Inside China: Admiral says China can destroy destroyers? true or not?

no_name said:

Some old automated fishing boats with explosives may be good for anti-access roles.

They might even cost less than the missiles used to sink them.

Click to expand...

Kurt said:

If the Chinese coal mining is an index, then China does have great potential and knowledge about doing things right (they have the longest history of large scale coal mining), including safety measures and fighting underground fires, but the Chinese don't seem to be to keen on having safety come into their way of perceived chances for profit. The result is a very deadly economic sector. The same could be said about environmental damage China tries to fight, for example regarding the rare earth elements where it has an almost monopoly to enforce them.
In my opinion, China has cultural elements that allow to create great machines with all safety precautions, but the current general mindset is likely not suited for this task. It's rather similar to the Russians due to the shared economic system history and corresponding outlook on handling problems. There may be some high watermarks of safety concerned individuals and leaders, but they might have a hard time among a pragmatism that tries to make short term simple solutions.

Click to expand...

Kurt said:

If the Chinese coal mining is an index, then China does have great potential and knowledge about doing things right (they have the longest history of large scale coal mining), including safety measures and fighting underground fires, but the Chinese don't seem to be to keen on having safety come into their way of perceived chances for profit. The result is a very deadly economic sector. The same could be said about environmental damage China tries to fight, for example regarding the rare earth elements where it has an almost monopoly to enforce them.
In my opinion, China has cultural elements that allow to create great machines with all safety precautions, but the current general mindset is likely not suited for this task. It's rather similar to the Russians due to the shared economic system history and corresponding outlook on handling problems. There may be some high watermarks of safety concerned individuals and leaders, but they might have a hard time among a pragmatism that tries to make short term simple solutions.

Click to expand...

Igor said:

Yes but why would China limit itself to such crap? It has excellent fast attack missile craft just for that role.

Click to expand...

Red___Sword said:

The point is people found some Chinese TV program (which happens to invite professional TV stars who happens to wear a gold star on the shoulder) very shocking, and decide to voice out the points that shocks.

My own understanding is Mr. Zhang Zhao Zhong knows what's his professioncy, but he always try to speak the point out in the worst way (or, you can say it's the most subtle way) - I said it, you didn't get it, it realized in a little off but mainly "to the point" way in certain future, so that I "decleared" certain information without leaking any information before those relative information has been wildly published.

One example, 2009 year end, he "clarified" China is indeed working on "4th Generation Fighter", but he implys J-10B is "our standard for 4th Generation Fighter", you may laugh about it at that point, but when J-20 shows up, you would realized Zhang has convoyed the message "we have 4th Gen Fighter program working", hiding behind false information "J-10B kind of fighter is the standard" - way before the "publicity" of J-20 itself.

In this case, he never said anything "suicide attack", but "swarm" Zumwalt's deployment. I see this very feasible, in peace time, when China don't want Zumwalt getting too close to some places; not to mention as early as post #2 has already mentioned, in combat, it works to a degree that the high-end navy bleeds more than the swarmer. And the last thing is China can always attack an opponent THAT MUCH EASIER when they are bleeding, with China's own high-end means.

These are all theoriatical analysis without actual intention of provoking (and damn, true strategists do not getting provoked by this kind of stuff) - but I believe Mr. Zhang dose convoyed the message he intended, to the audience he intended.

Click to expand...

gjy2105 said:

I think what this shows is that it really doesn't take a rich and powerful military in order to over-saturate a CSG's defenses and sink the whole thing. It just takes some clever strategies and tactics.

Based on the reading, it sounds like the attack was a simultaneous saturation strike by obsolete aircraft, cheap swarms of small boats, and far-from-cutting-edge cruise missiles. Stuff that the U.S. would expect a Middle Eastern military to be able to get together reasonably easily.

The CSG can defend from light to moderate-scale high-tech strikes stretched over a period of time, but not an intense simultaneous saturation strike, even by obsolete equipment.

China's current strategy of amassing missiles seems like it is on the right track. Assuming they can coordinate the strike so that they all reach their target at once.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Your assumption is faulty. This was a war game where a computer, itself with scripted rules, made the determination of what was sunk and what was not...not based on the actual firing of missiles and their defense.

Things like who was emitting, who was receiving, who had battle stations manned and at what times were all srcipted, even for the blue team.

So the Red team tactics worked in a huge surprise for the Blue team according to the scripted portion of the exercise. Afterwards they scripted it even more...but it is not an indication what would necessarily happen in a real shooting war.

If a CSG is expecting an attack, and if its threat condition is such that it is in postion for such an attack with the threat axis (major and minor) being covered by the appropriate assetts, then a bunch of antiquated missiles and speed boats will not get through.

If a surprise is pulled off and catches the force flat footed...as this Admiral did with his use of doctrine outside the scenarion being played out...that is different. But once the right conditions are in place and the CSG is operating on a war footing, the likelihood of such an occurance reduces very rapdily to near zero.

Wikipedia is not the best source for what actually happened. People in the service who were part of the exerices are far more reliable and their info, while admitting the blue forces was caught off guard and decimated by the computer simulation, also point out that there were conditions the Red Force used that were outside what they were testing which was the Admiral's whole point.

This particular exercise wa supposed to have the Blue Force attack the expected capabilities of a nation they were meant to engage...the admiral in question went well beypnd "what was expected" which is a good thing, and surprised them with a condition that no one expected with numbers of and coordination of a huge barrage of cruise missiles that such a nation is not likely to be able to bring together or coordinate, followed by an attack of so many small craft, all armed to the max with explosives and again in numbers and coordination not likely available to such a nation...but availabkle to this Admiral through his use of assets to locate the blue fleet and his knowledge of how a US fleet is disposed.

Again, the relation of this specific exercise to the varied conditions that would be present in an actual war footing is vey remote. Once that war footing goes into place, the US Naval vessels will be on a war footing and looking for any contingency.

Click to expand...