Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

mattyrm 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.

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.

Unless the torpedoes have nukes on them of course.

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.

Or unless it's a supercavitating torpedo like the Russian-made Shkval, which China reportedly purchased in 1998.

LordofHats wrote:

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.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Unless the torpedoes have nukes on them of course.

Or unless it's a supercavitating torpedo like the Russian-made Shkval, which China reportedly purchased in 1998.

Nope.

Not even one of those could sink a carrier in one shot.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
They have a carrier now.

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.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Unless the torpedoes have nukes on them of course.

Or unless it's a supercavitating torpedo like the Russian-made Shkval, which China reportedly purchased in 1998.

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.

If you want to read up on nuclear strategy, I recommend this essay series. Part 2 here.

It's quite an eye opener into how strategic nuclear warfare works.

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'.

No one will use even a tactical nuke.

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

Ketara wrote:
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 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.

Well... there goes Taiwan for sure...

so much for going back there :/

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.

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

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.

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.

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.

To be fair, this is a wargame website filled with arm chair generals.

Pretending who fights who is pretty much all we do here.

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!"

China's a bit like germany - they expand expand, we smile and nod but eventually they will push too far.

Phototoxin wrote:China's a bit like germany - they expand expand, we smile and nod but eventually they will push too far.

Nope.

Germany didn't have one HUNDREDTH of the economic dependence on globalization that china does.

ChrisWWII wrote:

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.

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.

So what you're really saying is you're Dakka's resident mad scientist (in training)? Yes!

Gun nut mastadon hunters, lawyers, vets, Shuma, mad scientists and MGS, we could topple governments! (spins a globe) pick one.

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.