PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Even the Soviets had a rich published literature of their goals, and we could read their military publications. I faithfully read copies of Morskoi Sbornik, their equivalent of Naval Institute Proceedings, when they landed in our wardroom to try to climb into the Soviet mind and get their view of the world situation and the art of naval warfare. We were painfully aware of their foreign policy goals, and they ours, and believe it or not this kept us both from misjudging each other at critical times. Heck, we even acknowledged major Soviet holidays in our squadrons, the intel officers were especially good at reminding us of these, so we were always aware of how the Soviets were thinking.
With China it's a big blank, and believe me this is not good. We really didn't have to second guess the Soviet Union too much. We knew they hated us and wanted us gone but we also knew they were not going to start WWIII to achieve it. As crude as that sounds it kept the peace. No one wants to see their home town disappear in a mushroom cloud. With China we don't really know what the deal is, what her intentions are, and this could very easily lead to the US misjudging China's intentions. This is not something you want to have happen between two big nuclear powers. This is why the US presses for a hot line like we had with the Soviets and some sort of formal treaty to govern the conduct of our nation's forces when they come into contact with each other. Before the US, NATO and the USSR/Warsaw Pact signed the INCSEA Agreement there were far too many occasions of cowboys on both sides coming uncomfortably close to provoking an international incident. Afterward there were clear and concise rules each side had to obey. Example, we were to never fly over of close aboard the Russian AGI sitting off San Diego. This was considered to be a provocation even though this ship was no more that two dozen miles off our home town. Likewise there were rules for how both sides would conduct themselves during the oft photographed Bear fly overs of our carriers. Everyone was professional and we all returned home. Perfect.
China does not want to negotiate such a treaty, and having one would have prevented the collision of our EP-3 with the F-8. This was the type of tragedy INCSEA was designed to prevent, and why the USN is so intent on having a similar treaty with China. We don't have a piece of paper that says what China will consider a provocation and what China does not consider a provocation. We don't have a good idea what China's doctrins are. So we continue to ask for increased openess.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

man overbored said:

Even the Soviets had a rich published literature of their goals, and we could read their military publications. I faithfully read copies of Morskoi Sbornik, their equivalent of Naval Institute Proceedings, when they landed in our wardroom to try to climb into the Soviet mind and get their view of the world situation and the art of naval warfare. We were painfully aware of their foreign policy goals, and they ours, and believe it or not this kept us both from misjudging each other at critical times. Heck, we even acknowledged major Soviet holidays in our squadrons, the intel officers were especially good at reminding us of these, so we were always aware of how the Soviets were thinking.
With China it's a big blank, and believe me this is not good. We really didn't have to second guess the Soviet Union too much. We knew they hated us and wanted us gone but we also knew they were not going to start WWIII to achieve it. As crude as that sounds it kept the peace. No one wants to see their home town disappear in a mushroom cloud. With China we don't really know what the deal is, what her intentions are, and this could very easily lead to the US misjudging China's intentions. This is not something you want to have happen between two big nuclear powers. This is why the US presses for a hot line like we had with the Soviets and some sort of formal treaty to govern the conduct of our nation's forces when they come into contact with each other. Before the US, NATO and the USSR/Warsaw Pact signed the INCSEA Agreement there were far too many occasions of cowboys on both sides coming uncomfortably close to provoking an international incident. Afterward there were clear and concise rules each side had to obey. Example, we were to never fly over of close aboard the Russian AGI sitting off San Diego. This was considered to be a provocation even though this ship was no more that two dozen miles off our home town. Likewise there were rules for how both sides would conduct themselves during the oft photographed Bear fly overs of our carriers. Everyone was professional and we all returned home. Perfect.
China does not want to negotiate such a treaty, and having one would have prevented the collision of our EP-3 with the F-8. This was the type of tragedy INCSEA was designed to prevent, and why the USN is so intent on having a similar treaty with China. We don't have a piece of paper that says what China will consider a provocation and what China does not consider a provocation. We don't have a good idea what China's doctrins are. So we continue to ask for increased openess.

Click to expand...

Very good and logical argument. One of the main reasons why China doesn't want to open itself to others, US especially is "knowledge means control." If you know what I have, then you can control me by designing a plot to blunt my strength.
I think, to a certain extent, US also lacks transparency. They will not disclose everything in their inventory. So, the difference between US and China is more of a degree than quality. US is more transparent than China. This is normal since US has more inventory to show than China does. So if US shows 1000 military hardwares out of 10000, and China shows 100 of 1000, percentage wise, they are the same.

I think that the current situation is very good. It's not perfect, but it's peaceful. When you don't know what I have although you can make some guesses that what I have is less effective than what you have, you have to stop and think. It's a psychological deterrence. This is still better than nuclear deterrence. It's about building the right attitude, not just building bombs.

About intention, let's be honest, what's written on the paper can be interpreted in 100 different ways. So, in military, there is a fine line between truth-telling and lying.

Psychological and economic deterrences are the best. We realize that we live in an inter-dependent world, multi-polar world where military might alone will not mean anything except to increase your economic, cultural, and ideological influence.

"Peace and prosperity" is the best way for all.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

man overbored said:

Even the Soviets had a rich published literature of their goals, and we could read their military publications. I faithfully read copies of Morskoi Sbornik, their equivalent of Naval Institute Proceedings, when they landed in our wardroom to try to climb into the Soviet mind and get their view of the world situation and the art of naval warfare. We were painfully aware of their foreign policy goals, and they ours, and believe it or not this kept us both from misjudging each other at critical times. Heck, we even acknowledged major Soviet holidays in our squadrons, the intel officers were especially good at reminding us of these, so we were always aware of how the Soviets were thinking.
With China it's a big blank, and believe me this is not good. We really didn't have to second guess the Soviet Union too much. We knew they hated us and wanted us gone but we also knew they were not going to start WWIII to achieve it. As crude as that sounds it kept the peace. No one wants to see their home town disappear in a mushroom cloud. With China we don't really know what the deal is, what her intentions are, and this could very easily lead to the US misjudging China's intentions. This is not something you want to have happen between two big nuclear powers. This is why the US presses for a hot line like we had with the Soviets and some sort of formal treaty to govern the conduct of our nation's forces when they come into contact with each other. Before the US, NATO and the USSR/Warsaw Pact signed the INCSEA Agreement there were far too many occasions of cowboys on both sides coming uncomfortably close to provoking an international incident. Afterward there were clear and concise rules each side had to obey. Example, we were to never fly over of close aboard the Russian AGI sitting off San Diego. This was considered to be a provocation even though this ship was no more that two dozen miles off our home town. Likewise there were rules for how both sides would conduct themselves during the oft photographed Bear fly overs of our carriers. Everyone was professional and we all returned home. Perfect.
China does not want to negotiate such a treaty, and having one would have prevented the collision of our EP-3 with the F-8. This was the type of tragedy INCSEA was designed to prevent, and why the USN is so intent on having a similar treaty with China. We don't have a piece of paper that says what China will consider a provocation and what China does not consider a provocation. We don't have a good idea what China's doctrins are. So we continue to ask for increased openess.

Click to expand...

China has already stated its goal. It's called self-defense. Do you need the Chinese to do back flips? China has the right to a military that can defend itself from anyone on the planet including the United States. Ever hear of the Project for a New American Century? The people behind it all worked in the Bush Administration. They wrote a paper before Bush came to office stating the US's need to take-over the world's oil supply starting with an invasion of a certain Middle Eastern country. They wanted to reshape the world by toppling the governments of oil-producing nations that weren't favorably to the US and install regimes that were favorable. The end goal was to hold oil hostage from countries like China. Now if someone in China wrote a paper like that, the US would go ballistic. And for such occasions like this, people here have already been warned not to bring up the subject of certain illegal wars as proof of the need for self-defense. How convenient that since it's a no-no subject to discuss, it makes proof for the need for self-defense seem absurd.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

man overbored said:

Even the Soviets had a rich published literature of their goals, and we could read their military publications. I faithfully read copies of Morskoi Sbornik, their equivalent of Naval Institute Proceedings, when they landed in our wardroom to try to climb into the Soviet mind and get their view of the world situation and the art of naval warfare. We were painfully aware of their foreign policy goals, and they ours, and believe it or not this kept us both from misjudging each other at critical times. Heck, we even acknowledged major Soviet holidays in our squadrons, the intel officers were especially good at reminding us of these, so we were always aware of how the Soviets were thinking.
With China it's a big blank, and believe me this is not good. We really didn't have to second guess the Soviet Union too much. We knew they hated us and wanted us gone but we also knew they were not going to start WWIII to achieve it. As crude as that sounds it kept the peace. No one wants to see their home town disappear in a mushroom cloud. With China we don't really know what the deal is, what her intentions are, and this could very easily lead to the US misjudging China's intentions. This is not something you want to have happen between two big nuclear powers. This is why the US presses for a hot line like we had with the Soviets and some sort of formal treaty to govern the conduct of our nation's forces when they come into contact with each other. Before the US, NATO and the USSR/Warsaw Pact signed the INCSEA Agreement there were far too many occasions of cowboys on both sides coming uncomfortably close to provoking an international incident. Afterward there were clear and concise rules each side had to obey. Example, we were to never fly over of close aboard the Russian AGI sitting off San Diego. This was considered to be a provocation even though this ship was no more that two dozen miles off our home town. Likewise there were rules for how both sides would conduct themselves during the oft photographed Bear fly overs of our carriers. Everyone was professional and we all returned home. Perfect.
China does not want to negotiate such a treaty, and having one would have prevented the collision of our EP-3 with the F-8. This was the type of tragedy INCSEA was designed to prevent, and why the USN is so intent on having a similar treaty with China. We don't have a piece of paper that says what China will consider a provocation and what China does not consider a provocation. We don't have a good idea what China's doctrins are. So we continue to ask for increased openess.

Click to expand...

You have brought up good points.
The communication between China and US military is improving, as shown by the hotline that was established few months ago. But i agree with you as this could go further to avoid misunderstandings.

As for China's intentions; what do you think would happen if Chinese govt issued a report saying the biggest threat to China is US military presence in Western Pacific? And therefore PLA should develop the capability to deal with this? Naturally, seeing as how Western media and "experts" always give China negative spotlight, they would have a field day with it.
Moreover, you dont need to be a rocket scientist to realise what China's ultimate goal is; develop a navy strong enough to protect China's shipping lanes - hence this modernisation of the navy, air force and the naval base in Sanya.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

"About intention, let's be honest, what's written on the paper can be interpreted in 100 different ways. So, in military, there is a fine line between truth-telling and lying. "

I am referring to formal rules of engagement. How we were expected to conduct ourselves in proximity to Soviet forces was spelled out on paper. An example, if the Bear over flying the carrier ever opened it's bomb bay we were going to shoot it down. Both sides knew this in advance, so in the many encounters of Bears and carriers ( basically every single deployment ) there was never an incident. The rules were clear and everyone was professional. We have no such written agreement governing encounters between the USN and PLAN.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

flyzies said:

You have brought up good points.
The communication between China and US military is improving, as shown by the hotline that was established few months ago. But i agree with you as this could go further to avoid misunderstandings.

As for China's intentions; what do you think would happen if Chinese govt issued a report saying the biggest threat to China is US military presence in Western Pacific? And therefore PLA should develop the capability to deal with this? Naturally, seeing as how Western media and "experts" always give China negative spotlight, they would have a field day with it.
Moreover, you dont need to be a rocket scientist to realise what China's ultimate goal is; develop a navy strong enough to protect China's shipping lanes - hence this modernisation of the navy, air force and the naval base in Sanya.

Click to expand...

Why not? Admiral Ghorshkov certainly put his thoughts on paper, famously so. Confrontation is ok when both sides know where each other stands. This acts to prevent warfare. It is the vagueness that bothers us, not knowing if we will trip over some boundry in Chinese policy that leads to a military conflict that could have been avoided had there been some communication.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

man overbored said:

Why not? Admiral Ghorshkov certainly put his thoughts on paper, famously so. Confrontation is ok when both sides know where each other stands. This acts to prevent warfare. It is the vagueness that bothers us, not knowing if we will trip over some boundry in Chinese policy that leads to a military conflict that could have been avoided had there been some communication.

Click to expand...

Well put man overbored. Admiral Gorshkov's The Sea Power of the State was published all over the world in the '70s, and it didn't do Soviet naval strategy any harm, while it gave students at naval colleges the world over a great education. The greatest book written on the subject since Mahan and Corbett, and the Soviets and NATO were able to avoid some potentially serious misunderstandings knowing where each other was coming from and where each was intending to go. The PLA in general, and PLAN in particular, might be able to emulate this by permitting one of its more gifted senior officers to publish a similar work.

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Got this from the CMF, but I don't know where the original source of this.

"China recently conducted a test of its newest submarine-launched ballistic missile, the Julang-2 (JL-2), which will be deployed on Beijing's fleet of new missile submarines, according to U.S. defense officials.

The test launch took place May 29 from a submarine in Bohai Bay, off northern China, and landed in the Yellow Sea.

The missile has an estimated range of about 5,000 miles and represents a new generation of strategic nuclear-capable weapons being outfitted on the Type 094 submarine, dubbed the Jin-class by the Pentagon.

One defense official said the new JL-2 "shares features with the land-based Dong Feng-31 missile," another new Chinese nuclear missile system.

Officials confirmed the JL-2 after it was first reported last week in two Japanese newspapers that quoted Japanese military sources.

"While the U.S. government provides insufficient informational warning about the JL-2's capabilities, Asian sources have long commented it may eventually carry three to four warheads or a number of decoys," said Richard Fisher, a military affairs specialist with the International Assessment and Strategy Center.

"This means that five Type 094 missile submarines could account for over 180 warheads," he said.

Hans Kristensen, a specialist on the Chinese nuclear forces with the Federation of American Scientists, stated that China is expected to deploy its new missile submarines in Bohai because it is easier to protect them in the bay. "From the shallow bay, the Julang-2 missiles could be used to target Guam and Alaska, India, Russia and - at the limit of its range - Hawaii," he stated.

The Pentagon's latest annual report on China's military confirmed for the first time in March that Beijing is building up to five Jin-class submarines, each of which will be armed with 10 to 12 JL-2s, a sharp increase in China's strategic nuclear-warhead arsenal.

Defense officials also recently disclosed, as reported in this space earlier, that the JL-2 could be deployed with an anti-satellite warhead capable of killing U.S. satellites, similar to the land-based missile that knocked out a Chinese satellite in a January 2007 test.

U.S. officials also said new missile submarines likely will be deployed at the new southern submarine base at Hainan Island.

China's military so far is balking at U.S. efforts to hold talks on strategic nuclear weapons despite appeals from the Pentagon."

Re: New base for the Type 094 subs?

Said article is from Bill Gertz.


China missile test
June 12, 2008
By Bill Gertz

I am combining threads dealing with the PLAN's South Seas Fleet and its new naval base in Sanya, Hainan into this.