Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Am I the only one to see the seemingly sudden torrent of articles about the impending threat of the PLA(N) and the "sudden rise of the Chinese Navy's capability." It seems to be everywhere from Naval Institute Proceedings to The Atlantic. Now I'm not saying that the PLA(N) is to be ignored, but this seems to be a redux of the rise of the Soviet Navy in the 1960s-70s as seen by the media. It seems all we are missing is a Chinese Admiral Gorshkov to emerge from the shadows and have a book published here in convoluted Marxist rhetoric.

 

Am I in left field on this, or am I on to something...?

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

"C'mon guys, it's so simple. Everything is done with ball bearings these days. . . "

 

The MIC needs another "Cold War" scare to keep business up after our little expeditions in Iraqistan eventually wind down.

 

I think positioning the Chinese as the next USSRian threat would be simplistic and ridiculous in the extreme, and the Chicoms/PLAN/whatever are already laughing themselves silly as we thrust hither and yon with the GWOT.

Posted (edited)
"C'mon guys, it's so simple. Everything is done with ball bearings these days. . . "

 

The MIC needs another "Cold War" scare to keep business up after our little expeditions in Iraqistan eventually wind down.

 

I think positioning the Chinese as the next USSRian threat would be simplistic and ridiculous in the extreme, and the Chicoms/PLAN/whatever are already laughing themselves silly as we thrust hither and yon with the GWOT.

181727[/snapback]

 

That's what I'm thinking BP. I almost wonder if someone somewhere with anchors (sans globe) on their uniform feels the Navy is being shortchanged in the whole GWOT (In reality the Navy's as overstretched as the Army) and needs something to keep its public image relevant that way they can get the funds for the DD-X/DD-21 Zumwalt-class/DD(X)/whatever classification they'll use next or the mythical Littoral Combat Ship, whose service in a shooting war against the PLA(N) would be fair to middling at best. I hate to be thinking all cloak-and-dagger conspiracies about this, but the sudden appearance of articles on the PLA(N) like the thread here referencing a PLA(N) base in Indonesia as well as the Proceedings articles and last month's cover of the Atlantic just make me shake my head and wonder...

Edited by FlyingCanOpener
Posted

In related news, Beijing continued to expand it's presence in low earth orbit.

Analysts from CNN dismissed any concerns that the Chinese were making aggressive moves.

Posted

FlyingCanOpener/BP, you (and a host of media "experts") obviously don't actually spend any time researching what the PLAN has done in the last 3-4 years in terms of expansion. Suffice to say, it IS the biggest naval buildup on the planet in that space of time that I can remember. The US (government and the defence industrial complex) is in this case simply reacting to facts on the ground (and a bit belatedly IMHO, they seem to have been caught by surprise, not for the first time if anyone can recall the CIA assessments of Soviet military capabilities issued in the late 60s/70s). This is not to argue that there haven't been well documented cases of threat inflation in the past either of course by the Americans, who seem to make a habit of either under-estimating or over-estimating their opponents in a cyclic fashion.

Posted
"Trying one last time to restore order and make his intentions clear, he asked his Flag Commander, Reginald Plunkett, to suggest a suitable signal. 'What we need now is Nelson's signal 'Engage the enemy more closely,' said Plunkett.

 

Was that the Reg Plunkett who became Admiral Sir Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax ? A particularly fine name.

Posted
Was that the Reg Plunkett who became Admiral Sir Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax ? A particularly fine name.

181764[/snapback]

 

I think it sounds like someone trying to justify their budget, much like that widely publicised 'losses' of F-15C's to Indian AF Su-30MKi's to help justify the F-22.

 

While they certainly present the possibility of a larger threat (as opposed to a possible strategic partner), i think in the near term the Chinese have too much to lose by making a nuisance of themselves.

 

:)

Posted
Was that the Reg Plunkett who became Admiral Sir Reginald Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax ? A particularly fine name.

181764[/snapback]

 

Yes indeed it is. Good eye. :)

 

I think it sounds like someone trying to justify their budget, much like that widely publicised 'losses' of F-15C's to Indian AF Su-30MKi's to help justify the F-22.

 

While they certainly present the possibility of a larger threat (as opposed to a possible strategic partner), i think in the near term the Chinese have too much to lose by making a nuisance of themselves.

 

:)

181793[/snapback]

 

That's what my hunch is about the whole thing. The usual grumblings about the PLA(N) became quite loud only a few months back, and for the most part are quite vague in their information regarding the buildup and the threat it poses. Combined with the sudden cry in Proceedings about how the US shipbuilding needs to be saved (What, did it not need to be saved back in January? Only now does it need to be saved?) for the ostenible purpose of saving jobs and, oh by the way, help us build ships to face the Chinese threat. Is the PLA(N) having a rapid buildup? Yes. Should we be watchign the developments? Yes. Do we need to be writing breathless articles about the impending doom of American Sea Power? Not quite. After this round of building, the PLA(N) will have a nice green-water fleet, but like the Soviet Navy it will be bottlenecked by geography and potential adversaries, limiting its usefulness if the baloon ever goes up.

Posted
I think it sounds like someone trying to justify their budget, much like that widely publicised 'losses' of F-15C's to Indian AF Su-30MKi's to help justify the F-22.

 

While they certainly present the possibility of a larger threat (as opposed to a possible strategic partner), i think in the near term the Chinese have too much to lose by making a nuisance of themselves.

 

:)

181793[/snapback]

 

Yes, but this is your assessment of their intentions while the discussion began about their capabilities. Moreover, it is your projection of what the Chinese should see if they were as sensible as you or I. If you have an inside line into what the short-medium-and long term intentions of Chinese leaders actually are I sure would be interested. But for most people this is largely a black box, so they revert to looking at their capabilities. Often times this can be somewhat instructive as to potential intentions, for instance when a state (in this case the PRC) doubles its amphibious lift in the space of a year or two that tends to suggest a certain contingency is in mind.

Posted
Yes, but this is your assessment of their intentions while the discussion began about their capabilities. Moreover, it is your projection of what the Chinese should see if they were as sensible as you or I. If you have an inside line into what the short-medium-and long term intentions of Chinese leaders actually are I sure would be interested. But for most people this is largely a black box, so they revert to looking at their capabilities. Often times this can be somewhat instructive as to potential intentions, for instance when a state (in this case the PRC) doubles its amphibious lift in the space of a year or two that tends to suggest a certain contingency is in mind.

181859[/snapback]

 

I suppose that's reasonable. But consider this, how is the PRC supposed to 'Bully' taiwan with the threat of war if they don't have the capability to conduct one?

 

I know recently they've also formed a few Air Mobile Divisions under the PLA/AF.

 

It'd certainly make me think if i was in ROC. ;)

Posted
Combined with the sudden cry in Proceedings about how the US shipbuilding needs to be saved (What, did it not need to be saved back in January? Only now does it need to be saved?) for the ostenible purpose of saving jobs and, oh by the way, help us build ships to face the Chinese threat.

 

Question: Has the loss of a particular industrial capability ever managed to actually reduce the ability of the US to maintain military readiness?

Posted
Question: Has the loss of a particular industrial capability ever managed to actually reduce the ability of the US to maintain military readiness?

 

Not AFAIK.

 

A lot of industrial capability is flexible, anyway. My grandad told me the factory he worked in in 1939 converted from some consumer goods (I forget what) to machine-gun manufacture in a few weeks. The skills were there, & much of the machinery. The USA rebuilt the capacity to build merchant ships en masse almost from scratch in WW2. It had steelmaking & fabricating capacity, the rest was easy.

Posted

If we're talking blue water capability, China has little or none. For that they'd need several carriers and quite a few nuclear attack subs.

 

I don't think China is geographically constrained to a great extent. The sea gap between Japan and the Philippines is huge, much larger than that between Scotland and Iceland or Iceland and Greenland. Having islands in that space isn't quite the same - IF China ever gets blue-water power projection and IF they turned aggressive, they could take those islands via amphibious assault if needed.

 

As for fighting Taiwan, they need an airforce more than they need a navy for that one. Ranges are way too short.

 

So yeah, the boys in the defense industrial complex need to justify the budget and want to inflate the threat. Typical.

Posted
Not AFAIK.

 

A lot of industrial capability is flexible, anyway. My grandad told me the factory he worked in in 1939 converted from some consumer goods (I forget what) to machine-gun manufacture in a few weeks.

 

In WW-2 one of the largest US producers of sub machine guns was the Guide Lamp Division of GM. IIRC they'd made headlights prior to WW-2 - the pressing and stamping technology was just what you needed to make an M3/M3A1 SMG.

Posted
If we're talking blue water capability, China has little or none. For that they'd need several carriers and quite a few nuclear attack subs.

 

I don't think China is geographically constrained to a great extent. The sea gap between Japan and the Philippines is huge, much larger than that between Scotland and Iceland or Iceland and Greenland. Having islands in that space isn't quite the same - IF China ever gets blue-water power projection and IF they turned aggressive, they could take those islands via amphibious assault if needed.

 

As for fighting Taiwan, they need an airforce more than they need a navy for that one. Ranges are way too short.

 

So yeah, the boys in the defense industrial complex need to justify the budget and want to inflate the threat. Typical.

182234[/snapback]

 

Sorry but you'll have to be more specific. In what sense is it inflated? As has already been pointed out, it would be hard to inflate the facts of the ground which are quite clearly a massive naval buildup which few within the US system thought likely or possible as recently as the end of the 1990s. There have been equally significant developments in the air and ballistic missile forces which you appear unaware of. The kneejerk "its all threat inflation to get a bigger budget" response is easy to adopt, if you can't be bothered actually researching the issue.

 

Michael,

not sure where you get your information from, but it is incorrect. The PLAAF has for many decades had airborne infantry units. For at least ten years it has had three airborne divisions. It continues to have that orbat. What has changed is the capabilities of those units, which are now getting FAVs and light armour. Maybe you were thinking of the formation of special forces units in recent years across the military regions, these units appear analagous to Soviet Spetsnaz brigades and practice parachute and heliborne methods of infiltration among others.

Posted
In WW-2 one of the largest US producers of sub machine guns was the Guide Lamp Division of GM.  IIRC they'd made headlights prior to WW-2 - the pressing and stamping technology was just what you needed to make an M3/M3A1 SMG.

182238[/snapback]

AC, the spark plug people, were a large manufacturer of M2 .50s. Saginaw Gear (GM) made carbines, the list goes on. During the 1950s rifle manufacture was centered on the Eastern Seaboard and they perceived that as a threat. They began making Garands in the home appliance factory in Evansville Indiana. Industry is pretty flexable.

 

To answer about shortages through the lack of making something there have been a few occurances through history. Quite possibly the biggest example I can think of is French Pate. During WW2 the Germans diverted the meats made in the use of Pate to Germany in order to make Wurst. When the US troops came ashore the lack of Pate would obviously prevent the French from operating the ports, railways, etc. The war simply couldn't continue due to the lack. Emergency substitute Pate (SPAM) was hurriedly rushed to France from Minnesota so the advance could continue. Of course there were side effects as the GIs themselves, having heard about fine French food, insisted on sampling it and were served the ersatz Pate. They brought a hunger for it back to the US and that is the entire reason I even know about that mystery gel that SPAM is packed in. That is the most disgusting looking stuff the world has ever seen and has automatically disqualified any eating establishment in the US from winning any culinary prize for going on 60 years now. Of course a plan has been instituted to ship it to Hawaii and imply it has an exotic taste, thereby removing the mark from our permanent record, but so far to no avail. What were we talking about again? :blink:

 

WW1 canteens were manufactured from aluminum. The demands of the aircraft industry lead to a shortage of aluminum during the beginning of WW2. Alternate materials were tested to replace aluminum and one of them, little heard about, was a zinc coated metal. GIs, doing what GIs do, used the canteen to heat water by exposing it to open flame. The flame turned the coating into a toxic substance with predicable results. What were we talking about?

 

The move from a metal based industrial base to a plastic based one has reduced our dependency on metals in favor of plastics. Correct me if I'm wrong but plastics can be made from coal and the US has a very large supply of that black stuff which killed my great-grandfather young in the mining thereof. What were we talking about?

 

China is not a naval power. The increasing integration of the Chinese economy, and the attendent wealth generation, will result in a middleclass in China that has little need for historical territorial oddities. We're in the middle of the "bridge period" between the communists and their bizarre thought processes and China of the future, which will make Korea look a little slow when it comes to development. Over 1/2 of the heavy construction cranes in existance are currently in China where development is occurring faster than it has in any country in the past. This is to be expected as each succeeding country that has industrialized has been able to draw on the knowledge and wealth of the rest of the developed world. Indeed, Korea witnessed the creation of it's first steel plant in the early 1960s and the native manufacture of advanced heavy tanks was a reality in less than a generation. What were we talking about?

 

I perceive no military threat from China. Wealth, not being a zero sum game, should see its' fastest worldwide growth in history as the 1B+ Chinese leap into the developed world at the same time that India, with another billion, continues their movement. Of course in order to meet the demand of another 2 billion wealthy hungry mouths for exotic food, a program has been started to market Americanized ersatz Pate to the Eastern market. McDonald's highly anticipated McSpam! sandwiches, exclusively available via the McDonald's Express outlets located within the Super Duper Walmarts located throughout the pacific region....

 

What were we talking about?

Posted
Of course in order to meet the demand of another 2 billion wealthy hungry mouths for exotic food, a program has been started to market Americanized ersatz Pate to the Eastern market.

 

They're a little late for that. The Chinese already ripped off SPAM. IIRC it's called Ma Ling (short for Madam Ling?). Tried the stuff in Hawaii back in '98. SPAM being what it is, well, can't really tell the difference. Apparently Hawaiians can, somehow. They insisted that the REAL stuff is better.... <_<

 

Or maybe they were just having a joke at my expense? :blink: I can be a bit slow on the pickup.

Posted

Okay, to bring this thread to a more serious footing, the Chinese have, in the past 5 years, built, bought, or commissioned (AFAIK):

 

- 2 Sovremeny destroyers with 2 more under construction

- 2 homegrown destroyers with PAR

- 2 upgraded versions of their older Jiangwei (?) frigates

- 4 "stealth" catamaran FACs

- 4-5 auxilliary ships of various kinds

- at least 2 Kilo-class SSKs

- at least 2 homegrown Yuan-class SSKs

- probably a single SSN

- at least 3 amphibious assault ships

- and plan to build 4 frigates for Pakistan in the near future

 

I'm sure there are those I missed, but is that really such an impressive buildup? Bearing in mind that this is over a 5-year period and that no new ships for domestic use seem to be in the works right now.

Posted

China aspires to superpower status, and will thus build a great navy with or without a use for it. As in the similar case of the USSR, with its horrible geographic position, lack of suitable naval missions, etc., we should welcome the diversion from otherwise dangerous pursuits. Considering its 100 year lag in experience operating submarine and shipboard aircraft vs. the USN, RN, Fr Navy, it will likely take several generations.

 

Much more impressive is the steady climb of the new IJN steadily upward in naval ranks since its rebirth as JMSDF in the early 1950s, but they are thinking generations, not decades as well.

Posted
I'm sure there are those I missed, but is that really such an impressive buildup? Bearing in mind that this is over a  5-year period and that no new ships for domestic use seem to be in the works right now.

182315[/snapback]

There sure are plenty you have missed!

Try

2 Sovremenny plus two more upgraded Sov under construction in Russia for delivery in the next year or two

2 052C "Red AEGIS" anti-air warfare destroyers

2 052B "Chinese Sovremenny" surface warfare destroyers

1 051C anti-air warfare destroyer plus one more building at Dalian (with Russian Rif-M SAM and PAR)

2 054 stealth frigates similar to Lafayette

2 Jiangwei frigates

3 new large fleet oilers (circa 20,000t)

4+ wave piercing catamaran missile FAC

2-3 patrol boats

a new class of fleet minesweepers

10 large LSTs

10 LSMs

A new class of LCMs of which at least five have been identified so far.

Supposedly 2 15000t LSDs under construction of which models have been displayed

At least 12 Song SSK plus more undergoing fitting out

1 Yuan SSK plus possibly one more under construction

8 Kilo 636 type SSK (of which 1-2 have been delivered and the rest due this year or 2006)

2 093 SSN

1 094 SSBN

 

Excepting the initial 2 Sovremenny which were delivered 4-5 years ago, and the first Song, these vessels appeared in the last few years. A quick visit to forum.china-defense.com will provide you with visual evidence for all these vessels. Far from resting on its laurels, latest media reports indicate China is constructing the world's biggest shipyard near Shanghai to replace the Jiangnan old shipyard where several of these vessels were constructed. You are of course welcome to characterise this shipbuilding programme however you like, but I would be surprised if someone could recall a larger programme in the space of five years since 1945. Suffice to say that the JMSDF, long comfortable in its assumption of being the strongest navy in Asia, is just as perturbed as the USN.

Posted
China aspires to superpower status, and will thus build a great navy with or without a use for it. As in the similar case of the USSR, with its horrible geographic position, lack of suitable naval missions, etc., we should welcome the diversion from otherwise dangerous pursuits. Considering its 100 year lag in experience operating submarine and shipboard aircraft vs. the USN, RN, Fr Navy, it will likely take several generations.

 

Much more impressive is the steady climb of the new IJN steadily upward in naval ranks since its rebirth as JMSDF in the early 1950s, but they are thinking generations, not decades as well.

182325[/snapback]

 

Ken,

Agreed re: the JMSDF. They are impressive.

 

Re: China. Do they indeed lack a mission? You might think so, with the USN assuming responsiblity for keeping the world's sealanes open. Similar to the role of Britain's Royal Navy in the 19th Century.

 

But what happens if the US will no longer fulfill such role on China's behalf? What if my country starts playing favorites, safeguarding our allies' trade, but not that of "independent actors" like China?

 

I don't see them as either enemy nor ally, simply competitor, like the EU, Russia or Japan. That being said, what if the USN "declines" to protect Chinese shipping from the Middle East, Africa and Latin America? China's seaborne trade with those regions is huge and growing, quite unlike the situation of the former USSR.

 

Without anyone to help them, they'd better help themselves. Also, China is not in the position of either Napoleonic France or Wilhelimine Germany.

 

There is no combination of powers which could fight China ON LAND and win barring nukes - thus they've reluctantly concluded that the land war they've long prepared for simply will not happen. They are well and truly forced to come out into the world's oceans to safeguard their interests, whether we agree those interests are legitimate or not.

 

IMHO, the navy is no diversion. The diversion would actually be more continental power.

 

However, absolutely in agreement that the whole thing will take another hundred years or so.

Posted

Even if we accept the larger 'build up' figures - I'm still not impressed. The fact is that all branches of the Chinese military have been distinctly behind their analogues in the USSR and in the west - now that they can afford it they're playing catch up and not building some sort of monster fleet to destroy the free world.

 

Just out of curiosity, how big is the US defense budget? Shouldn't we be worried about the massive build up of forces (which clearly aren't necessary purely for defense)?

Posted
A quick visit to forum.china-defense.com will provide you with visual evidence for all these vessels.

 

Did so. Really nice of them to have nearly all of these developments pinned in specific threads. Also found a few posts here and there stating that the Chinese go by 5-year plans in military modernization. Supposedly they alternate Army-AF-Navy, then back to Army. Apparently common knowledge in the forum, although I think they should pin that info too. If true, then the buildup should end soon, since it's going to be the Army's turn next, then AF's. The next major one won't come for another 10 years. Might also explain why there hasn't been any follow-up to the new homegrown destroyers.

Posted
Excepting the initial 2 Sovremenny which were delivered 4-5 years ago, and the first Song, these vessels appeared in the last few years. A quick visit to forum.china-defense.com will provide you with visual evidence for all these vessels. Far from resting on its laurels, latest media reports indicate China is constructing the world's biggest shipyard near Shanghai to replace the Jiangnan old shipyard where several of these vessels were constructed. You are of course welcome to characterise this shipbuilding programme however you like, but I would be surprised if someone could recall a larger programme in the space of five years since 1945. Suffice to say that the JMSDF, long comfortable in its assumption of being the strongest navy in Asia, is just as perturbed as the USN.

182367[/snapback]

 

I agree with your assessment that this is about largest naval build of the last 60 years. I also agree with Ken that this is largely a waste of money if they truly intend to challenge the USN. A couple of CVBG's could manage to work over that entire force while still being engaged by the PLAAF, IMO. True, they aren't done with their build up yet, but ultimately they will alway lack the kind of embarked or long range air power to deal with the USN IMO, and their subs while numerous are going to geographicly limited except for a handful of loud SSNs and the D/E's will find it incredibly hard to go toe to toe with the most recent marks of 688's (let alone the speed and stealth of the Virginia's) even in their home waters for the next couple decades. Its not like US ship building and technical advancement is standing still either.

 

The JMSDF might watch this with some disquiet, but on the other hand the worst the PLAN could possiblydo is stop oil shippments to Japan, and the JMSDF likely could throttle oil to the PRC--and this assumes no USN involvement (but is almost CERTAINLY Linked to recent close ties militarily between Japan and the US, most notable in the the formers apparent open discussion of a Japanese role in a Taiwan conflict).

 

What's most notetable about this little fleet is the huge increase in SSK's, apparently reconized as the best way to threaten or carry out a blockage, and the marked increase in ampbious capability (although I still think wholely insufficient in numbers or quantity for any serious attempt for the next decade). So I could understand Taiwan taking note of these changes, worrying about a PRC invasion. But US involvement pretty much trumps a PRC invassion were the PRC to truly want to rock the boat that much, which I don't think they do. IMO the PRC just wants the ability to threaten force to influence invents in Taiwan and have sufficient naval strength to secure its oil interests IMO.

Posted (edited)
There is no combination of powers which could fight China ON LAND and win barring nukes - thus they've reluctantly concluded that the land war they've long prepared for simply will not happen.

182398[/snapback]

 

I think if the Russians and US wanted to cooporate in a land and amphibious opperation on two fronts, preceded by the USAF engaging the PLAAF and then bombing every major road, rail line, and sea port (incidently starving the country of domestic coal and imported oil) I think there's real possibilities. I couldn't think of a situation where that would be considered but I think it would be a military possibility to carve up small parts of the PRC, given the will to repress the civilian population and take heavy military casualities. A rather ridiculous scenario I admit.

 

But the more relavent point I have to make is, you are talking about a purely defensive posture for its continental armed forces, which I think is an interesting assumption based on the 'skirmishes' the USSR and PRC had in the 60's and the short but intense war with Vietnam.

Edited by jua

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...