PRC/PLA 2015 Victory Parade Thread

[Blitzo]

Well it all started with making bold claims that Chinese missiles can be track on the ground in a large country like China. Everything else I've pointed to is also bold claims. I used Kosovo as an example of how hard it is to track what's on the ground even with all of NATO's advanced technology. The F-22 also went through the hype and disputed by their own that stealth wasn't as invincible after all in order to counter Russian and Chinese stealth developments. They said that underwater drone was spying on Chinese submarines. I thought Seawolves were doing that as hyped. It's irrelevant what other possible uses for that underwater drone. Seawolves were already and more capable of doing that job being as undetectable as hyped. They say Seawolves and other US subs are following Chinese subs every step of the way. If that's true they don't need that drone. If they need it it's because there's a limitation that falls short of the hype to what they can do with those subs. Of course the media might be misrepresenting the facts but a lot people believe in their spin and that's what I'm arguing against. Yeah the drone angle isn't confirmed like the others, but it smells like the same hype if you believe Seawolves are stalking Chinese subs every step of the way.

So is your argument is that the media narrative surrounding these military topics which try to depict China as having drastically inferior capabilities are inaccurate and overhyped?

Because I agree with you there; I do think the media narrative often isn't accurate and they build hype and spin, but I disagree with some of your individual premises, specifically that about the UUV.

There's no reason why they could not use UUVs to conduct surveillance alongside SSNs (and for goodness' sake, there are more SSNs outside only the Seawolf class), nor do we know if the UUV was only undergoing testing or maybe if it only conducts a certain type of surveillance while SSNs conduct other types (or any other possible plausible reason why it is there), so the presence of the UUV says nothing about whether SSNs are able to conduct surveillance missions in the past, present, or future.

 

[JsCh]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

An image from China’s high-resolution geological mapping satellite Ziyuan 3 shows incredible details of the V-Day parade in Beijing on September 3, 2015. The images were released by China Centre for Resources Satellite Data and Application (CRESDA)on September 6,2015. [Photo: Xinhua]

 

[plawolf]

I think there is a distinct and important difference between whether someone can do something, and if they are indeed doing it.

China has a very long coastline, so I think it stands to reason that USN subs would be able to penetrate it at certain points.

The key question is whether they can penetrate Chinese waters undetected at the truly important parts of China's coast, places like PLAN naval and sub bases etc. I do not think we have enough information to definitively know the answer to that question at present. Not even the USN or PLAN may truly know to be honest.

The USN undoubtedly believe they possess such a capability, but would they be allowed to actually test it unknowing the consequences if they are discovered and caught?

If the PLAN detected an intruding USN sub inside Chinese territorial waters submerged and unannounced, they will be fully within their rights to force it to surface, board it and impound it. If the sub refuses to surface or tries to run or fight, they will be perfectly within their rights to sink it and no one would be able to blame them or complain with any justification or conviction.

Would the USN risk that just to test China's defences?

You need to bare in mind that since Chinese naval technology is improving so fast, even if you managed to do this, say 5 years ago, there is no guarantee you will be able to do it again now.

As such, unless hostilities are imminent, there seems to be little value in one-off penetration tests unless you decide to make it a regular thing.

That however, carries its own risk, since statistically speaking even if individually the chances of detection are very small, the more times you try it, the more likely it is that one day the unlikely will happen.

Detection isn't the only risk, simple mechanical failure or accidents could prove disastrous if they should occur while a sub is conducting illegal operations in someone else's territorial waters. There is also the chance or running into undetectable anti-submarine nets the PLAN might have set up, or just random bad luck that sees a Sub's screws get tangled in fishing nets, collide with an uncharted wreck etc.

Because of all of this, regular illegal intrusions into Chinese waters just seems like a silly and pointless gamble that risks much for little gain.

That is probably why the Americans are using drones instead.

Had they been sending in manned subs, that Chinese fisherman might have managed a far bigger catch that day.

 

[Blitzo]

Because of all of this, regular illegal intrusions into Chinese waters just seems like a silly and pointless gamble that risks much for little gain.

That is probably why the Americans are using drones instead.

Had they been sending in manned subs, that Chinese fisherman might have managed a far bigger catch that day.

I agree with most of your points such as the risk of sending in manned submarines for close in surveillance, but I would still say that I think the drone itself is not necessarily evidence of what USN undersea surveillance of China's coast is like. We don't know what kind of surveillance the drone was conducting, whether it was on a sort of trial run, and what stage of replacing surveillance missions of manned submarines it is at for the USN (if any).
(And I know you're jesting; but obviously catching a small unmanned drone that had malfunctioned or burnt out past its expiry date is quite similar to happening upon a crewed SSN, and factors which may have caused the drone to be caught may not necessarily occur for an SSN)

Ultimately the part of your post where you talk about not knowing how good Chinese ASW stacks up against USN submarines is the most reflective of the present situation, so I'd say that if Chinese ASW was abysmal against USN SSNs, then they would probably be quite willing to risk conducting very close in surveillance. It might not necessarily be within territorial waters, but within EEZ is not out of reality.

 

[plawolf]

We don't know what kind of surveillance the drone was conducting, whether it was on a sort of trial run, and what stage of replacing surveillance missions of manned submarines it is at for the USN (if any).

The USN has the lion share of two oceans to run trials and tests, so it makes zero sense for them to come all the way to the Chinese coast to conduct trials.

By its very nature, you only need to run trials if the system is not yet fully developed and that there are still potentially problems and bugs to be resolved and ironed out.

In that case, you have to expect something to go wrong, so you want as much control over the testing grounds as possible to monitor progress and recover the asset if it breaks down. Doing trials in someone else's waters makes no sense.

Since that drone was caught close off the Chinese coast, I think its safe to say it was on an actual mission rather than running mere trials and tests.

(And I know you're jesting; but obviously catching a small unmanned drone that had malfunctioned or burnt out past its expiry date is quite similar to happening upon a crewed SSN, and factors which may have caused the drone to be caught may not necessarily occur for an SSN)

The drone may have malfunctioned, but again, since I expect it to have been deployed on a mission, it should not have been anywhere close to past its expiry date.

It was almost certainly just unlucky, and was in the wrong place at the wrong time when a fishing boat cast its nets.

That neatly illustrates my point that for all the technological advantages the USN might possess, they cannot plan for and prepare against random chance.

A fishing boat is never going to actually haul an SSN out of the water in its nets, but those nets could do a good job of disabling said SSN by getting caught and tangled in its props/pumpjets. If that happened inside Chinese territorial waters, then that SSN is well and truly screwed (pun intended) irrespective of what actual level of ASW capabilities the PLAN might possess.

Military operations should only be undertaken for good, specific causes, and not done simply because one could.

As such, I would expect that USN subs might risk detection and slip into Chinese territorial waters for specific high value missions, such as to tap underwater cables or to try and tail a new Chinese sub, but routine incursions seems like a needless and pointless risk irrespective of how likely or unlikely detection might be.

I pretty much take it for granted that USN SSNs would be operating routinely inside China's EEZ, but I would be very surprised if they should dare to routinely do the same with regards to Chinese territorial waters.

If China detected an USN SSN lurking inside its EEZ waters, there isn't a great deal they could do about it, and may in fact choose to pretend that they did not know it was there to lure the Americans into a false sense of security and superiority during peace time so they could be caught out if hostilities ever breaks out, that would be classic Art of War stuff.

Territorial waters is an entire different matter, and I do not think the PLAN would hesitate at all in trying to capture or even sink any foreign SSN it catches inside its territorial waters.

So, if the USN routinely violates Chinese territorial waters, then their subs are indeed as quiet as they would like to think, and China's ASW capabilities are simply not up to scratch.

However, if the USN is basing their sense of invulnerability only on their activities inside China's EEZ and the PLAN's lack of responses to those said activities, there is a chance they might be in for a rude surprise if hostilities breaks out for real.

But as wit almost everything to do with that shadowy world, we simply do not have anywhere close to enough information to be able to form any sort of reasoned conclusion.

 

[Blitzo]

The USN has the lion share of two oceans to run trials and tests, so it makes zero sense for them to come all the way to the Chinese coast to conduct trials.

By its very nature, you only need to run trials if the system is not yet fully developed and that there are still potentially problems and bugs to be resolved and ironed out.

In that case, you have to expect something to go wrong, so you want as much control over the testing grounds as possible to monitor progress and recover the asset if it breaks down. Doing trials in someone else's waters makes no sense.

Since that drone was caught close off the Chinese coast, I think its safe to say it was on an actual mission rather than running mere trials and tests.

I was thinking more like "operational trials," or trialing a new capability in a real world mission environment, without the asset itself being in wide scale use through the USN's orbat.

The drone may have malfunctioned, but again, since I expect it to have been deployed on a mission, it should not have been anywhere close to past its expiry date.

It was almost certainly just unlucky, and was in the wrong place at the wrong time when a fishing boat cast its nets.

That neatly illustrates my point that for all the technological advantages the USN might possess, they cannot plan for and prepare against random chance.

A fishing boat is never going to actually haul an SSN out of the water in its nets, but those nets could do a good job of disabling said SSN by getting caught and tangled in its props/pumpjets. If that happened inside Chinese territorial waters, then that SSN is well and truly screwed (pun intended) irrespective of what actual level of ASW capabilities the PLAN might possess.

Military operations should only be undertaken for good, specific causes, and not done simply because one could.

As such, I would expect that USN subs might risk detection and slip into Chinese territorial waters for specific high value missions, such as to tap underwater cables or to try and tail a new Chinese sub, but routine incursions seems like a needless and pointless risk irrespective of how likely or unlikely detection might be.

I pretty much take it for granted that USN SSNs would be operating routinely inside China's EEZ, but I would be very surprised if they should dare to routinely do the same with regards to Chinese territorial waters.

If China detected an USN SSN lurking inside its EEZ waters, there isn't a great deal they could do about it, and may in fact choose to pretend that they did not know it was there to lure the Americans into a false sense of security and superiority during peace time so they could be caught out if hostilities ever breaks out, that would be classic Art of War stuff.

Territorial waters is an entire different matter, and I do not think the PLAN would hesitate at all in trying to capture or even sink any foreign SSN it catches inside its territorial waters.

So, if the USN routinely violates Chinese territorial waters, then their subs are indeed as quiet as they would like to think, and China's ASW capabilities are simply not up to scratch.

However, if the USN is basing their sense of invulnerability only on their activities inside China's EEZ and the PLAN's lack of responses to those said activities, there is a chance they might be in for a rude surprise if hostilities breaks out for real.

But as wit almost everything to do with that shadowy world, we simply do not have anywhere close to enough information to be able to form any sort of reasoned conclusion.

Yep, I agree with all of this.
I'm not sure if fishing nets are able to actually disable a military submarine though; in the few encounters in the past that fishing boats and their nets have had with submarines, more often than not it is the boat which comes off worse. But this is just a minor quibble.

 

[GreenestGDP]

Thank you so much AMace for your post.
My post is not directed to you.
I am just borrowing your post to make a point towards certain other ... ...

Well it all started with making bold claims that Chinese missiles can be track on the ground in a large country like China. Everything else I've pointed to is also bold claims. I used Kosovo as an example of how hard it is to track what's on the ground even with all of NATO's advanced technology. The F-22 also went through the hype and disputed by their own that stealth wasn't as invincible after all in order to counter Russian and Chinese stealth developments. They said that underwater drone was spying on Chinese submarines. I thought Seawolves were doing that as hyped. ... ...They say Seawolves and other US subs are following Chinese subs every step of the way. If that's true they don't need that drone. If they need it it's because there's a limitation that falls short of the hype to what they can do with those subs. Of course the media might be misrepresenting the facts but a lot people believe in their spin and that's what I'm arguing against just like believing Chinese missile on the ground can be found and tracked 24/7. ... ...but it smells like the same hype if you believe Seawolves are stalking Chinese subs every step of the way.

Unfortunately, a few veteran PLA watcher believe and willfully want to be slave of the Evil Darkside ( you-know-who ).

These veteran PLA watcher even going out of his way to great length of accusing the enemies of the Evil Darkside for hyping their weapon system.

Meanwhile, same veteran PLA watcher ( who has inferior complex mentality toward you-know-who ) totally believe that the Evil Darkside ( which can not be named ) will never hype their ability, because they have such overwhelming in-your-face superiorities against China.

 

[Ultra]

I will humor you.

First of all, this is not amateur hour for China.

My, where to begin with this.


Secondly, what do you think Chinese internal securing and counter intelligence, not to mention the missiles' own close protection forces are doing while your guy smugly follows an ICBM?

Any such suspicious activity would be recognised very quickly and your agents taken into custody.

You also clearly have very little real world experience of how things work in China.

In terms of transportation, for such important strategic assets, the Chinese have zero problems about closing entire highways, whereby traffic cops move in ahead and behind the convoy and order all civilian traffic to pull over onto the hard shoulder and stay there until cleared to do so.

Anyone trying to tail such a missile convoy would blend in as much as a professional bodybuilder on a fashion catwalk.

You guys sounds like you know what you are talking about...
Until you see pictures like these.....

Heh heh heh!

If civilians can get this close (close enough to touch them) to take pictures of these ballistic missiles (some of them supposedly are the "top secret" DF-41), a highly trained high tech foreign survelliance team can do a far better job at tracking and surveilling without being seen.

Amateur hour? I think so.

 

[Ultra]

Lets talk about the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga and use your assumptions. First, China's tunnels and a large number of the launch facilities are not directly on the coast. They are in the closest mountain ranges away from the coast. They are not close enough that any of those ships are going to get a shot during the boost phase. Even if they were and it was a scenario where the US had all 82 ships off the coast of China and China was worried about these ships, those ships would go down first or face their own saturation attacks before China launched the big boys. Also, the missile tracking satellites, those would be downed too.

So you think taking out the Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga as if it is a sure thing? You do realize the Soviets invented the saturation attack tactics on US fleet back in 80s, and the US was well aware of that 30 YEARS AGO and have strategy and tactics to counter that? To sink an Arleigh Burke and Ticonderoga is not even a sure thing for China. For starter, China has less than 100 MRBM, which includes DF-21 and DF-26. A single Arleigh Burke can have 96 missiles, which means China doesn't even have enough "Assassin's Maces" to even saturation attack A SINGLE Arleigh Burke or Ticonderoga!! LOL!!!

Having 82 of these ships are more than an overkill against China. Taking into account that there probably exist several ground-based Direct Action Teams active in China ready to take out a portion of these missiles before they are even launch in time of war, China's chance at attacking/counter-attacking is even slimmer.


As to the satellite, same thing. China's 2007 Anti-sat was based on a DF-21 launch platform, and how many DF-21 does China have? Less than 100 (to be very generous with the number here). If China is going to divert the very few DF-21 they have to attack the satellites, that means they can't even expect to mount a half-decent attack against a single Arleigh Burke as they simply don't have enough missiles for the attack.

I will give you the same advice you gave me.
Its good to have commentary here, but please be rational and think before posting. Don't just come across like a fanboy (no insult intended).

 

[plawolf]

Take another look at your pictures. See any civilian traffic on the roads (the last picture doesn't count as that is clearly not a missile TEL)?

Those pictures were almost certainly taken by one of the police or military officers in one of the escort vehicles (or maybe a civilian VIP or specialist along for the ride).

Regular civilian road traffic would never be allowed to get right into the middle of even a low security police or military convoy as the vehicle those two pictures were taken from evidently was, never mind a top security one as would be afforded one of China's few strategic ICBMs, use your head man! What do you think the police escorts are for?

The only way someone could take a picture that close is if they were in one of the escorts that was part of the convoy.

A big no-no and security breach for them to be taking pictures never mind have them leak out to the public, but that's a different issue.

Just go look up videos on the J31 prototype being transported on the roads to see how these things work from the point of view of civilian drivers. And that's just for a fighter jet.

For ICBMs, the civilian traffic wouldn't just be order to the hard shoulder, they would be ordered off the highway altogether and they won't even know what they were being ordered to make way for.

There aren't even J31 convoy-like drive by pictures or videos of Chinese ICBMs passing civilian traffic.