055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Blitzo]

of course armored battleships engaged each other in line of battle. look at Battle of Jutland.

Not quite the same "line of battle" which characterised ships in the age of sail. But this is beside the point.

the distinction I'm making is that battleships, whether armored or not, are the centerpiece of battle fleets that engage each other in decisive battle in the Mahanian fashion. Contrast that with cruisers which carried out patrols in distant station in peacetime and conduct commerce warfare in wartime.

I'm not going to enter a discussion about defining cruisers.

I will simply reiterate that battleships are defined by both their armament and their heavy armour in particular. Without the latter, they are not battleships, end of story.

Battleships did act as the centrepieces of fleets, as types of capital ships, and their roles as capital ships were replaced by the aircraft carrier. Today, the word capital ship is more fluid and depends on the task group they are linked to. In an SAG, a cruiser could be the leading capital ship if the rest of the SAG are destroyers and frigates. In a CSG, obviously the carrier is the capital ship. In an ARG, the LHA or LPD is the capital ship.

The battleship is a type of capital ship, but they no longer exist today in any form because none of today's ships have similar heavy armour.

armor is one type of protection. a form of protection made irrelevant when nuclear weapons are involved.

Exactly. Which is why the battleship was also made irrelevant and which is why battleships don't exist today because no armoured ships exist today.

ok, so we agree PLAN doesn't need permanent Indian Ocean bases. I suggest that peacetime permanent Indian Ocean deployment of of major combat assets such as CVBG and SAG is also unnecessary. When do you need heavily armed warship to protect SLOC during peacetime? Deterrence can be provided by battlegroups based in Hainan.
Without permanent Indian Ocean bases, I suggest China would be better served by forward deployed Absalon type ships rather than rotation of more combat oriented warships. Absalon can forward deployed without AOR support, and be more capable in projecting soft power.

The entire point of protecting SLOCs is to have a presence along your SLOC. Having a taskforce based in Hainan will be useless if/when hostilities occur because China's SLOCs would already be threatened, hindered, if not outright destroyed.

By the time a Hainan based task force arrives to "secure" China's distant SLOC it would be too late.
A peacetime presence is thus absolutely necessary.

I suppose this is the crux of the matter which we disagree on.

 

[shen]

ok, enough battleship and cruiser discussion but I still don't like agree to disagree.

Why would it be too late for major combat assets to enter Indian Ocean to secure SLOC only when conflict breakout? So what if China loose a few tanker shipments in the beginning of conflict. I think the whole idea of the vulnerability of Chinese SLOC has been overplayed. Petroleum import constitute what 10% of total Chinese energy use? Given Chinese global economic integration, a major disruption of Chinese SLOC would not be contemplated by any power unless a major conflict arouse. In which case, there should be plenty of warnings for PLAN to prepare to a major Indian Ocean deployment.
Peacetime threats to SLOC are pirates and rogue actors, which can be countered with forward deployed Absalon types.

 

[Blitzo]

ok, enough battleship and cruiser discussion but I still don't like agree to disagree.

Alrighty then

Why would it be too late for major combat assets to enter Indian Ocean to secure SLOC only when conflict breakout? So what if China loose a few tanker shipments in the beginning of conflict. I think the whole idea of the vulnerability of Chinese SLOC has been overplayed. Petroleum import constitute what 10% of total Chinese energy use? Given Chinese global economic integration, a major disruption of Chinese SLOC would not be contemplated by any power unless a major conflict arouse. In which case, there should be plenty of warnings for PLAN to prepare to a major Indian Ocean deployment.
Peacetime threats to SLOC are pirates and rogue actors, which can be countered with forward deployed Absalon types.

A permanent presence would be able to deter an attack on Chinese SLOCs in the first place. The USN has a string of worldwide areas of responsiblity that they permanently deploy to for a reason, because they believe having ships physically present in an area will deter actions that may threaten their interests.

 

[shen]

Well, of course there are benefits to the American style global bases network. But think about the the price America pays to sustain all the forward bases. Think about all the political and military entanglements these forward bases get America into. When America acquired the forward base in the Philippines colony, it arguable set the US on a confrontational course with Japan. I have no desire to see PLA servicemen to die on foreign soil in some meaningless Middle Eastern or African conflicts. The deterrence of these forward bases is also overplayed. Pirates and terrorists are not deterred.

 

[Blitzo]

Well, of course there are benefits to the American style global bases network. But think about the the price America pays to sustain all the forward bases. Think about all the political and military entanglements these forward bases get America into. I have no desire to see PLA servicemen to die on foreign soil in some meaningless Middle Eastern or African conflicts. The deterrence of these forward bases is also overplayed. Pirates and terrorists are not deterred.

We've already agreed that any such deployment would not necessitate permanent bases, so the cost would be less than the USN's permanent presence around the world.
Further, naval deployment doesn't mean putting boots on the ground on foreign soil, only being on ships on stand by to defend against SLOCs.


Yes, terrorists and non state actors won't be deterred by a PLAN naval presence.

But it will deter state actors, and that's exactly the point of who the PLAN seeks to deter in the first place.

 

[shen]

We've already agreed that any such deployment would not necessitate permanent bases, so the cost would be less than the USN's permanent presence around the world.
Further, naval deployment doesn't mean putting boots on the ground on foreign soil, only being on ships on stand by to defend against SLOCs.


Yes, terrorists and non state actors won't be deterred by a PLAN naval presence.

But it will deter state actors, and that's exactly the point of who the PLAN seeks to deter in the first place.

What you see as deterrence can be interpreted by other countries as provocation. So rather than decrease conflict, aggressive deterrence actually increase the chance of open conflict with state actors.

 

[Blitzo]

What you see as deterrence can be interpreted by other countries as provocation. So rather than decrease conflict, aggressive deterrence actually increase the chance of open conflict with state actors.

Indeed.

So ultimately it is my belief that the PRC will see this as a balance they are willing to agree upon.


The Indian Ocean is a vast place. If it is India that you are afraid or provoking, there are multiple things China can do to somewhat tend to India's fears. But more importantly, the Indian Ocean holds one of the most important arteries of global trade and energy in the world, and thus many country's navies operate there as part of justified national interests.

the Indians will simply have to get used a steadily growing PLAN presence -- but I don't think they're so ambitious so as to seek to control or dominate the entirety of the Indian Ocean anyway.

Besides, how would a PLAN presence "provoke" India if they have no permanent bases around India, or if the PLAN vessels do not get close to Indian waters anyway? The PLAN's presence in the Indian Ocean won't be there with a potential mission to attack the Indian mainland or anything (as opposed to say, the USN's presence in the Western pacific vis a vis China), and there's more than enough space for India, China, and every other nation's navies to get along.


---

But ultimately, even if a permanent, non-hair-clogging PLAN presence did have the threat of "provoking" India, defending SLOCs during peacetime will still be a necessary mission to undertake in future.

 

[luhai]

ok, enough battleship and cruiser discussion but I still don't like agree to disagree.

Why would it be too late for major combat assets to enter Indian Ocean to secure SLOC only when conflict breakout? So what if China loose a few tanker shipments in the beginning of conflict. I think the whole idea of the vulnerability of Chinese SLOC has been overplayed. Petroleum import constitute what 10% of total Chinese energy use? Given Chinese global economic integration, a major disruption of Chinese SLOC would not be contemplated by any power unless a major conflict arouse. In which case, there should be plenty of warnings for PLAN to prepare to a major Indian Ocean deployment.
Peacetime threats to SLOC are pirates and rogue actors, which can be countered with forward deployed Absalon types.

A permanent naval presence is a costly and unnecessary deployment to counter destroyed tanker shipments in the beginning of a conflict. Yes, there will be domestic outcry for failure to protect, however, the political liability that incurs and the sort of imperial over extension that occurs with overseas deployments will be detrimental to the Chinese economy. As the money can be spent doing better things. Rise and Fall of Great Powers was for a time a very popular book in China, I think they have heed the lesson well.

EDIT: also reliance to energy imports (and ultimately carbon based energy consumption) is something China is trying hard to get rid of. Both for strategic reasons and environmental reasons.

 

[Blitzo]

A permanent naval presence is a costly and unnecessary deployment to counter destroyed tanker shipments in the beginning of a conflict. Yes, there will be domestic outcry for failure to protect, however, the political liability that incurs and the sort of imperial over extension that occurs with overseas deployments will be detrimental to the Chinese economy. As the money can be spent doing better things. Rise and Fall of Great Powers was for a time a very popular book in China, I think they have heed the lesson well.

EDIT: also reliance to energy imports (and ultimately carbon based energy consumption) is something China is trying hard to get rid of. Both for strategic reasons and environmental reasons.

On the contrary, I believe the PLAN's desire for aircraft carriers and a blue water navy is deliberately meant to project power in distant shores and waters.

Projecting naval power is worth the slight detriment to the chinese economy if it means China's SLOCs are more secure.
Indeed, if China wasn't willing to bite the cost, then they wouldn't be building a blue water navy in the first place.


Yes, China is trying to cut down on energy imports, but for the forseeable future their energy supply lines will still be vulnerable. Further, even if China is one day fully self sufficient, they still have their own trade and cargo ships transiting along SLOCs that must be protected as well.


Furthermore, China also has many overseas economic interests as well as places with citizens that may need evacuation or protection. This can only be done by military presence and this includes a power projecting navy.
Now, power projection doesn't necessarily have to equal over extension and being bogged down in a land war. Like you said I'm sure China has watched the US and knows what they should and shouldn't do. However, that doesn't mean China will not seek to project power in distant seas and perhaps onto distant lands in its own way.

 

[asif iqbal]

A permanent naval presence is a costly and unnecessary deployment to counter destroyed tanker shipments in the beginning of a conflict. Yes, there will be domestic outcry for failure to protect, however, the political liability that incurs and the sort of imperial over extension that occurs with overseas deployments will be detrimental to the Chinese economy. As the money can be spent doing better things. Rise and Fall of Great Powers was for a time a very popular book in China, I think they have heed the lesson well.

EDIT: also reliance to energy imports (and ultimately carbon based energy consumption) is something China is trying hard to get rid of. Both for strategic reasons and environmental reasons.

China is not too worried about the Paciifc region they have the 3 island stratedgy for that

Main area Chinese CCP is looking at is the Indian Ocean and to project power in the area they have a 4 axis stratedgy for permennent naval bases, one in the South Indian Ocean in Seychelles area one in West Indian Ocean along East Coast of Africa and Oman and Yemen and one to cover North Indian Ocean at Gwader Pakistan and the East is covered by China itself

That's 3 overseas permennent naval bases I would think each will have a Chinese naval flotilla based there as well as repair and spares parts facility's

Each flotilla will likely have a 2 x FFG, 1 x DDG and a replenishment tanker so that's 12 warships based overseas, if your going to deploy a carrier oversea facility's becomes very important