http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/surface/shenyang051c.aspmerocaine said:
China's military power
- Thread starter long live usa
- Start date
- Status
I'm suprised they had to go to Russia for the Sovremenies. They really aren't that complex of a vessel to construct. They could have built the hull then have it outfitted with the equipment like you said. Of course that's 2/3 the cost right there. I guess it was just easier to buy rather than build infrastructure for something that was just a stop-gap.merocaine said:
Who knows what PLAN is doing with their AAW destroyer, last I heard they filled their phased array panels with concrete.:rotfl
Grand Danois
Entertainer
You're thinking of the Soviet phased arrays ? The Mars-Passat (Sky Watch) installed on the Baku turned out to be concrete slabs in the end... The Soviets couldn't make them work.Big-E said:
The PLAN just have to light up their PAR's on their destroyers to show that they work.
Last edited:
Musashi_kenshin
Well-Known Member
If the US wasn't to protect Taiwan against China, when could it protect any regional ally? Waving China on would signal that China could turn Asia into its own personal playground.merocaine said:
Taiwan's defence forces are better than those of many other countries in the region - only Japan and South Korea are clearly better. So if the US didn't help Taiwan and take advantage of their capabilities, what could they do to support a more minor military power?
China has moved fast, but the extent to which it can modernise will get proportionally more difficult as time goes on. Upgrading PLAN anti-air defences from 20mm guns to SAM is obviously a massive change - China can't make that same leap again. Also the US is going to continue to upgrade its forces, staying ahead of China (even if the PLA gets closer).
Then there's the issue of how Japan's relations with Taiwan will change. They have been steadily improving - maybe in the future Japan will commit to defending Taiwan too. Certainly letting Taiwan fall to China would jepordise both US and Japanese security interests, by giving it more airbases and naval yards with clearer access to the Pacific.
I know that having the TOMBSTONE would give some kind of 3D capability but picking up sea skimming AShMs is a whole different ballgame. Trying to pick that up from wave clutter with the low signatures of new US skimmers is next to an impossible task. The only radar now that can effectivly do it (latest US TLAM and Harpoon Block IIs) is the new AN/SPY-3. I'm sure that's the only thing keeping it from being fielded along with maintenance and environmental issues.Grand Danois said:You're thinking of the Soviet phased arrays ? The Mars-Passat (Sky Watch) installed on the Baku turned out to be concrete slabs in the end... The Soviets couldn't make them work.
The PLAN just have to light up their PAR's on their destroyers to show that they work.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
For the sake of pedantry I will include the SAMPSON and APAR to that category.Big-E said:
Maintenance and environment are real issues, but I don't understand why ability to track stealthy sea skimming AShMs would be a reason not to field it... (?)Big-E said:
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Is the confusion caused by you referring to the PLAN SAPAR and Soviet TOMBSTONE, while I am referring to the AN/SPY-3 and vice versa ?Big-E said:
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
I usually stay away from these sorts of arguments because they degenerate into "mine's better than yours" but I'll add one comment here.merocaine said:
The USA is doing anything but standing still in terms of military capability. China has SO far to go to generate the kind of capability the US can NOW that it's not funny.
Do you honestly think 9 - 14 years is sufficient to bridge that gap? I don't, particularly when you see that China is still trying to introduce an indigenous fighter such as the J-10 which has yet to equal let alone generate more capability than the latest examples of the F-16 family.
By the time they get the J-10 into service the F-35 family will be entering service amongst it's respective users. There's an entire generation of difference between the 2 (irregardless of your personal definition of the term "generation"
) ...To sum up, China is rapidly developing a great military capability, not only quantitatively but also qualitatively, however China remains a LONG way behind the US and there is little evidence (that I have seen) to show they are bridging that gap...
Ah no fair enough, it was more a question as to wether the "game is worth the candle". If at the end of the day we all agree the US would win, would the cost of victory be too great.
Reading the art of war at the moment, interesting read, if a bit dated
) ).One of the points in the book is that the wise General wins his battles without firing a shot.
In other words the Chinese dont need to be better or to match the US. If they can make the cost of a US intervention too high, or make the americans thinkthe cost will be too high, they can win.
abramsteve
New Member
As a student of North East Asia studies I find this thread pretty interesting!
Just a point though. One of my tutors explained to me rather well why he didnt see a need to be overly worried about Chinas expanding power. He did so in a way that for a while made me kinda accept what he was saying, untill I though bout it some more. He argued that it was not in Chinas best interest to confront the US. Maybe not. But surley it is in their best interest to be able to improve their barganing power?
They do not need to project their power at long distances like Japan in 1941, nor do they need to capture territory in order to secure recources. If the Chinese military could stop US carrier ops from anywhere west of the Phillpines in a line running north to Japan, then they can effectivley control the South China sea, one of the bussiest trade routes in the world, and also quite rich in recources.
I beleive an expanded and more advanced version of soviet naval doctrine would be their best option. Instead of trying to go carrier against carrier why not swamp an enemy CBG with AShMs? By focusing their surface capability on ASW roles they can operate under land based air cover. They could also operate a number of light carrier groups for power projection against softer threats.
They're just my thoughs. May have been discussed earlier but im a bit slow!
Just a point though. One of my tutors explained to me rather well why he didnt see a need to be overly worried about Chinas expanding power. He did so in a way that for a while made me kinda accept what he was saying, untill I though bout it some more. He argued that it was not in Chinas best interest to confront the US. Maybe not. But surley it is in their best interest to be able to improve their barganing power?
They do not need to project their power at long distances like Japan in 1941, nor do they need to capture territory in order to secure recources. If the Chinese military could stop US carrier ops from anywhere west of the Phillpines in a line running north to Japan, then they can effectivley control the South China sea, one of the bussiest trade routes in the world, and also quite rich in recources.
I beleive an expanded and more advanced version of soviet naval doctrine would be their best option. Instead of trying to go carrier against carrier why not swamp an enemy CBG with AShMs? By focusing their surface capability on ASW roles they can operate under land based air cover. They could also operate a number of light carrier groups for power projection against softer threats.
They're just my thoughs. May have been discussed earlier but im a bit slow!
I agree. I think we would stand on Taiwan and the Chinese know it. Whats interesting is with their well rounded buildup and purchases they really haven't upgraded their amphibious assets like they could. What is that telling us? That perhaps despite the rhetoric they consider an invasion scenario with Taiwan a bad bet? Like Ive said "communists" by their nature are risk aversive.
As the man says "time" isnt standing still. Nor is Yank military expenditures and R&D. A terrible game of catchup for the Reds against an adversary in a far greater position of strength. One of which are alliances with other democratic nations in the region. When people talk about China's military buildup they seem to assume all will stay rosie on their economic front in the future.
As Big-E has already mentioned this is no doubt their goal. Im not a navy man can someone explain to me "realistically" what kind of assets they would need to accomplish this? Against the USN, say, 15 years from now?
Soviet doctrine? Basically "Backfires and boats"! And not a bad plan either but I cant help thinking Chinese requirements are different. For one thing the Soviets concentrated much on interdiction of NATO North Atlantic supply routes. And rightfully so. The success of NATO against the Warsaw pact invasion of western Europe would have depended on those supplies getting thru.
But I would say the Soviets were a great Land power with a navy and the Chinese want to be a great naval power with an army. For one thing the Chinese are far more dependant on maritime commerce then the Soviets were. The Russians always had their own oil and resources they didn't need to boat them in. Really in many ways their naval buildup had a lot of similarities with Hitlers Germany. Another great Land power. China is a pacific nation that is completly dependant on maritime commerce.
Great discussion. And just because I may not agree with some people that doesn't mean I think they are "blabbering'. Course I have a few people on ignore now.
Grand Danois
Entertainer
No. It is like Germany. Outside of the asymmetry of land based air and ssk's foreign navies can choke it off.merocaine said:
You need a persistent and global presence to protect your supplies.
contedicavour
New Member
Hmm this is a very interesting topic that could take pages to debate.merocaine said:
China lives off imports of raw materials such as oil ; for the moment most oil still arrives by tanker although several pipelines are being built through Russia and the Central Asian republics;
China is a country blessed with a lot of foreign direct investment on export-oriented industries. Almost all of China's exports go through sea lanes, not ground borders.
All the most dynamic regions within China are along the coastline, while several of the landlocked regions are poorer or extremely poor. Thus one may imply that the preferred policies of the coastal regions may have well over fair share representation at national level.
To summarize, though geographically China may seem more of a land-power, it is progressively becoming a very sea-oriented power, with a lot in common with island nations and very open (to trade) economies such as Japan or the UK
cheers
Going to have to argue this one, Germany was surrounded by enemys france and GB on one side and Russia on the other. Plus the fact that the British were in total control of all routes in and out of the Mideast, ment the Germans could be isolated.
All three were dedicated to holding german power in check. This situation could only arise with China if India the US and Russia decided to act in concert.
A war with the US/Tiawan would leave china with a secure flank. This is a luxury that Germany never had.
Who knows the Chinese may already have an agreement with Russia to garrente stratigic supplies in time of war.
true but in a war time situation the Chinese have a get out clause in that long border with Russia.
Last edited by a moderator:
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Exactly and when they make plays for forms of control which they will when they need it, the seek return of the great Chinese territories which many at hear still feel have been robbed from them etc. these consist of Nansha Qundao or the Spratly's, Mongolia, Taipei/Formossa, territories north of the Amur etc... and that is why China seeks to increase its projection power, in terms of face China hass sought to make its self well defended so it will never be occupied again by anyone everyone knows the list now its time to start regaining its glory back.contedicavour said:
- Status