SUBSIM Radio Room Forums



SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997

Go Back   SUBSIM Radio Room Forums > General > Sub & Naval Discussions: World Naval News, Books, & Films
Forget password? Reset here

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-22, 07:17 AM   #1
Commander Wallace
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Under the sea in an Octupus garden in the shade
Posts: 5,294
Downloads: 366
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mapuc View Post
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.
Commander Wallace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-22, 07:28 AM   #2
mapuc
CINC Pacific Fleet
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 20,535
Downloads: 37
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Wallace View Post
China is trying to create a " blue water " fleet to project power and challenge the U.S, especially in the Pacific oceans. China hardly needs aircraft carriers for coastal protection.
Instead of putting my own I think that into writing I should have searched for information about their military doctrine and I found some pdf pages about China's military doctrine

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

This one is huge

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

Markus
__________________

My little lovely female cat
mapuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-22, 07:33 AM   #3
Commander Wallace
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Under the sea in an Octupus garden in the shade
Posts: 5,294
Downloads: 366
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mapuc View Post
Instead of putting my own I think that into writing I should have searched for information about their military doctrine and I found some pdf pages about China's military doctrine

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

This one is huge

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

Markus



^ Good information, Markus. Thanks for sharing.
Commander Wallace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-22, 07:38 AM   #4
mapuc
CINC Pacific Fleet
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Denmark
Posts: 20,535
Downloads: 37
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Commander Wallace View Post
^ 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
__________________

My little lovely female cat
mapuc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-22, 10:27 AM   #5
Skybird
Soaring
 
Skybird's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: the mental asylum named Germany
Posts: 42,602
Downloads: 10
Uploads: 0


Default

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.
__________________
If you feel nuts, consult an expert.

Last edited by Skybird; 05-11-22 at 10:40 AM.
Skybird is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-22, 12:24 PM   #6
Kapitan
Sub Test Pilot
 
Kapitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK + Canada
Posts: 7,130
Downloads: 77
Uploads: 7


Default

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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
__________________
DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond



Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/

Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/

Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/
Kapitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-22, 12:25 PM   #7
Kapitan
Sub Test Pilot
 
Kapitan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UK + Canada
Posts: 7,130
Downloads: 77
Uploads: 7


Default

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
Attached Images
File Type: jpg plan 1.jpg (19.0 KB, 1 views)
File Type: jpg plan 2.jpg (19.6 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg plan 3.jpg (16.6 KB, 0 views)
File Type: jpg plan 4.jpg (15.6 KB, 0 views)
__________________
DONT FORGET if you like a post to nominate it by using the blue diamond



Find out about Museum Ships here: https://www.museumships.us/

Flickr for all my pictures: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131313936@N03/

Navy general board articles: https://www.navygeneralboard.com/author/aegis/

Last edited by Kapitan; 05-11-22 at 02:29 PM. Reason: Added content
Kapitan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-22, 01:02 PM   #8
Commander Wallace
Navy Seal
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Under the sea in an Octupus garden in the shade
Posts: 5,294
Downloads: 366
Uploads: 0


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kapitan View Post

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
Commander Wallace is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.