China's SCS Strategy Thread

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
I previously noted that the fighter range circles below should really be for the J-11 Flanker airframe instead of the J-10, as it is the heavyweight J-11 fighter that we've seen deployed on Woody Island.

If you do, as few as 16 J-11s based on Fiery Cross could achieve air superiority over East Malaysia or the skies over Manila in the Philippines, given how small their air forces are.

Vietnam is a tougher nut though, but then again, Vietnam shares a long land border with the entire Chinese Army and Air Force located on the other side.


ngncii8nkrh9uebpcfbi.jpg
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
On the topic of the Philippines, to me, they almost look like a client or vassal state of the USA, which is not helped by how incompetent their government is.

When China and the Philippines has the dispute over Scarborough Shoal, a Filipino senator had negotiated a mutual de-escalation with his Chinese counterparts and everyone involved would be responsible for ensuring that agreement was adhered to. But then the Filipino President and Foreign Minister decided to disown that senator, and run to the US for support against China. So then was it any surprise when the Chinese moved in - to make the point that the US does not really have much to offer them, and that they have to deal with China rather that run off to daddy.

Then the Philippines decided it would be a good idea to take the dispute to UNCLOS and continue to ignore China, yet this was likely the main trigger for the Chinese island reclamation projects that we've seen over the past few years. But now that the Philippines has roped in the USA, it has now become a contest of strength between China and the USA. And we've already covered how China has escalation dominance pretty much whatever anyone else decides to do, and that whilst the SCS want the US Navy around to prevent the Chinese from taking territory, they don't actually want a China-US confrontation to start a new cold war.

We also recently had the Filipino President authorise a raid against a Bali bombmaker on behalf of the USA. Yet the problem is that he was being harboured by Muslim separatists in the Southern Philippines who were in the advanced stages of peace talks with the mainly Catholic government in Manila.

So the result of the raid was actually an utter disaster as it resulted in the elite commando force being wiped out and it has killed the peace process as well. Then the Filipino senate investigation finds that American fingerprints were all over the operation and that the Filipino president overstepped or bypassed the proper chain of command, and that he personally authorised the operation without common sense planning or consultations.

We also saw the Filipino President running around the world saying China was the next Nazi Germany in the past few years.

So it's no wonder that the one-party government of Singapore has a very low opinion of the Filipino government and that the Filipinos are too emotional which makes situations worse.

Another funny data point is how the Pew global attitude surveys find that Filipinos love the US more than Americans lover their own country.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
That brings up an interesting point.

The Philippines is having a presidential election this year, and it looks like 2 of the 4 serious candidates and have publicly stated that they think there is no point in continuing a policy of public confrontation with China.

That includes the current front-runner for the post.
 

flyzies

Junior Member
That brings up an interesting point.

The Philippines is having a presidential election this year, and it looks like 2 of the 4 serious candidates and have publicly stated that they think there is no point in continuing a policy of public confrontation with China.

That includes the current front-runner for the post.

That is indeed interesting. Do you have a source for this please?
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
I don't normally post article by Shannon Tiezze She is unabashed China basher . But on this article she hit the nail
South China Sea Militarization: Not All Islands Are Created Equal
What China’s deployments to Woody Island mean — and what they don’t mean.

shannon-tiezzi-36x36.png

By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

March 01, 2016
thediplomat_2015-04-14_01-32-04-386x316.jpg


Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chinese military assets in the South China Sea have been widely publicized of late, with reports focusing in particular on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
and J-11 fighter jets to Woody Island in the Paracels. That, in turn, has sparked a fresh round of criticism of Chinese “militarization” of the South China Sea, particularly from U.S. officials.

“When President Xi was here in Washington, he stood in the Rose Garden with President Obama and said China will not militarize in the South China Sea,” Secretary of State John Kerry
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. “But there is every evidence every day that there has been an increase of militarization of one kind or another.”

Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in a Senate hearing on February 23: “In my opinion China is clearly militarizing the South China Sea. You’d have to believe in a flat earth to believe otherwise.”

Yet the recent military deployments to Woody Island are a problematic example to use if the goal is to provide evidence that China is militarizing the South China Sea. In the sense that militarization requires an alteration the status quo, there’s a huge difference between placing military assets on Woody Island – a naturally occurring feature that has hosted Chinese troops for six decades – and, say, on
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, which China has expanded by over 2 square kilometers over the past two years in order to construct an airstrip and harbor.

First, some basics: Woody Island , unlike recently expanded features like Fiery Cross Reef in the Spratlys, is a naturally-occurring feature — over 2 square kilometers in area, it’s the largest of the Paracels. Woody, known as Yongxing in Chinese, has been occupied by Chinese troops since 1956 – more than 30 years before Beijing belatedly sent troops to occupy any of the Spratlys. Currently, Woody Island is the seat of government for Sansha, a prefecture-level city established by China in 2012. According to China, Sansha technically administers both the Paracels and the Spratlys, as well as Macclesfield Bank and the Scarborough Shoal (“Sansha” means “three islands” in Chinese, referring to the Xisha/Paracels, Nansha/Spratlys, and Zhongsha groups).

Unlike most of the features in the South China Sea, Woody Island also touts a sizeable civilian population — “613 local residents,” mostly fishermen,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
in 2012, according to Xinhua. All told, including soldiers, Woody is believed to have over 1,000 residents. To accommodate that population – both military and civilian – the island is home to a government administration building, hospital, school, museums, bank, supermarket. Meanwhile, the island’s existing airport, in addition to its military role,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
to and from Hainan’s Meilan Airport. It can now accommodate Boeing 737s, thanks to the recent expansion of the airport.

Woody Island is also home to military facilities, and has been for decades. Even the two recent deployments – of HQ-9 missile batteries and J-11 fighter jets – aren’t unprecedented. As Admiral Scott Swift, commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, China has deployed HQ-9 batteries on Woody at least twice before (although both times were for military drills, which does not appear to be the case this time). Likewise, J-11s have been deployed on Woody Island before – including only a few months ago,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

As Swift explained, that context matters: “This isn’t exactly something that’s new… So the real question is, ‘What’s the intent? How long is it going to be there? Is this a permanent forward deployment of this weapons system or not?’”

As experts at the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, the pre-existing facilities mean Woody Island housed anti-aircraft capabilities long before the deployment of HQ-9 missiles. “Woody Island has long been prepared for air defenses using its 8,900 foot (2,700 meter) airstrip, radars, and aircraft shelters,” AMTI pointed out.

That’s not to say that the recent moves on Woody Island are meaningless. They have implications for PLA capabilities in the South China Sea, including extending China’s anti-access capabilities – assuming that the deployments are permanent.

But the more important effect of the recent moves at Woody Island may be signaling of what’s ahead, presenting a possible model for future moves on China’s new facilities in the Spratlys. After all, as AMTI points out, “Woody Island has served as a model for Chinese development in the Spratly Islands, particularly at Fiery Cross, Mischief, and Subi reefs.”

The differences between militarization of the Paracels and the Spratlys should not be overlooked. As Bonnie Glaser, a senior adviser for Asia and the director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, told The Diplomat, China militarized many of the Paracels “long ago. They are now deploying more advanced military equipment.”

It’s the Spratlys where China is currently “building lots of dual use capabilities, and trying convince others they will provide public goods and just defend their positions,” Glaser said.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s famous statement that “China does not intend to pursue militarization” was also specifically made in reference to the Spratly Island. It’s the Spratlys, then, that will pose the real test of China’s intentions for the South China Sea.

There’s another key distinction between the Spratlys and Paracels: China doesn’t recognize any dispute to its claims in the Paracel group. Unlike the Spratlys, all of the Paracel Islands are both claimed by and occupied by China (thanks to China’s victory over the Republic of Vietnam in a brief battle for control of the features in 1974). Though Vietnam still claims the Paracels, China does not recognize that claim – and thus does not recognize the existence of a dispute (similar to Japan’s refusal to officially recognize a dispute over the Senkaku Islands). China argues that Vietnam renounced its claim in a communique from the North Vietnamese government in the 1950s.

Thus, when asked about China’s military deployments on Woody Island, Foreign Ministry
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
told reporters, “The Xisha Islands are part of China’s inherent territory with no dispute at all.” She added that, because there is no dispute, the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, signed by China and ASEAN, “has nothing to do with” the Paracels. The DoC saw China and ASEAN agree, among other points, “to exercise self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes and affect peace and stability.”

That doesn’t necessarily mean that Beijing wouldn’t deploy military assets to the Spratlys, DoC or no. After all, China considers the Spratly Islands its sovereign territory as well. When asked last week if China would deploy missiles or similar equipment in the Spratlys at some point in the future, Chinese Defense Ministry spokesperson
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, “China has the legitimate rights to deploy weaponry on its own territory in the past or at present, temporarily or permanently, and to decide the kind of weaponry and equipment to be deployed.”

The potential for China to deploy similar capabilities on the Spratlys may be precisely why the current developments on Woody Island have raised so much concern. According to Glaser, “It increasingly looks like the Chinese want to hamper access and increase their control over air and sea space” in the South China Sea.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
(continuation)
Yet, at the same time, the deployments on Woody Island, for the reasons discussed above, aren’t a great example of the sort of militarization U.S. officials and security analysts alike are watching for. And a focus on Woody Island’s missiles and jets might actually be counter-productive.

“I worry a bit about this knee jerk tendency toward hyperbole about Chinese militarization,” Gregory Poling, director of the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, told The Diplomat. “There is a real strategic challenge here for the U.S. and regional states—one that requires careful monitoring and calibrated policy responses, but is only undermined if the U.S. is seen as crying wolf.”

AMTI instead has emphasized the deployment of radar facilities to artificial islands in the Spratlys as a more concerning move in the long term. “This month’s deployment of HQ-9 surface-to-air missiles on Woody Island in the Paracels, while notable,
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
the military balance in the South China Sea,” the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
. “New radar facilities being developed in the Spratlys, on the other hand, could significantly change the operational landscape in the South China Sea.”

spratlys-zoom-770.jpg
 

Blackstone

Brigadier
I don't normally post article by Shannon Tiezze She is unabashed China basher . But on this article she hit the nail
South China Sea Militarization: Not All Islands Are Created Equal
What China’s deployments to Woody Island mean — and what they don’t mean.

shannon-tiezzi-36x36.png
I wouldn't call Ms. Tiezzi an unabashed China basher, because she isn't one. She calls things as she sees them, good and bad. Her articles on China are, in general, fairly well balanced, and she doesn't come across as an irrational ideologue. Push comes to shove, I'd place Tiezzi somewhere in between panda huggers and dragon slayers. Now Bonnie Glaser, on the other hand, is an unabashed dragon slayer.
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Just been thinking about continued US military FON flights or ship movements, and how counter-productive it will be. We have voices in the US loudly asserting that the US military will go anywhere it wants, but suppose the US conducts more patrols with Arleigh Burkes and publicises them, what would be the Chinese response?

Would China send out the monster coast guard ships to play chicken? The coast guard ships are bigger and designed to ram a Burke-sized ship, all without suffering any damage.

So a Burke would either have to give way to the larger vessel, as per accepted convention. Or suffer the risk of a collision, but remember that a Burke costs $1.8billion whereas the Chinese coast guard ship probably only costs $0.4billion at most, and would leave without any damage.

But more likely, I think China would decide to place missiles or aircraft on the SCS islands, as it avoids a direct confrontation but strengthens China's strategic position immensely, which is what matters.

So like I said before, if the US wants to conduct FON patrols, it is counter-productive to loudly publicise the fact as China will also be obliged to respond publicly and escalate. And remember that it is China that has escalation dominance, as no-one thinks these islands are worth a full-scale war.

It's a similar calculation with military FON flights in the SCS, so isn't it better to do what the Australians do, which is quietly conduct military FON without a fuss?

It makes the same point to China, but gives everyone more options than megaphone diplomacy in public.
 
Top