War in South China Sea?
Published: Oct. 3, 2011 at 6:19 AM By MARTIN WALKER, UPI Editor Emeritus
LONDON, Oct. 3 (UPI) -- An ugly momentum is building in the South China Sea, where an official Chinese newspaper called last week for war against Vietnam and the Philippines to uphold China's assertion of sovereignty over the mineral-rich seabed, estimated to hold 7 billion barrels of oil and 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The lead article in the Chinese Communist Party newspaper Global Times
Tuesday carried the headline "The time to use force has arrived in the South China Sea; Let's wage wars on the Philippines and Vietnam to prevent more wars."
"The South China Sea is the best place for China to wage wars," the article said. "Of the more than 1,000 oil rigs there, none belongs to China; of the four airfields in the Spratly Islands, none belongs to China; once a war is declared, the South China Sea will be a sea of fire [with burning oil rigs]. Who will suffer the most from a war? Once a war starts there, the Western oil companies will flee the area, who will suffer the most?"
The article went on to argue that "the wars should be focused on striking the Philippines and Vietnam, the two noisiest troublemakers, to achieve the effect of killing one chicken to scare the monkeys."
GALLERY: Signs of China's new wealth
The Global Times is China's main newspaper for international affairs, widely distributed internationally in English, and is published under the authority of the central committee of the Chinese Communist Party. The article also argued that the United States wouldn't intervene, too preoccupied with its war on terror, its quagmire in Afghanistan and its own economic problems.
There were three immediate triggers for the extraordinary reaction from Beijing.
The first was the successful move by the Philippines to arrange talks within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, excluding China, on cooperating and "clarifying consensual and disputed claims in the South China Sea."
The second trigger was India's rejection of Chinese objections to its own new agreements to explore for oil in Vietnamese waters, in partnership with Vietnam. Global Times had criticized the Indian approach, saying in an editorial that Vietnam's efforts to bring in foreign companies to explore for oil amount to a "serious political provocation."
India hasn't been intimidated.
"We will proceed with drilling at our block (in the South China Sea) on a schedule established according to our technical convenience," India's Oil and Natural Gas Corp. announced last month, adding that India's foreign ministry had told ONGC the area where the oil firm wished to explore was "very much inside Vietnam's territory."
The third trigger was last week's agreement of Japan and ASEAN, at a meeting of defense officials in Tokyo, to intensify cooperation and consultation on the South China Sea. Japanese Vice Minister of Defense Kimito Nakae said the relationship between Tokyo and ASEAN has "matured from dialogues to one where Japan plays a more specific cooperative role" on a range of regional security issues."
Nakae also suggested that the recent tensions over oil exploration and military posts in the South China Sea would require more cooperation with the United States and other countries, including India.
Immediately before the defense officials met, Japan and the Philippines affirmed their security links into a "strategic partnership" in a joint statement signed by Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda and Philippine President Benigno Aquino in Tokyo.
GALLERY: China's military might
"Chinese naval activism will not likely be a temporary phenomenon but will be a permanent feature of Asian politics in the years to come," commented Toshi Yoshihara, a professor of Asia-Pacific studies at the U.S. Naval War College. "Maritime Asia is going to be a busy place. It is going to be a busy theater as China fulfills what it believes is its rightful maritime prerogative."
China's decision to steer more of its growing economic strength into defense spending and a regional naval buildup, including a new aircraft carrier and submarines, has given weight to Beijing's rhetoric over its rights to the South China Sea.
Former Philippines President Fidel Ramos, visiting Washington last week, indicated that the real issue would be U.S. readiness to deter China and support the rights of smaller nations.
"We expect South China Sea tensions to continue because the root cause is really China's perceived need to break out from under the strategic dominance of the Western allies," Ramos said. "China's proximate aim, it seems to me, is to limit American freedom of access" and "erode the credibility of Washington's security guarantees to the East Asian states, including and especially the Philippines."
The Pentagon plans to boost its presence in the region by strengthening the military capability of its air, naval and marine bases in Guam are in question because of plans to cut the defense budget. The plans include a new aircraft carrier berth, submarine and logistics bases, facilities for more stealth warplanes, B-2 and B-52 bombers on Guam and to move 8,600 U.S. Marines to the island.
Wow, India vs. China has the potential to turn into something that I'd rather not imagine (said Captain Obvious ). As a non-American, I don't have much important to say about what the US should or shouldn't do, but to me it seems as though the US is caught in a bit of a scrape (which is what China wants): either they [the US] honours their promises and defends their allies or they pull out and leave their allies, losing a lot of international respect in the process. If the US decides to not back down, it'll be dragged into another costly war that will no doubt make the current economic issues worse. It's more or less a win-win for the Chinese gov't., as they don't care much about how many lives they'd lose in a conflict such as this.
I'd be curious to see how China plans to wage a naval war that will inevitably pull in the United States (and possibly European powers depending on how things play out in the coming years) with no blue water navy.
Come on China. If you want to play gunboat diplomacy, you need the boat first.
LordofHats wrote:I'd be curious to see how China plans to wage a naval war that will inevitably pull in the United States (and possibly European powers depending on how things play out in the coming years) with no blue water navy.
Come on China. If you want to play gunboat diplomacy, you need the boat first.
They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.
I don't think China wants a fight with the US, yet. Its not in their interest. They are talking Vietnam/Phillipines. Pushing them and taking their stuff definitely is in their interests.
As noted, time for the US to get some popcorn and sit one out. This lets have a war every 3-5 years thing is getting crazy.
I do not see the US getting involved over a spat in the South China Sea any more than they did in the conflict in Georgia. When it comes to stomping on smaller countries, the US usually pulls out the big guns, however when it comes to drawing a matchup against an opponent that hits even anywhere near its level, it has a habit of engaging in nothing more than heated rhetoric if its own interests are not substantially involved.
India is in no position to wage a war against China here navally. They'd be outnumbered, outgunned, and have terrible logistics.
No, if China wants the South China Sea, it's there's for the taking. However, the flexing of its military muscle like that would cause a substantial threat re-evaluation over in the US, and half a dozen carrier fleets being based in South Korea and Japan a short time later I would imagine. It's all very well and good to define yourself a sphere of influence, but playing games like that has high costs.
If China starts a war in the SCS India virtually HAS to intervene. The conflict between those two will decide the reigning superpower on the Rim for at least a couple decades.
From an analysis point of view India has a qualitative edge on China in naval hardware, and while China is now building a carrier, and naval fighters India has had a carrier since 1961 and has gained more than 50 years of experience in blue water naval air operations. India was supposed to launch the second ship bearing the name Vikrant this month but she's not even 10% complete. Despite thier home Shipbuilding woes India has a trained modern navy supported by an experienced Naval Air Wing and access to purchasing markets in tue east and west. china only has access to contract built and reverse engineered Russian designs and NO access to western military technology. When it comes to a purely naval confrontation China is on the short end of the stick. If they choose to duke it out on land too it'll get ugly fast.
Let's all hope a Sino-Indian war doesn't develop, and if it does the West stays out; and I mean all of us.
AustonT wrote:If China starts a war in the SCS India virtually HAS to intervene. The conflict between those two will decide the reigning superpower on the Rim for at least a couple decades.
From an analysis point of view India has a qualitative edge on China in naval hardware, and while China is now building a carrier, and naval fighters India has had a carrier since 1961 and has gained more than 50 years of experience in blue water naval air operations. India was supposed to launch the second ship bearing the name Vikrant this month but she's not even 10% complete. Despite thier home Shipbuilding woes India has a trained modern navy supported by an experienced Naval Air Wing and access to purchasing markets in tue east and west. china only has access to contract built and reverse engineered Russian designs and NO access to western military technology. When it comes to a purely naval confrontation China is on the short end of the stick. If they choose to duke it out on land too it'll get ugly fast.
Let's all hope a Sino-Indian war doesn't develop, and if it does the West stays out; and I mean all of us.
Why would a war between China and India be limited to a naval engagement? After all in the 1962 war, China cleaned India's clock.
Indeed both are nuke powers now. This would be an unprecedented conflict (Frazzled's gets popcorn).
I can stay home and watch this one on TV as well, so I don't have to miss out on Beer and Multi-player Space Marine on my PC!
Its good news really, we cant afford to spend any more cash on our militaries and Iraq and Afghanistan has cost us a fortune, so we need other people to have expensive wars to level the playing field by making them spend their money/blood!
I hope India and Pakistan level each other with nukes, Russia gets bogged down in aggressive OBUA fighting in Chechnya, Dagestan, Moldova, Georgia and Ingushetia, and the Chinese are held for years by a determined guerilla Vietnamese/Philippines alliance.
Ketara wrote:
No, if China wants the South China Sea, it's there's for the taking. However, the flexing of its military muscle like that would cause a substantial threat re-evaluation over in the US, and half a dozen carrier fleets being based in South Korea and Japan a short time later I would imagine. It's all very well and good to define yourself a sphere of influence, but playing games like that has high costs.
As the article claims, the US is already bolstering the facilities in Guam. India will reportedly have 3 carriers by 2014, and I believe they're launching refitted Russian carrier next year.
Interestingly, the Chinese have noted that building their own carriers is prudent given that both India and Japan will carriers of their own, this is strange given the Japanese vessels are only helicopter carriers; which makes me wonder at the specifications of the Chinese vessel.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Why would a war between China and India be limited to a naval engagement? After all in the 1962 war, China cleaned India's clock.
Because the relevant interests of both parties are in a naval theatre, and the Indian military is not the same one that fought in 1962. Plus, both countries are nuclear capable now, meaning that there are larger risks for both sides.
I'd rather not see a WW3... but that could cause it. And as for the gent from the UK saying the US stays out... I'm not so sure thats fair to say...
I think the US has fought vs the smaller weaker countries simply because the cost benefit analysis showed it was cheaper than negotiating... where vs a larger group... well war is costly.
We'll see how things go though. I can only hope people don't war over OIL... again
frgsinwntr wrote:I think the US has fought vs the smaller weaker countries simply because the cost benefit analysis showed it was cheaper than negotiating... where vs a larger group... well war is costly.
The US could quite easily wipe out either (or both) the Indian or Chinese navies.
The tactical play for China isn't defeating the United States, it's keeping us away from the center of conflict long enough to cripple an opponent (usually imagined as Taiwan) and fortify their position before US forces arrive.
frgsinwntr wrote:We'll see how things go though. I can only hope people don't war over OIL... again
What other natural resource is worth fighting for?
Surely the US has a vested interest in the Philippines? It's been a US stopover since the Americans liberated them from the Japanese towards the end of WW2....
The Americans had (have?) a permanent base there, it was Subic naval base I believe. Although I think that South Korea now have docking rites there. I'm not sure on that one actually...
The last time I went there it was under American control but that was 4 years ago now. I'll do some digging (my missus is Filipino) and come back on that one. I hope it dosnt escalate though. Supposed to be going to the Philippines next March and I have property out there. War would feth up the property Market for sure!
Ketara wrote:
No, if China wants the South China Sea, it's there's for the taking. However, the flexing of its military muscle like that would cause a substantial threat re-evaluation over in the US, and half a dozen carrier fleets being based in South Korea and Japan a short time later I would imagine. It's all very well and good to define yourself a sphere of influence, but playing games like that has high costs.
As the article claims, the US is already bolstering the facilities in Guam. India will reportedly have 3 carriers by 2014, and I believe they're launching refitted Russian carrier next year.
Interestingly, the Chinese have noted that building their own carriers is prudent given that both India and Japan will carriers of their own, this is strange given the Japanese vessels are only helicopter carriers; which makes me wonder at the specifications of the Chinese vessel.
However, the Indian carriers aren't scheduled to hit the waves for a few years yet. The Chinese also supposedly have two to three carriers of their own under construction, although details of that are naturally shrouded in secrecy.
There's also the factor of their more recent buildup of hidden submarines and submarine pens, carrier killer missiles, and general numerical superiority over the Indian fleet, in addition to the nearby Home player advantage from a logistical and aerial sense.
Guam is nearby enough that it has force projection in that part of the world, but distant enough that the US have no large vested interest in the South China Sea. The news that they're planning on sticking an aircraft carrier berth there indicates the presence of at least one carrier fleet in that part of the world in a few years. If China went ahead and seized the SCS though, I would imagine the US naval operations in that part of the world would be scaled up substantially, and be much higher than a single carrier fleet. You guys have something like 11 carriers and another 4 under construction, so you could spare five or six for that region of the world.
Ultimately though, the US will not get involved in a clash between the 3rd and 4th premier world powers unless it has to. It's already starting to retreat towards a more isolationist policy on the whole after its been stung a few times, and a war with a nuclear capable superpower on the other side of the globe is not in any way in its interest.
Well, actually, it would probably sell both sides ample weaponry, but no interest beyond that....
biccat wrote:
The US could quite easily wipe out either (or both) the Indian or Chinese navies.
This is true, but overly simplistic.
For the US to do so, it would need several carrier fleets sitting off the Chinese coast. Those carrier fleets would probably wipe the floor with the Chinese Navy, before being gradually whittled down and destroyed over the course of a month by continuous aircraft runs and missile launches from mainland china. If the carrier fleets retreat from the area, the chinese can rebuild, if the US occupied the coastal land, it would be crushed in no short order.
The only way the US could ever hope to defeat China would be an amphibious landing operation of scale and size such as the world has never seen, and that would take years to prepare the equipment for.
And they'd probably just set off a nuclear exchange if they tried it.
The Indians are indeed commisoning a Russian refit, and have long maintained maritime operations Chinas blue water navy is just now cutting it's teeth in somolia. Like I said in a purely naval conflict China is screwed. They've been so duplicitous about thier actual land power that no one really knows how capable thier Army and National Police are.
The US navy has considered China a legimate military threat since and during the cold war, them agitating US interests isn't saber rattling, they are pushing to see how far their economic hold over the US will get them. There's always a myriad of influences when diplomac is involved but the Sino-US relationship is particularly labyrinthine.
sarpedons-right-hand wrote:Surely the US has a vested interest in the Philippines? It's been a US stopover since the Americans liberated them from the Japanese towards the end of WW2....
The Americans had (have?) a permanent base there, it was Subic naval base I believe. Although I think that South Korea now have docking rites there. I'm not sure on that one actually...
The last time I went there it was under American control but that was 4 years ago now. I'll do some digging (my missus is Filipino) and come back on that one. I hope it dosnt escalate though. Supposed to be going to the Philippines next March and I have property out there. War would feth up the property Market for sure!
The US returned Subic Bay to the Phillipines in the 70s or early 80s. We have no tie to the Phillipines now.
While this is a bit cynical of me, at the moment my opinion is that the US should sell India some of its better military technology and lend advisors to train them in its use to even the score so both of them grind themselves silly over the whole issue.
Ketara wrote:You guys have something like 11 carriers and another 4 under construction, so you could spare five or six for that region of the world.
I think 2 are replacements and the expectation is to add another 2 carriers, although I don't think we're adding new carrier strike groups.
Ketara wrote:For the US to do so, it would need several carrier fleets sitting off the Chinese coast. Those carrier fleets would probably wipe the floor with the Chinese Navy, before being gradually whittled down and destroyed over the course of a month by continuous aircraft runs and missile launches from mainland china. If the carrier fleets retreat from the area, the chinese can rebuild, if the US occupied the coastal land, it would be crushed in no short order.
It would ultimately depend on how much interest the Chinese have in waging war against the U.S. and how much the U.S. is willing to devote to the war. The US would establish air superiority pretty quickly, so it would be difficult for China to threaten the U.S. strike groups. If China mounted a full-on assault on the US fleet, it could pull back to deep water until the Air Force (there are 2 fighter squadrons in S. Korea and 4 in Japan) got involved, or until the naval forces stationed in the western U.S. arrived. Total time for reinforcement would be a maximum of a month, and there's no way that China could build and launch a ship or a significant number of aircraft (with trained pilots) in that time.
Again, that's assuming the U.S. was willing to fully engage China to protect the S. China sea, and China were willing to devote all of their resources to wiping out the US threat to their expansion (short of nuclear weapons). If the U.S. were interested in occupying China (I'm pretty sure we wouldn't), then, as you point out, it couldn't be as an invading force, it would have to be as a peacekeeping/police force, such as Iraq and Afghanistan - wipe out significant military threats first then send in the troops to re-establish order and government.
Ketara wrote:
Well, actually, it would probably sell both sides ample weaponry, but no interest beyond that....
You mean sell ample weaponry to India, and a few weapons to China so they can reverse engineer them and undercut our own exports on the global market?
Ketara wrote:
However, the Indian carriers aren't scheduled to hit the waves for a few years yet.
I thought the first was scheduled late 2012/early 2013? That's right around 1.5 years.
Ketara wrote:
There's also the factor of their more recent buildup of hidden submarines and submarine pens, carrier killer missiles, and general numerical superiority over the Indian fleet, in addition to the nearby Home player advantage from a logistical and aerial sense.
Yeah, the submarine fleet is a problem, and India has little territorial interest in the SCS. They might support Vietnam in the conflict, but its not likely they would engage in actual combat unless attacked directly.
Ketara wrote:
The only way the US could ever hope to defeat China would be an amphibious landing operation of scale and size such as the world has never seen, and that would take years to prepare the equipment for.
And it would be outnumbered by something like 4-1 if you factor in other US deployments, and the unlikelihood of conscription being reinstated.
Though its worth remembering that the US Navy has a significant advantage in terms of the number of operational combat aircraft. The issues are cost, as biccat said, and personnel available. If I remember correctly there aren't enough active duty naval personnel to man the entirety of the carrier fleet, which significantly reduces the effective number of available combat aircraft.
I think the fact remains that Chinese ground base capability would ultimately be capable of fending off any American Naval or aerial assets. China is simply too big for America to reasonably maintain aerial superiority 24/7 over the entire nation, and the massive losses that would be incurred in even trying would soon result in a withdrawal.
Melissia wrote:While this is a bit cynical of me, at the moment my opinion is that the US should sell India some of its better military technology and lend advisors to train them in its use to even the score so both of them grind themselves silly over the whole issue.
Yeah, LBJ tried that one, then we started full on operations in Vietnam a few years later. We should not get involved unless it is in a mediator capacity.
if this moves beyond anything other than politcial sabre rattling I would expect nothing other than seizure of disputed mining platforms, occupation of some rocks in the sea along with planting of national flags etc.
Thre will be some talks, someone backs off, then we wait a few years before someone else wants the map redrawn or a large deposit of unobtanium is found.
IIRC occupation of drilling rigs has occured in the past.
Maybe a few patrol boats will exchange fire - this has happened before as well.
Melissia wrote:While this is a bit cynical of me, at the moment my opinion is that the US should sell India some of its better military technology and lend advisors to train them in its use to even the score so both of them grind themselves silly over the whole issue.
Yeah, LBJ tried that one, then we started full on operations in Vietnam a few years later. We should not get involved unless it is in a mediator capacity.
The difference is that an actual land war between the two nations is unlikely at the moment-- instead of it being a civil war within the same country that was almost entirely land war.
Frazzled wrote:They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.
You need a blue water navy to stand a chance against a blue water navy. Any conflict involving the Phillipines, Japan, and the South Korea, and China will pull the US into it. We out ton every power in the world by a factor of two. China can't win that fight. They won't stand a chance of winning for at least another 50-60 years and even then, numerous things would need to transpire to weaken the US Navy (very likely that tho). China is no position to flex any naval muscle.
Besides, what good is one retrofitted obsolete Russian aircraft carrier against the US Navy? We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined and our Carries are nearly twice the tonnage of others. This is probably just Chinese propaganda for now. I doubt China is dumb enough to potential start a conflict with the US and western powers at this time. They won't win.
As noted, time for the US to get some popcorn and sit one out. This lets have a war every 3-5 years thing is getting crazy.
The sad part is that we pull outselves into conflicts we don't really need to get involved in with our whole world policing thing. Then, when there's an actual state that needs the US beat down, everyone groans about the 'next' war.
China is not a power that I would ignore at this time. Not while we can still trash them.
We can't sit this out if it really goes down. The Philippines are of BOTH strategic and cultural/political importance. If we let them hang they'll never forgive us.
It also sends a message to our other allies: America can't defend one of its best allies, what could you expect from them if it was you?
Dogma wrote:You mean sell ample weaponry to India, and a few weapons to China so they can reverse engineer them and undercut our own exports on the global market?
Hey, there's nothing to stop you producing cheap low grade weaponry en masse for a while to sell to China.
LordofHats wrote:
Frazzled wrote:They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.
You need a blue water navy to stand a chance against a blue water navy. Any conflict involving the Phillipines, Japan, and the South Korea, and China will pull the US into it. We out ton every power in the world by a factor of two. China can't win that fight. They won't stand a chance of winning for at least another 50-60 years and even then, numerous things would need to transpire to weaken the US Navy (very likely that tho). China is no position to flex any naval muscle.
Besides, what good is one retrofitted obsolete Russian aircraft carrier against the US Navy? We have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined and our Carries are nearly twice the tonnage of others. This is probably just Chinese propaganda for now. I doubt China is dumb enough to potential start a conflict with the US and western powers at this time. They won't win.
I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles. When you throw in hidden submarine pens, difficult logistics, and local airfields, the scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle', when the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities. I'm afraid the rest of the world doesn't actually run itself according to the convenience of American foreign policy.
Frazzled wrote:They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.
You need a blue water navy to stand a chance against a blue water navy. Any conflict involving the Phillipines, Japan, and the South Korea, and China will pull the US into it. We out ton every power in the world by a factor of two. China can't win that fight. They won't stand a chance of winning for at least another 50-60 years and even then, numerous things would need to transpire to weaken the US Navy (very likely that tho). China is no position to flex any naval muscle.
The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
Rented Tritium wrote:We can't sit this out if it really goes down. The Philippines are of BOTH strategic and cultural/political importance. If we let them hang they'll never forgive us.
It also sends a message to our other allies: America can't defend one of its best allies, what could you expect from them if it was you?
When was the Phillipines ever an ally? Before WWII we were shooting them. After WWII they were a base with a petty dictator. No the time the US comes to the rescue is past.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
True, that's why we'd have our own submarines and submarine hunters. Which... we do!
Just saying. Carriers aren't deployed unsupported.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
True, that's why we'd have our own submarines and submarine hunters. Which... we do!
Just saying. Carriers aren't deployed unsupported.
You're going to get into WWIII over... Vietnam? In the words of the immortal bard " that!"
Melissia wrote:No, I'm saying that China doesn't want to get into a war with us either, we're too important to them economically-- as are many of our allies.
China can get away with going to war with India or the regional powers, but NATO or its allies? It doesn't exactly like that idea.
NATO would not be involved, heck they're barely involved in their own war.
I doubt China wants to go to war with India either. Again, nuclear powers have never gone to war, and the chances of escalation are high, assuming one side doesn't first strike the other. Having said that India's not going to war over that portion either. This is a China/Vietnam/Phillipines/Japan situation. Time to unleash...Godzilla!
Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles. When you throw in hidden submarine pens, difficult logistics, and local airfields, the scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle', when the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities. I'm afraid the rest of the world doesn't actually run itself according to the convenience of American foreign policy.
Except that he's right and anyone anywhere who analyzes military assets will say the same thing. China's subs are 40 years old. Being in a hidden pen doesn't let you get past the perimeter of a carrier group. The anti-ship missiles are not even tested yet and when they ARE deployed, will require other personnel in the area to guide it in. Again, I'd like to see them get a plane close enough to a carrier group to get a laser designator on target.
Our navy isn't just good because we have a ton of carriers. It's good because we deploy them in carrier groups. Carrier groups are like a phalanx on the ocean SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to reduce even the sneakiest strategy to a traditional naval battle where we have the advantage. You cannot do serious damage to a carrier group with refurbished soviet gear. It's not crazy nationalism, it's realism. Our naval strategy is a finely tuned machine.
Ketara wrote:I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
Tonnage of ships matters and I just didn't bother covering China's complete lack of any modern naval force, I figured it was a given for a country with no naval tradition and that hasn't really had one since the turn of the twentieth century.
A carrier that weighs twice as much carries twice as many aircraft. Even our smaller ships are large than the norm. It's a waste of money to a certain extent but we have what we have.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles.
China's national hobby for the last 50 years has been throwing around weight. They're a communist one party state. It's typical. They make claims, throw up a talky rant, and life goes on. Its actually very telling that they didn't build a carrier, they bought one. An old one. They are building carriers now though, but I think they're still on the drawing board and they only plan for two. Once those get built, we're talking.
When you throw in hidden submarine pens,
Submarines have proven rather ineffective in dealing with fleets of ships. They have a use sure, but a sub taking out a carrier? I'm only aware of it happening once (And the Japanese had very poor sonar abiliites bordering on none). There are probably other incidents that I've just never heard of but I don't see China which is at least thirty years behind the US in military engineering having any tricks. Missiles are a real threat but counters exist for that too, and we have the same ability and a lot more boats (and China doesn't have the counter measures).
difficult logistics,
The US military is the king of logistical planning. We moved an entire army across an ocean and into the interior of a continent. Moving things across an ocean is much easier. If we were talking about an invasion of mainland China, now that is a daunting task. I doubt it could be done. Russian winter gets all the credit, but its really the size of Russia that foils invaders. The same thing would happen in China. But this is a naval dispute, and things would be pretty desperate if we had to invade China. That's WWIII territory right there.
local airfields,
There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
The scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
No military scenario is simple. But unfortunately China has none of the tools to achieve victory barring total fowl up by the US.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle',
Its not arrogance its fact. You have to have muscle to flex it. China doesn't. For now, its just words. Words that will probably end up in a historical study in a century after they start an armed conflict and everyone starts looking for the causes. That's then though. Right now it doesn't mean much.
the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities.
Which is why its so inconvenient that the US would probably get involved. I think it should, but its still inconvenient
Frazzled wrote:They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.
You need a blue water navy to stand a chance against a blue water navy. Any conflict involving the Phillipines, Japan, and the South Korea, and China will pull the US into it. We out ton every power in the world by a factor of two. China can't win that fight. They won't stand a chance of winning for at least another 50-60 years and even then, numerous things would need to transpire to weaken the US Navy (very likely that tho). China is no position to flex any naval muscle.
The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
A single submarine is absolutely not mauling a carrier battle group.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The thing you guys have to remember is that China hasn't been preparing to fight us. They've been preparing to fight their neighbors. All the buildup you see is of hardware that would be mostly useless against us, but suuuuper useful against their weak neighbors.
Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles. When you throw in hidden submarine pens, difficult logistics, and local airfields, the scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle', when the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities. I'm afraid the rest of the world doesn't actually run itself according to the convenience of American foreign policy.
Except that he's right and anyone anywhere who analyzes military assets will say the same thing. China's subs are 40 years old. Being in a hidden pen doesn't let you get past the perimeter of a carrier group. The anti-ship missiles are not even tested yet and when they ARE deployed, will require other personnel in the area to guide it in. Again, I'd like to see them get a plane close enough to a carrier group to get a laser designator on target.
Our navy isn't just good because we have a ton of carriers. It's good because we deploy them in carrier groups. Carrier groups are like a phalanx on the ocean SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to reduce even the sneakiest strategy to a traditional naval battle where we have the advantage. You cannot do serious damage to a carrier group with refurbished soviet gear. It's not crazy nationalism, it's realism. Our naval strategy is a finely tuned machine.
You're right. If the Imperial Japanese Navy rears its ugly head we're ready for them. However, if China starts popping hundreds of silkworm missiles at those carriers it may create more of a problem. Especially if some of those have nukes.
Will we win? Of course. America HURR! Are we going to do that for..the Phillipines? WHY?
LordofHats wrote:There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
As an aside, I think the other countries which we'd be siding with in opposing China would probably also lend their airports to us too if we wanted.
LordofHats wrote:There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
As an aside, I think the other countries which we'd be siding with in opposing China would probably also lend their airports to us too if we wanted.
Until the Chinese army came of course. Why on earth are people thinking this would just be a naval conflict if major powers got involved?
LordofHats wrote:There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
As an aside, I think the other countries which we'd be siding with in opposing China would probably also lend their airports to us too if we wanted.
Until the Chinese army came of course. Why on earth are people thinking this would just be a naval conflict if major powers got involved?
Actually I'm thinking that if major powers got involved it wouldn't really be a war, just a growling contest.
LordofHats wrote:There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
As an aside, I think the other countries which we'd be siding with in opposing China would probably also lend their airports to us too if we wanted.
Until the Chinese army came of course. Why on earth are people thinking this would just be a naval conflict if major powers got involved?
Because it would be. Any war with china would be lost by overextending. Keeping it regional (with the usual suite of airstrikes of course) would be the way to go there.
But AGAIN, I want to reiterate that china isn't gunning for us. A war with us would be horrible economically for both of us. China is gunning for its neighbors and will avoid a fight with us whenever possible. It's very likely that the THREAT of us getting into it is going to be what prevents this from happening.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Rented Tritium wrote:
Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles. When you throw in hidden submarine pens, difficult logistics, and local airfields, the scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle', when the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities. I'm afraid the rest of the world doesn't actually run itself according to the convenience of American foreign policy.
Except that he's right and anyone anywhere who analyzes military assets will say the same thing. China's subs are 40 years old. Being in a hidden pen doesn't let you get past the perimeter of a carrier group. The anti-ship missiles are not even tested yet and when they ARE deployed, will require other personnel in the area to guide it in. Again, I'd like to see them get a plane close enough to a carrier group to get a laser designator on target.
Our navy isn't just good because we have a ton of carriers. It's good because we deploy them in carrier groups. Carrier groups are like a phalanx on the ocean SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to reduce even the sneakiest strategy to a traditional naval battle where we have the advantage. You cannot do serious damage to a carrier group with refurbished soviet gear. It's not crazy nationalism, it's realism. Our naval strategy is a finely tuned machine.
You're right. If the Imperial Japanese Navy rears its ugly head we're ready for them. However, if China starts popping hundreds of silkworm missiles at those carriers it may create more of a problem. Especially if some of those have nukes.
Will we win? Of course. America HURR! Are we going to do that for..the Phillipines? WHY?
WUT?
Dude you are in a world of your own here. What are you even talking about? The silkworms are old and slow. They're not so much missiles as unmanned planes and we have the capability to shoot them down in every carrier group.
You do know technology has moved beyond the 60s right?
Carriers are two wars ago. Smart missiles are this war. The next war is drone aircraft launching drone missiles at drone ships while other drone missiles take out drone satellites and drone viruses destroy the infrastructure of your opponent.
And remember, no one can outrobot suit the Japanese!
Frazzled wrote:You do know technology has moved beyond the 60s right?
Carriers are two wars ago. Smart missiles are this war. The next war is drone aircraft launching drone missiles at drone ships while other drone missiles take out drone satellites and drone viruses destroy the infrastructure of your opponent.
And remember, no one can outrobot suit the Japanese!
And that's relevant to a conversation about a theoretical south china sea conflict in the next few years HOW?
We are talking about what china has RIGHT NOW and what they can use against us RIGHT NOW and what we would use to go after them RIGHT NOW. Don't change the subject just because you were wrong.
Automatically Appended Next Post: And furthermore, we ABSOLUTELY would go to bat for the philippines. They're a serious ally and if we didn't get into it to help them, our other similar allies would start thinking twice about sticking with us.
Frazzled wrote:You do know technology has moved beyond the 60s right?
Carriers are two wars ago. Smart missiles are this war. The next war is drone aircraft launching drone missiles at drone ships while other drone missiles take out drone satellites and drone viruses destroy the infrastructure of your opponent.
And remember, no one can outrobot suit the Japanese!
And that's relevant to a conversation about a theoretical south china sea conflict in the next few years HOW?
We are talking about what china has RIGHT NOW and what they can use against us RIGHT NOW and what we would use to go after them RIGHT NOW. Don't change the subject just because you were wrong.
Hey frazzled, did you see where they haven't tested it yet and it WILL FOR SURE require people in the area guiding it in? Did you see that part?
That missile has more diplomatic impact than military. I already addressed this in a previous post. That ship killer is too far off and has a big weakness.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
EDIT: How on earth is the Phillipines an ally?
BECAUSE THEY ARE LITERALLY LISTED AS AN ALLY BY THE STATE DEPARTMENT.
Frazzled wrote:Are we going to do that for..the Phillipines? WHY?
We'll get involved more out of interest of keeping China within its waters more than anything. Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines are all allies and the growing power of China keeps us interested in the region. Any conflict that sparks there may or may not involve us depending on the scale.
China invading Vietnam? We won't care (not this time ). China seizing control of foreign and international waters? Yeah. We're probably gonna get involved. With India's interests mixed in? That's the making of World War III (maybe).
Until the Chinese army came of course. Why on earth are people thinking this would just be a naval conflict if major powers got involved?
China's army sucks. Its only advantage is size, which is a good advantage, but what are they going to do? We get involved in fleet actions against China and... they stand on the shores and watch. Invade Japan? They don't have the ability. South Korea? Now there's a possibility. I could see them getting friendly with the North in that case and taking over the South would be easy for them. That could get messy, but China's army can be avoided. For now, it's stuck in China.
Frazzled wrote:Are we going to do that for..the Phillipines? WHY?
We'll get involved more out of interest of keeping China within its waters more than anything. Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines are all allies and the growing power of China keeps us interested in the region. Any conflict that sparks there may or may not involve us depending on the scale.
China invading Vietnam? We won't care (not this time ). China seizing control of foreign and international waters? Yeah. We're probably gonna get involved. With India's interests mixed in? That's the making of World War III (maybe).
Until the Chinese army came of course. Why on earth are people thinking this would just be a naval conflict if major powers got involved?
China's army sucks. Its only advantage is size, which is a good advantage, but what are they going to do? We get involved in fleet actions against China and... they stand on the shores and watch. Invade Japan? They don't have the ability. South Korea? Now there's a possibility. I could see them getting friendly with the North in that case and taking over the South would be easy for them. That could get messy, but China's army can be avoided. For now, it's stuck in China.
The only territory at issue not capable of being reached by the Chinese army is the Phillipines.
Frazzled wrote:The only territory at issue not capable of being reached by the Chinese army is the Phillipines.
The conflict isn't about the Philippines, its about a couple million buckets of salt water really. For thirty years now, China has claimed sovereignty over waters that are not their own, including international waters. This conflict could ignite that powder keg if China uses military force to seize waters that are not theirs.
Frazzled wrote:They have a carrier now. More importantly they have lots of aircraft and missiles. You don't need a bluewater navy if its near your own coast.
You need a blue water navy to stand a chance against a blue water navy. Any conflict involving the Phillipines, Japan, and the South Korea, and China will pull the US into it. We out ton every power in the world by a factor of two. China can't win that fight. They won't stand a chance of winning for at least another 50-60 years and even then, numerous things would need to transpire to weaken the US Navy (very likely that tho). China is no position to flex any naval muscle.
The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
A single submarine is absolutely not mauling a carrier battle group.
Depends. It's not a carrier battle group without a carrier.
Melissia wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:The question is: would the American government be prepared to put one or more carrier battle groups at risk of being badly mauled? I'd imagine that those carrier thingamajigs aren't exactly cheap to replace, and all it takes is a single submarine.
True, that's why we'd have our own submarines and submarine hunters. Which... we do!
Just saying. Carriers aren't deployed unsupported.
This is going to come across as horribly nationalistic, which is not my intention. I'd imagine that the Chinese government has more money to spend than the Swedish.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:This is going to come across as horribly nationalistic, which is not my intention. I'd imagine that the Chinese government has more money to spend than the Swedish.
My congratulations to Sweden. A very impressive achievement. You guys don't get the credit your deserve for the quality of your military force. Sweden and Norway have some interesting tech in a number of areas, especially anti-tank. However, that was in 2006. 5 years ago. You don't suspect the US Navy has attempted to account for its flaws? They were obviously observant enough to desire to test themselves. EDIT: One problem is that the Navy has shown more interest in anti-missile defense than anti-submarine.
I personally do not doubt that someday, the age of the carrier is likely to pass. At least the nuclear carrier. Warfare has altered to the cycle where extremely powerful but expensive weapons have become increasingly vulnerable to much cheaper ones. If the submarine or the guided missile don't do in the carrier, the rail gun will.
China is not Sweeden. Its not just a matter of money. They do not use the same propulsion system. Though they are developing a water jet propulsion system, but I'm not an engineer and cannot compare them. We must also remember China holds no advantage that the US doesn't also have. We have guided missiles and submarines and a lot more them than China. No one is saying China will always be non-threatening. Some day, China will be very powerful and we all know it.
My prediction is within a few decades (maybe 2040), China's military ability will surpass that of the US if not sooner (earliest for me is 2025 area). For now though, all they have is a puny fleet, most of it outdated, and they lack the experience of other navies and have no technological advantage over anyone. China's navy vs the US Navy is like Poland vs Nazi German for the immediate future.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:This is going to come across as horribly nationalistic, which is not my intention. I'd imagine that the Chinese government has more money to spend than the Swedish.
My congratulations to Sweden. A very impressive achievement. You guys don't get the credit your deserve for the quality of your military force. Sweden and Norway have some interesting tech in a number of areas, especially anti-tank. However, that was in 2006. 5 years ago. You don't suspect the US Navy has attempted to account for its flaws? They were obviously observant enough to desire to test themselves. EDIT: One problem is that the Navy has shown more interest in anti-missile defense than anti-submarine.
The point I was trying to make was that you (as in generic nation) can have anti-submarine measures in place and still miss a submarine once, which is all it takes.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:This is going to come across as horribly nationalistic, which is not my intention. I'd imagine that the Chinese government has more money to spend than the Swedish.
My congratulations to Sweden. A very impressive achievement. You guys don't get the credit your deserve for the quality of your military force. Sweden and Norway have some interesting tech in a number of areas, especially anti-tank. However, that was in 2006. 5 years ago. You don't suspect the US Navy has attempted to account for its flaws? They were obviously observant enough to desire to test themselves. EDIT: One problem is that the Navy has shown more interest in anti-missile defense than anti-submarine.
The point I was trying to make was that you (as in generic nation) can have anti-submarine measures in place and still miss a submarine once, which is all it takes.
All it takes to what? Lose an entire war? Because if it's anything but lose an entire war, then we're not concerned with it. Some risk goes along with being in wars. Our naval infra really minimizes them.
Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles. When you throw in hidden submarine pens, difficult logistics, and local airfields, the scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle', when the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities. I'm afraid the rest of the world doesn't actually run itself according to the convenience of American foreign policy.
Except that he's right and anyone anywhere who analyzes military assets will say the same thing. China's subs are 40 years old. Being in a hidden pen doesn't let you get past the perimeter of a carrier group. The anti-ship missiles are not even tested yet and when they ARE deployed, will require other personnel in the area to guide it in. Again, I'd like to see them get a plane close enough to a carrier group to get a laser designator on target.
Our navy isn't just good because we have a ton of carriers. It's good because we deploy them in carrier groups. Carrier groups are like a phalanx on the ocean SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to reduce even the sneakiest strategy to a traditional naval battle where we have the advantage. You cannot do serious damage to a carrier group with refurbished soviet gear. It's not crazy nationalism, it's realism. Our naval strategy is a finely tuned machine.
There is also the fact that the US will be backed by the UK as always, and this means they will have the steely eyed, one fingered tank surfing death dealers of the Royal Marines with them, and thus be utterly unable to lose.
Ketara wrote:
I'm sorry, this post just comes across to me as you comparing the tonnage of the two aircraft carriers and saying, 'Well, ours are bigger, and we have more of them, so we'll obviously win really easily!'.
The Chinese national hobby for the last few years has been building submarines and carrier killing missiles. When you throw in hidden submarine pens, difficult logistics, and local airfields, the scenario changes completely. It's not so simple when all the other factors are considered.
I also must admit I instinctively dislike the inherent arrogance behind the statement of, 'China is in no position to flex any naval muscle', when the dispute in question actually has nothing to do with America or American capabilities. I'm afraid the rest of the world doesn't actually run itself according to the convenience of American foreign policy.
Except that he's right and anyone anywhere who analyzes military assets will say the same thing. China's subs are 40 years old. Being in a hidden pen doesn't let you get past the perimeter of a carrier group. The anti-ship missiles are not even tested yet and when they ARE deployed, will require other personnel in the area to guide it in. Again, I'd like to see them get a plane close enough to a carrier group to get a laser designator on target.
Our navy isn't just good because we have a ton of carriers. It's good because we deploy them in carrier groups. Carrier groups are like a phalanx on the ocean SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to reduce even the sneakiest strategy to a traditional naval battle where we have the advantage. You cannot do serious damage to a carrier group with refurbished soviet gear. It's not crazy nationalism, it's realism. Our naval strategy is a finely tuned machine.
There is also the fact that the US will be backed by the UK as always, and this means they will have the steely eyed, one fingered tank surfing death dealers of the Royal Marines with them, and thus be utterly unable to lose.
There is that.
Of course the last time the US/UK and China tangled it was bloody. My uncle was what we would call flying rodent gak insane and Dad was, well Dad.
AlmightyWalrus wrote:The point I was trying to make was that you (as in generic nation) can have anti-submarine measures in place and still miss a submarine once, which is all it takes.
Interestingly (and I'm including this only because it's cool), it apparently takes 4-6 torpedos to reliably sink a cruiser. The Gotland class apparently carries 12, but only has 4 big tubes (21").
Of course, 1-2 torpedos, especially to the propeller, could damage the carrier enough that it would have to return to base. But it would still be able to launch planes.
Frazzled wrote:Unless the torpedoes have nukes on them of course.
I honestly doubt any nation, except in a state of absolute desperation is really insane enough to use nukes. Once you drop the big bomb, everyone else who has them starts dropping them too. It's ironic. Nukes are useless when actually used. Mutually assured destruction.
LordofHats wrote:I honestly doubt any nation, except in a state of absolute desperation is really insane enough to use nukes. Once you drop the big bomb, everyone else who has them starts dropping them too. It's ironic. Nukes are useless when actually used. Mutually assured destruction.
It would be pretty damn hard to make the case that we should nuke the hell out of China simply because they nuked one of our carriers.
Frazzled wrote:Unless the torpedoes have nukes on them of course.
I honestly doubt any nation, except in a state of absolute desperation is really insane enough to use nukes. Once you drop the big bomb, everyone else who has them starts dropping them too. It's ironic. Nukes are useless when actually used. Mutually assured destruction.
Well, they're building one, and have two former Soviet carriers that are now hotels.
And what an impressive carrier it is, complete with all the amenities a crumbling empire needed in the 80s.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:
LordofHats wrote:I honestly doubt any nation, except in a state of absolute desperation is really insane enough to use nukes. Once you drop the big bomb, everyone else who has them starts dropping them too. It's ironic. Nukes are useless when actually used. Mutually assured destruction.
It would be pretty damn hard to make the case that we should nuke the hell out of China simply because they nuked one of our carriers.
It would be pretty hard to avoid the concept of a retaliatory first strike as well. Once it's accelerated to the point of nukes the standard doctrine is to fire first and hardest to minimize the return.
Which fail to account for the weakness of the supercavitating torpedo, range and warhead weight. Let's remember that the Shkval was designed as an anti-submarine counter, not as a carrier killer.
IIRC, the Soviet plan to deal with American carrier groups was not to sneak subs up and torpedo them, but to swarm them with huge numbers of ASMs. To be honest, that's likely the best method. The best fighters, and best CIWSs on the planet can't be everywhere at once.
Finally, any talk of using nuclear weapons is just far out there, yes a nuclear tipped torpedo would obliterate the carrier and most of the battlegroup. BUt that's irrelevant. If China were to use a nuke, evne a tactical one, the whole show's just going to go up from there. Nuclear weapons exist as a deterrent, first and foremost. Use them, and they've automatically failed their purpose.
Yep. There was a time when we were interested in tiny nukes as strategic weapons you'd actually use, but in the end they're just super expensive versions of the giant traditional bombs we have already.
How do you know?
Two nuclear powers have never fought in actual war. This is why. You start a shooting war and things escalate fast or one side thinks it will escalate and and goes all first strike up in da house.
After all, that was NATO strategy. If the rooskies actually invaded, tactical nukes were going to be used against them.
Rented Tritium wrote:
Except that he's right and anyone anywhere who analyzes military assets will say the same thing.
.....that kind of is my field of study actually.
China's subs are 40 years old.
China launched at least thirteen submarines just back in 2002-2004. Where on earth are you getting your facts from?
Being in a hidden pen doesn't let you get past the perimeter of a carrier group.
Strawman? I never said it did.
What a hidden submarine pen does, is allow you certain deployment advantages when an enemy fleet is operating in the locale.
The anti-ship missiles are not even tested yet and when they ARE deployed, will require other personnel in the area to guide it in. Again, I'd like to see them get a plane close enough to a carrier group to get a laser designator on target.
Surprisingly enough, similar to the 'compare the tonnage, and the highest one wins' argument, aircraft specs don't decide everything. China possesses over 4000 aircraft. If they throw enough of them at you, whilst simultaneously launching land based missiles, they're gonna sink some ships. I mean, heck, look at the Falklands War. The Harriers and anti-missile tech were technologically beyond what the Argentinians had, but a couple of well placed exocets and the like caused some serious damage.
Our navy isn't just good because we have a ton of carriers.
It is a large factor of the equation. Having lots of large ships does tend to figure well when calculating the value of a Navy.
It's good because we deploy them in carrier groups. Carrier groups are like a phalanx on the ocean SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to reduce even the sneakiest strategy to a traditional naval battle where we have the advantage. You cannot do serious damage to a carrier group with refurbished soviet gear. It's not crazy nationalism, it's realism. Our naval strategy is a finely tuned machine.
I never claimed that China would win a 'traditional Naval battle'. That would be daft. You're really arguing with phantoms here it seems.
When you move the battle to the skies and add in the joys of electronic/cyber warfare methods, land based artillery, and a gakload of missiles though, you can be in whatever formation you like. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference.
LordofHats wrote:
Tonnage of ships matters and I just didn't bother covering China's complete lack of any modern naval force, I figured it was a given for a country with no naval tradition and that hasn't really had one since the turn of the twentieth century.
I honestly didn't even know why you were including the Chinese Fleet at all to be honest, hence my puzzlement over your bizare comparison of tonnage. How big everyone's aircraft carriers are is irrelevant.
A carrier that weighs twice as much carries twice as many aircraft. Even our smaller ships are large than the norm. It's a waste of money to a certain extent but we have what we have.
Sure. Do they carry four thousand aircraft?
China's national hobby for the last 50 years has been throwing around weight. They're a communist one party state. It's typical. They make claims, throw up a talky rant, and life goes on. Its actually very telling that they didn't build a carrier, they bought one. An old one. They are building carriers now though, but I think they're still on the drawing board and they only plan for two. Once those get built, we're talking.
.....What?
Why are you still talking about Chinese Carriers? The Chinese Navy is not part of the equation as things stand. And won't be for a while. Bar the potential for their submarines to nip in at inopportune moments, and/or collaborate with the aircraft/missiles for joint attacks, it has no role to play here.
Submarines have proven rather ineffective in dealing with fleets of ships.
I agree, that was established a while back in WW2 with the use of convoys. Although even then, they proved capable of doing damage if they assembled en masse.
They have a use sure, but a sub taking out a carrier? I'm only aware of it happening once (And the Japanese had very poor sonar abiliites bordering on none). There are probably other incidents that I've just never heard of but I don't see China which is at least thirty years behind the US in military engineering having any tricks. Missiles are a real threat but counters exist for that too, and we have the same ability and a lot more boats (and China doesn't have the counter measures).
Chinese electronic and cyber countermeasures are considerably more advanced then you'd think. They developed advanced guide-vane propellors back in the nineties. There have been rumours of them developing a high temperature gas cooled reactor for the nuclear subs. Heck, there have been estimates that their noise level has been reduced to comparable levels to the Russian Akula Class III submarine.
Now I'm not claiming that this is all necessarily making them on par with US military technologies, only that their is considerably more parity and technological advancement than you guys are letting on for here.
The US military is the king of logistical planning. We moved an entire army across an ocean and into the interior of a continent. Moving things across an ocean is much easier. If we were talking about an invasion of mainland China, now that is a daunting task. I doubt it could be done. Russian winter gets all the credit, but its really the size of Russia that foils invaders. The same thing would happen in China. But this is a naval dispute, and things would be pretty desperate if we had to invade China. That's WWIII territory right there.
Unfortunately, land based artillery, missiles, and aircraft production facilities mean that if you intend to suppress Chinese strike capabilities, you need to have a ground invasion or occupation. Otherwise all you're doing is sitting off the coast and enduring wave after wave of Chinese attacks, which will wear you down after a few weeks.
The thing about ships is that the other side only needs to be lucky once to sink it. You need to be lucky all the time to protect it. And once its gone, its gone with no easy or immediate replacement.
There's this place called Japan. We have airfields there. South Korea too I think. China has no advantages by being the regional home state in this case. Not in a naval conflict.
I'm not sure the Japanese would be pleased about the US using their home turf for a war. Especially considering it would open them up for retaliatory strikes which might end up being of a nuclear nature.
No military scenario is simple. But unfortunately China has none of the tools to achieve victory barring total fowl up by the US.
Interesting use of the word 'victory'. From here the word 'victory' for the Chinese would be obtaining control of the SCS. And unless the US is capable of occupying China, or smashing it back to the stone ages, they'll get it. Simple as. Eventually, the American fleet will take unsustainable losses, and withdraw. The Chinese are under no such limitations.
Its not arrogance its fact. You have to have muscle to flex it. China doesn't. For now, its just words. Words that will probably end up in a historical study in a century after they start an armed conflict and everyone starts looking for the causes. That's then though. Right now it doesn't mean much.
Underestimation is as dangerous as overestimation.
Which is why its so inconvenient that the US would probably get involved. I think it should, but its still inconvenient
It is my reasoned academic opinion that the US would not get involved in a military conflict with a nuclear armed country over a stretch of water far from their concern or interest.
Frazzled wrote:How do you know?
Two nuclear powers have never fought in actual war. This is why. You start a shooting war and things escalate fast or one side thinks it will escalate and and goes all first strike up in da house.
After all, that was NATO strategy. If the rooskies actually invaded, tactical nukes were going to be used against them.
To which the Russians would retaliate with their policy of massive retaliation, to which NATO would have no choice but to retaliate.
And since neither side wants a nuclear war, and neither side has first strike ability, such a large scale war would be impossible. Hence, whey no large scale war between two nuclear wars has ever been fought. (Yes, I'm in the school of thought that says nuclear weapons promote peace).
As long as no nation has first strike capability, the threat of nuclear war is minimal. Let's not forget that BOTH China and the US have ballistic missile submarines, essentially assuring them a second strike capability. Let's be honest: all the states involved here are rational actors, and nuclear war isn't in any of their interests--espescially since neither side can 'win'.
Frazzled wrote:How do you know?
Two nuclear powers have never fought in actual war. This is why. You start a shooting war and things escalate fast or one side thinks it will escalate and and goes all first strike up in da house.
After all, that was NATO strategy. If the rooskies actually invaded, tactical nukes were going to be used against them.
To which the Russians would retaliate with their policy of massive retaliation, to which NATO would have no choice but to retaliate.
And since neither side wants a nuclear war, and neither side has first strike ability, such a large scale war would be impossible. Hence, whey no large scale war between two nuclear wars has ever been fought. (Yes, I'm in the school of thought that says nuclear weapons promote peace).
As long as no nation has first strike capability, the threat of nuclear war is minimal. Let's not forget that BOTH China and the US have ballistic missile submarines, essentially assuring them a second strike capability. Let's be honest: all the states involved here are rational actors, and nuclear war isn't in any of their interests--espescially since neither side can 'win'.
No one will use even a tactical nuke.
You're missing the essential ingredient. There was no major conflict between the USA and USSR (lots of hotpoints though). It was a deterrant to that conflict. once the war starts however all bets are off, and off quickly.
Need I remind the closest humanity came to a self imposed ELE was the naval standoff off Cuba. Everyone really was ready to go then.
What a hidden submarine pen does, is allow you certain deployment advantages when an enemy fleet is operating in the locale.
The problem with this is that, the Chinese sub pens are going to be in mainland China. The area of conflict is going to be the South China Sea, or maybe the West Pacific if the Chinese decide to go intercept the US fleet in the open ocean (unlikely at best).
You're rihgt in that sub pens are a useful asset, but they're a useful defensive measure, allowing you to deploy subs secretly when the enemy is close to your base. To use the submarines offensively, they're still going to have to travel a distance.
I never claimed that China would win a 'traditional Naval battle'. That would be daft. You're really arguing with phantoms here it seems.
When you move the battle to the skies and add in the joys of electronic/cyber warfare methods, land based artillery, and a gakload of missiles though, you can be in whatever formation you like. It doesn't make a huge amount of difference.
Im in agreement with you here, but I disagree on your interpretations of those facts. In a defensive war to defend the Chinsese coast, yes, the People's Liberation Army can and will win thanks to the reasons you've listed. However, we're not talking about defending the Chinese coast.
We're talking about taking an offensive manuver into the SCS, something that is an entirerly different picture.
I honestly didn't even know why you were including the Chinese Fleet at all to be honest, hence my puzzlement over your bizare comparison of tonnage. How big everyone's aircraft carriers are is irrelevant.
In agreement here. The Chinese are going to be fighting a defensive naval war....at least if they want to win. Taking the SCS will--however--be an offensive action, one that I doubt they'll be able to perform satisfactorily.
Sure. Do they carry four thousand aircraft?
While your point stands, I have a hard time believing that the Chinese are going to commit that many aircraft to a single attack. I doubt if they have the logistical ability in southern China to support 4000 aircraft.
.....What?
Why are you still talking about Chinese Carriers? The Chinese Navy is not part of the equation as things stand. And won't be for a while. Bar the potential for their submarines to nip in at inopportune moments, and/or collaborate with the aircraft/missiles for joint attacks, it has no role to play here.
Seconded. The Chinese Navy won't have the ability to take the war to the US Navy on the high seas for a while.
Unfortunately, land based artillery, missiles, and aircraft production facilities mean that if you intend to suppress Chinese strike capabilities, you need to have a ground invasion or occupation. Otherwise all you're doing is sitting off the coast and enduring wave after wave of Chinese attacks, which will wear you down after a few weeks.
The thing about ships is that the other side only needs to be lucky once to sink it. You need to be lucky all the time to protect it. And once its gone, its gone with no easy or immediate replacement.
Hopefully, however, any such conflict will not get to the point that we have to start talking about the countries ability to produce war material on the home front, and stay limited to naval actions.
And even then, we aren't talking about supressing Chinese strike abilities in its coastal waters, we're talking about supressing Chinsese strike abilities in the SCS. Missile launchers in mainland China can't fire into the SCS, and Chinese aircraft are goiong to have to travel a bit to get there. Supressing Chinese strike ability in the SCS is going to be more about keeping a close eye out for subs and maintaining air superiority in the region, a much more doable prospect than actually operating for an extended period of time in Chinese coastal waters.
And yes, the US will take casualties, this isn't in doubt. But I doubt they'll be the kind of casualties that will cripple US naval power projection.
I'm not sure the Japanese would be pleased about the US using their home turf for a war. Especially considering it would open them up for retaliatory strikes which might end up being of a nuclear nature.
If the Chines start using nuke, the whole world's gonna be screwed anyway.
Personally, I feel that the Japanese are going to recognize that it is NOT in their interests to have a strong Chinese Navy able to enforce Chinese interests in East Asian waters, and its is far more in their interest to keep the United States as the primary naval power in the West Pacific.
Interesting use of the word 'victory'. From here the word 'victory' for the Chinese would be obtaining control of the SCS. And unless the US is capable of occupying China, or smashing it back to the stone ages, they'll get it. Simple as. Eventually, the American fleet will take unsustainable losses, and withdraw. The Chinese are under no such limitations.
I disagree with your claim of 'victory'. To win a conflict in the South China Sea, all the US has to do is prevent the Chinese from seizing control of the South China Sea. The US doesn't have to go anywhere near mainland China. Although, if the US DOES try to operate near Mainland China, I do expect even a carrier group to just collapse under an unending tide of ASMs and airstrikes.
In contrast, it is my opinion--though I'm not sure if I can call it academic as Ketara has his degree, and I don't have mine --that while the Chinese can no doubt defend their own coast properly and effectively, I doubt their ability to project power into the South China Sea, espescially against armed oppositon by a faction such as the United States.
Frazzled wrote:
You're missing the essential ingredient. There was no major conflict between the USA and USSR (lots of hotpoints though). It was a deterrant to that conflict. once the war starts however all bets are off, and off quickly.
Need I remind the closest humanity came to a self imposed ELE was the naval standoff off Cuba. Everyone really was ready to go then.
Even when war breaks out the escalation to nukes is a BIG step. A nation can recover from being bombed, occupied, blockaded or whatever, but nukes can change everything. Nukes can destroy entire states. I'd direct you to the articles I posted earlier on about nuclear warfar for further explanatio.
I'd direct you to the conflict between India and Pakistan since Pakistan activated their own nuclear deterrent. Suddenly, the agressive armed conflict between the two seems to have boiled down to mild skirmishes at best, and even when thsoe break out both sides are determined to keep things small scale.
Frazzled wrote:
You're missing the essential ingredient. There was no major conflict between the USA and USSR (lots of hotpoints though). It was a deterrant to that conflict. once the war starts however all bets are off, and off quickly.
Need I remind the closest humanity came to a self imposed ELE was the naval standoff off Cuba. Everyone really was ready to go then.
Even when war breaks out the escalation to nukes is a BIG step. A nation can recover from being bombed, occupied, blockaded or whatever, but nukes can change everything. Nukes can destroy entire states. I'd direct you to the articles I posted earlier on about nuclear warfar for further explanatio.
I'd direct you to the conflict between India and Pakistan since Pakistan activated their own nuclear deterrent. Suddenly, the agressive armed conflict between the two seems to have boiled down to mild skirmishes at best, and even when thsoe break out both sides are determined to keep things small scale.
Your argument is supporting my point though. It acts as an excellent deterrant. Its once you go from cold war to hot war that roaches rejoice as they are now the new overlords.
A naval engaement is not a minor skirmish. Its a full on war. If both sides have nukes it might be a very short but very bloody war.
If I'm reading you correctly, your argument is that once a shooting war starts, nukes are gonna be used because their use as a deterrent has failed, yes?
My counter argument is that the sheer destructive power of nukes means that even IF a shooting war starts, the use of tactical or strategic nuclear devices is going to be a massive escalation that states are going to be none to willing to make.
Yeah, I am pretty sure if nuclear powers end up in a war, they are both going try to get out of it as soon as possible or play it down like it was just a little thing whatever.
Well...
1. Again, the closest we came to a shooting war was Cuba. The military viewed the chance of a nuke war as high.
2. In the past we have threatened other countries with nuking. USSR - cold war, 1973 Israel war #237 (Nixon went to Defcon 2 I believe), Eisenhower to China and North Korea which broke open the stalled peace talks. Indeed I think the french asked for nuke support for Dien Bien Phu, but could be wrong.
2. When one side starts losing what then? Lets say we clean China's clock. What are the Chinese going to do? After all, reports opened up in the 90s showed that the Chinese leadership thught that Vietnam might escale into a nuke war, prepared bunkers and kept going.
3. Human nature. Typically countries and people escalate. As She Who Must Be Obeyed says, "don't make me escalate!"
Im in agreement with you here, but I disagree on your interpretations of those facts. In a defensive war to defend the Chinsese coast, yes, the People's Liberation Army can and will win thanks to the reasons you've listed. However, we're not talking about defending the Chinese coast.
We're talking about taking an offensive manuver into the SCS, something that is an entirerly different picture.
This really depends on the scenario we're portraying here. Which could be:-
A) The Chinese have occupied the South China Sea. India has decided not to fight it. Chinese domination is complete. USA attacks China.
B) The Chinese are engaged in naval battles with India in the SCS. USA attacks China.
C) The Chinese have not moved into the SCS yet, but the US thinks they will do, and so stations carriers in the SCS.
Depending on the scenario, I could be agreeing or disagreeing with many of your points Chris.
Scenario C would probably be the stalemate without war. However, in either A or B, the result is that America is attacking Chinese forces. Which means that if America wants, at any stage, to stop China from just coming back to the SCS whenever the american carrier fleet leaves, they're going to need to station a permanent garrison there. A garrison of multiple carrier group strength. Not only that, they're going to need to disable Chinese land installations/gain control of the chinese coast, in order to nail the submarines, and stop missiles/aircraft being launched at the carrier fleets every other hour. Which means heading within range of land installations, and leaving the SCS in order to attack China proper.
If the US blows up the Chinese Navy in the SCS, they will not just sit idly by. They WILL be launching missiles and air raids at the american fleet in the region. And unless America has had several weeks notice to build up extra fleets in the SCS and suchlike, the Chinese are MORE than capable of eliminating the one or two carriers that are even anywhere near the region. Several? It would take longer. But if I recall from the report posted a few pages back, the nearest carrier is two days away, and the second one a week. That's plenty of time to pick them off.
So let's presume the US comes in en masse and retakes the SCS. What then? Well, they either establish a massive garrison and leave the equivalent of the Navy of the rest of the world combined sitting there. They can just leave (letting China retake the region). Or they attack China, to destroy the capability to simply waltz in and reclaim the place the second they leave.
In contrast, it is my opinion--though I'm not sure if I can call it academic as Ketara has his degree, and I don't have mine --that while the Chinese can no doubt defend their own coast properly and effectively, I doubt their ability to project power into the South China Sea, espescially against armed oppositon by a faction such as the United States.
Heh. I'm studying for my MA Hons now in War Studies, and may take it onto PHD level. So I get to pretend my opinion is worth something in this department.
I've no doubt the Americans can project more power into the SCS. I agree there. However, I doubt the Americans sustained ability to project power into the SCS.
Mattyrm wrote:How long have I been coming here now? A year?
Im sick and tired of these fething.. make believe war threads.
People just say "Oh yeah.. well what if we did.." and it goes on and on and on and on and on and on.
At least when I was in elementary school and we did "my dad could fight your dad" arguments they ended swiftly.
Heh. Give me a break Matty , I am training to be one of those chaps who sit in the MoD working things like this out for a living you know.
Ketara wrote:I honestly didn't even know why you were including the Chinese Fleet at all to be honest, hence my puzzlement over your bizare comparison of tonnage. How big everyone's aircraft carriers are is irrelevant.
I bring it up because this all really boils down to China's water claims, one of the reasons they've developed interest in constructing a blue water navy.
Sure. Do they carry four thousand aircraft?
So do we. Well, not four thousand, but a lot. Our ability to achieve air superiority is higher as well.
.....What?
Why are you still talking about Chinese Carriers? The Chinese Navy is not part of the equation as things stand. And won't be for a while. Bar the potential for their submarines to nip in at inopportune moments, and/or collaborate with the aircraft/missiles for joint attacks, it has no role to play here.
I think we're looking at this from two directions. I'm focusing on the history of China's water claims and how this is a part of it and potential for future armed conflict where navies will play an important role.
Although even then, they proved capable of doing damage if they assembled en masse.
Agreed. Sad as it may be, unrestricted submarine warfare works. It works very very well.
Now I'm not claiming that this is all necessarily making them on par with US military technologies, only that their is considerably more parity and technological advancement than you guys are letting on for here.
Mostly my claim is that they have nothing we don't and we have a lot more of it.
Unfortunately, land based artillery, missiles, and aircraft production facilities mean that if you intend to suppress Chinese strike capabilities, you need to have a ground invasion or occupation. Otherwise all you're doing is sitting off the coast and enduring wave after wave of Chinese attacks, which will wear you down after a few weeks.
I'd argue a land invasion isn't entirely necessary. Right now, China is completely dependent on foreign finance, one reason why this isn't like to spark conflict anytime soon. Remove what little naval ability they have, air strike them into oblivion and achieve air superiority, all they can do is stare.
The thing about ships is that the other side only needs to be lucky once to sink it. You need to be lucky all the time to protect it. And once its gone, its gone with no easy or immediate replacement.
Agreed. One of the reasons why I think the overly expensive ships in the US navy are becoming obsolete.
I'm not sure the Japanese would be pleased about the US using their home turf for a war. Especially considering it would open them up for retaliatory strikes which might end up being of a nuclear nature.
They've probably be involved too. And conflict involving China and the seas around Japan will effect their national interests and they will enter the conflict. Especially since China claims the Sea of Japan as theirs.
Interesting use of the word 'victory'. From here the word 'victory' for the Chinese would be obtaining control of the SCS.
Invasion is not necessary for victory, especially not now that air power has come into play. Now, air parity with China is much closer than naval parity, but the US still leads and has more allies in the region and local air fields. Likewise, it is telling that China uses Top Gun footage as propaganda.
Underestimation is as dangerous as overestimation.
I concede the possibility of underestimation. I don't think I am but its very possible.
For the earlier question: would nuking a carrier have the US nuking China.
After the catastrophic loss of 6000 American sailors and marines and how ever many of that carriers consorts are destroyed. Yes the US would retaliate with nukes. Even if it wasn't a nuke used on the carrier. It's all hypothetical, but a large combat loss lie that in an actual war would signal the beginning of the end.
All of this back and forth is entertaining but we have all (me too) assumed that this boils down to China and the US. I really see India, the Phillipines, Japan, Taiwan, and China as the main players. Once military action begins expect the involvement of New Zealand, Austrailia, and the US to respond.
We seem to forget that wether they are talking about it or not the Aussies and Kiwis are interested parties in The SCS. Militarily it's about securing their naval security in their near (in naval terms) waters. China really is the closest naval threat. That brings the UK in, which would also bring in the US if we weren't already so nosy.
China agitating in the SCS basically brings in the Commonwealth and The US no matter what. It's a militarily untenable position, like the Wehrmacht in the Alsace Lorriene (probably misspelled) . A strong English-speaking presence would send them back to port, a weak showing allows them to keep pushing. The US has a lot to lose, Chinese lending and manufacturing being obvious, so I wouldn't be too surprised to see the Aussies or Kiwis enforcing policy in the SCS.
Stick that in the MoD and smoke it.
Scenario C would probably be the stalemate without war. However, in either A or B, the result is that America is attacking Chinese forces. Which means that if America wants, at any stage, to stop China from just coming back to the SCS whenever the american carrier fleet leaves, they're going to need to station a permanent garrison there. A garrison of multiple carrier group strength. Not only that, they're going to need to disable Chinese land installations/gain control of the chinese coast, in order to nail the submarines, and stop missiles/aircraft being launched at the carrier fleets every other hour. Which means heading within range of land installations, and leaving the SCS in order to attack China proper.
Before continuing on to options A and B, we have to remember that when discussing whether or not two states will enter a war, we can't just consider military power. Given the increas in globalization--and how dependent the Chinese economy is on foreign trade--the temporary deployment of a US Naval Carrier Group to the South CHina Sea could be enough to convince the Chinese that the US means serious business when it comes to the South China Sea.
While the temporary deployment of a carrier group may be insufficient to create a a MILITARY control of the situation, it would be enough to provide enough political baacking to the situation to prvent China from seeking a war.
In all honesty, I view option C as the most likely of all the options. While China stands to gain a little from enforcing control of the Spratley islands by military force, I can't help but feel that it has a lot more to lose by fighting a war with the United States--something that may well happen if the Chinese do make overly strong overtures at the Spratleys in specific and the SCS in general.
But lets forget all that, we'll assume that either option A or B has occured instead.
If the US blows up the Chinese Navy in the SCS, they will not just sit idly by. They WILL be launching missiles and air raids at the american fleet in the region. And unless America has had several weeks notice to build up extra fleets in the SCS and suchlike, the Chinese are MORE than capable of eliminating the one or two carriers that are even anywhere near the region. Several? It would take longer. But if I recall from the report posted a few pages back, the nearest carrier is two days away, and the second one a week. That's plenty of time to pick them off.
So let's presume the US comes in en masse and retakes the SCS. What then? Well, they either establish a massive garrison and leave the equivalent of the Navy of the rest of the world combined sitting there. They can just leave (letting China retake the region). Or they attack China, to destroy the capability to simply waltz in and reclaim the place the second they leave.
You are correct. The Chinese do likely posess the air and missile assets to whittle the US Fleet down enough, and its is true that when the US Fleet leaves the Chinese could just waltz in and take it.
I'd contend with the idea that the US Navy would send its carriers in piecemeal. I think the admirals at Pear would be smart enough to remember what Sun Tzu said about Mass before attacking.
Now, my main problem with your argument is that you're treating any conflict between the US and China as the new World War II, a conflict that will last for years and consume the world in war. I disagree. I beleive that the naval conflict between China and the United States would stay limited to naval and air engagements in the south China Sea.
I do not believe that the US needs to be able to maintain control of the SCS for a long period of time in order to 'win'. The US needs merely to assert its opposition to the idea of a Chinese dominated Spratley Islands forcefully enough that China understands that continuing its attempts to enforce its control of the area by froces means military conflict with the United States. This is something that the Chinese are not going to be fond of in the slightest. That show of force--even if it results in military engagement--may result in China backing off over all.
The US doesn't need to garrison the Spratley's, it just needs to prove to the Chinese that the USN is still the dominant naval power in the world, and the US will fight them for it.
Heh. I'm studying for my MA Hons now in War Studies, and may take it onto PHD level. So I get to pretend my opinion is worth something in this department.
I've no doubt the Americans can project more power into the SCS. I agree there. However, I doubt the Americans sustained ability to project power into the SCS.
Nice, that sounds like something I might want to try to do once I finish my undergrad up here in St. Andrews.
I do agree that the Americans lack the ability to sustain a continued project of power into the SCS. However, I contend that such a lack of ability is irrelevant when compared to what the US mission would be.
LordofHats wrote:
So do we. Well, not four thousand, but a lot. Our ability to achieve air superiority is higher as well.
I genuinely doubt the capability of America to achieve aerial superiority in this region. Why? Because ultimately, it comes down to four factors, of which we have only examined three.
The first is the numerical superiority. This one goes to the Chinese hands down.
The second is Technological capability. This ones goes to the US, and will go a fair way to making up for the numbers.
The third is launch capacity. The Chinese have home airfields, the US have the carriers, and the airfields of allied nation-states. Slight edge to the Chinese here, but not excessively so.
Examining just these three factors implies a slight edge for the Chinese, but far from an overwhelming one. However, taking into account the fourth factor....
....which is local production capacity. AKA. How fast can replacements be made and sent to the front?
The fact is, the Chinese industrial capacity probably outstrips the US anyway in terms of industry that is already set up, and they have the steady advantage of new planes being able to be pressed into action immediately, whilst American planes must be shipped a considerable distance. Being lower tech models, they are also quicker to produce than American planes.
That final fourth factor is absolutely crucial I feel. The US could gain a short, temporary period of aerial superiority, but the aerial battle is ultimately China's for the taking. This ties very nicely into what I said about America having the ability to dominate the SCS, but not sustainably.
I think we're looking at this from two directions. I'm focusing on the history of China's water claims and how this is a part of it and potential for future armed conflict where navies will play an important role.
Yes, two different directions. I'm dealing with the art of possible and potential with current day forces, not the Chinese Navy in ten years time.
Mostly my claim is that they have nothing we don't and we have a lot more of it.
Interestingly enough, there are actually some rumours circulating that they've perfected a new kind of submarine engine muffler that actually exceeds American technical specs on their most recent model. Information is of course, hard to come by, and with any rumour, must be taken with a pinch of salt, but the Chinese have been making such substantial leaps in the field of submarine development recently that its not actually beyond the realm of the possible. America tends not to focus so much on its submarine fleet and research, and spreads its budget more evenly across its navy.
I'd argue a land invasion isn't entirely necessary. Right now, China is completely dependent on foreign finance, one reason why this isn't like to spark conflict anytime soon. Remove what little naval ability they have, air strike them into oblivion and achieve air superiority, all they can do is stare.
Turn that around. The US is heavily dependent on China. One reason why the US would not be keen to pick a fight there, no?
As to the aerial superiority, I've addressed that already.
Agreed. One of the reasons why I think the overly expensive ships in the US navy are becoming obsolete.
You may be interested to know your train of thought has been seen before in military history, most notably with Mahan's classic naval strategies opposed to the Jeune Ecole school of thought. The German U-Boats were originally seen as the successor to the torpedo boat in the Ecole strategy. Instead, naval tactics were adapted to account for submarine action.
However, with the recent massive advent of airpower over the last sixty/seventy years, aerial power and missiles have become a real concern for the big ol' battleships and carriers, taking the place of the submarine.
ChrisWWII wrote:
Before continuing on to options A and B, we have to remember that when discussing whether or not two states will enter a war, we can't just consider military power. Given the increas in globalization--and how dependent the Chinese economy is on foreign trade--the temporary deployment of a US Naval Carrier Group to the South CHina Sea could be enough to convince the Chinese that the US means serious business when it comes to the South China Sea.
While the temporary deployment of a carrier group may be insufficient to create a a MILITARY control of the situation, it would be enough to provide enough political baacking to the situation to prvent China from seeking a war.
Certainly. It would prevent a war, at least temporarily. However, the Chinese would see this as overly provocative, and roll out as big a Navy as they could as soon as they could, to challenge the US for the region, who they would see as meddling in their own back yard. In preventing one war, you could very well be sowing the seeds for the next ten years down the line.
You are correct. The Chinese do likely posess the air and missile assets to whittle the US Fleet down enough, and its is true that when the US Fleet leaves the Chinese could just waltz in and take it.
I'd contend with the idea that the US Navy would send its carriers in piecemeal. I think the admirals at Pear would be smart enough to remember what Sun Tzu said about Mass before attacking.
In that case, we're looking at a delay of a good two months whilst America gathers and outfits its forces for the operation. Time enough for the Chinese to prepare countermeasures.
Now, my main problem with your argument is that you're treating any conflict between the US and China as the new World War II, a conflict that will last for years and consume the world in war. I disagree. I beleive that the naval conflict between China and the United States would stay limited to naval and air engagements in the south China Sea.
I have a nasty feeling personally it would escalate to a nuclear standoff with the americans withdrawing, but that's just my opinion.
I do not believe that the US needs to be able to maintain control of the SCS for a long period of time in order to 'win'. The US needs merely to assert its opposition to the idea of a Chinese dominated Spratley Islands forcefully enough that China understands that continuing its attempts to enforce its control of the area by froces means military conflict with the United States. This is something that the Chinese are not going to be fond of in the slightest. That show of force--even if it results in military engagement--may result in China backing off over all.
I would seriously question America's resolve on how far it would go when it is essentially intruding into China's sphere of influence.
However, presuming the Americans sailed in, sank the chinese fleet, and set up shop in the SCS, and sent fighters/bombers over Chinese airspace in order to gain aerial superiority, do you seriously honestly believe China would simply accept it as a fait accompli? That they wouldn't immediately start launching missiles and waves of aircraft to contest the American attempts to dominate the airspace above their country? Make no mistake about it, if we're in a position whereby America has intruded militarily, they will be launching sorties over mainland China to support their fleet. That's a certainty. The American fleet could not simply sit there and not attempt to start eliminating Chinese airfields and launchers, because otherwise they're risking their own ships as the Chinese airforce brings the fight to them.
I do not personally believe any superpower could ever live with the notion of foreign aircraft dominating the skies above their own bases of power. And if you do, I am genuinely surprised.
Once the American aircraft begin to drop out of the sky, than the battle would be taken by missile and air to the fleet. The fleet will be whittled down, and eventually set sail for home. Chinese losses will be large, but the populace, and vast industrial base can easily compensate for their losses. They can be replaced locally. American ones cannot.
This is presuming we go simply with the notion of an air and sea war, and leave ground forces out of it. Either way, the US will end up overextended and outnumbered.
Nice, that sounds like something I might want to try to do once I finish my undergrad up here in St. Andrews.
I do agree that the Americans lack the ability to sustain a continued project of power into the SCS. However, I contend that such a lack of ability is irrelevant when compared to what the US mission would be.
And I contend that the Americans could engage in such force without it escalating sharply and the US being forced to withdraw. I believe that an American show of force without a clash of arms would potentially avert a struggle, but that such a solution would be a temporary fix of a decade at best before the Chinese re-asserted themselves, and were in a position of power that the US could not hope to contend with.
Thanks for keeping it civil gents. I can be a bit brusque in my debating style at times, but I genuinely do enjoy these debates with your own good selves.
Ketara wrote:Certainly. It would prevent a war, at least temporarily. However, the Chinese would see this as overly provocative, and roll out as big a Navy as they could as soon as they could, to challenge the US for the region, who they would see as meddling in their own back yard. In preventing one war, you could very well be sowing the seeds for the next ten years down the line.
This is true, however that's asssuming the Chinese can build up enough to overpower the US Navy. Given the fact that the US Navy is continuing to upgrade its fleet, I view that as unlikely.
In that case, we're looking at a delay of a good two months whilst America gathers and outfits its forces for the operation. Time enough for the Chinese to prepare countermeasures.
Really? What specialist equipmeent would it take to move a significant naval force into the SCS? If two carrier groups are at most 2 weeks away, why would it take any longer than that.
I have a nasty feeling personally it would escalate to a nuclear standoff with the americans withdrawing, but that's just my opinion.
Eh, IIRC, US carriers don't carry nukes on them anymore, and the boomers don't need to enter the SCS to be threatening to China.
I would seriously question America's resolve on how far it would go when it is essentially intruding into China's sphere of influence.
However, presuming the Americans sailed in, sank the chinese fleet, and set up shop in the SCS, and sent fighters/bombers over Chinese airspace in order to gain aerial superiority, do you seriously honestly believe China would simply accept it as a fait accompli? That they wouldn't immediately start launching missiles and waves of aircraft to contest the American attempts to dominate the airspace above their country? Make no mistake about it, if we're in a position whereby America has intruded militarily, they will be launching sorties over mainland China to support their fleet. That's a certainty. The American fleet could not simply sit there and not attempt to start eliminating Chinese airfields and launchers, because otherwise they're risking their own ships as the Chinese airforce brings the fight to them.
Firstly, I think you're overestimating how strongly the Chinese will move into the SCS. I don't think they'd commit significant surface assets to the region. At best, they'd send one or two major surface scombatants, mainly relying on smaller craft to seize energy resources. The US navy will likely be more focused in small scale skirmishes against chinese forces occupying oil platforms in ammner similar to the Operation Praying Mantis action against the Iranians. Maybe a few large combatants will be engaged, but the majority of the Chinese fleet will not be commited or engaged.
I don't think Chinese land based ASMs are going to have the range to hit a US fleet at sea espescially one that will be operating closer to friendly nations, yes, missile attack by aircraft will be launched against the US fleet, but I think that you're still exagerting the scale of the conflict I imagine will happen, as I said, I view this conflict will be more similar to the Praying Mantis action than the Falklands War.
I doubt that the US will anticipate staying in the SCS long enough to have to consider supression of Chinese homeland air defense and airfields. I doubt the Chinese will either. Both the Chinese and the Americans are economically dependent on each other, and will want to end this conflict as soon as possible, and resume normal economic relations. While the Chinese will not be happy to deal with this intrusion, I feel like they will recognize fighting a war of attrition will not be in their interest.
They want to normalize relations, and they will accept losing this war...for now at least. They will make asserting themselves navally an even bigger priority, and we may end up with a new nval arms race in the Pacific.
This is presuming we go simply with the notion of an air and sea war, and leave ground forces out of it. Either way, the US will end up overextended and outnumbered.
Indeed. I wouldn't presume to give the US the ability to win a land war in South East Asia if it chose to get involved.
This is true, however that's asssuming the Chinese can build up enough to overpower the US Navy. Given the fact that the US Navy is continuing to upgrade its fleet, I view that as unlikely.
It might not stay that way. The US Navy is probably the most over bloated of the armed branches of the DoD right now. Our carrier fleet is honestly twice the size it really needs to be (not that I mind having it that big). If economic woes continue to trouble us, the possibility of the Navy suffering budget cuts increases. Budget cuts won't necessarily be absolutely horrible.
We could upgrade our current fleet rather than continually rebuild it which is an option we've never made much use of, but the potential for a weakening US Navy is out there in the very near future.
Indeed, but if we DO see a naval arms race in the Pacific between China and the United States, there might be an incentive to make sure the Navy stays as strong as possible.
ChrisWWII wrote:
This is true, however that's asssuming the Chinese can build up enough to overpower the US Navy. Given the fact that the US Navy is continuing to upgrade its fleet, I view that as unlikely.
They don't need to be able to overpower the US Navy. Just the US Navy forces in the SCS.
The US has plenty of other commitments for its forces, and will never throw its full naval power into one small region.
Really? What specialist equipmeent would it take to move a significant naval force into the SCS? If two carrier groups are at most 2 weeks away, why would it take any longer than that.
They have two carriers within a weeks travel, but considering you said you doubted they would move in with less than overwhelming force, I'm running with your scenario of gathering several carrier groups. The problem is that any less than three, which would take at least two and a half weeks or so to pull together and get down there, faces serious risks from Chinese airpower and missiles.
Eh, IIRC, US carriers don't carry nukes on them anymore, and the boomers don't need to enter the SCS to be threatening to China.
I meant that China would say, 'get out of our airspace or we launch nukes on your stuff in the region'. I'm not specifying delivery systems.
Firstly, I think you're overestimating how strongly the Chinese will move into the SCS. I don't think they'd commit significant surface assets to the region. At best, they'd send one or two major surface scombatants, mainly relying on smaller craft to seize energy resources. The US navy will likely be more focused in small scale skirmishes against chinese forces occupying oil platforms in ammner similar to the Operation Praying Mantis action against the Iranians. Maybe a few large combatants will be engaged, but the majority of the Chinese fleet will not be commited or engaged.
If we're presuming China is already engaged against India, you'll find considerably more naval mobilisation in the region than that. There's also the factor that if the US decide to move in en masse, it will be quite obvious, possibly resulting in Chinese forces having set up shop around there.
However, you keep changing the scenario on me here. If we're presuming the Chinese Navy is not in the SCS, and we only have a few oil platforms occupied by the Chinese, than why are so many US carriers needed? Either China is prepared to fight here, or they are not. Either they are already engaged here, or they or not. It just feels like you keep moving the goalposts here slightly so you can respond to my points if they were in a slightly different scenario.
I don't think Chinese land based ASMs are going to have the range to hit a US fleet at sea espescially one that will be operating closer to friendly nations, yes, missile attack by aircraft will be launched against the US fleet, but I think that you're still exagerting the scale of the conflict I imagine will happen, as I said, I view this conflict will be more similar to the Praying Mantis action than the Falklands War.
There's one thing here which I think you keep underestimating. You keep referring to how the conflict will 'be in the SCS and not near mainland China'. However, it's called the South China Sea for a reason. Mainly because it backs onto China. Meaning if half a dozen US carrier fleets are in the SCS, they're within relative range to China. Meaning that if they're assaulting Chinese forces in the SCS, regardless of the size, they are within range of Chinese weapons systems which will undoubtably be used.
The Chinese navy is over 500 vessels. If the US engages even a tenth of that, that's fifty ships. Can you honestly see the US engaging a force of that size, and China NOT responding with air and missile strikes? I have a hard time picturing the Chinese High Command....
'Sir, our fleet in the SCS is being attacked by an American fleet. Should we take countermeasures?'
'No. We shall order the retreat, and go for lunch. The Americans are clearly far too mighty. We shall accept the loss of our ships, bow down to American supremacy, and go and drink tea'.
'But sir, we have eight hundred aircraft within striking range and several hundred missiles ready to launch! Our submarines are shadowing them even as we speak! Surely, we shoul-'
'ENOUGH! We shall order the retreat and drink tea!'
I really, really doubt that will happen.
As to missile range, the Chinese have missiles capable of hitting American cities. The SCS is hardly out of accurate striking range. They don't necessarily need to be restricted to rocket attacks from aircraft.
I doubt that the US will anticipate staying in the SCS long enough to have to consider supression of Chinese homeland air defense and airfields. I doubt the Chinese will either. Both the Chinese and the Americans are economically dependent on each other, and will want to end this conflict as soon as possible, and resume normal economic relations. While the Chinese will not be happy to deal with this intrusion, I feel like they will recognize fighting a war of attrition will not be in their interest.
If American ships are sinking Chinese ships, and both sides are opening fire across the SCS, the Chinese are not going to tie both hands behind their back and say, 'It's a fair cop guv! So, about that latest shipment of goods to you...'
They will open up with aircraft and missiles. Which means that US high command in turn will HAVE to consider attacking mainland China, or withdrawing.
They want to normalize relations, and they will accept losing this war...for now at least. They will make asserting themselves navally an even bigger priority, and we may end up with a new nval arms race in the Pacific.
If the US stations a fleet there without conflict, I agree. If two fleets open fire on each other, I very strongly disagree.
This is true, however that's asssuming the Chinese can build up enough to overpower the US Navy. Given the fact that the US Navy is continuing to upgrade its fleet, I view that as unlikely.
It might not stay that way. The US Navy is probably the most over bloated of the armed branches of the DoD right now. Our carrier fleet is honestly twice the size it really needs to be (not that I mind having it that big). If economic woes continue to trouble us, the possibility of the Navy suffering budget cuts increases. Budget cuts won't necessarily be absolutely horrible.
We could upgrade our current fleet rather than continually rebuild it which is an option we've never made much use of, but the potential for a weakening US Navy is out there in the very near future.
You have no idea what you are talking about. With the 10 Nimitzs and Big E the navy can only embark about 1/3 of it's total air wing, half of it's fixed wing jets. Not including the heli carriers. There is a shortage of support craft left by the failure of the DD21 and CG-X programs and the early retirement of the first 4 Ticondorogas and the OHP frigates. The Navy, including the Marines is the smallest force, with the largest area of operations, and receives only 1% more of the budget than the Air Force. The Navy's material costs will always be higher than the other forces, easily demonstrated by the Army having the smallest budget and out manning the other two services combined (including the reserves of all three branches). If the economics woes of the US were to actually be solved addressing the 45% of the budget in government provided medical care and pensions (social security) would have to be addressed, since the constitutional requirement to provide a national defense is specific, and the social programs are merely implied (general welfare). But I digress. If anything the Navy is guilty of not spending ENOUGH to expand the DDG fleet to replace aging cruisers with Flight Three Burkes or a new conventional DDG class, to build a naval Fire Support Platform the current answer being cruise missiles which aren't the answer to every fire support request, A sluggish building program to replace the Tarawa LHDs that are finally nearing completion on the lead ship. A failure to show progress towards replacing the SSN fleet at a reasonable cost and numbers,the reduction in the SSBN fleet by the START treaties that forced the SSGNs and no replacement class in sight for the Ohios at all. Basically just because the cold war is over doesn't mean that the Navy's responsibility to project our influence and prprexy our intrest has ceased, in fact it is now greater because a single large threat has been replaced by many small threats, increasing the need for a diverse and numerous naval force.
And I have now gone OT in an OT thread.
AustonT wrote:With the 10 Nimitzs and Big E the navy can only embark about 1/3 of it's total air wing, half of it's fixed wing jets.
Enterprise is being decommissioned in 2013. Poor girl is nearly 50 and as far as I know what never intended to live that long (she was kind of a science project). And the Nimitz line is already on the chopping block to begin being replaced by the Gerald Ford class in coming decades. That's a lot of money for a change that isn't really needed. We only just finished the Bush in 2010!
What we need to realize, is that the US navy has more naval tonnage than every other world power navy combined. If we wanted to, we can combat and defeat every other navy in the world (theoretically of course). We have a navy way bigger than we really need it to be, primarily because we maintain an interest in our ability to project force. If that were not an interest, and our navy was purely defensive, we could cut it in half and be fine. We'd still have twice as many carriers than any one nation (not including our support ships which are almost as large as the carriers of other countries). There's just over 20 true aircraft carriers in the world, including ours. Not even the Royal Navy at its peak has what the US Navy has now. We are at this time very realistically unrivaled in naval ability. The RN at least had to compete with France.
The military will suffer as economic woes continue into this decade depending on how events play out. The DoD has a huge budget and congress is very aware I think that some of it isn't needed. The coming years will likely decide if current US military practices continue or end. If they end, the US military is going to get smaller. A lot smaller.
Enterprise was certainly not a science project, she was supposed to be the lead ship of 6 planned to augment and replace the Kitty Hawk/Forrestals. There's also no "poor girl" in there at all. Nuclear carriers were planned from the outset to have a service life of at LEAST 50 years. The conventional carriers they replaced served nearly 40 years apiece in fact Kitty Hawk was decommissioned at 47. The supercarriers were envisioned from the outset to outlive their builder expectations. The real reason Enterprise will retire is one part money and one part power; electrical power that is. She simy doesn't have the power generation capability to receive any further upgrades. The Bush in contrast has a generous power budget that far exceeds that built into Nimitz. In fact Bush has more in common with Ford than she does with Nimitz.
You clearly don't understand that the carrier fleet is merely receiving incremental upgrades, and at a monumentally slower rate than the Navy received in the Cold War.
The Navy has been in decline since the 70s and has reached critical mass. Ships and submarines have been retired early with no replacement in the works, and more are reaching the end of their service lives with no solution in sight.
Carriers are just the beginning of the Navy's procurement woes. Which range from the submarines, surface combatants, and airplanes that are wearing out and have no successors due to a declining interest in maintaining naval power. You know what read this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166362512952294.html
Actually debating the size and disposition of the Defense budget is pointless. It's clearly much more important to put the American people on the dole rather than support her armed forces and discourage dependence on the state.
Actually debating the size and disposition of the Defense budget is pointless. It's clearly much more important to put the American people on the dole rather than support her armed forces and discourage dependence on the state.
Nuclear carriers were planned from the outset to have a service life of at LEAST 50 years. The conventional carriers they replaced served nearly 40 years apiece in fact Kitty Hawk was decommissioned at 47. The supercarriers were envisioned from the outset to outlive their builder expectations. The real reason Enterprise will retire is one part money and one part power; electrical power that is. She simy doesn't have the power generation capability to receive any further upgrades. The Bush in contrast has a generous power budget that far exceeds that built into Nimitz. In fact Bush has more in common with Ford than she does with Nimitz.
These things I was not aware of. I'm an armored warfare nut
The Navy has been in decline since the 70s and has reached critical mass. Ships and submarines have been retired early with no replacement in the works, and more are reaching the end of their service lives with no solution in sight.
Carriers are just the beginning of the Navy's procurement woes. Which range from the submarines, surface combatants, and airplanes that are wearing out and have no successors due to a declining interest in maintaining naval power.
So really what it comes down to is that what I have suggested in this thread may happen has actually already happened and been going on for some time.
Actually debating the size and disposition of the Defense budget is pointless.
Whose debating the budget? I'm making an observation about the very large size of the US Navy, which is in fact much larger than it needs to be (need of course depending on what you want it to do). The future of the economy could make the current problem it worse than it already is.
We can make our navy much smaller and not sacrifice national defense, just our overseas projection. Now, don't get me wrong. I want a strong navy. I want the US to be able to project force overseas, especially with China and Inida on the rise and the potential future conflict between the two holds for another world war. I am not advocating decreasing the size of Navy, merely observing that a very real possibility exists for it to become much weaker as time goes on with our current economic trouble. The same thing happened to the Royal Navy after WWII (ignoring that the Royal Navy had trouble going back to before the turn of the century).
LordofHats wrote: The same thing happened to the Royal Navy after WWII (ignoring that the Royal Navy had trouble going back to before the turn of the century).
I don't know about the turn of the century. The reason Lord Fisher cut 150 ships off the Navy then was because the new Dreadnought battleships effectively made all the older ships obsolete. Not so sure about that analogy.
LordofHats wrote: The same thing happened to the Royal Navy after WWII (ignoring that the Royal Navy had trouble going back to before the turn of the century).
I don't know about the turn of the century. The reason Lord Fisher cut 150 ships off the Navy then was because the new Dreadnought battleships effectively made all the older ships obsolete. Not so sure about that analogy.
It's not the same yes. The Royal Navy suffered a very long and slow decline. In WWII, it had ships much older than those used by the Germans, and many were older than those used by the Japanese all because of budgetary problems going back decades. Japan probably had a better navy in the 1920's and 1930's to be honest. The Royal Navy hit a rut at the turn of the century and while it recovered a little it never fully recovered. The end of Imperialism and the changed political climate of post-WWII ended the process of decline.
That's how I understand it anyway. Again, I'm a tank guy
Actually debating the size and disposition of the Defense budget is pointless. It's clearly much more important to put the American people on the dole rather than support her armed forces and discourage dependence on the state.
). As a non-American, I don't have much important to say about what the US should or shouldn't do, but to me it seems as though the US is caught in a bit of a scrape (which is what China wants): either they [the US] honours their promises and defends their allies or they pull out and leave their allies, losing a lot of international respect in the process. If the US decides to not back down, it'll be dragged into another costly war that will no doubt make the current economic issues worse. It's more or less a win-win for the Chinese gov't., as they don't care much about how many lives they'd lose in a conflict such as this.
) the US Navy was there this summer.
that!"
