052C/052D Class Destroyers

Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
vesicles said:
I too hope that the US and China become allies and share common interests. Believe me, as a Chinese American, it is in my personal interests that China and the US are on best terms with each other.

With that said, I don't think the US and China will be allies, ever. At least not in the near future. Why? Like abc123 said elegantly above, "There can't be two sheriffs in town". The US has so much interests in East Asia, which happens to be China's backyard. To avoid conflict, we got 3 options: 1) China moves out of Asia (and wanders in the desert for 40 years?); 2) China backs down and submits to the US; 3) the US backs down.

Option 1 won't work, assuming Lex Luthor doesn't find enough Kryptonite and create new land out of the ocean. Even then, there would be no guarantee that majority of Chinese will want to move. Keep in mind that we are under the assumption that China will be a democratic society by then. My experience is that no one wants to move, especially when that piece of land has been your home for 5000 years...

Option 2 might work if China is still an authoritarian government, where a few elites decide the fate of the entire nation. In a democratic society, I can't see how majority of the Chinese people would be willing to submit to anyone else in their own backyard. It would be suicidal for any Chinese government domestically. Any democratically elected Chinese leader who does such thing will be impeached and kicked out of office immediately. Just imagine what would happen to a US president who submits to Mexico...

Option 3? This option seems to be the least damaging for both nations. Most Americans don't even care about Asia (heck, many Americans don't even know where Asia is). However, I don't see how and why the US would willingly back down and play second fiddle in East Asia without a fight. The US has so much interests in Asia that it would be unimaginable to back out and give them up...

Thus, the US and China are bound to lock horns in the near future. My only hope is that the horn-locking stays in "strategic partner / competitor" stage.
Click to expand...
Trump outlined an interested-based foreign policy, and it opens up Option 4: Sino-American co-leadership of Asia. It may take the form of US-China collusion in a G-2 format, or a Concert of Asia involving the four great powers US, China, India, and Japan. Asia is too important to the US, which is a Pacific Nation, so for the foreseeable future, there's no chance US will simply walk away.

Mods- please move this post to Strategy section, there's no option for me to do that.
 
kwaigonegin

kwaigonegin

Colonel
I agree with all the assessments thus far. 2 sheriffs in town never ever works. SEA and WestPAC are just too important for the US to just walk way and obviously China is not going anywhere.
The best we can hope for is akin to a marriage where each spouse compromises and takes certain responsibilities for the sake of the marriage/family.
The question is who is willing to be the wife? Or the husband?
These are extremely important and crucial times and we will have to see how the Trump administration tackles this issue and the response to the balance of power or more specifically the shifting in the balance of power.
There is no doubt China's influence will grow in the coming years/decades and the US likely diminishes.
On a practical standpoint we need very clear and defined SOP and so do the Chinese. Channels must always be open including backdoor channels if it ever comes to that. The Trump admin MUST engaged China in setting a clear set or rules that both parties must abide to. Any misunderstandings or assumptions will lead to undesired outcomes.
Chest beatings and posturing will not work.
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Blackstone said:
Lots of evidence on PLAN modernization, training, and growth, but what do you mean when you say PLAN has arrived in blue water? If it's sustained low-intensity operations far from home, like Gulf of Aden anti-piracy missions, then yes. But, if it's sustaining high-intensity operations outside the first island chain, then publicly available information say PLAN currently isn't capable of it.
Click to expand...

If PLAN isn't a "blue water navy" at this point, then I don't think you could say that any but the United States Navy is.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Lethe said:
If PLAN isn't a "blue water navy" at this point, then I don't think you could say that any but the United States Navy is.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean I think a significant component for judging blue water navy is the number of blue water capable warships and replenishment ships they have, and in those dimensions the China Navy is probably quite convincingly second in the world. Even if it is well below the USN in that regard, it compares very favourably to other navies that are often thought of as blue water -- Marine Nationale, Royal Navy etc. Even in terms of blue water operation competency aboard the warships, I'm sure they've learned substantially from 2008/9 and are at least competent in the the standard blue water requirements most blue water capable navies engage in like underway replenishment, maintaining the ships themselves for long duration deployments etc.

The difference is that China doesn't (yet) have any ports around the world that they are able to reliably resupply from and associated airfields that they can deploy aircraft to support more complex naval operations from.
Another difference is that China has more pressing security concerns closer to its immediate periphery meaning the proportion of blue water capable warships and replenishment ships they send for blue water missions during routine operations is smaller than that of other blue water capable navies like that of France and UK.


So I think we should differentiate between the Chinese Navy being a blue water capable navy (one very much capable of deploying a significant naval force to blue water but chooses not to due to confounding security/geopolitical requirements) vs being a blue water navy (one which is currently deploying a significant naval force to blue water).
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Lethe said:
If PLAN isn't a "blue water navy" at this point, then I don't think you could say that any but the United States Navy is.
Click to expand...
Quite frankly, I don't really know what constitutes true blue water navies. I mean if it's a force capable of sustained combat and power projection operations anytime anywhere in the world, then there's only one navy in the world that could do it. However, if a blue water navy means one that can perform combat operations and power projections hundreds or thousands of miles form home for a short time, then PLAN fits the description.

My definition of a true blue water navy is the gold standard: The United States Navy. What's yours?
 
I

Iron Man

Major
Registered Member
Blackstone said:
Quite frankly, I don't really know what constitutes true blue water navies. I mean if it's a force capable of sustained combat and power projection operations anytime anywhere in the world, then there's only one navy in the world that could do it. However, if a blue water navy means one that can perform combat operations and power projections hundreds or thousands of miles form home for a short time, then PLAN fits the description.

My definition of a true blue water navy is the gold standard: The United States Navy. What's yours?
Click to expand...
"Sustained" in your case is a weasel word. Sustained for how long? Since you apparently get to decide, you can make the bar as high or as low as you want to include or exclude any navy outside of the USN. The PLAN now has the replenishment capability to sustain a naval presence anywhere in the world indefinitely at this point, but it would only constitute a small rotating naval force of a few ships at the most. It would certainly satisfy the definition you just posted here, though I'm sure you'll demand the force to be larger or you'll think up something else I'm sure.
 
Blackstone

Blackstone

Brigadier
Iron Man said:
"Sustained" in your case is a weasel word. Sustained for how long? Since you apparently get to decide, you can make the bar as high or as low as you want to include or exclude any navy outside of the USN. The PLAN now has the replenishment capability to sustain a naval presence anywhere in the world indefinitely at this point, but it would only constitute a small rotating naval force of a few ships at the most. It would certainly satisfy the definition you just posted here, though I'm sure you'll demand the force to be larger or you'll think up something else I'm sure.
Click to expand...
Your criticism of my choice of "sustained" phrasing is offbase. I regularly read SDF, so I'm aware PLAN has greatly improved replenishment capabilities, and has trained vigorously in recent years to both develop and refine all maritime capabilities. Nevertheless, sustained combat operations isn't a one-sided affair, because the other side gets a vote to prolong, pulse, or end the conflict. Therefore, rational discussions on the topic must be either cover specific cases for set time periods, or be vague to cover more cases. In that context, what's the definition of "sustained" operations ability? I don't know, so I use the unclassified 2016 Pentagon report to Congress on the PLA as one reference, and it said PLAN can't sustain combat operations far from its shores today, but it's working hard to improve it. Occasional references from official Chinese sources posted here on SDF pretty much say the same thing.
 
AlyxMS

AlyxMS

Junior Member
Registered Member
Meanwhile in a recently closed thread, we have 20 pages of people arguing about semantics.

To avoid that ever happening again.
Let's just move the **** on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top