OT:‘Sink two aircraft carriers’

[MakeeLearn]

‘Sink two aircraft carriers’: Chinese Admiral’s chilling recipe to dominate the South China Sea

https://www.news.com.au/technology/inno ... 791aa26e0f

[mind_messing]

I find the Chinese solution to the problem of projecting power in the South China Sea very elegant. The USN projects power with it's carriers and submarines, the PLAN does it with some dredgers and construction units.

The article however is a mixed bag, the guy quoted isn't even in an active role and there's been sabre rattling over Taiwan for decades now. Anyone with even a meagre understanding of the Taiwanese military capabilities knows that any attempt for an amphib landing is a tall order for the PLAN at best. They'll get there eventually, but even if they could take Taiwan, they're smart enough to know that political reunification is the easiest path.

[FlyByKnight]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The article however is a mixed bag, the guy quoted isn't even in an active role and there's been sabre rattling over Taiwan for decades now. Anyone with even a meagre understanding of the Taiwanese military capabilities knows that any attempt for an amphib landing is a tall order for the PLAN at best. They'll get there eventually, but even if they could take Taiwan, they're smart enough to know that political reunification is the easiest path.

Sounds to me like its a case of an Aussie writer using fears of Chinese military capabilities to write an article that'll scare the pants off any uncritical American or Australian readers who are spooked by China.
In other words, to use the common internet slang: Australian S**tposting.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I find the Chinese solution to the problem of projecting power in the South China Sea very elegant. The USN projects power with it's carriers and submarines, the PLAN does it with some dredgers and construction units.

The article however is a mixed bag, the guy quoted isn't even in an active role and there's been sabre rattling over Taiwan for decades now. Anyone with even a meagre understanding of the Taiwanese military capabilities knows that any attempt for an amphib landing is a tall order for the PLAN at best. They'll get there eventually, but even if they could take Taiwan, they're smart enough to know that political reunification is the easiest path.

"Elegant"? I think it's ridiculous. The article is complete pap and saber-rattling nonsense. Anyone that thinks that resolution of non-shooting war tensions will be 'resolved' by shooting wars is off his nut.

Carry out a monumental amphibious and mixed arms invasion of a well-defended island? With naval forces that haven't seen combat in over a century? In 100 hours? With 'a few dozen' casualties?

If they did sink two of our fleet carriers, how do they think their economy would function with a full naval blockade? Do they think that their ships in port would just stay afloat? Do they think their own CV capabilities unimpinged in such an exchange? Do they think their far-flung bases abroad would exist as though nothing happened?

The fact that this is state-sponsored and state-sanctioned saber rattling should be first and foremost in the minds of any readers. I'm disappointed that the publication didn't cite that motivation in its article.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

China can't go beyond this red line,
the simplest country to blockade

[rsallen64]

I always find it amusing that articles like this call into question the wisdom of the US continuing to fund and deploy CVs, giving their "enormous expense" and supposed "vulnerability" while failing to dwell on the point that countries like Russia and China are engaged in building their own versions of CVs that are nowhere near as capable as ours. This article talks about the hypersonic weapons these countries posses which could supposedly penetrate the CVs defensive escort ring, and then shows a picture of the Chinese CV with the jump ramp (laughable) being escorted by two destroyers. How is that not even more vulnerable than the George Washington, pictured in the article. Sh*tposting, indeed. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

[sstevens06]

Agreed. The US Navy happens to have the world's largest fleet of SSNs, which are ideal for such duty. PLAN ASW capabilities are woefully inadequate to keep their SLOC open against USN.

I believe this is just empty saber-rattling. PRC knows what would happen if they did this - their economy would be toast in a matter of months.

[ushakov]

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

China can't go beyond this red line,
the simplest country to blockade

As it stands, yes, but there's a plausible near-future world where Duterte decides to realign the Philippines and/or China reclaims Taiwan, and if that happens I'm not sure what facilities on Palau or the Marshalls would be in place to prevent future expansion.

[Jorge_Stanbury]

The Philippines are too aligned with the USA, Duterte is trying to gain as much as he can from the Chinese, but I can't see a full realignment, US and Japan are still the Philippines' main trading partners, that ends the moment he changes alignment

And if by "reclaim" you mean diplomatic notes, protests, yes of course China can reclaim as much as they want, but the fact remains Taiwan is a formidable fortified island
China doesn't have the navy or air force to invade against Taiwan alone, add USA and maybe Japan to the equation and it is a guaranteed disaster for Communist China

[Lokasenna]

But are they also going to sink a battleship and numerous cruisers and destroyers? Inquiring minds want to know.

[Anachro]

The likelihood of China succeeding in an amphibious invasion of Taiwan, at least at the moment, is pretty low with their current capabilities. We live in an age where the military advantage is highly stacked in favor of the defender.

In the case of Taiwan, this means that there are only a few months in the year during which invasion is feasible, a narrow sea passage for an amphibious force that will be full of subs and at the mercy of air power, only a few possible landing beaches that will be heavily mined and defended, heavily reinforced and bunkered airfields and bases to protect the Taiwanese air force and troops, millions of reservists that can be called up at a moment's notice, and much more. On top of all this, we would be able to interdict and cause chaos in China's rear on the mainland: rail lines would be destroyed, power lost, leaders assassinated. What's a poor Chinese country boy from Anhui province supposed to think when he sees all this but the generals assure him Taiwan will be taken? What's he supposed to think when his is one of the few landing ships that actually make it to a Taiwanese beach? On top of all this, US, Japanese, and Taiwanese forces believe that they will be able to ascertain a window of warning anywhere between 30-90 days before an amphibious operation happens as the steps China would need to take offer up enough warning signs, not including espionage capabilities.

Rather than a military operation against Taiwan succeeding, the more likely scenario is a combination of political and economic pressure (demoralizing messaging towards the Taiwanese population, trade deals with other countries that isolate Taiwan) that makes Taiwan capitulate without a shot to enter China's fraudulent two-systems, one nation framework. As is the case with Hong Kong, this system would see Taiwanese democracy lost in a matter of years to be replaced by authoritarian rule.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

But are they also going to sink a battleship and numerous cruisers and destroyers? Inquiring minds want to know.

[:D]

[Alfred]

There are some important factors which are being either overlooked or downplayed.
 
1.  For decades now but greatly accelerating under President for Life Xie, China operates on the salami slice approach.  It takes a small step which it knows will not be effectively opposed by the West.  Consolidates then takes another small step.  Wash and rinse.  Eventually when the West wakes up to the strategic loss it has suffered, it is far too late to reverse the outcome without having to pay a serious price.
 
2.  The One Belt project will, by the middle of the 2020s, make China invulnerable to a naval blockade along the choke points of the First Island Chain.
 
3.  By approximately 2050 China plans to have consolidated up to the Third Island Chain.  Once it consolidates the Second Island Chain probably sometime in the early 2030s, the West will not be able to blockade the choke points of the First Island Chain.
 
4.  I really don't think too many posters actually talk with PRC domiciled Chinese.  They are very nationalistic, even the ones who don't like the Party.  Their self belief in the righteousness of their cause will tolerate short term costs which would simply rock any Western nation into revolution.  Remember the general consensus in 1914 that a future war between the major powers was not going to happen because it would be too costly and yet when the time came, everywhere there was overwhelming support for war.  Even the German SDP, which everyone (including all the Old Bolsheviks like Lenin) thought would note vote for a war, enthusiastically voted for one.
 
5.  No one really knows how all the electronics will cope with a future modern war fought between technologically advanced combatants.  How well will American forces operate if American satellites are knocked out, if an electromagnetic pulse wave is generated to fry circuits, if the 5th generation fighters fail to deliver out in the field fully on what on paper is promised.  Would a future Pearl Harbor like strike focussed on C & C be a much more dangerous and effective move than was the 1941 Pear Harbor strike.
 
Alfred

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

There are some important factors which are being either overlooked or downplayed.

1.  For decades now but greatly accelerating under President for Life Xie, China operates on the salami slice approach.  It takes a small step which it knows will not be effectively opposed by the West.  Consolidates then takes another small step.  Wash and rinse.  Eventually when the West wakes up to the strategic loss it has suffered, it is far too late to reverse the outcome without having to pay a serious price.

2.  The One Belt project will, by the middle of the 2020s, make China invulnerable to a naval blockade along the choke points of the First Island Chain.

3.  By approximately 2050 China plans to have consolidated up to the Third Island Chain.  Once it consolidates the Second Island Chain probably sometime in the early 2030s, the West will not be able to blockade the choke points of the First Island Chain.

4.  I really don't think too many posters actually talk with PRC domiciled Chinese.  They are very nationalistic, even the ones who don't like the Party.  Their self belief in the righteousness of their cause will tolerate short term costs which would simply rock any Western nation into revolution.  Remember the general consensus in 1914 that a future war between the major powers was not going to happen because it would be too costly and yet when the time came, everywhere there was overwhelming support for war.  Even the German SDP, which everyone (including all the Old Bolsheviks like Lenin) thought would note vote for a war, enthusiastically voted for one.

5.  No one really knows how all the electronics will cope with a future modern war fought between technologically advanced combatants.  How well will American forces operate if American satellites are knocked out, if an electromagnetic pulse wave is generated to fry circuits, if the 5th generation fighters fail to deliver out in the field fully on what on paper is promised.  Would a future Pearl Harbor like strike focussed on C & C be a much more dangerous and effective move than was the 1941 Pear Harbor strike.

Alfred

All of these items are 'known knowns'-or at least we think they are.

1. The salami slice approach is and has been recognized for some time now. What was once a 'wild west' style free-wheeling capitalistic engine has-in a short decade-been morphing into something different. This change in their state-sponsored engine can also be seen in their foreign policy and alternations between adhesion to the 'global order' when it suits them and blithe indifference when it does not.

2. I disagree with you about the purported efficacy of the Belt and Road initiative. The veneer of the debt trap diplomacy has been removed and I think most nations (particularly China's neighbors) see it for what it is. It may yet ensnare some weaker neighbors and some African countries (Laos, Myanmar, Pakistan, Djibouti and Sri Lanka come to mind), but a silk road for the long-term greater global good it ain't. Mostly it's an opportunity to keep restive hands at work abroad.

I've talked to Filipinos that are under no illusions about the Chinese end game. The Vietnamese are concerned. Same with the Japanese. Much of the low hanging undermining fruit has been harvested already. It's only harder for the Chinese to spread out their nationalist agenda from this point forth.

Your point about China's 'invulnerability' to blockade along the first island chain is probably not correct. They still rely extensively-and will for the future-on shipping to mainland Chinese ports. A rail connection to Pakistan or through Laos won't relieve their massive needs. For those other items (e.g., oil pipelines) that could pick up some of the slack, remember how easy these are to interdict.

3. I've not seen or heard any speculation about the 'third island chain' consolidation. Beyond Guam? Doubtful.

4. Yes, the nascent nationalism of PRC domiciled Chinese is well known. The Communist leadership taps it every now and again with state-sponsored demonstrations-usually against the Japanese. But other overt demonstrations against the South Koreans or Americans has also occurred. And covert acts against many others.

I don't doubt that it could be fomented nationalism could be tapped again to provide cover for adventurous militarism abroad. I also doubt that leadership would care much about a hefty body count. Communist dictatorships usually don't shed a tear about such things.

5. No one really knows what the face of modern naval warfare will look like or how a purported coup de main against Taiwan would unfold. It would almost certainly be messier than the OPs' article pundits propose. Popping off nukes to generate EMPs? That could be very bad, very quickly. Not saying it couldn't be done, but I think they understand that reversion to nuclear weapons would get very ugly for them.

6. Not yet mentioned: the Chinese are stuck in a very interesting demographic crunch of their own making. As of two years ago, their working-age population has peaked and is in a downturn. Even the state-run China Daily called the trend a "ticking time bomb" for the government. In 2011, 123 MM Chinese (9%) were 65 or over. By 2030, it will be 17%. There will be less than 3 working-age people to support each senior citizen then, down from 10:1 in 2000. Smaller workforces lead to lower savings rates and higher government debt. (https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/20 ... DDSbVxKiUk). Miltary dynamism usually regresses as well.

In other words, they're getting old. Fast. They're not there yet. They have a window of opportunity for adventurism that they may yet open. The Communist leadership has led the Chinese people into monumentally bad decisions in the past and may do so again. But if you want to see dynamic nations beyond 2050, you need to look elsewhere.

ETA: Other paragraphs followed. Edited for brevity.

[MakeeLearn]

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS
Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2018

https://media.defense.gov/2018/Aug/16/2 ... REPORT.PDF

[BBfanboy]

How much you want to bet that China can 'persuade' North Korea to allow overflights to the Sea of Japan? Lots of mountainous terrain there to hide the aircraft/missile approach too. I am not sure the western allies have enough AWACs, drones or satellites to cover all the possibilities.
My expectation is that economic interdependency will cause leaders to steer away from anything more than sabre rattling. Let's hope we can do a new Cold War type containment with the same or better care than the last one.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Let's hope we can do a new Cold War type containment with the same or better care than the last one.

Hear hear. Full agreement.

[tolsdorff]

I do not understand the commotion really.

Without western support, Taiwan would have been part of China a long time ago. Western intervention has, as it has done time and again, created a highly unstable geopolitcal situation which in this case, can only be resolved by a unification, whether we like it or not. Better it happen peacefully, than through a war.

But certainly China is not like North Korea or the Soviet Union, and I doubt unification will result in a Taiwan which is that much different from what it is now.
Certainly people here must have travelled to mainland China and met chinese people there or mainland chinese living in the U.S.? Are these the patriotic nationalistic world-conquerors that we need to be afraid of?
Are the Shanghainese suffering so much from the communist dictatorship that they are worse off than the average Taipeian, Bangkokian or Singaporese? I personally think that is not the case.

I would just like to add the following, although slightly off topic :
China is a big part of the future and their system will play an increasingly large role in the world. Although an undemocratic system, it is, for example, producing a lot of the brightest minds in the world at this moment and is spending a lot of money on research, education, space exploration etc.. all money well spent. A lot of gains are being made in theoretical physics and mathematics, and practically all papers in these fields include very bright mainland chinese researchers. It outclasses the west at this moment in these respects.
Surely therefor, the chinese system can not be that bad.

In fact, the world will face increasingly difficult challenges which will require long term solutions. That is something the purely democratic western way of life is just not capable of handling with their 4-year election cycles and egocentered society.

[Lokasenna]

Can you live without answers? Because if you cannot, then most assuredly you will invent your own answers and they will comfort you. And all those who do not share your view will by their very existence strike fear and hatred into your heart.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

I find the Chinese solution to the problem of projecting power in the South China Sea very elegant. The USN projects power with it's carriers and submarines, the PLAN does it with some dredgers and construction units.

The article however is a mixed bag, the guy quoted isn't even in an active role and there's been sabre rattling over Taiwan for decades now. Anyone with even a meagre understanding of the Taiwanese military capabilities knows that any attempt for an amphib landing is a tall order for the PLAN at best. They'll get there eventually, but even if they could take Taiwan, they're smart enough to know that political reunification is the easiest path.

"Elegant"? I think it's ridiculous. The article is complete pap and saber-rattling nonsense. Anyone that thinks that resolution of non-shooting war tensions will be 'resolved' by shooting wars is off his nut.

Carry out a monumental amphibious and mixed arms invasion of a well-defended island? With naval forces that haven't seen combat in over a century? In 100 hours? With 'a few dozen' casualties?

If they did sink two of our fleet carriers, how do they think their economy would function with a full naval blockade? Do they think that their ships in port would just stay afloat? Do they think their own CV capabilities unimpinged in such an exchange? Do they think their far-flung bases abroad would exist as though nothing happened?

The fact that this is state-sponsored and state-sanctioned saber rattling should be first and foremost in the minds of any readers. I'm disappointed that the publication didn't cite that motivation in its article.

Elegant in the sense that the Chinese take a long-term approach to power projection. If the USN wants to project power, they send a carrier task force. That's very effective, but the world is large and full of hotspots. If tensions fall or there's a more pressing flare up elsewhere, even the USN is limited by the number of carriers it can send.

Not so with the PLA's approach. Make an island, build an airstrip on it. It's now there for good, isn't going to have massive running costs and power can easily can be easily projected at a whim by rotate planes in and out as needs be.

I just find it an elegant solution to China's strategic problem - if you can't build a ship to act as a mobile floating airbase, just build an island for an airbase instead.