China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
solarz
Brigadier
But having a fuel for said car is not important whatsoever.
It's a status symbol. That means most people don't actually need a car to earn living. In fact, I can't imagine anyone in Shanghai or Beijing being masochist enough to willingly drive to work.
I know. But, if you have boght your car, as status symbol, have spent a lot of money on it, I presume that you wouldn't approve that you don't have the fuel to drive it if you really want.
Also, more important is the trend, just look at the numer of cars in China from 2010 ( 90 mil. ) to 2016 ( 180 mil. ) and think how many of them will be in say 2020 ( I would say about 400 mil. ) and how many fuel will they need...
solarz
Brigadier
If you *have* to drive to work, then high fuel prices threatens your very livelihood.
If you only drive for leisure or convenience, then high fuel prices means putting your car away to save some money.
Simply looking at trends but failing to understand what is driving those trends can lead to mistaken assumptions. China's roads are already clogged, and the government has measures in place to curb vehicle ownership. I highly doubt the number of cars in China will rise at the same rate it has in the past several years.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Couple pages back I ask about what is that hexagonal structure meant to be? AMTI is now convinced it is radar and missile mounting
There is too many images to post just click the link to see all
China has built nearly identical headquarters buildings at each of its four smaller artificial islands. The two smallest of the islets, Hughes and Gaven Reefs, feature four arms built off of these central structures. The end of each of these arms sports a hexagonal platform, approximately 30 feet wide. The northeastern and southwestern arms host what are most likely anti-aircraft guns (roughly 20 feet long when measured to the tip of the barrel). The other two platforms hold smaller (roughly 10-foot-wide) objects without clearly visible barrels. These cannot be definitively identified, but are likely CIWS to protect against cruise missile strikes, according to the Center for Naval Analyses’ Admiral Michael McDevitt (Ret.) and RAND’s Cortez Cooper in a new podcast.
Johnson Reef
China modified this blueprint for its facility on Johnson Reef. There the central facility has only two arms, with the southern one sporting the same anti-aircraft gun (which is covered by a tarp in recent imagery but was previously visible) and the northern one an apparent CIWS. Another gun and probable CIWS, along with a radar, were constructed on a separate structure, consisting of three hexagonal towers on the eastern side of the artificial island. This structure seems to be a less complex precursor to those built more recently at Fiery Cross, Mischief, and Subi Reefs.
Fiery Cross Reef
Construction of all four structures has been completed at Fiery Cross Reef, where covers have been placed over the point defenses installed on the central hexagonal tower and the two in front of it. But the size of the platforms (which matches those at the four smaller artificial islands) and covers suggests they boast systems similar to those at Gaven, Hughes, Johnson, and Cuarteron Reefs.
Mischief Reef
There is too many images to post just click the link to see all
China has built nearly identical headquarters buildings at each of its four smaller artificial islands. The two smallest of the islets, Hughes and Gaven Reefs, feature four arms built off of these central structures. The end of each of these arms sports a hexagonal platform, approximately 30 feet wide. The northeastern and southwestern arms host what are most likely anti-aircraft guns (roughly 20 feet long when measured to the tip of the barrel). The other two platforms hold smaller (roughly 10-foot-wide) objects without clearly visible barrels. These cannot be definitively identified, but are likely CIWS to protect against cruise missile strikes, according to the Center for Naval Analyses’ Admiral Michael McDevitt (Ret.) and RAND’s Cortez Cooper in a new podcast.
Johnson Reef
China modified this blueprint for its facility on Johnson Reef. There the central facility has only two arms, with the southern one sporting the same anti-aircraft gun (which is covered by a tarp in recent imagery but was previously visible) and the northern one an apparent CIWS. Another gun and probable CIWS, along with a radar, were constructed on a separate structure, consisting of three hexagonal towers on the eastern side of the artificial island. This structure seems to be a less complex precursor to those built more recently at Fiery Cross, Mischief, and Subi Reefs.
Fiery Cross Reef
Construction of all four structures has been completed at Fiery Cross Reef, where covers have been placed over the point defenses installed on the central hexagonal tower and the two in front of it. But the size of the platforms (which matches those at the four smaller artificial islands) and covers suggests they boast systems similar to those at Gaven, Hughes, Johnson, and Cuarteron Reefs.
Mischief Reef
Blackstone
Brigadier
So China built structures to support possible stationing of military forces. What of it? The SCS land and features belong to China, so they could build and station what they think best for their interests.
Couple pages back I ask about what is that hexagonal structure meant to be? AMTI is now convinced it is radar and missile mounting
There is too many images to post just click the link to see all
China has built nearly identical headquarters buildings at each of its four smaller artificial islands. The two smallest of the islets, Hughes and Gaven Reefs, feature four arms built off of these central structures. The end of each of these arms sports a hexagonal platform, approximately 30 feet wide. The northeastern and southwestern arms host what are most likely anti-aircraft guns (roughly 20 feet long when measured to the tip of the barrel). The other two platforms hold smaller (roughly 10-foot-wide) objects without clearly visible barrels. These cannot be definitively identified, but are likely CIWS to protect against cruise missile strikes, according to the Center for Naval Analyses’ Admiral Michael McDevitt (Ret.) and RAND’s Cortez Cooper in a new podcast.
Johnson Reef
China modified this blueprint for its facility on Johnson Reef. There the central facility has only two arms, with the southern one sporting the same anti-aircraft gun (which is covered by a tarp in recent imagery but was previously visible) and the northern one an apparent CIWS. Another gun and probable CIWS, along with a radar, were constructed on a separate structure, consisting of three hexagonal towers on the eastern side of the artificial island. This structure seems to be a less complex precursor to those built more recently at Fiery Cross, Mischief, and Subi Reefs.
Fiery Cross Reef
Construction of all four structures has been completed at Fiery Cross Reef, where covers have been placed over the point defenses installed on the central hexagonal tower and the two in front of it. But the size of the platforms (which matches those at the four smaller artificial islands) and covers suggests they boast systems similar to those at Gaven, Hughes, Johnson, and Cuarteron Reefs.
Mischief Reef
What is identifiable in those pictures are rudimentary point defenses: twin-barreled AAA and what looks like naval gun turrets slapped on top of buildings. I don't see any CIWS though there are unidentifiable things that may or may not be military equipment. The PRC can always put some mobile units there just like the ROC, Vietnam, Japan, S Korea, the US, UK, and a whole host of other countries do on islands they control.
Jura The idiot
General
oops, Johnson Reef is above here but if interested in
but if interested in
Jura The idiot
General
I noticed as it's on top of Breaking News at gazeta.ru right now
which through
ТАСС
Подробнее на ТАСС:
links to
China confirms US request for seized drone
which through
ТАСС
Подробнее на ТАСС:
links to
China confirms US request for seized drone
plawolf
Lieutenant General
It's an unmanned drone, which puts it in a bit of a grey area in terms of legal status.
While manned naval warships enjoy sovereign immunity and cannot be legally salvaged (hardly universally respected because the CIA was revealed to have spent considerable time and resources trying to salvage K129 after it sunk), its debatable if that also applies to unmanned drones.
But regardless of the legality, it is an unusually brazen move by the PLA.
I would be keeping a weary eye on developments in the SCSmgoinh forwards. I would not rule out the possibility of China being prepared to make a stand in the SCS as a counter and pre-empt to Trumps recent hints on Taiwan.
As I have said time and again, the newly built islands gives the PLA a commanding tactical and strategic advantage in the region, arguably even more so than around Taiwan. Especially if you factor in proximity and capability of foreign military bases; military capability and political commitment of US allies in the two areas; and most importantly proximity to important dual use and infrastructure.
Temperament of US leaders may also play a key part. With Obama, China more or less knows where his bottom lines are, and would be far more confident (of course no one could ever be entirely sure) of being able to de-escalate to prevent any clash from spiralling out of all control. With Trump, it will be a far bigger gamble as no one could be entirely confident just how stable and sane he really is.
China may well calculate its better to have a small fight with the US, on the last days of Obama's watch, in the SCS, to show Trump China has the means and will to stand and fight for its vital national interests as a means to ensure Trump doesn't pull a stupid stunt with Taiwan that could trigger a war far more damaging to China irrespective of outcome, and one which has the potential to spiral completely out of control.
If the US was loosing a fight with China under Trump, it would be hard to see him being willing to look at the bigger picture and step back and loose face, and would likely instead doubling down and potentially escalate all the way to nuclear exchange.
Obama would be far less reckless, and would lack the legitimacy to fight a long war past the end of his term.
That leaves the door open for Trump to come in, blame everything on Obama, negotiate a peace with China and take that Nobel peace medal off of Obama on his way out the door of the White House.
While manned naval warships enjoy sovereign immunity and cannot be legally salvaged (hardly universally respected because the CIA was revealed to have spent considerable time and resources trying to salvage K129 after it sunk), its debatable if that also applies to unmanned drones.
But regardless of the legality, it is an unusually brazen move by the PLA.
I would be keeping a weary eye on developments in the SCSmgoinh forwards. I would not rule out the possibility of China being prepared to make a stand in the SCS as a counter and pre-empt to Trumps recent hints on Taiwan.
As I have said time and again, the newly built islands gives the PLA a commanding tactical and strategic advantage in the region, arguably even more so than around Taiwan. Especially if you factor in proximity and capability of foreign military bases; military capability and political commitment of US allies in the two areas; and most importantly proximity to important dual use and infrastructure.
Temperament of US leaders may also play a key part. With Obama, China more or less knows where his bottom lines are, and would be far more confident (of course no one could ever be entirely sure) of being able to de-escalate to prevent any clash from spiralling out of all control. With Trump, it will be a far bigger gamble as no one could be entirely confident just how stable and sane he really is.
China may well calculate its better to have a small fight with the US, on the last days of Obama's watch, in the SCS, to show Trump China has the means and will to stand and fight for its vital national interests as a means to ensure Trump doesn't pull a stupid stunt with Taiwan that could trigger a war far more damaging to China irrespective of outcome, and one which has the potential to spiral completely out of control.
If the US was loosing a fight with China under Trump, it would be hard to see him being willing to look at the bigger picture and step back and loose face, and would likely instead doubling down and potentially escalate all the way to nuclear exchange.
Obama would be far less reckless, and would lack the legitimacy to fight a long war past the end of his term.
That leaves the door open for Trump to come in, blame everything on Obama, negotiate a peace with China and take that Nobel peace medal off of Obama on his way out the door of the White House.