Future PLAN naval and carrier operations

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Did you forget China's subs? Even one single Argentinian submarine (the San Luis) was enough to hold up the entire RN forces while they hunted for this thing during the Falklands War, and they never did find it. Meanwhile the PLAN has dozens of modern diesel subs that it could string out along the littorals, along with thousands of mines, which incidentally have accounted for more damaged and sunk ships since WWII than any other weapon type. I'm not sure why these should not be seen as existential threats to intruding CSGs. In fact they are such existential threats that the USN will certainly not enter into China's littorals at the outset of conflict, but will wait unless it can deal with these threats first or can arrive with overwhelming forces.

As you said previously, the entire Korean Peninsula is essentially a huge littoral zone for Chinese submarines and aircraft.

The USN would have no choice but to enter this area, unless they wanted to abandon Korea.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Thanks for the clarification, but I am basing my post base on the original post of the original poster who asserts for no viable reason at all that somehow China is going to invade the Korean Peninsular on nothing.
In the potential scenario as you describe above, SK is far from defenseless. PLAAF bases being in striking range (bar bomber AFBs) of SK means the same in return that SK can also strike back, secondly SK can also field its own AIP subs which while less numerous have the advantage of operating from home base and are no less advanced that what China can field, plus SK ASW capabilities are considerable seeing as they have to contend with NK midget subs on a regular basis. China's ballistic missiles will also have to contend with SK ABM defense, while no single ABM system has been really tested, SK's progress and technological prowess have to been considered and given credit in this regard. And SK to also fields it's own short range ballistic missiles which can strike back. The only real thing them back from fielding even longer range missile would be their requirement for tacit approval from the US, a rather flimsy requirement in wartime.
In short what China can do to SK, SK can do back to China barring nuclear exchange. They may not be able to cover the entirety of China, but they can target key nodes in Northern and Eastern China which are potentially critical in China's operations against the US.
" If China stops providing aid, the Kim regime collapses". And if NK collapse, SK will almost certainly move in and the US bases along side with them all the way up to the Yalu river. That is the catch 22 for both China and NK. Both of them rely on each other but at the same time bemoans each other's dependencies so Kim's trips to China can hardly be taken as tokens of submission but rather tacit understandings between the 2 sides. One does not go around purging an ally's carefully cultivated agents and then expect things to go on just fine.
The problem with the idea that Kim would relish an opportunity to control the Korean Peninsular is 2 fold: To stand any chance, NK would need the entire support of China in the endeavor and if that is to happen China is almost certain to assume overall command of how the operation will be conducted. There is no guarantee that China would be so nice as to hand over a hard won peninsular to NK after all is said and done. All matters considering it will be far likelier for China to replace Kim with another figurehead more pliable to China. Not that it is a hard thing to do seeing as Kim's divine image will be all but broken on the outbreak of war.
Mutual understanding rather than absolute trust is what binds NK and China together, which is the same situation between SK and the US.

I'll respond to this, because you don't understand the reasoning.

In a full scale conflict between the USA and China, if the fighting remains a naval-air conflict, China will LOSE as the US redeploys its entire navy and air force to the Western Pacific.

Since China knows this will happen, the Chinese leadership will NOT sit back passively waiting for this. Because if China loses, that leadership faces death or revolution. Same with Fatty Kim, who also realises that he faces death or revolution if China loses.

At that point, China needs a land "victory" against the USA, and the 2nd Infantry Division in Seoul is the only realistic option.

So the only thing that South Korea can offer that will change the minds of the Chinese/NK leadership is a "victory" over the USA.

That would mean the immediate termination of the SK-US security alliance and the full scale use of the South Korean military against the USA.

Since that is not going to happen, South Korea is going to face the full brunt of the combined Chinese and North Korean army. And South Korea knows that it can never "win" in such a land conflict. China does have the world's largest population, army and manufacturing sector, which could build a huge army in a total war situation.

---
In the battle between cheap Chinese ballistic missiles versus expensive SK missile defence, you know who is going to win. Don't even bother bringing it up. On the technology front, note that the NSF reported to congress that in 2019, China will be spending more on R&D than the USA.

---
Yes, China would want overall control of the Korean operation. But China would certainly hand back the Korean peninsula, because it doesn't want the headache of occupation and being seen as a colonial power. All China needs are the air and naval bases (located on the Southern coast of Koarea) which directly threaten Japanese/US bases on the Japanese Home Islands.
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
I'll respond to this, because you don't understand the reasoning.

In a full scale conflict between the USA and China, if the fighting remains a naval-air conflict, China will LOSE as the US redeploys its entire navy and air force to the Western Pacific.

Since China knows this will happen, the Chinese leadership will NOT sit back passively waiting for this. Because if China loses, that leadership faces death or revolution. Same with Fatty Kim, who also realises that he faces death or revolution if China loses.

At that point, China needs a land "victory" against the USA, and the 2nd Infantry Division in Seoul is the only realistic option.

So the only thing that South Korea can offer that will change the minds of the Chinese/NK leadership is a "victory" over the USA.

That would mean the immediate termination of the SK-US security alliance and the full scale use of the South Korean military against the USA.

Since that is not going to happen, South Korea is going to face the full brunt of the combined Chinese and North Korean army. And South Korea knows that it can never "win" in such a land conflict. China does have the world's largest population, army and manufacturing sector, which could build a huge army in a total war situation.

---
In the battle between cheap Chinese ballistic missiles versus expensive SK missile defence, you know who is going to win. Don't even bother bringing it up. On the technology front, note that the NSF reported to congress that in 2019, China will be spending more on R&D than the USA.

---
Yes, China would want overall control of the Korean operation. But China would certainly hand back the Korean peninsula, because it doesn't want the headache of occupation and being seen as a colonial power. All China needs are the air and naval bases (located on the Southern coast of Koarea) which directly threaten Japanese/US bases on the Japanese Home Islands.
This is a joke. It is the classic bad war movie with a seriously contorted plot in which every single choice made by the hero is irrational and ridiculous.

It is also very much an A vs B discussion. Coincidentally, it also happens to have absolutely nothing to do with aircraft carriers.

So why are we continuing with this?
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
It is not like North Korea is putting all its chips with China nowadays. If it was, it would not have gone out of it's way to go nuclear. Nor would Kim have purged all his top officials with links to China.
And how would conquering South Korea help China in it's war ? It does not deprive the US of its ability to operate in the region, it still have bases in Yokosuka, Guam and Okinawa. It does not defeat a major contingent of US assets in the region. South Korea only has 20,000 thousand US soldiers and 0 aircraft carriers or strategic assets.
If China is doomed to lose a naval-air war with the US from the start, invading South Korea will hardly tip the war back to its favour. Worst comes to worse, South Korea can fall and the US can still fight on just as well.
And that fall will not come easy for China, I don't know that it is about people talking about a Korean war rerun, but let us just rerun the figures for once. If China wants to invade South Korea it will have to not only potentially fight North Korea which while weak can still put up a fight or at least be a passive aggressive partner that constantly hampers Chinese operations, it will have to face off against a half million strong army, backed up by one of the largest airforce and navy in the region. The only way China can ensure that it will have a distinct advantage would be if it concentrate a good portion of it's naval-air and land assets in the region, assets that are needed to face off the US. In fact, invading South Korea would result in a spectacular backlash for China at worse, and a meager morale boost at best. Capturing the US 2nd infantry may sound good on the media, but it does not address the issue of US carriers plying the East China Sea, or bombers taking off from Guam or Okinawa.

No, North Korea will wholeheartedly support China, if China decides to fight South Korea.
That is an absolute given, and your scenario where North Korea resists is simply wishful thinking.

Not enough people understand that this is the ruthless logic of regime survival for both China and North Korea. And too many American admirals are ignorant about what would happen.


And so what if South Korea can field a hi-tech army of half a million soldiers? South Korea is a SMALL isolated peninsula whose industrial capacity will be devastated in any war because the entire country is within range of China forces.

I also understand that the dark joke at some of the US-China conferences is that China has an excess male population of 40million. And China does have enough strategic depth and industrial capacity to field an absolutely huge hi-tech army. And that army will bleed US reinforcements and potentially conquer South Korea, given some time.

In that time, we can expect the US to pour in more soldiers/aircraft/ships into the Korean peninsula to prevent the conquest of South Korea by China.

Those aircraft and ships will not be available for operations elsewhere against China, and would have to operate right in the teeth of Chinese A2AD forces on the North Korean coastline. So we would see a rerun of the last Korean War, except that this time, China would have the capacity to win.

So what would be the political impact if say 20,000 US soldiers are marched into prisoner of war camps and become hostages?
The headlines will scream that China has beaten the USA.

And afterwards, most of the Japanese Home Islands are within range of Chinese A2AD forces operating in South Korea.

We would probably see a titanic struggle along the lines of the Napoleonic Wars, where French Army (China) was supreme on land, whilst the British Navy (USA) was supreme on the seas.

It's worth spending some time looking at the Napoleonic Wars and seeing how alliances cracked, neutrality was ignored, and former allies turned on each other.

It's also worth considering if China loses. Then we're looking at a re-run of Imperial Germany capitulating and the rise of Hitler who channelled the people's desire for vengeance.

But consider that this. The US was economically 3x bigger than Nazi Germany. In comparison, it is China that could be economically 3x bigger than the USA.

To repeat again, US Admirals are far too gung-ho about the US winning a war against China.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
This is a joke. It is the classic bad war movie with a seriously contorted plot in which every single choice made by the hero is irrational and ridiculous.

It is also very much an A vs B discussion. Coincidentally, it also happens to have absolutely nothing to do with aircraft carriers.

So why are we continuing with this?

It's not a bad joke. It's history if you look at how previous wars started and ended.

And it is important for us to understand this, when we look at how China could use its aircraft carriers.
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
It's not a bad joke. It's history if you look at how previous wars started and ended.

And it is important for us to understand this, when we look at how China could use its aircraft carriers.
Sorry, but there's nothing in this discussion about how to avoid a war, etc., or even about how such a war has started. But we actually do have a rule against discussions of country A vs country B, as they get heated, ugly and stupid very fast.
 
D

Deleted member 13312

Guest
I'll respond to this, because you don't understand the reasoning.

In a full scale conflict between the USA and China, if the fighting remains a naval-air conflict, China will LOSE as the US redeploys its entire navy and air force to the Western Pacific.

Since China knows this will happen, the Chinese leadership will NOT sit back passively waiting for this. Because if China loses, that leadership faces death or revolution. Same with Fatty Kim, who also realises that he faces death or revolution if China loses.

At that point, China needs a land "victory" against the USA, and the 2nd Infantry Division in Seoul is the only realistic option.

So the only thing that South Korea can offer that will change the minds of the Chinese/NK leadership is a "victory" over the USA.

That would mean the immediate termination of the SK-US security alliance and the full scale use of the South Korean military against the USA.

Since that is not going to happen, South Korea is going to face the full brunt of the combined Chinese and North Korean army. And South Korea knows that it can never "win" in such a land conflict. China does have the world's largest population, army and manufacturing sector, which could build a huge army in a total war situation.

---
In the battle between cheap Chinese ballistic missiles versus expensive SK missile defence, you know who is going to win. Don't even bother bringing it up. On the technology front, note that the NSF reported to congress that in 2019, China will be spending more on R&D than the USA.

---
Yes, China would want overall control of the Korean operation. But China would certainly hand back the Korean peninsula, because it doesn't want the headache of occupation and being seen as a colonial power. All China needs are the air and naval bases (located on the Southern coast of Koarea) which directly threaten Japanese/US bases on the Japanese Home Islands.

I have seldom used the word "stupid" to describe a post, but this one here really warrants it. So basically in order to divert attention away from a bigger lost (IE:Taiwan or the SCS), you are saying that China would initiate a diversion war against SK just to score some potential PR image ? Fat lot that is going to help when the public realized that.
Full scale use of South Korea millitary against the USA ? "Victory" over the USA ? Seriously ? At this point I am starting to think that you are raving here. If you are honestly expecting that SK can be coerce into initiating hostilities against the USA you got more than a few facts lost in your notebook.

The entire gist of your argument can be summed up as such: China can't win against the USA, so China is going to try its luck with SK just so it can look like it "won".
That is the most insane, illogical and ridiculous notion I have seen in a long while. I am not even going to bother with the rest of your post as it is the typical tirade of someone who had drunk the Chinese nationalism Kool-Aid one too many time often.
 

Figaro

Senior Member
Registered Member
I'll respond to this, because you don't understand the reasoning.

In a full scale conflict between the USA and China, if the fighting remains a naval-air conflict, China will LOSE as the US redeploys its entire navy and air force to the Western Pacific.

Since China knows this will happen, the Chinese leadership will NOT sit back passively waiting for this. Because if China loses, that leadership faces death or revolution. Same with Fatty Kim, who also realises that he faces death or revolution if China loses.

At that point, China needs a land "victory" against the USA, and the 2nd Infantry Division in Seoul is the only realistic option.

So the only thing that South Korea can offer that will change the minds of the Chinese/NK leadership is a "victory" over the USA.

That would mean the immediate termination of the SK-US security alliance and the full scale use of the South Korean military against the USA.

Since that is not going to happen, South Korea is going to face the full brunt of the combined Chinese and North Korean army. And South Korea knows that it can never "win" in such a land conflict. China does have the world's largest population, army and manufacturing sector, which could build a huge army in a total war situation.

---
In the battle between cheap Chinese ballistic missiles versus expensive SK missile defence, you know who is going to win. Don't even bother bringing it up. On the technology front, note that the NSF reported to congress that in 2019, China will be spending more on R&D than the USA.

---
Yes, China would want overall control of the Korean operation. But China would certainly hand back the Korean peninsula, because it doesn't want the headache of occupation and being seen as a colonial power. All China needs are the air and naval bases (located on the Southern coast of Koarea) which directly threaten Japanese/US bases on the Japanese Home Islands.
I really hope you’re not being serious right now. Do you seriously think that launching a massive diversionary attack on an otherwise neutral country is going to give the impression of victory? I don’t think the PLA or Chinese citizens will buy into this. Launching such an offensive will only dry the PLA of crucial resources needed for the PLAAF and PLANAF and logistics, not to mention create an international firestorm. The only way China can claim victory is by outright beating the US or pushing the war to a stalemate ... not by launching a ridiculous invasion. This is the reason why China has invested so much in their navy and Air Force and not so much in the ground force.
I have seldom used the word "stupid" to describe a post, but this one here really warrants it. So basically in order to divert attention away from a bigger lost (IE:Taiwan or the SCS), you are saying that China would initiate a diversion war against SK just to score some potential PR image ? Fat lot that is going to help when the public realized that.
Full scale use of South Korea millitary against the USA ? "Victory" over the USA ? Seriously ? At this point I am starting to think that you are raving here. If you are honestly expecting that SK can be coerce into initiating hostilities against the USA you got more than a few facts lost in your notebook.

The entire gist of your argument can be summed up as such: China can't win against the USA, so China is going to try its luck with SK just so it can look like it "won".
That is the most insane, illogical and ridiculous notion I have seen in a long while. I am not even going to bother with the rest of your post as it is the typical tirade of someone who had drunk the Chinese nationalism Kool-Aid one too many time often.
I don’t see how he is “drunk with Chinese nationalism Kool-Aid” ... presenting a far-fetched and unrealistic scenario does not mean Andrew is a ardent Chinese nationalist.
 

Totoro

Major
VIP Professional
Attacking a neutral SK would be counter productive for China. However, attacking a SK which enables US to operate its forces against China from SK soil would be a different matter.
 
I think this is an appropriate double post, I think the recent discussion on this thread actually originated from the thread I am double posting from.

I don't understand what you mean.

When you say "anything other than MOOTW or low intensity operations beyond the 1st island chain" you are effectively saying "high intensity operations beyond 1st island chain," yes?

So when you say that such an idea "is a US construct and projection of colonial powers behavior on China," are you suggesting that China has no need to be capable of conducting such operations?

Indeed I am saying no to both capability and strategy.

Though if you want to debate capability vs intent, I will say that blindly looking at capability is objective to a degree but also out of context to another. The same forces used for an amphibious landing in Taiwan can be used for an amphibious landing in the Philippines, but China is not going to do the latter. The same forces used for an escorted/secured evacuation of citizens from say a civil war in Africa can be used for an intervention in that civil war but China is not going to do the latter.

Well there is power projection and then there is power projection.

One one hand, you can talk about power projection from China to more distant regions of the world like the IOR, or around MENA.

On the other hand, there is also "closer" power projection from China that can be done beyond the first island chain and second island chain, eastwards, say to Hawaii.

Agreed, in that I am saying China's carriers are intended for deterrence even closer to home, to maintain a conventional MAD balance with mainland Japan and perhaps also needed for South Korea to prevent their intervention or escalation in any scenario that does not directly involve them, such as a Taiwan scenario.

Again as above, the same carrier forces or capability that is required for China to reliably hold eastern Japan at risk in any conflict may be very similar to one for an attack on northern Australia but China is not going to do the latter. However such capability is far from what it would take to hold for example the US west coast at risk in any conflict.

Closer homeland defense will of course take up Chinese resources and capabilities, but the way I see it is as Chinese military capabilities grow, the amount of resources or capabilities they will need to satisfactorily conduct the homeland defense mission will reduce, and that will free up more resources to invest in higher end and longer range scenarios beyond the first island chain in the western pacific.

Keep in mind that "high intensity westpac" missions by extension is an euphemism for a conflict against the US and their allies.
The idea that my previous post was trying to convey, is that in the long term China will likely seek the capabilities to rapidly and effectively strike and neutralize many regional bases and staging areas and other assets in short order (i.e.: having the ability to "dominate" within the first island chain), and then after that is done, to have the ability to more freely deploy into the overall western pacific to face the forces that the US may seek to deploy against China at longer distances away from the Chinese mainland.

Fair enough but I don't think that will be the driver for long distance Chinese carrier deployment into the Pacific towards the US. The driver is Chinese inability or inconfidence in maintaining land based or home territory/periphery based nuclear MAD deterrence with the US, thereby necessitating it to further develop, deploy, and escort the naval and air legs of its nuclear triad to be in closer range and more confident delivery to the US mainland. THAAD deployment in South Korea as well as the ABM and ASW capabilities of US and allied naval forces no doubt pushed China in this direction. Though it involves expeditionary forces this is actually part of homeland defense.
 
Top