Chinese military exports to other countries

plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
TerraN_EmpirE said:
The SS is the closest comparison. Loaded though it may be.
The USMC began much like any other late 18th early 19th century Marine corps as naval sharp shooters and raiders. But by the 20th century expanded into a number of roles including amphibious assault and close air support.
However the Marines remain Naval assets at heart, always returning to the sea. There amphibious assault roles were a natural extension from naval raiding, and even today a significant amount of the mission logistics and support of the USMC is rooted in the Navy. The medical, intelligence and Religious support system is Navy not Marines. It was a natural expansion to meet the modern world where ship to ship combat was at beyond rifle range.
I thought about trying a comparison to the PLA and how a infantry arm expanded into multiple services and subservices but it was rooted to the same mission and so that expansion was a natural progression. They were given the mission by the leadership, "Fight for the Party, Defend the PRC" so when the PLA hit the sea they created the PLAN, when they hit the Air PLAAF and so on and so forth. But they were still obeying the mission mandate.
By contrast the IRGC and SS both began as internal agencies the IRGC the enforcement of Islamic ideals at home, the SS the top leadership's personal security. But from those missions they expanded well beyond and became external forces.

It would be like the NYPD launching a full space program. How does the Original mandate IE Protect and serve NYC suddenly include Mars?
Click to expand...

I really don't see it. The lines you are drawing seem kinda deliberate rather than categorical.

The USMC is hardly limited to only, or even mainly amphibious assault. You have to go back to the Korean war for a real life example where their amphibious assault capabilities were needed to take a defended beachhead, and even then it wasn't really strictly needed since the beaches were so lightly defended.

In all recent wars, the USMC has been employed as expeditionary elites, and spent far more time on land than they did out at sea. Hell, most of the time they didn't even deploy into war zones from ships, and instead entered combat from land bases and staging zones alongside the regular army.

You originally used the SS to highlight how the IRGC expanded from a specialist single role organisation to encompass entirely new fields and disciplines, Like naval and missile branches etc.

For that illustration, the USMC would be a much more accurate companions, since it also grew from a single niche role to add entirely new roles and fields to their force organisation, with all the hardware and support infrastructure that goes with that.

In contrast, I am not aware of the SS developing dedicated air or naval capabilities. The armed branch of the SS remained a ground operations oriented combat force.

Had you originally started by talking about the political aspect of how the IRGC is acting as trusted enforcers and guardians of the government, then yes, the SS comparison would be more valid.

But in terms of organisational expansion and 'mission creep', they are not much like the SS, who showed little interest in adding naval or air assets to their inventory and expand themselves into those fields and disciplines, and instead more akin to the USMC in their desire to acquire assets and capabilities beyond their original remit and force structure.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Sorry I still don't see it that way.
The USMC has been a Expeditionary force from its direct predecessor in the Colonial Marines and individual state Marines. Expeditions to seize and assault has always been part of the mission like the Colonial and Massachusetts Marines of the Penobscot Expedition.
Early USMC Operations in the US/French Quasi-War including the Battle of Puerto Plata Harbor and then the First Barbary war with The Famous Tripoli Operations.
The War Of 1812 with the Battle of New Orleans where they held a defencive line.
Have they expanded? Yes but was it well beyond there original mission of Taking the fight from the sea?
No. They have expanded to include Air elements and armor. but have dropped Naval gunnery.
Yet the mission remains to respond to Threats to the US from abroad, by taking the fight to the fight.
A line to the USMC in place doesn't fit the comparison as the USMC was created to fight abroad from day one. Marines are by their mission always to some degree Expeditionary in that they take the fight from naval shipping to enemy forces, Even if it's just taking a beach. In the twentieth century that mission changed it's scope but overall remained rooted to expeditionary.
My point is The IRGC was not founded on that.
The IRGC began as a Internal agency and has expanded into a Military service. To make a comparison I pointed to another historical Internal Agency that rapidly expanded to a External one. And Yes the Comparison went to a Organization of a very Dubious history. Yet my comparison was of a internal agency that became far larger and a secondary line of military services by assuming Roles not part of it's original internal role. Now does it totally fit? No of course not. But it's a much closer fit as you have an Agency that moved from a purely internal ( dubious or not) to a much broader External Agency and adopted Roles and missions far beyond it's original mission mandate.

.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
I don't have a copy of the IRGC mission statement at hand, but from the name, they are protectors of the Iranian revolution, which one would assume they are supposed to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic, especially given the conductions under which the Iranian Revolution itself was born from.

The IRGC didn't start off as a political movement that sprouted an armed wing like the SS. It has always been an armed organisation from the start, which expanded the assets and arenas they operate in over the years, but one can easily argue that they never deviated from their original core mission of protecting the Iranian Revolution, since the chief threat to that Revolution from its inception had always been external more than internal.

In any case, its clear neither of us is going to convince the other any time soon, so I see little point in continuing this discussion, especially since its OT.

You can get in a final reply if you wish, but this will be the last I say on the subject.
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
Does Cambodia even have the budget for 140-meter warships? That would be in the type 054A category. Perhaps this is dependent on some soft loans? An opportunity for selling the two type 054s?

Given Cambodia's smaller navy, I would think type 056s or its derivatives would make more sense if procuring new. If purchasing used, the type 053H3s would be a good fit.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Cambodia is eyeing the purchase of two Chinese warships, the country’s naval commander said Wednesday according to local media outlets following the first-ever joint exercise between the two countries.

As I reported a few days ago for The Diplomat, China and Cambodia held their first ever joint naval drill this week, cementing the relationship between Beijing and one of its closest Southeast Asian partners even as regional concerns continue to mount about its assertiveness in the South China Sea (See: “China, Cambodia Hold First Naval Exercise Amid South China Sea Fears”).

Following the exercise, Cambodia’s navy commander Tea Vinh met with his Chinese counterpart Rear Admiral Yu Manjiang at the navy headquarters in Phnom Penh, where both sides discussed Beijing potentially supplying its partner with warships to defend its maritime territory.

“The Chinese Ministry of Defense would supply two warships in the future…. This is my vision,” Tea Vinh said according to The Cambodia Daily.

Though he did not specify which ships the Cambodian navy had wanted, he did say that it was looking for 140-meter ships that could accommodate crews of 100 with sophisticated missile systems.

China already has a strong defense relationship with Cambodia, one of Beijing’s key partners in Southeast Asia. As I have noted before, China is the largest donor of military aid to Cambodia, and defense ties have been strengthening over the past few years (See: “Why is a Big Cambodia Military Delegation in China?”). The boosting of ties in the naval domain is thus only the latest step in the development of bilateral defense relations.

That said, the commander was careful to emphasize that communication is still ongoing between the two defense ministries on the issue. He also clarified that the vessels would not be used for war and only to protect Cambodia’s sovereignty.

“We want to stop our neighboring countries from looking down on us,” he said. “I want these two big ships, not for making war, but just to show that they can’t look down on Cambodia.”

His Chinese counterpart did not comment on the issue at the bilateral meeting, though he did confirm that China would look to further enhance its relationship with Cambodia in the maritime domain.
Click to expand...
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
joshuatree said:
Does Cambodia even have the budget for 140-meter warships? That would be in the type 054A category. Perhaps this is dependent on some soft loans? An opportunity for selling the two type 054s?

Given Cambodia's smaller navy, I would think type 056s or its derivatives would make more sense if procuring new. If purchasing used, the type 053H3s would be a good fit.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Click to expand...

I'm guessing they were deeply impressed with the 054A when they held their first ever joint naval exercise with China not long ago.

Cambodia is unlikely to be able to afford 054A class vessels on its own dime, but then they have historically been heavily dependant on Chinese largess to help supplement their defence budget.

Given what is going on in the SCS, China may see it as a worthy investment to help further subsidies friendly nations' defence budgets, both as a means of diluting the American 'security guarantor' role, as well as to put additional strain and pressure on the defence budgets and disposition of unfriendly nations' militaries.

In addition, as I have already mentioned, a very large part of the PLAN's recent larger than expected naval build up is actually a form of government stimulus to help out Chinese shipyards in the face of collapsing global commercial ship orders.

In that sense, exporting warships, even at a net loss, would very much make a great deal of sense, especially if the PLAN is starting to struggle to effectively absorb so much new hardware so quickly, and also as a means to trying to avoid spooking others into a potential arms race if they misunderstand Chinese motivation and intentions.
 
duskylim

duskylim

Junior Member
VIP Professional
Best to start them off with the old patrol vessels the 056 is replacing, as an outright gift

Refurbishment and slight modernization can be undertaken via soft, long-term loans.

At no cost to the PLAN, which is retiring them, these would serve as training vessels for the Cambodian navy.

Later, they can graduate to more capable warships.

A win-win situation, really.
 
plawolf

plawolf

Lieutenant General
duskylim said:
Best to start them off with the old patrol vessels the 056 is replacing, as an outright gift

Refurbishment and slight modernization can be undertaken via soft, long-term loans.

At no cost to the PLAN, which is retiring them, these would serve as training vessels for the Cambodian navy.

Later, they can graduate to more capable warships.

A win-win situation, really.
Click to expand...

China's main objective to promoting foreign sales isn't to make money or dispose of unwanted stuff they are retiring, but rather to help generate orders to keep their shipyards working in the face of collapsing commercial orders.

Selling/gifting old ships doesn't do anything for Chinese shipyards (could actually take work away from them, as they might otherwise have been tasked with scrapping the old retired ships).

The tiny amount of profit or savings that could be achieved from that pales into insignificance next to the economic costs to China of having to order more warships than it needs or could readily absorb into its fleets to keep the yards working, or the strategic cost of shipyards having to lay off hard-to-replace skilled labour.

Remember that the upfront purchase cost isn't the only, or even main cost of ownership for warships. You also have very significant running and maintenance costs each year for each ship.

Even if China is gifting brand new 054As entirely (never going to happen), its still saying the annual operating and maintenance costs compared to if it bought the extra unneeded ships for its own fleets.

There is also the strategic dimension to consider, as an apparently excessive PLAN fleet expansion programme may cause others to misread Chinese intentions and accidentally kick off an arms race no one wants.
 
J

joshuatree

Captain
Cambodia is unlikely to be able to afford 054A class vessels on its own dime, but then they have historically been heavily dependent on Chinese largess to help supplement their defence budget.
Click to expand...

The 054s could be sold to Cambodia via soft loans and this would create a need to backfill the two units within PLAN with 054As, thus keeping the shipyards humming with orders and standardizing the frigate fleet.

However, I do think it's a huge learning curve for the Cambodian Navy to go from patrol craft to frigates but this could be the basis for more Cambodian/Chinese cross-training.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
The largest ships that the Cambodians currently have are patrol boats without any anti-ship missiles, so of course they are going to be impressed with a Type-54 frigate which displaces 4000 tons and has reasonably modern systems.

But China gifting them the Type-54 is just going to be a waste because they won't know what to do with it.

In comparison, 1600ton Type-56 corvettes still represent a huge increase in capability, but are easier for Cambodia to digest.

Plus if China wants to keep its shipyards busy, the Type-56 is less hi-tech than the Type-54, so a higher proportion of the Type-56 cost is composed of shipyard work rather than electronics and weapons systems which are actually produced elsewhere.

The Type-56 also has the advantage that it is already being produced at 4 shipyards, which allows work to be more easily distributed. This includes both the shipyards which are assigned construction of the Type-54, so it shouldn't make any different to them if they receive orders for the Type-54 or Type-56.

But even if China starts providing Type-56s corvettes to Cambodia, this will still take some time.

So it makes sense to give them some of the Type-37 corvettes now. These are being retired early (and therefore not require refurbishment) because of the accelerated introduction of the Type-56. The Type-37 is still twice as large as anything the Cambodians currently have and it actually carries some anti-ship missiles, which will be a new concept for the Cambodian Navy master.

Come to think of it, I'm kind of surprised that China hasn't been gifting more of the older Type-37 Corvettes or Type-53 frigates away.
 
manqiangrexue

manqiangrexue

Brigadier
Why is everyone suggesting China give Cambodia different ships than what they want? They don't have foes; they aren't gonna fight anybody; you don't have to worry about them not using these ships fully. When the man says he wants larger ships to show off, you let him buy the larger ships (054 frigate) that he wants to show off with (assuming he can afford them somehow). You don't tell your customer, "No, man, this is too much ship for you. People like you should get little ships." How would you like it if you wanted to buy a new Ford Mustang and the salesman kept trying to sell you Fiesta? LOL
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top