Manoeuvres make waves but in truth Chinese navy is a paper tiger

[MeshFree]

The US and its alliances' forces are in the attack range of Chinese land based air force. The island chain is not very far. Even now if a war breaks out, AC Liaoning cannot do much thing.

Before Soviet Union collapsed, our relationship was not good. Even after it's collapse, if you pay attention you will find how difficult when we bought Varyag. Many, many people, just don't want China to have it.

 

[Mav3rick]

China's navy at this point and time is no match what so ever against our USN. If a war was to break out today navy vs. navy the U.S. could totally destroy them in a matter of days and China knows this. China is really built to do one thing and one thing only and that is to be able to protect it's own borders. Their military is not able to go anywhere in the world like the U.S. can in a matter of days to unleash its military strength. This may be another reason why they are spending more to building up their military.

The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chiefs red-faced

When the U.S. Navy deploys a battle fleet on exercises, it takes the security of its aircraft carriers very seriously indeed. At least a dozen warships provide a physical guard while the technical wizardry of the world's only military superpower offers an invisible shield to detect and deter any intruders.

That is the theory. Or, rather, was the theory.

American military chiefs have been left dumbstruck by an undetected Chinese submarine popping up at the heart of a recent Pacific exercise and close to the vast U.S.S. Kitty Hawk - a 1,000ft supercarrier with 4,500 personnel on board. By the time it surfaced the 160ft Song Class diesel-electric attack submarine is understood to have sailed within viable range for launching torpedoes or missiles at the carrier. According to senior NATO officials the incident caused consternation in the U.S. Navy.

The Americans had no idea China's fast-growing submarine fleet had reached such a level of sophistication, or that it posed such a threat. One Nato figure said the effect was "as big a shock as the Russians launching Sputnik" - a reference to the Soviet Union's first orbiting satellite in 1957 which marked the start of the space age.

The incident, which took place in the ocean between southern Japan and Taiwan, is a major embarrassment for the Pentagon. The lone Chinese vessel slipped past at least a dozen other American warships which were supposed to protect the carrier from hostile aircraft or submarines. And the rest of the costly defensive screen, which usually includes at least two U.S. submarines, was also apparently unable to detect it.

According to the NATO source, the encounter has forced a serious re-think of American and NATO naval strategy as commanders reconsider the level of threat from potentially hostile Chinese submarines. It also led to tense diplomatic exchanges, with shaken American diplomats demanding to know why the submarine was "shadowing" the U.S. fleet while Beijing pleaded ignorance and dismissed the affair as coincidence.

Analysts believe Beijing was sending a message to America and the West demonstrating its rapidly-growing military capability to threaten foreign powers which try to interfere in its "backyard". The People's Liberation Army Navy's submarine fleet includes at least two nuclear-missile launching vessels. Its 13 Song Class submarines are extremely quiet and difficult to detect when running on electric motors.

Commodore Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane's Fighting Ships, and a former Royal Navy anti-submarine specialist, said the U.S. had paid relatively little attention to this form of warfare since the end of the Cold War. He said: "It was certainly a wake-up call for the Americans. "It would tie in with what we see the Chinese trying to do, which appears to be to deter the Americans from interfering or operating in their backyard, particularly in relation to Taiwan."

In January China carried a successful missile test, shooting down a satellite in orbit for the first time.

 

[Genesis]

That last sentence would have been convincing, if China did not have such a large military, including a very large navy.

See, the point is that China does spend a lot on the military. Now having one or two aircraft carriers bring in a lot more power to the force than say, ten destroyers alone. So it will be saving money to have carriers, at least small to medium sized ones like India used to operate. One carrier may be expensive, but one carrier battle group is far more value for money than the number of ships that would need to be operated to bring that much power and reach.

I'm not talking about USN type of supercarriers which can go pound a country halfway around the world, and take on any spectrum of air war. I'm talking about how India and Russia have used carriers, for sea control. There is a reason we always operated at least one carrier all the time, despite spending only paltry sums on the military, of which the poor navy got only a tiny fraction. We would not have been able to maintain control over the Indian Ocean Region, had we not had carriers.

If and when China puts three carriers into service, and gains enough experience and skill sets, China's adversaries would not be able to take on PLAN at all, without US' assistance. Assuming that the carrier borne fighters are of good quality, and especially if it is possible to develop a carrier borne AEWACS (since the planned carriers are 65,000 tonnes class).

The large military is a relic from the old days. When Deng inherited the country we had more than 5 million active soldiers mostly land force. Today we have 800,000. There are further cuts to that number of land based soldiers.

America has more Nay sailors, about same air force, may even be a little more, forgot, and also 500,000 men, I think or 470.

China's two million include ? number of second artillery, but also some 600-800 thousand armed police, not all police office workers, cooks, etc also included here.

So our army is about the same as US, a little bigger, but we are also a way bigger nation.


China is short of money as it is, we are doing so many projects and making so many ships, you guys just had the third patrol ship, we had 20 Type 56 with a further 30+ within the next few years.

100% of the ships are made in China, a few parts are made with license, but all critical parts are Chinese, except engine, which is 50% chinese.



China has a very specific plan, from small to big, from simple to complicated, from defense to offense. Building a carrier at that time could it be done? Yes, but if we did, how can we have the ships we have now and in the pipeline that will truly make China the Naval power we crave to be. Chinese warships these days are not inferior to the Americans much, if at all, but also hard to compare, because we went different routes. So at least you can't say we copied the US in the respect.

 

[Fukuoka]

The big strategic problem for China is that it has very few friends in our region worth talking about - unless you think North Korea and Pakistan are reliable security partners. It is a strategic loner.

China sure don't flood the whole world with dollars printed at will to buy everybody

Japan is in a much stronger position because it still has a highly competent navy and air force and is taking steps to be able to handle Chinese military provocations, short of all-out war.

Sometimes your propaganda is as funny as a clown words

 

[GR!FF!N]

what PLAN lacks most is experience.its irreplacible.plus,I wonder,with which P-5 members they ever conducted any exercise??or they even conduct exercises with another country at all.cause,that kind of practice says a lot about training.like USAF pilots criticised on over reliance of Su-30 MKI's thrust vector capability.this kind of exercise rectifies gap and strategical error.

 

[MeshFree]

Russia

 

[Genesis]

what PLAN lacks most is experience.its irreplacible.plus,I wonder,with which P-5 members they ever conducted any exercise??or they even conduct exercises with another country at all.cause,that kind of practice says a lot about training.like USAF pilots criticised on over reliance of Su-30 MKI's thrust vector capability.this kind of exercise rectifies gap and strategical error.

Russia count? US count?

 

[GR!FF!N]

Russia count? US count?

sure..but War Games..like one you just had with Russia..but it was a small scale exercise.something like that but larger.something of the line of INDO-US Malabar Exercises???

 

[SQ8]

My.. what a well informed article. So full of factual nothings.

 

[janon]

The amount of disrespect we receive from Western analysts is amazing. I really wish some fucking country like Japan grows some ball and starts instigate a war with us by shooting at us first so we can prove our worth. Pleases start a war with us!

You wish for a war with your neighbours, just to prove a point to USA and the west?

Who do you think the joke will be on, irrespective of the outcome? Say a Chinese victory, but a few chinese cities destroyed, hundreds of thousands killed and maimed, your economy taking a hit, cities and villages burning, all of which westerners will watch from their couch at home on CNN - and you think that's how to show them?

The best thing for China to do is what it is doing now - keep growing economically, improve living standards, improve the military. Hope for no wars. I really think this China threat is overrated - China has not shown any hegemonic ambitions or desire to conquer other countries, other than a few border disputes with neighbours. The only case in which a conflict can happen is if a very belligerent leadership rises to power in future.

Which is why India for example, while trying to have enough military power to defend against China in future, is mostly only worried about the threat from the other side. We know which are the unreasonable countries.

 

[Genesis]

sure..but War Games..like one you just had with Russia..but it was a small scale exercise.something like that but larger.something of the line of INDO-US Malabar Exercises???

Not as big, but you know what advantage we have?

We can make our own stuff, that means we develop base on what we think we need, based on exercises, studying recent examples, and being observer at exercises.

Tactics don't come from the sky. The are made based on needs. India won't learn much from the US, the US can and will conduct a warfare that Indians cannot. How Americans think about enemies and Indians do are different. Americans can look at China and make adjustments, but if India copies or even thinks along those lines, you will be crushed.

You must have your own mind, learning and sharing is good and we do do that too, but you must have your own line of thinking, looking at Chinese weapons procurement we clearly have a clear train of thought on tactics, for we went from bottom up, small to big, and defensive to offensive.

It is helpful, I do wish we could do more, but we can't. However, modern equipment is the ticket of admission, without it, tactics don't even come into play.

 

[xunzi]

You wish for a war with your neighbours, just to prove a point to USA and the west?

Who do you think the joke will be on, irrespective of the outcome? Say a Chinese victory, but a few chinese cities destroyed, hundreds of thousands killed and maimed, your economy taking a hit, cities and villages burning, all of which westerners will watch from their couch at home on CNN - and you think that's how to show them?

The best thing for China to do is what it is doing now - keep growing economically, improve living standards, improve the military. Hope for no wars. I really think this China threat is overrated - China has not shown any hegemonic ambitions or desire to conquer other countries, other than a few border disputes with neighbours. The only case in which a conflict can happen is if a very belligerent leadership rises to power in future.

Which is why India for example, while trying to have enough military power to defend against China in future, is mostly only worried about the threat from the other side. We know which are the unreasonable countries.

Yes I want our country to go to war for experience. The world wants the same thing. They want to see us going to war. Like our leaders said, we are willing to lose the Eastern part in exchange to keep our territorial integrity intact. Never question our resolve to use force to prove that point. If no one starts the first move, then we might have to change our "non-interference" policy in the future. That way, our arm force will be allowed to conduct war in oversea. I particularly believe that will occur in 2020s to 2030s at latest. By that time, we will have a few aircraft carriers and our J-20s are in mass production. It will complete our goal of a blue-water navy. Hopefully we will have the opportunity to fight with our Russian friends, side by side, and limiting the influence of NATO. We are waiting for that day to not hide our power and resolutely pick a side to defend our interest.

 

[GR!FF!N]

Not as big, but you know what advantage we have?

We can make our own stuff, that means we develop base on what we think we need, based on exercises, studying recent examples, and being observer at exercises.

Tactics don't come from the sky. The are made based on needs. India won't learn much from the US, the US can and will conduct a warfare that Indians cannot. How Americans think about enemies and Indians do are different. Americans can look at China and make adjustments, but if India copies or even thinks along those lines, you will be crushed.

You must have your own mind, learning and sharing is good and we do do that too, but you must have your own line of thinking, looking at Chinese weapons procurement we clearly have a clear train of thought on tactics, for we went from bottom up, small to big, and defensive to offensive.

It is helpful, I do wish we could do more, but we can't. However, modern equipment is the ticket of admission, without it, tactics don't even come into play.

you're entirely wrong.you may make things according to your needs(actually,I don't know about a single country who purchase which doesn't meet their demands.every customer chooses their own suitable version of any weapon),but you will also have to identify its shortcomings against another platform.and tactics doesn't based on weapons.every country buy or produce an weapon according to their doctrine.what you'll never going to understand is what is wrong with your doctrine until you're going to use it in various circumstances and in various environment against another.what do you think why India conducts so many wargames??to learn how US going to fight??BS.we conduct wargames so that we may learn these by applying against best force in the world.there are reasons why US forces,which are world's best,come to India and learn various courses in various Battle Schools.or else,why would they ever going to come??so are dozens of other country's soldiers.

every weapon has some sort of restrictions.sometimes,these exercises show that through an unique way,which might be costly during war.see,Germany thought their Elefant was world beater,which it was.but until they fielded it,they didn't know about the cost they're going to pay due to its flaws,which were small in paper,but paid dearly.who knew that a tank destroyer which was so powerful could be destroyed because it didn't have secondary gun,or it lacked periscope or rotating turrets.or something more complex like,problem any towed vehicle going to face in case one gets damaged in mud.these kind of complex situations and shortcomings can be exploited(or observed) only during wargame and can be rectified.Testing Phase never reveals this kind of flaws.

 

[Fukuoka]

what PLAN lacks most is experience.its irreplacible.plus,I wonder,with which P-5 members they ever conducted any exercise??or they even conduct exercises with another country at all.cause,that kind of practice says a lot about training.like USAF pilots criticised on over reliance of Su-30 MKI's thrust vector capability.this kind of exercise rectifies gap and strategical error.

Experience is quick to acquire and quick to lose, so it's not number1 problem

The only people who seem to have real difficulties to learn are arabs, it looks like they can't manage a battlefield even after years, always using the same tactics that makes them lose tanks

 

[Akasa]

If the PLAN were a paper tiger, then all of the other countries besides the United States would be nothing more than paper cats. These comparisons are incredibly naïve.