China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23034
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 01 Jan 2019 18:24

China's NYC-Sized 'Earthquake Warning System' Array Sounds More Like A Way To Talk To Submarines

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25 ... d=sr-link1

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65219
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 01 Jan 2019 19:32

Giving atgms to mountain divs in some areas is simple

We have more than 1 lakh atgms lying around

nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2167
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 01 Jan 2019 22:46

The Saudis have access to light/feather/heavy weight vehicles of all types, however they are yet to break through a militia in the Yemen mountains.

Here the Chinis are up against biggest mountain known to mankind and the world's largest army. I wish them all the best.

They are trying to gauge our reaction by trying out psy ops and see if they can the change the de facto without a real fight.

From our end:
Dhanush/ATAGS/ULWH like pancakes, LCH and IAF numbers to provide support to break any Chini offensive

S400/Barak ER/XRSAM hidden among the passes/caves/ thick forest of Himalayas to provide AD cover to our frontline units.

Brahmos/Nirbhay/Pralay to provide in-depth strike

Should take care of any "Blitz hu xi" PLA is planning.


nam
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2167
Joined: 05 Jan 2017 20:48

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby nam » 01 Jan 2019 23:39

Skills of Chinese Admirals, not having ever fought a war is showing up. I really hope they don't try anything silly..

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Neshant » 02 Jan 2019 00:13

Now here's a thought.

If US actually takes this dumb ass up on his offer, will India automatically be enrolled in a war on account of the naval servicing agreement with the US.

---

Chinese Admiral Wants To "Sink Two US Aircraft Carriers" Over South China Sea

"What the United States fears the most is taking casualties," Admiral Lou declared.

He said the loss of one super carrier would cost the US the lives of 5000 service men and women. Sinking two would double that toll.

"We’ll see how frightened America is."

In his speech, he said there were ‘five cornerstones of the United States’ open to exploitation: their military, their money, their talent, their voting system — and their fear of adversaries.

Admiral Lou, who holds an academic military rank - not a service role - said China should "use its strength to attack the enemy’s shortcomings. Attack wherever the enemy is afraid of being hit. Wherever the enemy is weak …"


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... -china-sea

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7107
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 02 Jan 2019 00:21

The US Navy has more than 50 SSN's and is now into the Block V Virginia class buy and with the SSN-790 upgraded currently happening (she is in availability) with Acoustic Superiority V 2.0 package will see significant acoustic enhancements applied across the SSN fleet starting 2020. It is not those Carriers that Chinese Navy has to fear in the SCS when the $hit hits the fan - it is the quantity of highly capable SSN's that US Navy and other Chinese adversaries in the region can put out in their near abroad (Japan has 14 Soryu class submarines delivered or under construction). At the tip of the spear fight, the SSN and SSGN fleet are your "fighting" force while the carriers being the "presence" that will stand off at least initially as the seas are sanitized.

Image

hnair
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3590
Joined: 03 May 2006 01:31
Location: Trivandrum

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby hnair » 02 Jan 2019 07:47

Rest of world calls such positions as comic book artist

Admiral Lou, who holds an academic military rank - not a service role


Btw, am curious, downing a CVN is a big deal and one wonders if US will consider it a nuclear threshold, regardless of “nuclear weapon state” status or not ?

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65219
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 02 Jan 2019 08:00

I hope he gets a proper staff rank admiral of the fleet like adms spruance or halsey soon :mrgreen: . Genius talents like these need to be formally put in charge of things to drive strategy

The scs to be fair is shallow and not so easy for large numbers of subs to operate in due to depth, reefs, underwater sensors and chinese captured islands

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7107
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 02 Jan 2019 08:10

Singha wrote:
The scs to be fair is shallow and not so easy for large numbers of subs to operate in due to depth, reefs, underwater sensors and chinese captured islands


They do not need to operate deep into Chinese territory or in very large quantity very close to their assets. SSGN's will have the ability to offload quite a number of missiles from afar even the VPM Virginia can offload around 40 TLAM's. Intermediate Range Hypersonic weapon prototype has already been tested from a submarine. To target an Aircraft carrier Chinese ships and submarines have to step out because the CVN is going to "stand-off" during actual conflict letting other survivable assets perform early strikes, sanitize seas while it conducts long range support and provides air cover to the surface fleet.

The farther the CVN goes from Chinese land forces the more their Anti Ship Ballistic have to rely on the long tail of their ISR complex which itself will be contested. I don't think anyone has ever attempted to hit a carrier from 2000+ km away with a ballistic missile with a contested Electromagnetic spectrum with 400+ VLC's guarding the carrier as part of the strike group. I think the idea that a carrier will simply sail into highly contested waters during a potential conflict with China is flawed. Carriers have their place but it is not a first day of fight asset but something you bring in after you have exhausted your more survivable assets and once the threat has been lowered. Till then it will support the surface forces in a defensive capacity and perform stand-off long range offensive operations with the help of the Air Force and other land based assets.

My point isn't that China cannot hit a CVN, they surely can even with AEGIS vessels guarding it. There is always a possibility. However, in case of a conflict unless they just preemptively strike a CVN, the CVN and its support group have a lot of things in their favor from both capability they have to defend themselves and tactics. They simply won't be in range of the vast majority of the sub 2000 km strike weapons China has and the larger the distance you put in between yourself and the anti-ship systems the more reliant on networks the other side will become to complete the kill chain. In real high end conflict with massive amount of EW/EA, Cyber and deception taking place and ISR assets being prime high value targets there is a very good possibility that targeting a high value surface asset beyond 500 km is going to be a crapshoot (on both sides) which is much shorter than the 2000-3000 km shots they'll need to take if they want to use their land based assets against a CVN led strike group.

https://news.usni.org/2017/11/03/navy-c ... ss-boomers
Last edited by brar_w on 02 Jan 2019 18:57, edited 1 time in total.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10254
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 02 Jan 2019 10:06



There will be no more peaceful rise of CHina, the CCP in order not to collapse has to start a war and win it, They tried testing us at Doklam, if we are not ready and like 1962, we will get it, else Vietnam, Philippines or even Laos or Myanmar will get the first hit. They are going the way of Imperial Japan.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23034
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 02 Jan 2019 10:17

Sinking of CVN or vice verse will lead to full scale Nuclear war with ICBM flying around the globe if that stricly remains to just US and China the world at large will suffer equally and possible will lead to destruction of civilisation or most of it. Worst the entire Global Financial order will collapse like pack of cards.

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3200
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 02 Jan 2019 10:42

Aditya_V wrote:


There will be no more peaceful rise of CHina, the CCP in order not to collapse has to start a war and win it, They tried testing us at Doklam, if we are not ready and like 1962, we will get it, else Vietnam, Philippines or even Laos or Myanmar will get the first hit. They are going the way of Imperial Japan.


Imperial Japan fought in a lot of wars, including multiple wars with Russia and China beginning in 1905 before the Big One with the US in 1941.

Cheen on the other hand had not fought in any war in the past forty years with a very inexperienced military. And they are going to sink two US CVNs?

The blowhard admiral aside, I see no real reason to be bullish on war with Cheen. If they start a war with India or Vietnam they will lose and I’m pretty sure they know this — otherwise they would have attacked in those 40 years. Myanmar, Laos and the Philippines (under Duerte) are taken care of economically.

I wish you are right. But I see little hope that Cheen will ever fight. Their current strategy of overwhelming the grayzones with their industrial production has worked to give them control of the SCS without firing a single shot. They are Sun Tzu, not Clauswitz.


Deans
BRFite
Posts: 789
Joined: 26 Aug 2004 19:13
Location: Moscow

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Deans » 02 Jan 2019 11:53

China is building 3 new airfields - 2 very close to the Indian border and the near on the Nepal border.

https://www.freetibet.org/news-media/na/three-new-airports-tibet-confirmed

Along with Nyingchi (20 km from the Arunachal border) and Ngari Kunsha airport (Opp Demchok), I sees 5 airfields which are in theory, within
reach of our special forces, or rocket artillery and where radar would provide very little warning of an IAF strike emerging out of the mountains.
Comments ?

For those better in interpreting google earth than I am, does the terrain on the Kumaon//Tibet border permit an infantry force to cross over
from the border (near Kuti or north of Gunji) to Burang (Tibet) where the new airfield will be located ?
Similarly, from the Arunachal border (though 20 km from the nearest road) to Nyingchi Mainling airport (current) & to the new airport at
Lhunze (north East of Tawang).

Kengsley
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 21 Aug 2018 11:40

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Kengsley » 02 Jan 2019 12:27

Singha wrote:Type15 seems like the usual cheen work creation cum psyops scheme? Why is a 1000hp engine needed

How do these small fast tanks plan to deal with atgm and artillery fires? Every platoon will be packing f n f Atgm in such scenarios

Use speed to evade and overrun defence lines ?

Or they are kind of gun only raider model ifv but tracks mean long range patrols are not on

Seems to me a heavy armoured wheeled tank would be more useful for Tibet plateau and economical to run .engine can be 300hp


The Type 15s configuration isn't particularly new. Its a replacement for the Type 62Gs that were retired without replacement in 2011. The 62 was used extensively by the PLA in mountainous, forest and river regions in support of infantry.

This light tank will be used in the same way. An armoured platform small and off road capable enough to go wherever infantry units go even in inhospitable terrain. Whilst also packing a big gun and atgms to break through bunkers, prosecute targets in buildings and other targets infantry units would be unable to break through. The 1000hp engine allows for a 35 hp/ton power to weight ration ie ideal for offeoading

Light tanks aren't even unique to the PLA. The US Army just selected General Dynamics and BAE to develop prototypes for the Mobile Protected Firepower programme. An armoured platform smaller than an MBT to fight alongside infantry units.

Wheeled apcs or light recon vehicles - which the PLA already has in abundance - are death traps when faced with ATGMs or even RPGs. With composite armor and ERA, mini tanks like the Type 15 are considerably more survivable...

Judging by recent images of the tank in the PLAMCs blue smurf camouflage(#1 candidate for the most stupid cammo in history), it seems the PLAs amphibious units will also be adopting this tank.

Plus at 34 tons, it would be more readily airlifted (vis a vis Type 96s or Type 99 MBTs) by the PLAAFs existing IL76 and Y20 fleet and perhaps even the future Y30.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23034
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 03 Jan 2019 11:11

China lunar rover successfully touches down on far side of the moon, state media announces

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/02/heal ... index.html

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23034
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 03 Jan 2019 16:03

Image

First Pictures from the Moon by Chinese Spacecraft

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23034
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 03 Jan 2019 16:33

U.S. Interest Grows as More J-20 Details Emerge

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ils-emerge

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23034
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 03 Jan 2019 22:39

Prepare for war & boost training, Chinese military tells troops

https://www.rt.com/news/448004-china-tr ... epare-war/

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3200
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 04 Jan 2019 09:10

Austin wrote:Image

First Pictures from the Moon by Chinese Spacecraft


That picture looks oddly familiar.

Oh yes, I was navel gazing the other day.

yensoy
BRFite
Posts: 1189
Joined: 29 May 2002 11:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby yensoy » 04 Jan 2019 13:24

Austin wrote:China's NYC-Sized 'Earthquake Warning System' Array Sounds More Like A Way To Talk To Submarines

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25 ... d=sr-link1


Don't be so paranoid. Why would they need to talk to submarines? Their nuclear submarines are there for anti piracy ops onlee.

Neshant
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4840
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Neshant » 04 Jan 2019 14:19

CCP's propaganda is so laughably unsophisticated.

-----

China Parades "Re-educated" Uighur Muslims On State TV To Extol Prison Camps

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01- ... ison-camps

ArjunPandit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2082
Joined: 29 Mar 2017 06:37

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby ArjunPandit » 04 Jan 2019 14:55

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/ne ... 378267.cms
here comes the chinese mama! oops moab.

Manish_P
BRFite
Posts: 1744
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Manish_P » 04 Jan 2019 15:33

chola wrote:
That picture looks oddly familiar.

Oh yes, I was navel gazing the other day.


Chola saar, might not be just the navel thingy

Your sub-conscious probably recognised this

Image

as being a join of these

Image

and

Image

Happy Star Trekking to you, Saar!

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3200
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 04 Jan 2019 19:49

^^^ They ripped off Star Trek for their official space program?!? LoL

Great find, Manish!

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3200
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 04 Jan 2019 19:52

ArjunPandit wrote:https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/china-develops-its-own-mother-of-all-bombs-report/articleshow/67378267.cms
here comes the chinese mama! oops moab.


In the comments:

Raja Paul
4 hours ago
We have Rahul. We will drop him.


Citizen
5 hours ago
India should develop "Grand Father of all bombs"




Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65219
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2019 01:59

a major event in the history of russia. they got badly beaten in the battle of tsushima straits and never really rebounded as a major surface naval power later

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima

chola
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3200
Joined: 16 Dec 2002 12:31
Location: USA

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby chola » 05 Jan 2019 09:40

^^^ Japan might need to do a 2nd Tsushima to mantain control of its waters.

Without war, Cheen will simply crowd them out with ships and aircraft. They might be poorly made and poorly manned but warfighting ability is also a poor second to sheer numbers and mere presence if there were no war to be had.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/japans-east-china-sea-nightmare-too-many-chinese-fighter-jets-and-warships-counter-40517


Japan's East China Sea Nightmare: Too Many Chinese Fighter Jets and Warships to Counter

The sheer number of Chinese warships and warplanes patrolling a disputed East China Sea island chain threatens to overwhelm Japan's own ships and planes

by David Axe

The sheer number of Chinese warships and warplanes patrolling a disputed East China Sea island chain threatens to overwhelm Japan's own ships and planes.

The imbalance could get worse for Japan.

The Senkaku islands, which are uninhabited, lie east of mainland China, northeast of Taiwan and west of Japan's Okinawa prefecture. Their location makes them strategically valuable to China and Japan. Both countries claim the islands.

...

Around the Senkakus, military forces surged.

China's deployments were part of a broader assertion by China of its growing military might. "China seeks to overtake Japan as the dominant power in the region," the RAND report's authors wrote. "As part of that effort, China is intent on challenging Japan’s administrative control over the Senkaku islands and on demonstrating that it can exercise control in the area while avoiding escalation to a military conflict with Japan."

And the Japanese military is struggling to keep up. "The increased operational tempo has strained Japan’s ability to match the Chinese presence," RAND reported.

...

"China’s large inventory of fighter aircraft has enabled it to fly frequent missions near Japan, straining the limited resources of the Japanese Air Self-Defense Force," the researchers explained. "Fiscal year 2016 saw the largest number of JASDF scrambles—1,168 in total—73 percent of which were against Chinese aircraft primarily flying near and around the Senkaku island chain and the East China Sea."



To be honest, I envy the Japanese (and Americans) getting to play with their chini counterparts.

F-15Js and J-10Bs. EP-3s and J-11BHs. DDG 51s and Tyoe 052Ds. So much fun with cool machines. Great stuff for movies and thriller novels.

We have nothing but cannonball exchanges with a buncha beardos from the Dark Ages on the Siachen Glacier.

Aditya_V
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10254
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Aditya_V » 05 Jan 2019 10:43

Singha wrote:a major event in the history of russia. they got badly beaten in the battle of tsushima straits and never really rebounded as a major surface naval power later

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tsushima



While German U boat strength in WWII is noted what is not noted in WW II it was Soviet Union was the biggest submarine power with 215 subs, the Germans with their allies Finland (yes the peace loving Scandinavians saw eye to eye with the Nazis) put an Iron net in the Baltic sea which temporarily trapped Soviet subs. The Soviets Navy and the Russian Navy for the last 100 years has mainly concentrated on submarines.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19801
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2019 16:01

China's underwater Atlantean naval base,a futuristic project to dominate the Indo-China Sea.

http://www.atimes.com/article/chinas-at ... china-sea/

China’s Atlantean ambition for the South China Sea

Beijing's futuristic plan for an artificial intelligence-driven deep-sea submarine base promises to churn the contested sea's already volatile waters
By Richard Javad Heydarian Manila, January 3, 2019 6:48 PM (UTC+8)

A conceptual image of an underwater colony. Image: Facebook

As Southeast Asian nations look ahead to 2019, competition for control of the South China Sea looms large on the horizon. That strategic contest could enter a new destabilizing phase if China introduces as reported a new Atlantis-like deep-sea submarine base in the already volatile maritime area.

The proposed new base, which could in theory be operated 24/7 through usage of cutting-edge artificial intelligence (AI) technology, would dramatically bolster China’s quest for superiority in a largely unseen underwater struggle for one of the world’s most important waterways.
The dailyReport
Must-reads from across Asia - directly to your inbox

If implemented as envisioned in recent news reports, the futuristic underwater submarine base would potentially place the Asian powerhouse in a position to dominate the waters, skies, and underwater continental shelves in a maritime region through which trillions of dollars of trade travels annually.

One reported candidate location for the proposed base is the Manila Trench, which reaches a depth of about 5,400 meters and is known to be pervaded by negative gravity anomalies. It is also associated with frequent earthquakes and a subduction zone responsible for the belt of volcanoes on the Philippine island of Luzon.

The ambitious project was launched in early December by the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, according to media reports. The announcement came shortly after Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to the deep-sea research institute at Sanya, Hainan, which currently serves as the site of China’s southernmost submarine base.
Chinese President Xi Jinping reviews a military display of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy in the South China Sea, April 12, 2018. Picture: Li Gang/ Xinhua via Reuters
Xi Jinping reviews a military display of Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy in the South China Sea, April 12, 2018. Picture: Li Gang/ Xinhua via Reuters

During the publicized visit, Xi implored Chinese scholars to be daring and unrelenting in pushing the boundaries of science and geo-engineering beyond the achievements of any other country. “There is no road in the deep sea, we do not need to chase [after other nations], we are the road,” Xi said during his visit to Hainan.

To put the ambitious project’s scale into perspective, the planned base would conceivably be put in the deepest part of the ocean basin, which is typically a V-shape area with an estimated depth of 6,000 to 11,000 meters. The Manila Trench, analysts note, potentially fits this geological requirement; the South China Sea’s average depth is only 1,500 meters.

The base’s estimated initial cost is only around US$160 million, or about half of what China spent on developing the world’s largest telescope, the FAST radio telescope in southwestern province of Guizhou, according to reports. Given the intricate and unprecedented nature of the proposed underwater base, the final cost is expected to be several times higher.

As one scientist involved in the recently launched project told the South China Morning Post, “It is as challenging as building a colony on another planet for robotic residents with artificial intelligence.” He said it will require the kind of technology which “can change the world.” Another Chinese scientist described the project as “more difficult than building a space station. No other country has done this before.”

China has tried to portray the project as an innocuous scientific endeavor, which will provide vital public international goods. China has similarly characterized other structures, including meteorological observatories, environmental and air quality monitoring stations and marine observation centers, it has built on contested land features in the South China Sea’s Spratly chain of islands.

South-China-Sea_ATMaps_2018_small-b

Through the deployment of AI-driven autonomous submarines, the country will be able to survey, study and record life forms on the ocean seabed, setting the stage for potential exploitation of precious and previously untapped resources that could have medicinal and technological benefits, Chinese officials have said. The submarine base will be powered through cables connected to a nearby ship or platform.

Yet there are doubts about China’s true intentions. In particular, there are worries about the potential dual-use applications of such a facility, which if built would give Beijing even greater ability to crowd out and encircle other claimant states in the South China Sea. China aims to deploy AI-driven unmanned submarines that could potentially be used in suicide attacks against enemy vessels by 2020, according to reports.

Since 2013, China has embarked on an unprecedented reclamation project which has dramatically changed the geology of the South China Sea. This has been followed by its militarization of the maritime features it controls, seen in last year’s deployment of surface-to-air-missiles and other advanced military assets to its artificially built islands.

Building a submarine base at the bosom of the disputed waters would mark a new phase in China’s quest for domination of the waters, strategic analysts say. Indeed, there are already indications that the competition for control of the South China Sea is shifting to deep-water theaters, where the potential for miscalculations, including vis-a-vis US naval vessels, will rise.

With the possible exception of Vietnam, which recently acquired several kilo-class submarines from Russia, no other regional claimant state is in a position to credibly track and deter China’s undersea activities in the South China Sea.
China-Submarine-Artificial Intelligence
Conceptual image of an artificial intelligence-driven Chinese submarine. Image: Facebook

Xi’s ambitious plan for an Atlantis-like submarine base in the maritime area likely builds on the vision of the founder of China’s modern navy, Admiral Liu Huaqing. In the 1980s, Liu envisioned Beijing’s strategic dominance of adjacent waters (“first island chain”) as well as the Western Pacific (“second island chain”) within the first two decades of the 21st century.

The Chinese admiral viewed the maritime zone as China’s natural backyard, a crucial buffer zone to protect the country’s economic centers in the south as well as a critical step towards full encirclement and eventual incorporation of Taiwan into China. Beijing views Taiwan as a renegade province rather than independent nation.

With the launch of its “boomer-type” submarines in 2014, now known to be roaming the Indian and Pacific oceans, China made its way into the exclusive club of powers – along with the US and Russia – that have the capability to launch nuclear missiles from air, sea and underwater.

China’s boomer-type nuclear submarines could be stationed at the planned Atlantis-like submarine base, giving China the ability to gradually push out and intimidate the US and its allies operating in the area, some analysts project.

As the South China Sea battle for supremacy moves from the surface to underwater, smaller Southeast Asian claimants will increasingly find themselves at the strategic mercy of great powers with superior deep-sea capabilities – and potentially even AI-driven underwater bases.

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19801
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2019 16:04

http://www.atimes.com/article/us-china- ... ct-at-sea/
US, China sleepwalking into a conflict at sea
While Washington and Beijing have called a temporary truce to their trade war, tensions are still rising fast and furious in the South China Sea
By Richard Javad Heydarian Manila, December 11, 2018 6:06 PM (UTC+8)

US Navy Gunner’s Mate 3rd Class Shelby Wilkes of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Mustin fires a shot line to the Military Sealift Command replenishment oiler USNS Walter S. Diehl in the South China Sea, March 23, 2018. Picture: US Navy/William McCann/Handout via Reuters
US Navy Gunner’s Mate 3rd Class Shelby Wilkes of the Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Mustin fires a shot line to the Military Sealift Command replenishment oiler USNS Walter S. Diehl in the South China Sea, March 23, 2018. Picture: US Navy/William McCann/Handout via Reuters

On the sidelines of the G20 Summit in Argentina, the United States and China announced a ceasefire in their escalating trade war, a move that temporarily mollified markets.

But that truce has not extended into the South China Sea and adjacent waters, where the two powers are pitted in tit-for-tat antagonism that many fear could soon tilt towards conflict.
The dailyReport
Must-reads from across Asia - directly to your inbox

The South China Sea didn’t come up during the two leaders’ discussions, according to people familiar with the dialogue. This is likely due to the seemingly irreconcilable gulf between the two sides, both of which have stepped up their military maneuvers in the contested waters in recent months.

In fact, just before the Trump-Xi meeting in Argentina, the US conducted on November 28 its third Freedom of Navigation (FONOP) patrol in the Taiwan Straits since July this year.

The US Pacific Fleet spokesman, Lieutenant Commander Tim Gorman, described the maneuver as a demonstration of “the U.S. commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific,” and vowed that the “US Navy will continue to fly, sail and operate anywhere international law allows.”
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping attend the recent G20 summit in Buenos Aires. Photo: AFP / Yomiuri Shimbun
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping attend the recent G20 summit in Buenos Aires. Photo: AFP / Yomiuri Shimbun

In response, China’s foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang urged Washington to “cautiously and appropriately handle the Taiwan issue, avoid damaging the peace and stability of the Taiwan Strait and China-US relations,” while warning against further deterioration in bilateral ties.

At the same time, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy also stepped up its patrols in the area. A senior Chinese military official, Dai Xu, a PLA Air Force Colonel Commandant, reportedly even called for attack on US warships in Chinese-claimed areas:

“If the US warships break into Chinese waters again, I suggest that two warships should be sent: one to stop it, and another one to ram it… In our territorial waters, we won’t allow US warships to create disturbance.”

Beyond the bellicose rhetoric, there are increasing structural tensions. As Song Zhongping, a China military expert, told the South China Morning Post on December 4, “China stresses its maritime interests in the waters, while the US attaches importance to freedom of navigation. These are different starting points and cannot be easily reconciled.”

In late November, the US conducted several military maneuvers in a major show of force, including two-carrier naval drills in the South China Sea involving USS Ronald Reagan and USS John C Stennis strike groups and their accompanying escort warships.
A US naval vessel in the South China Sea. Photo: Facebook
A US naval vessel in the South China Sea. Photo: Facebook

Days later, the Pentagon deployed two B-52 bombers near contested islands in the South China Sea, challenging China’s claim to the waters and skies around its artificially-built islands and features.

The bombers “participated in a routine training mission” in “the vicinity of the South China Sea,” according to a US Pacific Air Forces statement. “This recent mission is consistent with international law and United States’ long-standing commitment to a free and open Indo-Pacific,” the statement continued.

The Pentagon describes such deployment as part of its “Continuous Bomber Presence” missions in the contested waters of Asia, pushing back against any revisionist challenges to the Indo-Pacific status quo.

During the Halifax International Security Forum on November 17, US Navy Admiral Phil Davidson, the commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, rang alarms about China deploying a “Great Wall of SAMs [surface to air missiles]” in the South China Sea.

He warned that China’s deployment of missile systems to contested islands gives it “the potential to exert national control over international waters and airspace through which over three trillion dollars in goods travel every year.”
Warships and fighter jets of Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) Navy take part in a military display in the South China Sea on April 12, 2018. Photo: Reuters
Warships and fighter jets from China’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Navy take part in a military display in the South China Sea, April 12, 2018. Photo: Reuters

China’s overt militarization of the disputes, Davidson argued, “violat[es] the sovereignty of every other nation’s ability to fly, sail, and operate in accordance with international law,” and undermines the, “the right of all nations to trade, to communicate, to send their financial information, to send their communications through cables under the sea.”

For the first time, Washington has been openly pressing Beijing to halt further militarization of contested islands, dismissing Beijing’s explanation that the build-up is purely for self-defense purposes.

Buoyed by its rapidly developing naval capabilities, China seems determined to push the envelope.

Two recent studies have underscored China’s remarkable ability to close its military capability gap with the US. A recent Rand Corporation study warned Washington about China’s “extraordinarily quickly [catch up] by any reasonable historical standard.”

Another bipartisan study commissioned by the US Congress went so far as to warn that China could even emerge victorious in a potential military conflict in the South China Sea.

It’s no wonder then an increasingly confident China has more directly challenged America’s access operations in the area.
The USS Decatur, left, narrowly misses PRC Warship 170, which cut in front of it near Gaven Reef in the South China Sea on Sunday Sept 30. Photo: US Navy/ gCaptain
The USS Decatur (L) narrowly misses PRC Warship 170, which cut in front of it near Gaven Reef in the South China Sea on September 30, 2018. Photo: US Navy

In September, the US destroyer USS Decatur, which was conducting a FONOP within 12 nautical miles of China-occupied Gaven and Johnson reefs, was forced to change course when a Chinese warship came within a provocative 40 meters of it.

In early December, Taipei warned about “irregular patrols” by the PLA, which has deployed in a “routine” fashion a growing number of warships to the Taiwan Straits, right up to the middle of the 112-mile strait separating China’s mainland from Taiwan.

In the past, the PLA forces would mostly remain closer to Chinese shores.

Perturbed by China’s expanding military presence in the Straits, Taiwan’s defense ministry tried to reassure that it “effectively monitored the situations and movements around the Taiwan Strait by means of its air and naval mechanisms to ensure national security and regional stability.”

As one Taiwan military source told regional media, however, the situation is increasingly dire. “Each time the US sent warships through the Taiwan Strait, the PLA has also dispatched its fleets to track the US’ movements.”

That’s accentuating concerns that an emboldened PLA Navy and a self-perceived still-dominant US Pentagon are sleepwalking into a conflict at sea.

Lisa
BRFite
Posts: 966
Joined: 04 May 2008 11:25

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Lisa » 05 Jan 2019 16:05

^^ The author of the article has been watching far too many episodes of Stingray. Good Luck to him!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stingray_(1964_TV_series)

Philip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19801
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: India

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Philip » 05 Jan 2019 16:16

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/10 ... mp-Beijing

China tests LETHAL new warship weapon in bid for 'maritime superiority' over US
FEARS of conflict between the worlds two greatest powers, the US and China, have increased after Beijing tested a new warship armed with an electromagnetic railgun which has been described as offering “the future of maritime superiority”.
By James Bickerton
PUBLISHED: 05:20, Thu, Jan 3, 2019 |
World War 3 China electromagnetic railgun
The weapon has been described as “the future of maritime superiority” (Image: GETTY )

The revolutionary new weapon can fire shells at several times the speed of sound. It is feared China could have the new weapons ready for 2025. The US is also working on developing its own electromagnetic railguns.
Related articles

World War 3: Has China just triggered a new conflict with Taiwan?
World War 3: CONFLICT between China and US-backed Taiwan BREWING

Images posted on social media last week appear to show the Haiyan Shan, a Chinese naval vessel armed with a railgun, heading out to sea.

The Chinese military confirmed it was working on the new weapons back in March 2018.

Unlike conventional powder guns, the railgun doesn’t require any chemical fuel to fire.

Zhang Xiao, a researcher at China’s Naval University of Engineering, claimed they had found a way of refilling the guns energy reserves between firing shots.

READ MORE: CONFLICT between China and US-backed Taiwan BREWING

He explained: “The repeating power supply system is the power source of an electromagnetic railgun”.

Since the mid-2000s the US has spent hundreds of millions on developing its own electromagnetic railguns, but its programme is currently believed to be lagging behind China’s.

In recent years the Pentagon has deprioritised the programme, and moved resources to other areas.

Deputy Secretary of Defence Robert Work told Congress in 2017: “We though railguns were something we were really going to go after.

READ MORE: Chinese admiral warns Beijing could SINK two US aircraft carriers
Related articles

WW3: Chinese admiral warns Beijing could SINK two US aircraft carriers
Trump to RETREAT? China to CRUSH US in South China Sea

World War 3 China
Xi Jinping welcomes Trump to China in 2017 (Image: GETTY)

“But it turns out that powder guns firing the same hypervelocity projectiles gets you almost as much as you would get out, and it’s something we can do much faster.”

However, in 2017 Dr Thomas Beutner, from the US Office of Naval Research, described the weapons as “the future of maritime superiority”.

A US intelligence report leaked last year suggests China could have the weapon active on warships as soon as 2025.

An additional $20million in funding for the US Army’s railgun programme is provided by the 2019 National Defense Authorisation Act.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65219
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2019 19:21

japan has good and fast ship building industry but traditionally including in battleship design their mentality has been to have lesser number of qualitatively superior platforms (in that dreadnought era they benchmarked to UK/USA/german designs). now in hot peace "boots on ground" mode they need to change tack and use large number of 054 and smaller OPV type patrol vessels which they have not built - just the mighty kongo, maya, atago, akizuki, izumo type capital ships are expensive and not in enough numbers to cover the ground.

they have a laughable 6 corvettes (2500t) which are all 25 years old.

they need to fix this. and they need to build ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to use from land ofcourse.they have a 4 engine new LRMP bird - why not build 200 instead of 20?

money and tech is there, if politics allows. they are only politicsizing themselves into the grave at this rate. I only wish their will to survive be stronger than their fake dharmism.

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7107
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 05 Jan 2019 19:35

Japan was considering building a 3000 ton Corvette but has given up that option in favor of the 5500 ton 30DX Multi Mission Frigate with plans to build at least 8 of those. They have a hypersonic missile program but they are unlikely to seek medium-intermediate range offensive weapons, at least not in the short-medium term though once they develop the technology the tech itself won't be a barrier to them fielding it if they felt a need to sometime in the future. Quality is definitely something that they focus on and it is an understandable strategy given that they probably have some limitations in terms of how fast they can crank up their capacity and how effectively they can sustain (man, equip, train, sustain and modernize) a numerically larger but qualitatively less capable force.

Having the ability to field technologically capable advanced weaponry is probably their best conventional deterrent along with regional and global security partnerships. Against a strategic regional adversary like China, their strategy seems to be to maintain advances in technology (through development in key areas, and acquisition of foreign systems in others) while relying on security partners for capacity. Short of going nuclear this is probably the best they can do right now.

kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2759
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby kit » 05 Jan 2019 22:39

and probably not enough in the immediate or even near-term against an exponentially growing Chinese navy ..much worse for the others in asia.. and as for India it will seek to contain by trying to change the ruling party with a pliable one as well as manipulating public opinion

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 65219
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Singha » 05 Jan 2019 22:47

by disappearing from the field and not showing presence, they are essentially handing over the victors cup to PLAN without a fight in this hot peace era.

china has been openly ramping up its naval building program for a while now. the first signs of huge investment would have emerged in mid 2000s. japan needed to course correct then. but sat asleep at the wheel of its high end warfighting tech thats useless for hot peace boots.

there is nobody around in ASEAN or USN with the number of vessels and political backing to swarm all over the SCS and put up a fight. USN does a token fonops and a overflight with a b52/p8 one a quarter, pats its own back and walks off. the ASEAN make noises but dare not confront. the "great wall of sand islands" continue to get built and weaponized.

even now japan can quickly build/buy/borrow some 20-30 coast guard 1500t OPV cutters and show its presence. instead they are building more Aegis ships god knows why because their landmass itself is a unsinkable island and they do not intend to fight far from home. so why not ballistic missiles and LACMs? and heavy pac and sm2 ashore kind of batteries......the aegis hardly pack any offensive teeth (no tomahawks or lrasm) in japani service. cheen is happy to see money being drained into that swamp.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23034
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby Austin » 05 Jan 2019 23:26

Japan economy with 250 prevent debt gdp cannot play this game long and growing just 1 % won’t help them , other than india no one can compete with Chinese navy in IOR

brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7107
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: China Military Watch - Sept' 2016

Postby brar_w » 05 Jan 2019 23:51

Japan has increased investment into its medium term defense plan and that includes investment in ship building and undersea warfare. This includes new up gunned helicopter destroyers (don't call them *carriers*), new destroyer classes, new BMD ships, and new Frigate classes, OPV's and more capable submarines. The US Navy has itself responded to an increase in Chinese naval production by increasing both its own long term fleet architecture plans (Obama's fleet architecture study put the USN at around a 320 ship Navy while the current estimate is 355 so it has been moving up both the democratic and republican ship counts are far higher than where the USN currently is virtually ensuring fleet growth into late 2020's and 2030s) and so have others in the region and beyond.

The US Navy is now finally buying 3 destroyers a year (move up from 2 after the recent DDG-51 ship award), is already buying 2 SSN's a year with proposals to take that up to 3 in the long term, and is receiving 2-4 corvettes a year and will be receiving 2 multi-mission frigates a year starting 2025. Then there will be the new cruiser and the amphibious ships already at full production. It is still committed to an 11 CVN force with surge presence of 3-4 carriers still in their long term plan along with L-class LHD's that can surge with more than a dozen F-35s each if need be. All three US Navy's DDG-1000 class ships have been home-ported to San Diego and the Pacific fleet which means that starting 2021, one of those ships will always be forward present in the Pacific as part of a strike group. The USN Pacific Fleet is going to grow much faster than the rest of the Navy through the mid 2030s.

This is not in isolation, besides Japan and the US Pacific fleet, the IN is far more capable now than it has ever been and is on track to significantly improve its Naval Power in the coming decade and beyond which translates to supremacy in the IOR and plenty of teeth to extend the fight beyond if need be. Ditto for South Korea, and many others. Many highly skilled and capable navies in Asia and beyond are responding to the Chinese build up so there is that for them to consider. It isn't that the Chinese Navy is building up while others are not responding. As China builds up its naval power, it also has to confront growing capability and capacity (quality and quantity) in its near abroad and beyond given that so many of its own neighbors view its military build up with suspicion.

I think we also need to slow down a bit and take into account the time it takes to actually put credible capability and give teeth to higher ship building. It takes decades to go from a new design to a proficient war fighting capability at the tip of the spear. Once commissioned it takes years still for the best navies out there to have a capable, glitch free ship with a highly proficient crew that can be entrusted to fight at the full potential of the ship. This takes time and we often disregard this by observing Chinese ships delivery rates when actually putting out this capability in a credible way will still be limited by the human factor just as it is for everyone else.

Case in point - DDG-1000 ship has just received its combat system and has cleared combat system qualifications. Its first combat deployment is in 2021 a full 2 years away - that is the time the US Navy thinks it needs to have a proficient crew that can actually be sent out on an operational deployment halfway across the world and be expected to perform at the same level another ship would that has been in service for decades. Take that into account when China puts out new class after new class and we just assume that they are ready to fight TODAY. It takes time, dedication and a lot of training to put your ships and crew through the churn to get a capable combination in a new ship class (or when you increase production and look to rapidly grow) and most experienced navies around the world know this. The road from launching a ship to actually being able to properly fight with it is often quite long especially so if you are executing this sort of growth for your first time.

Singha wrote:USN does a token fonops and a overflight with a b52/p8 one a quarter, pats its own back and walks off.


Those are forward presence FONOPS missions and this is what they are supposed to do i.e. wave your flag, show that you do not agree with them claiming international waters as theirs and then leave. An OPV, Corvette, or any other type of small surface combatant would do exactly the same. And the US Navy ships just don't come back to CONUS afterwards many are permanently forward deployed at Naval bases in Japan, Guam, and Singapore etc.

Singha wrote:even now japan can quickly build/buy/borrow some 20-30 coast guard 1500t OPV cutters and show its presence. instead they are building more Aegis ships god knows why because their landmass itself is a unsinkable island and they do not intend to fight far from home.


Because there is always a balance that needs to be struck between a "presence" Navy and a "fighting" Navy. When the $hit hits the fan those cutters won't be able to defend themselves while the AEGIS destroyers will be needed to both defend themselves and provide fleet defense for the rest of the fleet and for allies operating in the region. Same for their Attack Submarines. Every country's land mass is unsinkable so why then do Navies exist?

Those helicopter destroyers with F-35B's and supported by their AEGIS ships will be plenty of presence and the are investing in smaller surface combatants but if it comes to a choice as tight budgets usually force then they would naturally emphasize making sure they have a credible fighting deterrence compared to a better equipped presence force though I agree they need to address that and strike a balance.What happens when the Chinese begin challenging cutters with their cutters accompanied by destroyers and cruisers? How will the cutters be defended?

It is also far easier to ramp up and rapidly field an OPV, Corvette or cutter force. They can literally source these ships from half a dozen different suppliers in short order (relatively speaking in ship building timeframes) or quickly configure their own yards to produce these simpler ships..the same cannot be said of the high end fighting capability destroyers, cruisers or attack submarine force especially for a nation that has to invest in preserving this strategic (design/build) capability and industrial base. It takes quite a bit of money, time, and human capital to develop, field and sustain a highly capable fighting force.

I am not sure if you have gone through their recently announced the 5-year defense policy which was approved in early December of last year. The Diplomat, Jane's Navy International and others have analysis on it and investment focus areas but here is a snippet on where they wish to invest in terms of their small surface combatant capability and other naval investments in this budget cycle :-

Jane's Navy International wrote:Over the coming decade the MoD also plans to build 22 ships of a new class of multirole frigate for the JMSDF. In its budget for FY 2018 the MoD earmarked JPY92.2 billion for the construction of the first two frigates, which are expected to be handed over to the JMSDF in March 2022.

Tokyo has decided that MHI will build six of the first eight 130 m-long and 13 m-wide frigates, with Mitsui Engineering and Shipbuilding (MES) constructing the remaining two.


Within the next decade, the JMSDF also plans to introduce 12 1,000-tonne patrol vessels, each of which can accommodate a crew of 30. It aims to build four of these vessels in the next five years. Officials told Jane’s that the craft could also be referred to as “guided-missile patrol boats”.

The MTDP also confirmed that the Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF) will deploy two land-based Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defence systems by 2023 and that the JASDF will set up a space corps.

It also stated that the Japan Self-Defense Forces (JSDF) will establish a maritime transportation corps and set up a cyber-defence corps by expanding the number of personnel in an existing cyber-defence unit from about 150 to 500.

The JSDF will also prepare for the introduction of stand-off missiles such as the precision-guided Joint Strike Missile (JSM) developed by Norwegian company Kongsberg Defence Systems, the Lockheed Martin AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile – Extended Range (JASSM-ER) and the AGM-158C Long-Range Anti-Ship Missile (LRASM).


^ This is very heavily focused on the Small Surface Combatant force. Notice that Japan has plans to field as many Multi Mission Frigates as the US Navy which is significant because they are going to offer good capability when aided by AEGIS destroyers and cruisers. They have focused heavily over the last many years in developing and fielding capable destroyers, and submarines. It seems the next 5-10 years will see them focusing equally on the small surface combatant side of things while also adding selective offensive capability. They aren't yet ready (politically) to begin fielding medium-intermediate range ballistic missiles or offensive weapons but they have the technical capability to do so. That too can be done in short order if their political class decides to go there.


Austin wrote:Japan economy with 250 prevent debt gdp cannot play this game long and growing just 1 % won’t help them , other than india no one can compete with Chinese navy in IOR


They do not need to go toe to toe with the Chinese Navy. They do however need to put out a Naval capability that meets their strategy and acts as a conventional deterrent when incorporated into their larger security architecture both regionally and beyond which is heavily influenced by security partnerships. They are probably not as interested in challenging China in the Indian Ocean but for sure would to to be able to stand their ground in their own region of the Pacific.


Return to “Military Issues & History Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: brar_w, Indranil, Sagrawal, sudhan, Vamsee and 99 guests