China's SCS Strategy Thread

OppositeDay

Senior Member
Registered Member
It is one thing to interdict ships, quite another to start slinging missiles at a country. In the open sea, the U.S. navy is unchallenged. The Chinese have missiles that will fire back in case they are attacked. The U.S., with our bases around China, are vulnerable to the same attacks. The escalation path is also much shorter if you start slinging missiles.

Ballistic missiles maybe. I'd consider drone strikes with cruise missiles fairly low on the escalation ladder. Definitely much lower than a naval blockade. Imagine instead of Houthis launching drone attacks on Saudi oil infrastructures, Iran somehow managed to blockade Saudi Arabia's ports. Drone strikes can remain on the limited conflict level, a naval blockade is an act of full-scale war.
 
Last edited:

reservior dogs

Junior Member
Registered Member
Ballistic missiles maybe. I'd consider drone strikes with cruise missiles fairly low on the escalation ladder. Definitely much lower than a naval blockade. Imagine instead of Houthis launching drone attacks on Saudi oil infrastructures, Iran somehow managed to blockade Saudi Arabia's ports. Drone strikes can remain on the limited conflict level, a naval blockade is an act of full-scale war.
What, so the Chinese don't have any cruise missiles that they can launch? Anytime a missile of any kind is launched, U.S. bases in the region, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, will be at risk. I realize a blockade is war, but different wars have different consequences. When you bomb oil pipelines on the ground that belong to Iran or Pakistan or China, it is much easier for them to retaliate in kind. The Saudis have pipelines. Please note that I am not advocating a blockade, I was merely commenting that a blockade is, in practical terms, no longer an option for the U.S.
 

gelgoog

Brigadier
Registered Member
China has plenty of capacity in terms of oil pipeline transport from Russia, Central Asia, Pakistan, Myanmar, etc.
It would be enough to run the military and essential transport services.
As more and more vehicles go electric the requirement for oil transport decreases.

However the whole idea of the Pakistan pipeline is to transport oil from the Middle East. For this it currently relies on ship traffic from the Persian Gulf which might need to be protected by the Chinese Navy in case of conflict. An alternative would be a Iran-Pakistan oil pipeline. This has been talked about for decades but the US and the Saudis never allowed it to happen.
 

B.I.B.

Captain
The Brits are coming the Brits are coming

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and for our Mr T he can play this while reading the article


This time next year, if all goes according to plans currently being drawn up by the United Kingdom’s Ministry of Defense, the Royal Navy (RN) will have deployed its biggest flotilla of warships to Asia in a generation.

The carrier strike group (CSG) will be led by the RN’s largest ever warship, the $3.9 billion, 65,000-ton aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth. The carrier will embark a squadron of Royal Air Force F-35B fighter jets as well as a squadron of U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) F-35Bs. The Queen Elizabeth will be accompanied by approximately nine to 10 other warships, a mix of destroyers, frigates, support ships and submarines, possibly including a vessel from a NATO ally. A
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
recently took place off Scotland.

The flotilla will visit Southeast Asia, almost certainly calling in at Changi Naval Base in Singapore. It may also participate in naval activities to mark the 50th anniversary of the Five Power Defense Arrangements (FPDA), the military alliance that links the U.K. with Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, and New Zealand. It will sail through the South China Sea — probably participating in combined exercises with warships from the U.S., Japan, and Australia — inevitably raising China’s ire. The CSG may then move on to Japan, calling in at ports along the way. After the five to six month deployment the flotilla will return to the U.K.

Although the mission has elicited much interest in the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, it is the Queen Elizabeth’s future activities, and those of her sister ship HMS Prince of Wales (due to become operational in 2023), that are more intriguing. For the RN’s top brass has indicated that they would like to see the carriers spend a good deal of their working lives in the Indo-Pacific regio

At a webinar hosted by the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in July, Vice Admiral Jerry Kyd, the RN’s fleet commander, described aircraft carriers as a “metaphor for a nation-state that intends to be relevant on the global stage at the strategic level.” Carriers can, he said, fulfill a number of missions including strategic messaging, power projection, naval diplomacy and trade promotion.

Kyd noted that while the Euro-Atlantic remains Britain’s center of strategic gravity, especially given the threat posed by a resurgent Russia, the RN was “coming back” to the Indo-Pacific and that “our ambition is to be absolutely persistent and be forward there, maybe with a carrier strike group or maybe not.”

Kyd’s comments are broadly consistent with British policy. Following the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union in 2016, the ruling Conservative Party has promoted the vision of a “
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
” that includes a bigger military footprint in the Indo-Pacific.

Between 2018 and 2020, the RN sent five warships to Asia. Each of those warships sailed through the South China Sea, and one of them, HMS Albion, conducted a U.S.-style freedom of navigation operation (FONOP) in the Paracel Islands in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. The U.K. believes that freedom of navigation is one of the central pillars of the rules-based international order and is
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to upholding it. In September, Britain joined with France and Germany in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the 2016 arbitral tribunal’s ruling on the South China Sea, which dismissed China’s nine-dash line claims as being incompatible with UNCLOS. A persistence British naval presence in Asia would help support freedom of navigation rights in the South China Sea.

A Persistent Presence

But what exactly is a persistent presence and how might it be achieved?

Although we will have a much clearer of idea of London’s strategic intentions toward the Indo-Pacific when the government publishes its Integrated Security, Defense, and Foreign Policy Review later this year, some informed speculation is possible.

The word “persistent” is deliberate: persistent means over a prolonged period of time, but not necessarily permanent.

The idea of permanently deploying a British CSG to the region is not realistic. At some point, the Queen Elizabeth will have to go in for an extensive refit, leaving the Prince of Wales as the U.K.’s only operational carrier. And because of the importance of the Euro-Atlantic, it will have to be based in the U.K. Similarly, when the Prince of Wales is in refit, the Queen Elizabeth must remain in Britain.

Moreover, the costs associated with deploying more than a third of the RN’s ships permanently overseas is prohibitive, particularly at a time when the U.K. is facing its worst economic crisis in 300 years due to the pandemic and the economic uncertainties of Brexit at the end of this year – especially if Britain and the EU fail to conclude a trade deal

British public opinion would also be against the idea. Naval bases employ thousands of people, and a time of rising unemployment in Britain, people would question why their taxes are being spent on hiring foreign workers rather than British ones.

“Persistent” suggests the RN envisages a U.K. CSG deploying to the Indo-Pacific once a year or, more realistically, every other year. It is possible, however, that a RN frigate or destroyer could be forward deployed to Asia on a more permanent basis. This model is already being used by the British navy in
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
where HMS Montrose is currently based for three years.

Where in the Indo-Pacific?

Where would be a good temporary home for a British CSG in the Indo-Pacific?

Southeast Asia is one option. Singapore and Brunei would be at the top of Britain’s list for historical reasons and because of the extensive defense links between the U.K. and those two countries. Of the two, Singapore would be the more logical choice because the RN already maintains a naval logistics facility in Singapore in support of the FPDA and because of the excellent facilities at Changi Naval Base.

Australia would be another option, especially Darwin in the Northern Territories.

However, indications are that the RN’s favored location is Japan. There are at least three reasons for that preference.

First, Britain’s closest ally, the United States, maintains a large naval base at Yokosuka in Kanagawa prefecture. The U.S. 7th Fleet is based there, including the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan. British warships regularly visit Yokosuka for maintenance and crew rest, including HMS Albion in 2018. In the IISS webinar, Kyd suggested that U.K. F-35Bs could be supported by the United States from its “hub” in Japan. In addition to Yokosuka, that could also include Sasebo where the U.S. bases the USS America, a 45,000 ton amphibious assault ship that also embarks USMC F-35Bs. As the America is the closest vessel the U.S. Navy has to the Queen Elizabeth there are obvious synergies in having the two vessels working alongside each other.
 

B.I.B.

Captain
Part2


Second, an RN carrier in Japan would help strengthen Japanese-U.K. strategic ties. In 2017 the two countries
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on a three-year defense cooperation plan. The U.K. is next in line after Australia to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a status of forces agreement with Japan that would provide the legal framework for British military personnel to be present in the country.

Third, a British naval flotilla in Japan would help improve interoperability among the navies of the U.K., the U.S. and Japan, something the three countries have already
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to work towards. The U.S. and U.K. armed forces already operate F-35Bs, and Japan
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to purchase 42 of the short take-off and vertical landing aircraft for use aboard its two helicopter carriers JS Izumo and JS Kaga once they have been
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Naval pilots could train together and share best practices.

The Hurdles to a British Naval Presence in Japan

While these three reasons are compelling, a persistent British naval presence in Japan would face significant hurdles.

The first hurdle, as noted earlier, would be the sheer cost of forward deploying a fleet of British warships to Japan for an extended period of time, even if Washington and Tokyo agreed to defray some of those costs.

The second hurdle consists of logistical issues. The U.S. naval base at Yokosuka is quite crowded, and although the British carriers are smaller than their American counterparts (the Reagan has a crew of 5,000 while the Queen Elizabeth embarks only 1,600 personnel) space would still be at a premium. A new pier could be built, but that would cost a few hundred million dollars.

An alternative would be to use the Japanese navy’s side of Yokosuka, or even base the British carrier at another naval base in Japan such as Kure in Hiroshima prefecture where the JS Kaga is home ported. Finding an airfield for the RN’s F-35Bs to park while the carrier is in port would be an additional logistical problem, as would housing 1,600 sailors plus hundreds of support staff

The third, and perhaps most significant, hurdle would be securing the support of the Japanese government, which in turn would depend in large part on public opinion. The Japanese government has not publicly stated its views on a British naval presence in the country, though it is keen for closer bilateral relations all round and recently concluded a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with the U.K. However, the issue of siting military forces – both Japanese and foreign – has always been a controversial one with the Japanese public. In June, for example, the Japanese government was forced to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the deployment of land-based Aegis systems due to local opposition. How they would feel about a British naval presence – even a temporary one – remains unclear. But it is highly unlikely that Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide would risk his premiership for the sake of the U.K.’s Indo-Pacific naval ambitions.

Another problem – not necessarily a hurdle – would be the negative reaction from China. The Chinese government was furious with Britain over the Albion FONOP, and has
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the U.K. that basing an aircraft carrier in Asia would be a “very dangerous move.” Britain’s relations with China have recently deteriorated significantly over Huawei and Hong Kong, calling into question a post-Brexit free trade agreement between the two countries. A persistent U.K. naval presence in Asia would be another source of contention in Sino-British relations.

None of these hurdles are insurmountable. Logistical problems could be overcome, but that would require significant financial outlays, something the U.K. will find quite onerous in its present dire economic state, even if the Americans and Japanese agreed to help shoulder the costs. Equally problematic, perhaps even more so, will be for London to persuade Tokyo of the merits of a British naval presence, and for the Japanese government to persuade the public that it is in their interests too. As China steps up its assertive actions in the South and East China Seas, they may not take much persuasion.

Ian Storey is a senior fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore.
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
Part2


Second, an RN carrier in Japan would help strengthen Japanese-U.K. strategic ties. In 2017 the two countries
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
on a three-year defense cooperation plan. The U.K. is next in line after Australia to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
a status of forces agreement with Japan that would provide the legal framework for British military personnel to be present in the country.

Third, a British naval flotilla in Japan would help improve interoperability among the navies of the U.K., the U.S. and Japan, something the three countries have already
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to work towards. The U.S. and U.K. armed forces already operate F-35Bs, and Japan
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to purchase 42 of the short take-off and vertical landing aircraft for use aboard its two helicopter carriers JS Izumo and JS Kaga once they have been
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. Naval pilots could train together and share best practices.

The Hurdles to a British Naval Presence in Japan

While these three reasons are compelling, a persistent British naval presence in Japan would face significant hurdles.

The first hurdle, as noted earlier, would be the sheer cost of forward deploying a fleet of British warships to Japan for an extended period of time, even if Washington and Tokyo agreed to defray some of those costs.

The second hurdle consists of logistical issues. The U.S. naval base at Yokosuka is quite crowded, and although the British carriers are smaller than their American counterparts (the Reagan has a crew of 5,000 while the Queen Elizabeth embarks only 1,600 personnel) space would still be at a premium. A new pier could be built, but that would cost a few hundred million dollars.

An alternative would be to use the Japanese navy’s side of Yokosuka, or even base the British carrier at another naval base in Japan such as Kure in Hiroshima prefecture where the JS Kaga is home ported. Finding an airfield for the RN’s F-35Bs to park while the carrier is in port would be an additional logistical problem, as would housing 1,600 sailors plus hundreds of support staff

The third, and perhaps most significant, hurdle would be securing the support of the Japanese government, which in turn would depend in large part on public opinion. The Japanese government has not publicly stated its views on a British naval presence in the country, though it is keen for closer bilateral relations all round and recently concluded a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
with the U.K. However, the issue of siting military forces – both Japanese and foreign – has always been a controversial one with the Japanese public. In June, for example, the Japanese government was forced to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the deployment of land-based Aegis systems due to local opposition. How they would feel about a British naval presence – even a temporary one – remains unclear. But it is highly unlikely that Prime Minister Suga Yoshihide would risk his premiership for the sake of the U.K.’s Indo-Pacific naval ambitions.

Another problem – not necessarily a hurdle – would be the negative reaction from China. The Chinese government was furious with Britain over the Albion FONOP, and has
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the U.K. that basing an aircraft carrier in Asia would be a “very dangerous move.” Britain’s relations with China have recently deteriorated significantly over Huawei and Hong Kong, calling into question a post-Brexit free trade agreement between the two countries. A persistent U.K. naval presence in Asia would be another source of contention in Sino-British relations.

None of these hurdles are insurmountable. Logistical problems could be overcome, but that would require significant financial outlays, something the U.K. will find quite onerous in its present dire economic state, even if the Americans and Japanese agreed to help shoulder the costs. Equally problematic, perhaps even more so, will be for London to persuade Tokyo of the merits of a British naval presence, and for the Japanese government to persuade the public that it is in their interests too. As China steps up its assertive actions in the South and East China Seas, they may not take much persuasion.

Ian Storey is a senior fellow at the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, Singapore.

I still don't understand why would the Brits want to be in the Indo-Pacific? British navy is pretty weak and small now. What can they afford to put in Indo-pacific, especially when China and Russia and growing closer every day? China is a ship building power house. Why would the Brits risk having to maintain such a long supply line far away from the UK against the PLAN which is already a lot stronger than the UK and growing a speed that leaves the UK in the dust? I think this would be dangerous for the RN, because they will very likely be facing a much much stronger combined Airforce and Naval force of the PLA right at the foot steps of China. And at the same time, such a provocation will drive China to actively help Russia with its naval ship building capabilities. The absence of a significant portion of the RN in Europe will also give Russian navy an opportunity to expand her naval sphere of influence in the Europe.
 

B.I.B.

Captain
I still don't understand why would the Brits want to be in the Indo-Pacific? British navy is pretty weak and small now. What can they afford to put in Indo-pacific, especially when China and Russia and growing closer every day? China is a ship building power house. Why would the Brits risk having to maintain such a long supply line far away from the UK against the PLAN which is already a lot stronger than the UK and growing a speed that leaves the UK in the dust? I think this would be dangerous for the RN, because they will very likely be facing a much much stronger combined Airforce and Naval force of the PLA right at the foot steps of China. And at the same time, such a provocation will drive China to actively help Russia with its naval ship building capabilities. The absence of a significant portion of the RN in Europe will also give Russian navy an opportunity to expand her naval sphere of influence in the Europe.

I think I read it here where somebody wrote something along the lines "Britain is like a 90 year old beauty Queen. Full of fond memories but with little future prospects" Perhaps someone at Whitehall thinks differently.
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
I think I read it here where somebody wrote something along the lines "Britain is like a 90 year old beauty Queen. Full of fond memories but with little future prospects" Perhaps someone at Whitehall thinks differently.

Okey, if that's what they want to do, humiliation will be inevitably coming to them. I guess you can't argue with the crazy.

But it is an interest topic to talk about, in foreign policy and geostrategy. I thought it would be better for the Brits to get chumming up to India instead. Combine the British naval shipbuilding industry/technology with that of India, and seek to exert influence in the Middle East. Trust me, the Brits would have much better chance against China, if they actually stay a bit further away from China, but harass China's trade route in the Indian Ocean that is more out of the immediate reach of the air power of the PLA.
 

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
Okey, if that's what they want to do, humiliation will be inevitably coming to them. I guess you can't argue with the crazy.

But it is an interest topic to talk about, in foreign policy and geostrategy. I thought it would be better for the Brits to get chumming up to India instead. Combine the British naval shipbuilding industry/technology with that of India, and seek to exert influence in the Middle East. Trust me, the Brits would have much better chance against China, if they actually stay a bit further away from China, but harass China's trade route in the Indian Ocean that is more out of the immediate reach of the air power of the PLA.
Hi jimmyjames30x30,

Do you think the British will go in bed with Indians:cool:.... hehehe like B.I.B had mention even with a 90 year old beauty Queen the Indian will not let it pass.....;););).
 

jimmyjames30x30

Junior Member
Registered Member
Hi jimmyjames30x30,

Do you think the British will go in bed with Indians:cool:.... hehehe like B.I.B had mention even with a 90 year old beauty Queen the Indian will not let it pass.....;););).

In my opinion, I think the only reason the Indians took an dignified and con-compliant stance to wooing by the West (especially Britain and the USA) before now, is because the Indians had great confidence in USSR and Russia. India-USSR(Russia) bond was very strong, this gave the Indians the backings that allowed them to afford being "arrogant" and "haughty" towards the West. But I guess today's India is losing faith in Russia's ability or intent to back up India. This puts India in a place where they will need to find a new "Big-Brother". Right now it is pretty obvious that the USA is India's desired "Big-Brother". If the UK want to distance herself from the Mainland Europe, and stick closer to the US, the UK could try to be "help" India for the US, this could take of some weight and resources the US would much rather save for other things.
 
Top