Ask anything Thread

Discussion in 'Navy' started by Jeff Head, Apr 6, 2015.

  1. Sczepan
    Offline

    Sczepan Junior Member
    VIP Professional

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2005
    Messages:
    935
    Likes Received:
    389
    I only heard the other side:
    Nov. 2004: http://www.bna.bh/portal/en/news/378971?date=2011-09-21 Nov. 2006 (last edit Jul 6, 2016): https://www.warhistoryonline.com/mi...heydrichs-mercedes-recently-sold-auction.html

    10 Nov. 2007
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html
    Nov. 2015; https://freebeacon.com/national-security/chinese-submarine-stalked-us-aircraft-carrier/


    But I am pretty sure, USN-subs are in SCS, esp. near Hainan (Sanya)
     
    #351 Sczepan, Jul 28, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2018
    Air Force Brat likes this.
  2. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,350
    Likes Received:
    15,521
    I thought about describing "westpac missions" as "homeland defense" or something of the sort -- however, I also think that the realities of modern weapon systems means that "homeland defense" may incorrectly mean China would only aim to operate in the immediate proximity of its homeland such as up to the first island chain.

    I suppose what I'm saying is that in the medium and longer term I believe that China will want to have the ability to operate in the western pacific in a high intensity conflict scenario up to and beyond the second island chain. Keep in mind this is something on the 15-30 year timescale.


    Now, this isn't to say China will not also seek to use diplomatic means to shape the western pacific to better suit its interests and security, however I am saying that China would likely want to prepare its military to have to fight into greater depth into the pacific.


    Or, if we want to put it in a different way, I see their goals vis-a-vis a hypothetical westpac high intensity war to be phased in such a way:

    Short term: able to contest within 1st island chain, able to operate minimally between 1st and 2nd island chain, unable to operate beyond 2nd island chain
    Medium term: able to significantly contest within 1st island chain, able to contest between 1st and 2nd island chain, able to operate minimally beyond 2nd island chain
    Long term: able to dominate within 1st island chain, able to significantly contest between 1st and 2nd island chain, able to contest beyond 2nd island chain
     
    antiterror13 likes this.
  3. antiterror13
    Offline

    antiterror13 Colonel

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    4,138
    Likes Received:
    4,502
    What are your time frames of Short, Medium and Long terms ?

    I think PLAN is very much able to contest (or perhaps kind of significantly) within 1st island chain
     
  4. Bltizo
    Offline

    Bltizo Moderator
    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    12,350
    Likes Received:
    15,521
    short: now to 10 years
    medium: 10-20 years
    long: 20-30 years.

    give or take, on a spectrum
     
  5. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,912
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    It's not just a matter of timeframe (i.e. "short", "medium", and "long" term), but also a matter of the strength of the opposing forces. While the USN may no longer feel comfortable sending in a single CSG into the first island chain nowadays, it may still feel comfortable sending in 3 CSGs. In time, though, even 3 CSGs will be insufficient to defeat a combined PLAAF/PLAN force; it may take 4, or 5, or even more. On the other hand, accumulating 3 CSGs into the Western Pacific takes a matter of weeks and 4-5 CSGs a matter of months, during which time a Taiwan military scenario may have already been settled and PLA/PLAMC forces already deeply entrenched. So it will not just be a matter of what the Chinese military is able to accomplish in these timeframes, but also the calculated risks that the USN and USAF will be taking in deciding how long they can afford to wait while gathering what they perceive to be the necessary forces to confront the Chinese military. As the US military decides it can no longer accumulate sufficient forces in time to defeat a Chinese military invasion of Taiwan with its current basing arrangements, it may decide to forward deploy more forces, such as to Hawaii or Guam or even Diego Garcia for a back door approach. It could also move to a 65/35 or 70/30 distribution of Pacific/Atlantic forces.
     
    PanAsian likes this.
  6. Red Moon
    Offline

    Red Moon Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2009
    Messages:
    454
    Likes Received:
    126
    Well this is interesting in it's own right, but this is the "ask anything" thread, which means we can take it in a different direction!

    In the light of this analysis, what would be the meaning of the recent rumor that the carrier program has been accelerated, and the current buzz about 03 and 04? The answer would have to lie in the leadership's assessment of current geopolitcal realities. We can observe that while the BRI has been met with a good deal of enthusiasm in Africa and most of Asia, and even Eastern Europe, there seems to be some resistance in Western Europe, and in particular, Germany. Germany fears the loss of it's primacy in the eastern part of the continent, and has also begun to fret about direct Chinese competition in high tech areas.

    From the above it would follow that the maritime silk road, and connections with Africa and the Middle East take on more importance as compared to Europe. Xi Jingping's current trip through this region brings this out as well, and these things would have been planned some 3-9 months ahead of time. Of course the BRICS meeting is perfectly timed, but the emphasis this time is defense of world trade and promotion of south-south cooperation in a bigger way.

    To me, this explains the accelerated need for a carrier force. In the medium term 4 carriers may be sufficient for "low intensity" protection of SLOCs to Africa and the Middle East, but perhaps not two alone, given that one is mainly for training.
     
  7. AndrewS
    Offline

    AndrewS Senior Member
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1,807
    Likes Received:
    2,747
    Just one point.

    Isn't the internal Chinese terminology "near seas" (westpac) versus "far seas" (non-westpac)
     
    PanAsian likes this.
  8. Jura
    Online

    Jura General

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    22,481
    Likes Received:
    27,242
    yeah:
    http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=146
    as of
    July 27, 2018

    ...

    Aircraft Carriers Underway:

    • USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70) - Pacific
    • USS Abraham Lincoln (CVN 72) - Atlantic
    Amphibious Assault Ships Underway:

    ���������� USS Essex (LHD 2) - Pacific

    ���������� USS Iwo Jima (LHD 7) - 6th Fleet

    and that's it
     
  9. PanAsian
    Offline

    PanAsian Major

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    3,508
    Likes Received:
    4,145
    Again, whenever there is talk about anything other than MOOTW or low intensity operations beyond the 1st island chain, that is a US construct and projection of colonial powers behavior on China. Pretty much every post by everyone else above supports my earlier points but the key conceptual one is this:

    Just look at the basing and/or alliance requirements for any sort of meaningful power projection, China just doesn't have it. If commercial ports are to be counted towards China's network then commercial ports, colonies, and territories that are little more than back up military bases are also to be counted towards other countries' networks such as that of the US, UK, France, Spain, even the Netherlands.

    Again, looking at security in China's immediate periphery, no matter how powerful China becomes its homeland defense will take up so much of its bandwidth and has so much downside potential that China will always be both constrained and reticent with power projection other than MOOTW.
     
    Red Moon likes this.
  10. Iron Man
    Offline

    Iron Man Captain
    Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2015
    Messages:
    2,912
    Likes Received:
    2,526
    Nah, some day China will have naval basing arrangements in the Indian Ocean and/or Middle East. IMO it would be a dereliction of duty if the Chinese military didn't eventually set up these kinds of basing arrangements in this region of the world given how vital it is to Chinese economic and strategic interests, interests which will only grow with time with the BRI.
     
Loading...

Share This Page