PRC Peoples Liberation Army Navy

[gf0012-aust]

Sorry, but owning mining rights on other countries does not means strategically can control the mines like in your own country. In short any country can strategically keep the minerals mined in their land regardless who own the mining company. Thus even China own mining company in Africa (for example), US can influence that particullar nation to hold the shipment even to China it self.

I'd add that ananda is already being proven correct as the general public in some of the central african states are demonstrating increasing anger towards chinese mining companies. In australia there are also calls for the govt to stop the sale of majority ownership of foreign comanies with australian resource companies.

the bottom line is that at the first sign of a major problem (eg a war) then states are likely to seize those assets irrespective of who has paid for majority rights.

sovereign rights will trump financial rights every time - the issue of majority foreign ownership of chinese companies already exists in china - and no foreign country can majorioty own chinese resources - so china will not be a position to complain anyway if countries start seizing their resources back to restrict foreign ownership.

 

[RubiconNZ]

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/12/official-evidence-cited-china-buildin

China's Building First Indigenous Aircraft Carrier Galrahn at Information Dissemination has the link and analysis.

Asahi Shimbun is citing an official report published by the State Oceanic Administration that says Chinese leaders decided last year to back plans to build China's first aircraft carrier. Despite numerous official references in the past, this would represent the first official validation of an aircraft carrier construction effort...Continued

This article gives a great overview of the PLAN's plan over the next few years. Interesting times coming up as Nations start to play for the Pacific.

 

[rip]

China's Building First Indigenous Aircraft Carrier Galrahn at Information Dissemination has the link and analysis.

This article gives a great overview of the PLAN's plan over the next few years. Interesting times coming up as Nations start to play for the Pacific.

Getting back on the original topic, the Chinese Navy, it seem by the published reports that could be only be propaganda or they could be true, is that their strategy is to use as a major component of their strategy large numbers of land based missiles sonic, supersonic, and perhaps ballistic missiles. Thou these things have been used in war before they have never been a major component of a military strategy except as used as a terror weapon. Their effectiveness in convention sustained warfare I believe is still very unproven. Sure you can hit big civilian targets and kill a lot of civilians but what would be there effect on military operations?

So you have five thousand missiles, assume that they work correctly and hit their targets after you fire them, then they are gone and they are expensive and time consuming to replace while a squadron of aircraft can deliver the same amount of ordnance a two weeks and keep on going. I understand the value of fast guided weapons for use against high valued targets that have no defenses but when an attack is expected the military targets will be mobile and dispersed.

Isn’t this untested strategy a dangerous one to base you counties future on? What it the confidence level?

 

[Blitzo]

Getting back on the original topic, the Chinese Navy, it seem by the published reports that could be only be propaganda or they could be true, is that their strategy is to use as a major component of their strategy large numbers of land based missiles sonic, supersonic, and perhaps ballistic missiles. Thou these things have been used in war before they have never been a major component of a military strategy except as used as a terror weapon. Their effectiveness in convention sustained warfare I believe is still very unproven. Sure you can hit big civilian targets and kill a lot of civilians but what would be there effect on military operations?

So you have five thousand missiles, assume that they work correctly and hit their targets after you fire them, then they are gone and they are expensive and time consuming to replace while a squadron of aircraft can deliver the same amount of ordnance a two weeks and keep on going. I understand the value of fast guided weapons for use against high valued targets that have no defenses but when an attack is expected the military targets will be mobile and dispersed.

Isn’t this untested strategy a dangerous one to base you counties future on? What it the confidence level?

Propaganda from whose side? China?

Ballistic and cruise missiles would be used to target military bases and ships and aircraft carriers, not civilian settlements... In any combat scenario in the western pacific the PLA and the 2nd Arty would use ballistic and cruise missiles to destroy enemy airbases, naval bases, before the ships and aircraft could leave.
And how are cruise missiles terror weapons? The US used tomahawks extensively during the gulf war with great success against military targets.

The PLA/PLAN policy isn't only cruise missiles, they also have a large number of strike and multirole fighters with a large range of PGMs which will start to be inducted in mass in this decade. (J-10, J-11, Su-30MKK/MK2, JH-7/A, H-6 variants are all capable of strike)

 

[advill]

Propaganda from whose side? China?

Ballistic and cruise missiles would be used to target military bases and ships and aircraft carriers, not civilian settlements... In any combat scenario in the western pacific the PLA and the 2nd Arty would use ballistic and cruise missiles to destroy enemy airbases, naval bases, before the ships and aircraft could leave.
And how are cruise missiles terror weapons? The US used tomahawks extensively during the gulf war with great success against military targets.

The PLA/PLAN policy isn't only cruise missiles, they also have a large number of strike and multirole fighters with a large range of PGMs which will start to be inducted in mass in this decade. (J-10, J-11, Su-30MKK/MK2, JH-7/A, H-6 variants are all capable of strike)

Looks like there is an arms race in the Asia-Pacific which could lead to major conflicts. There are really NO WINNERS in any war these days, as ultimately the Nuclear weapons would be used. So, as we approach Christmas & the New Year, let us wish one and all (including those responsible for creating this web site) "A MERRY CHRISTMAS, PEACE & GOODWILL TO ALL". Have a "HAPPY & PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR, & MAY 2011 BE PEACEFUL".

 

[Wall83]

This is soposely the third pair of 052C detroyers getting constructed. If this is true its now 4 new destroyers that will join the navy in 2011.

View attachment 4388

 

[1805]

Looks like there is an arms race in the Asia-Pacific which could lead to major conflicts. There are really NO WINNERS in any war these days, as ultimately the Nuclear weapons would be used. So, as we approach Christmas & the New Year, let us wish one and all (including those responsible for creating this web site) "A MERRY CHRISTMAS, PEACE & GOODWILL TO ALL". Have a "HAPPY & PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR, & MAY 2011 BE PEACEFUL".

Speculation on what China is building does not make an arms race. There is no evidence China is out to challenge the USN or threatern Japan/S Korea, in fact if one believes the recent US leaks, China is as frustrated as the rest about N Korea. Lets not forget China's wealth is based on exports to the developed world, unlike the old Soviet threat, China is interdependent on its customers.

 

[rip]

Propaganda from whose side? China?

Ballistic and cruise missiles would be used to target military bases and ships and aircraft carriers, not civilian settlements... In any combat scenario in the western pacific the PLA and the 2nd Arty would use ballistic and cruise missiles to destroy enemy airbases, naval bases, before the ships and aircraft could leave.
And how are cruise missiles terror weapons? The US used tomahawks extensively during the gulf war with great success against military targets.

The PLA/PLAN policy isn't only cruise missiles, they also have a large number of strike and multirole fighters with a large range of PGMs which will start to be inducted in mass in this decade. (J-10, J-11, Su-30MKK/MK2, JH-7/A, H-6 variants are all capable of strike)

When I said it might be propaganda I meant that there is some doubt that the strategy of using very large numbers of missiles is an important part of their military doctrine or is not. I do not know or pretend to know the truth. My question was simply if it is true, is the very concept of using large numbers of conventional missies strikes really the game changer that it is assumed to be? Is the idea itself way over hyped?

As to your observation that that cruse missiles as used by the US in the gulf war were effective? Yes they were effective in blowing up unoccupied government buildings of a supporting defense nature, some bridges, and a few air defense installations but in fact then soon ran out of worthy targets. And those targets were not the critical nodes of the countries defense. The US did attack several of the command bunkers one of which was filled with civilians killing several hundred of them. A very counterproductive event I might add.

As a terror weapon I was thinking of the Iraq’s missile attack upon Israel in gulf war one that had no military value at all but political ones.

As to the effectiveness of land based anti-ship missiles they so far do not have a great track record in combat. When you streach out the ranges that you plan to use them to hundreds of miles I do not think there has even be a hit in accrual warfare, hence though it is an attractive idea on paper and works great in war games, it is still unproven in the real world. Do you have any idea how many ships are at sea off the cost of China at one time? Well over a thousand potential targets perhaps two with only a few of them military and not all of the military are the ones are your enemies. Some of them are even Chinese. Friendly fire and firing on neutrals is a demonstrated fact and the problems of correctly identifying real targets from others, is the single hardest part of this new kind of warfare. The political Consequences of killing the wrong people, especially in a sneak attack can far out way any military benefits.


And assuming that the targets will all be caught sleeping like they were at Pearl Harbor might be wishful thinking. It is certainly not something you can count on as a strategy.

I might be wrong but the idea of a massive convention missile attack to obtain decisive victory; even a quick victory is not a sound one no matter who is shouting the missiles or who is being shot at.

 

[godbody]

When I said it might be propaganda I meant that there is some doubt that the strategy of using very large numbers of missiles is an important part of their military doctrine or is not. I do not know or pretend to know the truth. My question was simply if it is true, is the very concept of using large numbers of conventional missies strikes really the game changer that it is assumed to be? Is the idea itself way over hyped?

As to your observation that that cruse missiles as used by the US in the gulf war were effective? Yes they were effective in blowing up unoccupied government buildings of a supporting defense nature, some bridges, and a few air defense installations but in fact then soon ran out of worthy targets. And those targets were not the critical nodes of the countries defense. The US did attack several of the command bunkers one of which was filled with civilians killing several hundred of them. A very counterproductive event I might add.

As a terror weapon I was thinking of the Iraq’s missile attack upon Israel in gulf war one that had no military value at all but political ones.

As to the effectiveness of land based anti-ship missiles they so far do not have a great track record in combat. When you streach out the ranges that you plan to use them to hundreds of miles I do not think there has even be a hit in accrual warfare, hence though it is an attractive idea on paper and works great in war games, it is still unproven in the real world. Do you have any idea how many ships are at sea off the cost of China at one time? Well over a thousand potential targets perhaps two with only a few of them military and not all of the military are the ones are your enemies. Some of them are even Chinese. Friendly fire and firing on neutrals is a demonstrated fact and the problems of correctly identifying real targets from others, is the single hardest part of this new kind of warfare. The political Consequences of killing the wrong people, especially in a sneak attack can far out way any military benefits.


And assuming that the targets will all be caught sleeping like they were at Pearl Harbor might be wishful thinking. It is certainly not something you can count on as a strategy.

I might be wrong but the idea of a massive convention missile attack to obtain decisive victory; even a quick victory is not a sound one no matter who is shouting the missiles or who is being shot at.

Good point about the missiles. It still going to be about technology and how far the PLAN is in this field. It gets me back to this point the PLAN has to have modern technology to be a effective force. In technology China is raising but at small pace compare to modern military forces. This missile stuff is a cover up for its lack of technology if you look at western forces there not about missiles it about technology. Western forces have missiles in the nuclear areas but not so many in the conventional area they dont need them with modern technology. With modern technology you have ability to hit target with great accuracy especially with good satelites in space and that why know one able hit a US CBG it had modern technology. Now if you add this technology in the conventional missiles it greatly improves your force it will take alot of satelites to do this and alot technology with your missile force.

 

[Feanor]

You guys do realize you've lost all traction with reality at this point, yes? I mean if you don't know how target discrimination is achieved, I'm not sure how you can even have a conversation on the subject.

 

[SASWanabe]

Good point about the missiles. It still going to be about technology and how far the PLAN is in this field. It gets me back to this point the PLAN has to have modern technology to be a effective force. In technology China is raising but at small pace compare to modern military forces. This missile stuff is a cover up for its lack of technology if you look at western forces there not about missiles it about technology. Western forces have missiles in the nuclear areas but not so many in the conventional area they dont need them with modern technology. With modern technology you have ability to hit target with great accuracy especially with good satelites in space and that why know one able hit a US CBG it had modern technology. Now if you add this technology in the conventional missiles it greatly improves your force it will take alot of satelites to do this and alot technology with your missile force.

HUH? here i was thinking "guided" missiles were technology

 

[godbody]

HUH? here i was thinking "guided" missiles were technology

I wasn't talking about "guided" missile talking about SCUDS. They don't use alot of technology just put in your target.

 

[rip]

You guys do realize you've lost all traction with reality at this point, yes? I mean if you don't know how target discrimination is achieved, I'm not sure how you can even have a conversation on the subject.

Long range target detection and discrimination by various means and technologies is a very complicated subjects all of its own. That and the various countermeasures and conter-contermeasures that can be used to deceive, disrupt and confuse targeting (called cover and deception in the USN). It deserves a thread all of its own but it seems that most people are all hoped upon platforms and weapons thinking that is where the action is and neglect the most important aspect in all forms of warfare. Those things that effect the decision making process. How decision cycles are influenced by information, good, bad, incomplete, planted, and scrambled. It is worse than a fog.

If there are enough people out there who want to discuss this subject I am willing contribute what I know but most people are fixated on the guns.

 

[Feanor]

Long range target detection and discrimination by various means and technologies is a very complicated subjects all of its own. That and the various countermeasures and conter-contermeasures that can be used to deceive, disrupt and confuse targeting (called cover and deception in the USN). It deserves a thread all of its own but it seems that most people are all hoped upon platforms and weapons thinking that is where the action is and neglect the most important aspect in all forms of warfare. Those things that effect the decision making process. How decision cycles are influenced by information, good, bad, incomplete, planted, and scrambled. It is worse than a fog.

If there are enough people out there who want to discuss this subject I am willing contribute what I know but most people are fixated on the guns.

Why don't you start us off, with a poignant critique of PLA, PLAN, and PLAAF capabilities in the realm of maritime patrol and reconnaissance.

 

[gf0012-aust]

If there are enough people out there who want to discuss this subject I am willing contribute what I know but most people are fixated on the guns.

Most of the long termers on here aren't focussed on the guns and the may day parade bling....

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

One of the biggest increases in China's naval amphibious capability has been in commercial RO-RO shipping. The military use of commercial RO-RO vessels not new and is a vital part of US/UK naval operations.

Companies like state-owned CSC Shenzhen have added PCTC/PCC vessels that can double up as quick offload/onload amphibious transports. CSC has started to introduce 5000 CEU vessels and 8000 CEU vessels are mooted. Total capability just for that 1 entity is in excess of 27000 CEU alone which is several times increase from just a short decade ago. As a comparison, a heavy truck or bus is ~5-9 CEU. A 54 ton tank is ~64 CEU. PLA Army even organises personnel exercises (eg firefighting etc) on-board CSCSZ RO-RO vessels.

Once combined with other smaller players like Anji Logistics etc can add significant transport capability. One estimate suggests China's indigeneous commercial RO-RO capability is easily in excess of 80 vessels. A conservative basis using that estimate is that commercial RO-RO shipping could potentially add ~5-6 armoured/mechanised divisions worth of fast heavy vehicle offload per trip. If one adds hybrids like ROPAX vessels such as those operated by Shandong Bohai or rail transport such as those of Sinorail Bohai, the figure increases.

Of course, the use of commercial shipping is dependent on

a) establishing safe sealanes to the point of offload
b) a safe port/dock to offload (including possibly artificial or floating docks)

A 5000 CEU vessels would be a prime target. Nevertheless, it appears that China has been increasing its naval escort capability with Area AAW capable vessels, ASW helo capable warships and possibly CV escort.

It is also interesting to note that new PLA MBTs, certain IFVs as well as SPH artillery have low heights which would fit the height clearances of PCCs though not an issue for adjustible deck PCTCs which have dedicated heavy vehicle parks and greater free space between decks.

The use of commercial shipping is likely to be most appropriate in a Taiwan scenario as island landings such as in the South China Sea do not involve large scale dock landings.

 

[rip]

One of the biggest increases in China's naval amphibious capability has been in commercial RO-RO shipping. The military use of commercial RO-RO vessels not new and is a vital part of US/UK naval operations.

Companies like state-owned CSC Shenzhen have added PCTC/PCC vessels that can double up as quick offload/onload amphibious transports. CSC has started to introduce 5000 CEU vessels and 8000 CEU vessels are mooted. Total capability just for that 1 entity is in excess of 27000 CEU alone which is several times increase from just a short decade ago. As a comparison, a heavy truck or bus is ~5-9 CEU. A 54 ton tank is ~64 CEU. PLA Army even organises personnel exercises (eg firefighting etc) on-board CSCSZ RO-RO vessels.

Once combined with other smaller players like Anji Logistics etc can add significant transport capability. One estimate suggests China's indigeneous commercial RO-RO capability is easily in excess of 80 vessels. A conservative basis using that estimate is that commercial RO-RO shipping could potentially add ~5-6 armoured/mechanised divisions worth of fast heavy vehicle offload per trip. If one adds hybrids like ROPAX vessels such as those operated by Shandong Bohai or rail transport such as those of Sinorail Bohai, the figure increases.

Of course, the use of commercial shipping is dependent on

a) establishing safe sealanes to the point of offload
b) a safe port/dock to offload (including possibly artificial or floating docks)

A 5000 CEU vessels would be a prime target. Nevertheless, it appears that China has been increasing its naval escort capability with Area AAW capable vessels, ASW helo capable warships and possibly CV escort.

It is also interesting to note that new PLA MBTs, certain IFVs as well as SPH artillery have low heights which would fit the height clearances of PCCs though not an issue for adjustible deck PCTCs which have dedicated heavy vehicle parks and greater free space between decks.

The use of commercial shipping is likely to be most appropriate in a Taiwan scenario as island landings such as in the South China Sea do not involve large scale dock landings.

Ro-Ro vessels have great logistic capacity and are valuable asset to any sea going power but they need functioning ports. I have trouble seeing in what kind of military conflict that China might be directly involved where that capacity would be a prim factor. Ro-Ro vessels and the kind of supplies that they can so effectively deliver generally come in to their best use as reinforcemenst to large formations or to sending support to allies that still have functioning ports or am I missing something? I don't think of it as Offensive capacity.

 

[swerve]

Ro-Ro vessels have great logistic capacity and are valuable asset to any sea going power but they need functioning ports..

They work best with functioning ports, but give them a nice calm sheltered anchorage & a load of Mexeflotes or equivalent & you can offload from them over a beach.

 

[randomsailor]

I think it is unlikely China is going to be able to challenge the USN or for that matter want to this century. Although the basis of sea power is the wealth of a nation (the decline of RN a good example) there has to be an intent. Wanting a blue water capability does not mean it is planning to challenge the USN.

We know PLAN is unlikely to win vs USN , but do they _need_ to?

So one needs to look at China's navy not in terms of "can it beat America" but in terms of "is it good enough to do what it needs to do?"

Consider:

Taiwan itself is divided about independence. How hard will they fight, especially if China is able to achieve a quick and relatively bloodless victory?

America can live without Taiwanese electronics and America loves cheap Chinese factories.

So will America pay the butchers bill if China is able to inflict some early casualties? America is fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq because of a direct terrorist threat to American security. Where this is not the case e.g. Somalia and Chechnia, America is much more casualty shy.

And will America intervene, if Taiwan decides not to resist? Who would be the "good guy" in that situation?

The PLAN may be close to being adequate. A few years perhaps?

edit - obviously this doesnt apply to a pearl harbor scenario; i am thinking china marches into taiwan, some people die, america and china fight, many chinese and some americans die; maybe taiwan gives up (it is divided), maybe america thinks "yea we can win, but we'd lose more people and we like chinese trade; taiwan will still provide us electronics but this time via china; let's forget this ever happened..."

 

[jeffb]

America has stated they're committed to the defence of Taiwan but not if Taiwan declares independence and starts the conflict. Given that its hard to say Taiwan is divided on the issue.

edit: I'm struggling to think of any situation where military aggression in Asia would be tolerated. I can see limited disputes over various land claims but nothing of the scale you're suggesting, especially considering America seeming to increase its commitment in Asia recently along with its allies.