Indo Pacific strategy

[OPSSG]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1499028473523978246

1. Looking at Ukraine but thinking of Taiwan. This is a reaction to Paul Heer’s article, keeping in mind that direct negotiations may not be best conflict resolution method between asymmetrical conflict parties, in the case of Ukraine and Russia.

2. India’s abstention at the UN Security Council and General Assembly votes could mean:

​

(i) Modi understanding for Russian position but condemning the invasion; or​

​

(ii) Indian fear of Russian reprisals and maintaining relations with Russia; or​

​

(iii) Modi’s view that this is ‘not my war’ and wanting to remain neutral, along with fear of western reprisals​

3. Any prior hope that ASEAN had for India as a counter weight to China, if India’s reason for abstention is (ii) or (iii), will be extinguished. Before pointing a finger at India, we should note the 2 ASEAN members also abstained (namely, Laos and Vietnam). As I see it, ASEAN is living dangerously at the intersection of Americans and the G7 shouting India is unreliable, and Indian citizens shouting America is unreliable (during their border dispute with China). Most of ASEAN are not wanting to be caught between India and the G7.

4. Readers from G20 countries need to reign in wilder hopes of ASEAN support for Ukraine. The fact that Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and the Philippines took a stronger stance than ASEAN’s bland statement on the conflict is the best that we can hope for. Russia has received a bloody nose, but will learn. Russian generals are not fools; and I believe the Russians will learn from their failure of strategy, failure to schedule effective maintenance, their lack of coherence in the use of airpower, etc. Once they concentrate, stand-off and drench cities will artillery, odds in this campaign will shift.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1498498416401592320

5. Looking at the conflict in Ukraine from a Southeast Asian lens is certainly interesting.

​

(a) In the short term, Russia becomes China’s very junior partner — as Russia is being hit with sanctions, left right and centre. But China also suffers a geo-strategic loss viz a viz Europe & the G7. Under Trump, the Americans lost Europe. Under Biden, the G7/NATO are united in one voice.​

​

(b) But in the medium to long term, if the war in Ukraine drags on for a decade, it could distract Europe/America and allow China to carve its sphere of influence in the Indo-Pacific.​

 

[KrishnaDevRaya]

Russia's lackluster performance in Ukraine till now should have a direct impact on the PLA's assessment of how things will unfold if it invades Taiwan. 700 or so missiles launched by Russia failed to neutralize Ukraine's meagre air force. Russian troops and convoys are getting ambushed non stop. While Ukrainian claims of Russian casualties might be exaggerated, I think the Russians have lost around 5000 troops in these two weeks. Hundreds of tanks and APCs destroyed and abandoned. It's an outright meme now with Ukrainian tractors towing away Russian tanks and air defence systems. Dozens of Russian planes have been shot down by the still functioning Ukrainian air defence systems. Those bayraktar drones have also proven very effective. And all this with a direct land border with Ukraine, on mostly flat terrain.

Taiwan has a much better air force and air defence systems than Ukraine. They also have a better anti ship capability. As far as military infrastructure is concerned, Taiwan has a substantially bigger network of underground and armoured facilities than Ukraine. The much feared Chinese missile barrage doesn't seem quite that menacing anymore after seeing the results of Russian missile strikes. Chinese fighter jets will have to contend with advanced and networked air defence systems along with modernized F16's and Mirage 2000s. That will likely result in far more losses for the PLAAF than what the VKS has faced till now. And for a land invasion, they'll have to perform amphibious landings, which is another animal altogether compared to just crossing a land border in tanks and trucks. Overall, I don't think anyone in the PLA is confident about being able to successfully invade Taiwan right now.

 

[ngatimozart]

Russia's lackluster performance in Ukraine till now should have a direct impact on the PLA's assessment of how things will unfold if it invades Taiwan. 700 or so missiles launched by Russia failed to neutralize Ukraine's meagre air force. Russian troops and convoys are getting ambushed non stop. While Ukrainian claims of Russian casualties might be exaggerated, I think the Russians have lost around 5000 troops in these two weeks. Hundreds of tanks and APCs destroyed and abandoned. It's an outright meme now with Ukrainian tractors towing away Russian tanks and air defence systems. Dozens of Russian planes have been shot down by the still functioning Ukrainian air defence systems. Those bayraktar drones have also proven very effective. And all this with a direct land border with Ukraine, on mostly flat terrain.

Taiwan has a much better air force and air defence systems than Ukraine. They also have a better anti ship capability. As far as military infrastructure is concerned, Taiwan has a substantially bigger network of underground and armoured facilities than Ukraine. The much feared Chinese missile barrage doesn't seem quite that menacing anymore after seeing the results of Russian missile strikes. Chinese fighter jets will have to contend with advanced and networked air defence systems along with modernized F16's and Mirage 2000s. That will likely result in far more losses for the PLAAF than what the VKS has faced till now. And for a land invasion, they'll have to perform amphibious landings, which is another animal altogether compared to just crossing a land border in tanks and trucks. Overall, I don't think anyone in the PLA is confident about being able to successfully invade Taiwan right now.

Yep the very senior leadership of the CCP and PLA will be watching the Russian invasion of Ukraine with considerable concern. The CCP / PLA Foreign Minister Wang Yi, said last Monday "We have seen that some people emphasise the principle of sovereignty on the Ukraine issue, but continue to undermine China's sovereignty and territorial integrity on the Taiwan issue. This is a naked double standard, ...". What will have given them the concern is not so much the "poor" performance of the Russian military, but the very and untied strong resistance of the Ukrainian military, political classes, and people. This will be a very good example to the Taiwanese and the CCP cannot restrict Taiwanese knowledge of such resistance in anyway. So that will be gnawing at their stomachs creating ulcers. Next the how Europe, EU, NATO, US, the West quickly united behind Ukraine and the rest of the world joining in isolating Putin and Russia. In the UN General Assembly vote on the Resolution demanding "that Russia immediately, completely and unconditionally withdraw all of its military forces from the territory of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.”; 141 countries voted in favour, 35 countries abstained and five including Russia voted against.

Then there are all the sanctions against Russian banks, businesses, organisations and individuals, right across the board. The CCP hierarchy have very significant amounts of their wealth invested overseas, plus they have family who have immigrated to foreign lands. The Chines National Bank has the vast majority of its foreign reserves in US$, Euros, Japanese Yen etc., and very little in gold; far less than the 30% of foreign reserves that the Russian National Bank has in gold. So what the CCP top leadership see now is both their own personal wealth and the national economy nuked if they are sanctioned like Putin and the Russians are. And there is little that they would be able to do about it. They simply don't have the nuclear weapons leverage of 9,000 plus warheads that Putin has. Unlike Russia they are also importers of energy, especially hydrocarbon based energy along with iron ore and coal to drive their steel mills. They are also net food importers. The video below discusses the CCP leadership and its fear of sanctions.

The next point is what you have said about PLA military capabilities and its ability to successfully invade Taiwan. The first mistake would be to underestimate them or be arrogant about what you perceive their capabilities to be. The British in Singapore and Malaya, other European colonial powers and the Americans were like that about the Japanese in 1941 and look where it got them? Singapore and Hong Kong fell, Burma, the Dutch East Indies, French Indo China, and the Philippines were all overrun and subjugated by the Japanese Imperial Forces. That's a good lesson about assumptions based on ignorance and arrogance.

We don't know what the PLA will be like, what its doctrines will be, how good it will be etc., in a near peer conflict because it hasn't fought a war since 1978 / 79 and under completely different circumstances. It doesn't have a long institutional memory of war fighting and that does make a difference because that long history helps shape traditions, discipline, culture, transfer of knowledge between generations, and creates an esprit d' corp within a military. People may think that battle honours are silly, especially battle honours from centuries ago, but you talk to a Guardsman, who has battle honours on the Regimental Colour from the likes of Waterloo (1815) or battles prior to that. It's their history and they are very proud of it and that pride in their regiment, ship, or squadron, translates to a better soldier, sailor, airman or airwoman with them all working as a team and for each other.

The PLA is loyal to and answers only to the CCP and that creates a different dynamic in a way. However the Red Army of the USSR as the same with the CPSU and yet during the Great Patriotic War (WW2) the soldiers etc., fought with great bravery. It did help that the NKVD were standing behind them with orders to shoot those who failed to move forward. Back then, like in the modern day PLA, each unit had political officers and they could and did on occasion create problems. So it would be interesting to see how much say a CCP political officer has in a combat situation. It would also be interesting to see if the political officer's involvement slows down the reaction time in an unexpected situation.

You will note that I have spoken directly to your comments about Russian armour, weapons, tactics, strategy, leadership, and personnel capabilities. This is deliberate because lots of claims and counter claims have been made and there are still to many unknowns at the moment. I will comment that I think that this is unlike them though and something isn't right, but what that is I wouldn't hazard a guess although I do have some unsubstantiated suspicions that I don't care to share.

We actually don't know a lot of how the PLA will react or operate in a combat situation. Hence we must treat them as though they are as good as ourselves, if not better. To do otherwise would be extremely foolish.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Hopefully not yet posted somewhere else....
..but the Solomon Islands has confirmed it is drafting a security deal with China, a move that worries neighbouring Australia and other Western allies in the Indo-Pacific.

Solomon Islands confirms China security draft, alarming Australia

Australia has concerns over their Pacific island neighbour allowing China a military base

www.bbc.com

A little bit to the north we have another - remarkable - development.

Japan's prime minister has begun saying loudly and publicly that Japan should think seriously and urgently about nuclear weapons.

It seems that Japan is getting nervous with the changing situation around them.

Will Ukraine invasion push Japan to go nuclear?

Ex-PM Shinzo Abe shocked Japan by saying it should think about nuclear weapons - but he's not alone.

www.bbc.com

 

[STURM]

The British in Singapore and Malaya, other European colonial powers and the Americans were like that about the Japanese in 1941 and look where it got them?

The Yanks I think had a more realistic or balance asessement of the Japanese [reports from the AVG and observers in China indicated that the Japanese were actually quite good]. The Brits on the other hand suffered from Imperial arrogance with quite a bit racial prejudice.

We actually don't know a lot of how the PLA will react or operate in a combat situation. Hence we must treat them as though they are as good as ourselves, if not better. To do otherwise would be extremely foolish.

Well said. Over the years many assumptions and claims have been made about the PLA. In the 1990's and 2000's it was common to hear about how the PLA was improving but was still way behind. Today it's common to hear about how the PLA has rapidly improved and has significantly narrowed the tech gap with the U.S. but that even if the PLA eventually catches up tech wise; the U.S. still has a qualitative edge and the experience; both of which will.make the key difference in the event of a conflict. I question this assumption. ..

 

[spoz]

It’s worth noting that the Japanese in 1941 had plenty of experience of relatively recent, and successful, wars; China 1895, Russia 1905, WW1 and China again from 1932, all in the space of possibly one man’s (long) career. And that was allied to a society whose focus was inherently warlike. I’m not discounting that China might be very good - but they don’t start with those advantages.

 

[ngatimozart]

It’s worth noting that the Japanese in 1941 had plenty of experience of relatively recent, and successful, wars; China 1895, Russia 1905, WW1 and China again from 1932, all in the space of possibly one man’s (long) career. And that was allied to a society whose focus was inherently warlike. I’m not discounting that China might be very good - but they don’t start with those advantages.

Definitely, and that can make them more dangerous because some, politicians and amateurs, will automatically underestimate them because of their perceived lack of warfighting experience. To underestimate a potential enemy is as self defeating as to overestimate ones own strategic skill and value.

 

[STURM]

It’s worth noting that the Japanese in 1941 had plenty of experience of relatively recent, and successful, wars; China 1895, Russia 1905, WW1 and China again from 1932, all

They also had a brief clash with the Soviets in 1939 in which they didn't perform too well. The war in China provided them with expeditionary and naval aviation experience which came in useful in WW2. Like the PLA which has spent a lot of time in recent decades studying and analysing U.S. operations and doctrine; the Japanese did the same with the U.S, Britain and others. Their navy was modeled to a large extent on the RN.

A key question is whether China's political leadership has a clear and realistic understanding as to what the PLA can and can't be expected to achieve in a major conflict.

 

[MickB]

The Yanks I think had a more realistic or balance asessement of the Japanese [reports from the AVG and observers in China indicated that the Japanese were actually quite good]. The Brits on the other hand suffered from Imperial arrogance with quite a bit racial prejudice.



Well said. Over the years many assumptions and claims have been made about the PLA. In the 1990's and 2000's it was common to hear about how the PLA was improving but was still way behind. Today it's common to hear about how the PLA has rapidly improved and has significantly narrowed the tech gap with the U.S. but that even if the PLA eventually catches up tech wise; the U.S. still has a qualitative edge and the experience; both of which will.make the key difference in the event of a conflict. I question this assumption. ..

Another element that will factor in the performance of the PLA is the institutional corruption.

Officers promoted beyond their level of competence, by bribes or sexual favors, may not provide the best leadership.

I also understand that training is often cut short so that the fuel and supplies allocated can be sold on the black market.

 

[ngatimozart]

Another element that will factor in the performance of the PLA is the institutional corruption.

Officers promoted beyond their level of competence, by bribes or sexual favors, may not provide the best leadership.

I also understand that training is often cut short so that the fuel and supplies allocated can be sold on the black market.

Yes and it's very institutional by all accounts.

 

[OPSSG]

Yes and it's very institutional by all accounts.

Is this a useful way to look at the PLA?

Apologies for my frank remarks to follow:

1. I don’t think so. Just because most in the West don’t understand the system in China does not mean it can’t work. It just works differently. The PLA(N) is the world’s largest navy by tonnage. Real money is being spent.

2. The Chinese arrested a high level officer in the CMC— how many flag rank officers were arrested in the USN for Fat Leonard? Who was arrested?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1509561936039587844

3. When even Admirals knew of these rewards given by Fat Leonard. The history of Boeing lobbying for the USAF tanker contract and failing to deliver is even more corrupt — how many were arrested?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1509921130693472270

4. Don’t get me started on the pending early retirement of a number of Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships hulls. Further, how did Jared and Ivanka make hundreds of millions of dollars (while working as humble White House aides)?

A key question is whether China's political leadership has a clear and realistic understanding as to what the PLA can and can't be expected to achieve in a major conflict.

5. They do. The CCP controls the CMC, who controls the PLA. The Chinese leadership knows for sure what the PLA can or cannot do. This is not Russia.

 

[tonyget]

When even Admirals knew of these rewards given by Fat Leonard. The history of Boeing lobbying for the USAF tanker contract and failing to deliver is even more corrupt — how many were arrested? Don’t get me started on the pending early retirement of a number of Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships hulls. Further, how did Jared and Ivanka make hundreds of millions of dollars (while working as humble White House aides)?

The black hole of corruption that swallowed up US investment in Afghanistan

Programs based on unrealistic objectives, excessive levels of aid and a lack of local understanding have contributed to financial disaster as well as military failure in the country

english.elpais.com

Institutional corruption is rampant in US military. Such as Air Force purchase of coffee cup which costs thousand dollars for one cup，because of bribery from manufactures.

 

[tonyget]

They also had a brief clash with the Soviets in 1939 in which they didn't perform too well. The war in China provided them with expeditionary and naval aviation experience which came in useful in WW2. Like the PLA which has spent a lot of time in recent decades studying and analysing U.S. operations and doctrine; the Japanese did the same with the U.S, Britain and others. Their navy was modeled to a large extent on the RN.

A key question is whether China's political leadership has a clear and realistic understanding as to what the PLA can and can't be expected to achieve in a major conflict.

The last time US navy involved in sea battle was WWII，after that all US military operations were on land. No one currently in service have any naval combat experiences

 

[STURM]

The last time US navy involved in sea battle was WWI1

During the 1980's if fought some - one sided - engagements against Iran and Libya and on many occasions [as you're well aware] U.S. naval aviation was used on actual ops against other opponents. The U.S. has not fought a peer or near peer opponent at sea since WW2 but in terms of actual experience at sea; including extended deployments and as part of joint operations it has vast experience. I will question however if this experience will necessarily make a key different in the type of conflict which is expected to be fought against China.

 

[ngatimozart]

Is this a useful way to look at the PLA?

Apologies for my frank remarks to follow:

1. I don’t think so. Just because most in the West don’t understand the system in China does not mean it can’t work. It just works differently. The PLA(N) is the world’s largest navy by tonnage. Real money is being spent.

2. The Chinese arrested a high level officer in the CMC— how many flag rank officers were arrested in the USN for Fat Leonard? Who was arrested?

3. When even Admirals knew of these rewards given by Fat Leonard. The history of Boeing lobbying for the USAF tanker contract and failing to deliver is even more corrupt — how many were arrested?

4. Don’t get me started on the pending early retirement of a number of Freedom-class Littoral Combat Ships hulls. Further, how did Jared and Ivanka make hundreds of millions of dollars (while working as humble White House aides)?

5. They do. The CCP controls the CMC, who controls the PLA. The Chinese leadership knows for sure what the PLA can or cannot do. This is not Russia.

The CCP doesn't control the CMC. The CCP just thinks it does. The five or so men who sit on the CMC control it, or more precisely the faction with the greater numbers within it control it. The corruption isn't only within the PLA, but it's within the CCP and the Jiang Zemin faction is good at it. Why do you think Xi Jinping has been so successful with his corruption drive? Because the CCP was and still is rife with corruption and Xi is using that to ferret out and get rid of his enemies, real and imagined. The following video explains corruption within the PLA and the bribe rate one has to pay to be promoted at flag rank. You even have to pay a bribe to get enlisted.

Another video from Lei on corruption within the PLA

Not PLA but another greedy one who was ambitious and I think either very brave or very stupid.

 

[swerve]

The black hole of corruption that swallowed up US investment in Afghanistan

Programs based on unrealistic objectives, excessive levels of aid and a lack of local understanding have contributed to financial disaster as well as military failure in the country

english.elpais.com

Institutional corruption is rampant in US military. Such as Air Force purchase of coffee cup which costs thousand dollars for one cup，because of bribery from manufactures.

I think you're referring to the coffee maker scandal. If so, it's not an example of corruption, but of the USAF insanely over-specifying. Some large aircraft (IIRC it was the E-3 in this case, which is based on the Boeing 707 airliner) in usual service will be in the air for long periods, & it was thought reasonable to provide a coffee supply for the crew. After all, airliners have them. Then milspec standards kicked in. Everything aboard has to meet military specifications: it had to be safe if the aircraft needed to manoeuvre more than an airliner normally would. So a specification was drawn up, & put out to tender.

Instead of specifying that in an emergency it wouldn't leak hot coffee over the crew, or liquids into any wiring, it was expected to continue working in conditions which would have been fatal to the aeroplane & its crew. No commercial coffee maker could do that, so a special one had to be designed. It was expensive to make, but design, testing & documentation cost far more than actually making a few dozen coffee makers.

One can criticise the manufacturers for not kicking back against the specification & suggesting something more sensible (I remember quite a few suggestions for how to achieve the base requirement more cheaply were put forward), but the specification, as written, could only be met by something like what was ordered, & that was due to USAF bureaucrats & the procedures they work to, not a corrupt manufacturer.

The off the shelf hammers billed at 50 times their retail price was an example of profiteering by the contractor, but also partly caused by USAF procedures. They signed a contract with a single supplier which bought in everything, & had to show that it had been tested & met requirements. That cost a few thousand dollars, to which they applied a generous (perhaps too generous ) markup. But even if they'd included the hammers at cost price, the procedural requirements would probably still have cost more than 10 times the retail price of the hammers. No bribery required.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think you're referring to the coffee maker scandal. If so, it's not an example of corruption, but of the USAF insanely over-specifying. Aircraft (IIRC the E-3, which is based on the Boeing 707 airliner) in usual service will be in the air for long periods, & it was thought reasonable to provide a coffee supply for the crew. After all, airliners have them. Then milspec standards kicked in. Everything aboard has to meet military specifications: it had to be safe if the aircraft needed to manoeuvre more than an airliner normally would. So a specification was drawn up, & put out to tender.

Instead of specifying that it wouldn't leak hot coffee over the crew, or liquids into any wiring, it was expected to continue working in conditions which would have been fatal to the aeroplane & its crew. No commercial coffee maker could do that, so a special one had to be designed. It was expensive to make, but design, testing & documentation cost far more than actually making a few dozen coffee makers.

One can criticise the manufacturers for not kicking back against the specification & suggesting something more sensible (I remember quite a few suggestions for how to achieve the base requirement more cheaply were put forward), but the specification, as written, could only be met by something like what was ordered, & that was due to USAF bureaucrats & the procedures they work to, not a corrupt manufacturer.

The off the shelf hammers billed at 50 times their retail price was an example of profiteering by the contractor, but also partly caused by USAF procedures. They signed a contract with a single supplier which bought in everything, & had to show that it had been tested & met requirements. That cost a few thousand dollars, to which they applied a generous (perhaps too generous ) markup. But even if they'd included the hammers at cost price, the procedural requirements would probably still have cost more than 10 times the retail price of the hammers. No bribery required.

A bit like the $600.00 toilet seats in the Orions

 

[OPSSG]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1509184253623369732

1. In the years ahead, Indonesia will have a navy that bears watching — if their plans can be realised. Defence Minister Prabowo has signed contracts or declared plans for additional major combatants from France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom. If realized entirely, the Indonesian navy would have up to 18 new frigates and corvettes, and 4 new submarines. The fleet could include:

• eight Japanese Mogami-class frigates;
• two British Arrowhead 140 frigates;
• six Italian Bergamini (FREMM) frigates, and two refurbished ex-Maestrale corvettes; and
• two to four French Scorpene submarines.

2. These orders would bring Indonesia’s total fleet of new (or within 20 years of operational service) major combatants to 27 frigates and corvettes and 7 submarines, excluding the potential addition of 3 South Korean ex-Pohang corvettes.

 

[Ananda]

If realized entirely, the Indonesian navy would have up to 18 new frigates and corvettes, and 4 new submarines. The fleet could include:

Yes if the plan can be realised. Problem with Indonesia is always changing on plan in the middle. Like this scorpene plan basically disrupt the plan already set for second batch DSME 1400. Thus prolong the submarine implementation that by previous scheddule the 4th DSME 1400 should be launch by this year. Instead now talk on indegenous submarine production scheddule back to square one with this Scorpene.

This talk between Corvette and OPV procurement also raise eye brows on some quarters. The OPV 90 basically is corvette differ in name only. So where this new corvette coming ? Is this related to ex ROKN Pohang (which then related to DSME 1400 project now in limbo) ? Shown even by know, potential cicling around in Implementation stage still big risk to happen for Indonesian defense procurement plan.

Still the good news is, the Ukraine crisis put more realisation that defense for Indonesia has to be done first in its water lines. For one thing Political circles and TNI increasingly realised what allready shown since 1942. Defense of Indonesia (or Dutch East Indies that time) should be put more emphasise on Navy and Air Power.

If the plan Investment in the 30's for Dutch East Indies Air Power and Naval been realise, the battle for Java Sea can profide different result, or at least giving IJN more costs for invasion. Perhaps KNIL even manage to hold on Java and Sumatra (even tough loosing other islands).

 

[OPSSG]

Defending the Natuna Islands

1. I am glad that there is increasing clarity from Indonesia on the threat matrix in relation to the Natuna Islands — the nearest friendly military help or logistics support point, to deter any unlikely attack on these islands must be staged out Singapore.

2. We are about 570km away, which means that these Indonesian islands are within range of the SAF’s Chinooks, C-130Hs and the 7,600 ton Endurance Class LPDs to resupply.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1511893006278103043

3. This is news — a pleasant surprise on the scale and scope. Brigade or higher level training with the TNI & US Army, that also includes elements from the SAF. More than likely, the SAF will send a headquarters planning and liaison element — to open up the entire inventory of the SAF, should the need arise.