
If the Polish MiG's have been upgraded to NATO standards, then I am at a loss as to why they haven't been made available to the Ukraine.
With regards to the " professional " army comment, this is why I also put the "" in as well. They are hardly professional.
Kapitan
05-11-22, 08:59 PM
@kapitan.
I didn't want to assume the Fulcrum MiG-29's had their avionics and weapon control suites upgraded. Israel has upgraded the MiG's of various countries and has a great reputation with regards to those upgrades.
If the Polish MiG's have been upgraded to NATO standards, then I am at a loss as to why they haven't been made available to the Ukraine.
Only a few weeks ago the Polish government offered the USA all of their Mig 29s in exchange for similar aircraft (something like the F16 C/D) so that the USA could pass on the Migs to Ukraine
Poland has been using updated Mig 29s with upgraded western avionics and systems I certainly know the IFF system was installed along with some other systems
Not 100% sure but I do believe their Klimov engines were replaced with GE ones
Commander Wallace
05-11-22, 09:13 PM
Only a few weeks ago the Polish government offered the USA all of their Mig 29s in exchange for similar aircraft (something like the F16 C/D) so that the USA could pass on the Migs to Ukraine
Poland has been using updated Mig 29s with upgraded western avionics and systems I certainly know the IFF system was installed along with some other systems
Not 100% sure but I do believe their Klimov engines were replaced with GE ones
I certainly remember the plan a few weeks ago and it fell apart at the last minute. I hope the U.S reconsiders it's position on the MiG's.
Kapitan
05-11-22, 09:20 PM
They need to but also id argue provide some training too and rope the Europeans in on it as well.
Commander Wallace
05-11-22, 09:23 PM
They need to but also id argue provide some training too and rope the Europeans in on it as well.
I agree. Not sure about the other European countries although I'm sure they have competent pilots but the U.K and Germany have always had exceptional pilots. Perhaps training from U.S pilots as well.
Skybird
05-12-22, 10:05 AM
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/12/politics/us-navy-scrap-warships/index.html
The ship class I early wrongly refused to as "katamarans". I reloeatedly red about these in the opast years, and always it was trouble. Mechanical failures unreliable engines, poor weapon suite, poor ammo reserves especially missiles, and poor and sensors. Even the speed and agility is put into relation against the apparent higher rate of problems wioth the engine/propulsion system.
^ I base that only on media reports. But I do not like this class. And I am apparently not alone with that. The concept and the execution are not up to the challenges the fleet of these ships is meant to meet, I think. I would not be surprised if they decide to let them disappear alltogether, all of them, not all at once to evade too much negative attention by the public, but getting rid of them all over time.
If I should meet China's President face to face I would say to him.
" I know you are uncertain on what steps USA may take if you try to invade Taiwan.
I tell you it is not in USA or other western country an interest in starting WWIII what you can count on is USA giving military aid and defensive help to Taiwan.
USA will provide Taiwan with intelligence about your army and its movement."
Even though there are some military agreement between USA, Taiwan and some other island near China-USA are not interested in a war with China.
Nor is China..
(Could be wrong though)
Markus
Jimbuna
05-12-22, 10:14 AM
Give em to Ukraine.
Skybird
05-12-22, 10:22 AM
An article I remember to have red when it was first released.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/25/asia/us-navy-littoral-combat-ships-pacific-south-china-sea-intl-hnk-ml-dst/index.html
Speed does not help you when missiles are flying.
Skybird
05-12-22, 10:23 AM
Give em to Ukraine.
And who maintains them...? A ship is not just a truck. Its a bit more ... complicated...
Jimbuna
05-12-22, 10:40 AM
And who maintains them...? A ship is not just a truck. Its a bit more ... complicated...
Worry about the maintenance later.....Ukraine needs them now.
Skybird
05-12-22, 11:25 AM
Same problem that the second CNN article above mentions: you do not want to be in harms way with a ship as vulnerable to engine and techncial breakdown as these seem to be.
Also, crew training. Which includes engineering. Damage control. I just assume you do not learn this in one crash course over the weekend. Bridge electronics. Pitiful sonar. The Russians still have some frigates left, and submartines, and corvettes, and it seems the sinking of the Makarow was a wrong message.
The French delivered them corvettes. One or two of these got blown up already in the beginning of the war, I seem to recall.
Jimbuna
05-12-22, 11:35 AM
Have them tied up alongside piers and leave the stars and stripes hoisted then see if Putrid has got the cojones to attack them :03:
Jimbuna
05-12-22, 11:38 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kfum8fdbx8M
^ Guess many fear that Russia may attack Finland-No such thing
Markus
Kapitan
05-14-22, 07:19 PM
Given Finland's closeness to NATO I don't think Putin will try to invade he has enough problems trying to save face right now with Ukraine.
Ukraine although has some limited modern weapons is not Finland which has very advanced western weapons and tactics.
LCS in the Black sea would be well sitting targets, the only good thing they would be is decoys.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.