Iran, China Intent on Countering Navies

[Grand Danois]

They will also counter USAF!-
Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined by China
But there is really nothing new here!

All this Assassins Mace stuff that Chinese scholars discuss has one major failure point: They cannot be done without doing a mainforce event, which is what they try to avoid with these strategies in the first place.

They identify the objectives correctly, but lack the means to do it in a compressed, persistent & packaged manner, which their thinking fail or avoid to address properly in their literature. I suspect because it would be an admission of weakness.

They also do not appreciate American perception on self and mythology, Pearl Harbor being a point. As the article paraphases RAND, RAND paraphases the scholars (but do not acknowledge its validity):

Because the American public is “abnormally sensitive” about military casualties, according to an article in China’s Liberation Army Daily, killing U.S. airmen or other personnel would spark a “domestic anti-war cry” on the home front and possibly force early withdrawal of U.S. forces. (“The U.S. experience in Somalia is usually cited in support of this assertion,” according to the Rand report.) Once this hard-and-fast assault on U.S. bases commenced, the Chinese army would “swiftly divert” its forces and “guard vigi

It is an example of wishful thinking and assuming too much.

Threat hyping.

 

[Firehorse]

Well, IMO, some of what those Chinese write may be intended as desinformation and/or to test the reaction of potential adversaries. OTH, everything in E.Asia is interlinked, just like in the Mid.East!
As I said on another tread:

I very much doubt the US ability to sustain 3 wars at the same time - in the ME (Iraq + maybe Iran), Central Asia (Afghanistan + maybe Pakistan), and in the Far East- on the Korean peninsula + maybe Taiwan. Even with military draft, it will take a long time to implement conscription & training of extra troops that don't want to be there.

 

[Grand Danois]

Well, IMO, some of what those Chinese write may be intended as desinformation and/or to test the reaction of potential adversaries. OTH, everything in E.Asia is interlinked, just like in the Mid.East!
As I said on another tread:

Yes it is possible it is disinformation or testing the waters, however, as you posted it as a possible strategy or as fact, I commented upon it as if it was that.

As to the Korean thread and the US ability to sustain three wars at the same time, you put the wrong assumptions into your analyses. The US strength lies in its ability to quickly shape the battlefield in its favour, deciding the outcome decisively in the early stages of a war. The assets needed for that are *not* in any kind of overstretch at the moment.

 

[Firehorse]

The US strength lies in its ability to quickly shape the battlefield in its favour, deciding the outcome decisively in the early stages of a war.

Modern Korean battlefield isn't Iraq, Kuwait, or Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo. I'll believe it when I see it! If you look back, in every conventional war in E.Asia the US never achieved a decisive "shaping" of anything in their favor, in any time frame. Japan was A-bombed at the very end, and some may argue that this brought the quicker end to WWII. But that is another story!

 

[Grand Danois]

Sorry, but this is rubbish. Deciding the outcome means making NK a giant mopping up operation for Sk with marginal US ground assist. Shaping means setting the conditions for that. The assets needed are not in short supply. Quoting a string of out of context examples with dubious applicable value doesn't make a case.

Modern Korean battlefield isn't Iraq, Kuwait, or Serbia/Bosnia/Kosovo. I'll believe it when I see it! If you look back, in every conventional war in E.Asia the US never achieved a decisive "shaping" of anything in their favor, in any time frame. Japan was A-bombed at the very end, and some may argue that this brought the quicker end to WWII. But that is another story!

 

[Firehorse]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30mMVq2nEnQ&feature=related"]China's Space Weapons Test[/ame] CNN video clip

Taiwan: Military balance tilting toward China

Well, winning war is only half the battle- how about winning a lasting peace, instead of a desert? "Romans leave a desert and call it peace"-Tacitus. Iraq and Afghanistan are good examples of successful regime changes while keeping those war zones in place! So, I'll leave it at that.

 

[Galrahn]

They will also counter USAF!-
Hypothetical attack on U.S. outlined by China
But there is really nothing new here!

Did you actually read the RAND report, or just the AF Times article?

The RAND report itself reveals a lot. A very interesting read that is well studied and highlights both strategic and tactical aspects of Chinese planning rarely discussed in depth.

If you haven't read the RAND report I would encourage you to, you will probably learn something new.

 

[merocaine]

All this Assassins Mace stuff that Chinese scholars discuss has one major failure point: They cannot be done without doing a mainforce event, which is what they try to avoid with these strategies in the first place.

They identify the objectives correctly, but lack the means to do it in a compressed, persistent & packaged manner, which their thinking fail or avoid to address properly in their literature. I suspect because it would be an admission of weakness.

From what I've read in the Rand paper it seem that the Cheinse are well aware there short comings, painfully aware it seems. They quote from a hell of a lot of sources, almost all of which seem to acknowledge there deficences in regards to the US.

"Chinese analysts also bluntly acknowledge that China’s military
technology is inferior to that of its most likely potential adversaries and
that this situation will not change for the foreseeable future.5 As a passage
in Peng and Yao (2001, p. 466) explains,
the most salient objective reality that the PLA will face in future
campaign operations is the fact that it will be using inferior weapons
to deal with an enemy that has superior arms. [authors’ translation]
The passage goes on to note that the PLA’s “guiding concepts” for military
planning need to be developed with “a clear recognition of this
reality” (Peng and Yao, 2001, p. 467 [authors’ translation]). Chinese
analysts also acknowledge that one consequence of this deficiency is
that China will likely absorb a great deal of damage and must be will-
5 See, for example, Peng and Yao (2001, pp. 466–467).
Contemporary Chinese Military Strategy 25
ing to “pay a heavy price” in any conflict with a technologically superior
adversary, such as the United States.6
Chinese strategists point in particular to weaknesses in the PLA’s
long-range precision-strike capabilities. According to Wang and Zhang
(2000, p. 25),
in view of actual conditions, the PLA in a short time or in a considerably
long time will not possess the [deep
and multidirectional strike capabilities] of the world’s top military
powers. [authors’ translation]
The PLA has also suffered from doctrinal weaknesses, according
to a number of Chinese writers......


It goes on. I fail to see the bit where the Chinese are afraid of "losing face"
They seem to be laying out in stark terms there weaknesses.

Anyway I agree about the Mainforce thing, naval battles are all about how many guns you can bring to the party and how well you can aim them, all the ducking and diving in the world can't avoid that fact, unlike on land its mostly the big guns that win.

 

[Firehorse]

Russia has sold the technology to build the Moskit to China, which manufactures it as the Hai Ying or Sea Eagle HY2. It can carry an almost 500-pound warhead, and it can deliver a tactical nuclear weapon. The threat of the Hai Ying is so great that it has effectively barred operational access to the Taiwan Strait to U.S. aircraft carriers in time of high tension. China has also supplied the Hai Ying to Iran.
It is striking that four-star Adm. William Fox Fallon, who has just resigned as head of U.S. Central Command, has expressed his caution and reluctance about going to war with Iran. Fallon is the U.S. Navy's leading expert, and therefore probably the top authority in the world, about using aircraft carrier-based air power to strike land-based targets. His previous position was running Pacific Command with great distinction, and that theater includes China and Taiwan.
Fallon's caution is clearly based in part on the fact that U.S. carrier battle groups would have to be operated with great discretion and skill to protect them from the threat of Iran's Sunburns.
The threat that the Moskit SS-N-22 Sunburn -- and now its younger more advanced sister, the SS-N-27 Sizzler -- pose to U.S. aircraft carriers is very similar to the one that German battleships' 15-inch, or 381mm, plunging shell-fire fired from long range posed to British battlecruisers in World War II. The Bismarck, as previously noted in this series, sank the legendary and enormous, but only lightly armored, HMS Hood with a single long-range shell that detonated its powder magazine.
Respected analyst David Crane, writing in Defense Review in November 2006, concluded bleakly, "Bottom line, our aircraft carriers are vulnerable against the latest Russian and Chinese torpedo and missile tech, and with the current U.S. naval defense philosophy, that situation isn't likely to change anytime soon." www.upi.com/International_Security/...efense_focus_carrier_strategy_--_part_5/9757/

Diesel powered, Kilo-type subs cannot stay at sea indefinitely and they lack the range of the nuclear-powered subs of the U.S. British and Russian navies of sailing anywhere in the world without refueling and still having full operational capabilities. But given a base a few hundred or even a thousand miles form their operational areas they are formidable weapons and China has invested big in them. ..The Chinese strategy in the event of any maritime war with the United States, most especially over Taiwan, in the foreseeable future, would clearly, ..be to use swarms of Kilo-type subs to overwhelm the anti-submarine warfare -- ASW -- defenses of U.S. carrier battle groups to torpedo the giant U.S carriers. Alternately, they could choose to surface briefly and even risk destruction in order to fire their formidable Hai Ying -- Sea Eagle -- HY2 anti-ship supersonic cruise missiles, copied with Moscow's approval from the Russian Moskit 3M80 Moskit -- NATO designation SS-N-22 Sunburn. These weapons were expressly designed to kill U.S. aircraft carriers.
Kilo subs would be no match for state-of-the-art, nuclear-powered U.S. undersea attack subs one on one. But they would not be deployed that way. Just as Nazi Kriegsmarine U-Boat -- wolf packs -- operating on the surface -- sought to overwhelm Allied convoys escort ships by their sheer weight of numbers during the long Battle of the Atlantic ion World War II, Chinese diesel subs, remaining underwater, would seek to overwhelm a carrier battle group's defenses by their numbers as well. The much smaller size of China's diesel submarines -- as they do not have to carry any nuclear propulsion plant -- automatically gives them a great advantage in this regard.

Adm. Fallon knew his job too well! It's only a matter of time before CTFs become more of a liability than an asset!

 

[Firehorse]

According to this Russian article- http://nvo.ng.ru/wars/2008-07-25/1_bpla.html - UAVs can be successfuly used to jamm not only GPS to disable PGMs, but also carrier aircraft communications/datalinks/navigation to prevent them from finding their CVNs upon returning from a mission. I would like to get a feedback from Feanor and others in the know about EW. For those who don't read Russian, use auto translation- the article is long.

 

[Feanor]

The essence of the article is closer to the usefulness of GPS jammers against UAVs rather then by UAV's against other threats. It does however consider them as a very viable platform for AEW.

I'll be honest I have my doubts. UAV's are generally small and UCAV's have proven themselves in Iraq and Afghan. The criticism against them is pretty fair. With GPS jammers it is possible to disorient them. But then it comes down to stronger signal vs stronger jammer, and of course to the preceding air war during which the jammers are attacked by conventional aircraft.

Finally I'm not quite aware of the developments that it claims about jamming the landing systems sensors in terms of aircraft carriers. However given the volume of "wonder weapons" rolling out of Russia recently, I'd be cautious about taking it at face value. I guess the only real answer I have is time will tell.

P.S. I'm flattered that you think so highly of my knowledge about EW warfare, but it's really quite limited. I'm sure there are people on this forum who know much more.

 

[Firehorse]

Thanks, I just figured that since you are in Russia I better get some feedback from you. IMO, if they can jamm JPS they can definitely complicate carrier aviation ops- especially if that CVN is trying to keep its location secret. My impression is that the article stresses the huge potential of UAVs as a jamming platform. Cheap compared to other hardware, and deployed in large numbers, they could become the "poor man" answer to a CTF!

 

[Feanor]

I'm not in Russia atm actually. I'm Russian, but I currently live in the states (CA).

Yes that's what the article stresses. Whether it will come to be or not remains to be seen.