China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Iron Man]

Though in this case, the topic of disagreement is one that verges on being discouraged by the forum rules -- i.e.: conflict scenario type discussions... so yeah.

Really? I suppose lining up ORBATs would also be discouraged then. Oh well.

I recall both said they had put each other on Ignore List(s) (it's happened in thread called something like Chinese ASh Missiles I believe, it's my lunch break so I don't have time to find the links right now EDIT I quickly found this: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-anti-ship-surface-missiles.t6345/page-25#post-405285) so it seems now they decided it slug it out LOL
I think Iron Man can become 'New Sheriff In Town' as his views are not one-sided West/China wins-no-matter-what ... interestingly, he put down
Brumby
first (who was wholeheartedly pro-Western, claiming technological superiority based on manufacturers'/PR Departments' statements LOL (I told him this on several occasions), and later I realized Brumby had portrayed Chinese technologies as if it was 1996 now)

Only the mods here are "sheriffs"; I'm just stating my own personal views in these threads. I tend to have a middle view on most subjects so I tend to disagree with both extremes of China fanbois and China naysayers. BTW I haven't had anyone on Ignore, including Plawolf.

 

[Blitzo]

Really? I suppose lining up ORBATs would also be discouraged then. Oh well.

Well this is one of the forbidden topics of the forum, in the forum rules: "No "what if" discussion about war, particularly nuclear war, between China and other nations, or between any nations."

So the current line of discussion is definitely veering in that direction.


In my experience, I think the reason for prohibiting certain topics and lines of discussions is because the tendency for certain topics to have a higher risk of heated disagreement, and a higher risk of descending into mutual perceived nationalism and emotionalism, and other consequences like personal attacks.

Discussion about things like orbats tend to have a far lower risk of lighting up sparks.

 

[Jura The idiot]

...


Only the mods here are "sheriffs" ...

I was just teasing you (wondering what you would say

BTW I haven't had anyone on Ignore, including Plawolf.

I later realized you probably hadn't reciprocated LOL
gotta go now, keep posting, Sheriff!

 

[Equation]

Who says China knows whether the USN is sailing through the Java and Celebes Seas? Maybe the USN will actually be travelling through the SCS after all. Maybe the USN will go even further west and sail along the southern coast of Indonesia and pass up through the Banda and Molucca Seas. Maybe the USN will split up and go multiple routes. China can't really reduce its search area at all without taking the risk of missing the transiting forces.

Where ever route the US Navy takes to get to China they can never project power like they used to before without risking getting retaliation from the PLA extensive options from AsBM to diesel electric subs to counter that threat is the bottom line.

 

[vesicles]

I have a feeling plawolf would most certainly not agree, which has been the entire nexus of debate in the last several posts. This debate itself seems somewhat out of place in the SCS thread since it has been concerning the validity of a certain admiral's off the cuff statement about the relative strength of militaries within the Westpac, that has subsequently been gobbled up wholeheartedly by certain segments of the PLA watching community. Though I don't see an obviously more appropriate destination.


I would love to further expound on who said what first and what escalated what here in this thread, but this would be further going down a path that is already totally off-topic in a discussion that is already semi-off topic.

I think there is a need to clarify the actual arguments from both sides. On the one side, people seem to agree with the USN admiral in that the USN is no longer the biggest guy on the block (Western Pacific). On the other side, disagreement with such statement, which implies that the USN still enjoys overwhelming advantage over the PLAN in the Western Pacific.

Members in the former camp, such as plawolf, believe that the admiral made such statement assuming that the highest probability of an armed conflict between China and the US and/or its allies, however slim such probability may be, would be a quick, high intensity and high tech battle. In such scenario, China enjoys advantage because of geography. The battle would be mostly fought close to China and it would be much easier for China to deploy enough forces and resources to overwhelm whatever its opponent(s) and, even more importantly, to discourage the USN from directly engaging during the initial stages. And the battle will be ended quickly so as that the US will have no chance of "getting back at China".

First of all, China won't be entering the battle blindly. China will choose its opponent(s) carefully. If faced with the possibility of fighting a strong opponent like Japan, China will probably not fight at all because any fight with a peer opponent like Japan won't end quickly and favorably. China should be aware of that and will bare that in mind when making the decision whether or not to fight. If it is the Philippines, than it would be a different story entirely. China should know that it can overwhelm the Philippines easily. And also, no matter what kind of scenario it might be, it won't be a full scale invasion. The PLA won't land on foreign land and won't establish "colonies", so to speak. It would be a very limited battle with highly strict ROE. Teach a lesson and then done. As I mentioned, China has done this kind of flash fight before.

I will let you clarify your argument as I am still not quite sure what your point is...

One thing to make clear is that no one is saying an armed conflict between China and the US is imminent. And no one is saying an armed conflict is imminent between any nations in East Asia. No one is saying that. As I have pointed out numerous times, all nations will try their utmost best to avoid such conflict. What everyone is saying is that, IF an armed conflict could happen, however slim such possibility, it will be quick and small scale precisely because no one wants to fight. And under such scenario, the USN does not enjoy the strategic advantage because it cannot mass enough force in such short time to ensure absolute victory.

Keep in mind that the US military doctrine since the Vietnam War has always been that it will only enter and engage a conflict when it enjoys absolute dominance to ensure absolute victory. The amount of US forces deployed to the Western Pacific definitely does not guarantee absolute victory in a potential conflict with China. As long as the US is not cornered and forced to fight, the US won't engage in a fight with China because any such fight would violate the most fundamental military doctrines of the US. So, as long as China doesn't do something stupid like bombing/attacking a US facility, the US simply won't engage.

So in summary, IF forced to fight, China will pick its opponent (a weak one) and finish the fight quickly. then provide incentives for the US to get involved in following diplomatic solutions.

 

[weig2000]

I recall both said they had put each other on Ignore List(s) (it's happened in thread called something like Chinese ASh Missiles I believe, it's my lunch break so I don't have time to find the links right now EDIT I quickly found this: https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-anti-ship-surface-missiles.t6345/page-25#post-405285) so it seems now they decided it slug it out LOL
I think Iron Man can become 'New Sheriff In Town' as his views are not one-sided West/China wins-no-matter-what ... interestingly, he put down
Brumby
first (who was wholeheartedly pro-Western, claiming technological superiority based on manufacturers'/PR Departments' statements LOL (I told him this on several occasions), and later I realized Brumby had portrayed Chinese technologies as if it was 1996 now)

I'm also reminded that shortly after Iron Man joined the forum, he got into a heated fight with Deino (of all people here). That's quite an "accomplishment," to put it mildly - it is quite a challenge to end up in rounds of fights with Deino. I'm not talking about the substance or contents of the arguments, of course; it's the more personal aspect of it.

 

[AndrewS]

It's activities like escape rooms or tube parties or restaurants with panoramic views or cool hidden bars

 

[Iron Man]

I'm also reminded that shortly after Iron Man joined the forum, he got into a heated fight with Deino (of all people here). That's quite an "accomplishment," to put it mildly - it is quite a challenge to end up in rounds of fights with Deino. I'm not talking about the substance or contents of the arguments, of course; it's the more personal aspect of it.

Your memory seems to be severely deficient here. I have never had any "fights" with Deino, heated or otherwise. Perhaps you would care to prove me wrong with a direct link and quote. Or else man up and retract your accusation.

Where ever route the US Navy takes to get to China they can never project power like they used to before without risking getting retaliation from the PLA extensive options from AsBM to diesel electric subs to counter that threat is the bottom line.

There is no doubt that this is the case. Whereas in 1996 China could have done absolutely nothing to CSGs prowling around the very coastlines off China, in 2016 such a move would be essentially suicidal for those same carriers. In my estimation they have been definitively pushed back to at least 500-600km from China's coastline at this point, perhaps even further. This is already at the edge of the useful (strike) combat radius of the F/A-18, incidentally. The area of disagreement however does not lie in the plain fact that China is pushing the USN further and further away from its coast, it is the degree to which China is currently able to do this.

First of all, China won't be entering the battle blindly. China will choose its opponent(s) carefully. If faced with the possibility of fighting a strong opponent like Japan, China will probably not fight at all because any fight with a peer opponent like Japan won't end quickly and favorably.

We have no disagreement here, though you would get violent disagreement from the resident fanbois on this very point.

If it is the Philippines, than it would be a different story entirely. China should know that it can overwhelm the Philippines easily. And also, no matter what kind of scenario it might be, it won't be a full scale invasion. The PLA won't land on foreign land and won't establish "colonies", so to speak. It would be a very limited battle with highly strict ROE. Teach a lesson and then done. As I mentioned, China has done this kind of flash fight before.

China has no need to do anything to the Philippines militarily. Their only area of contention is the SCS, and China doesn't even need naval assets to handle the PN. It would in fact be a bad idea IMO. Kiddy gloves for a junior navy (i.e. Chinese CG cutters) is the appropriate and highest level of response that would be needed for a scuffle with them. Let's also remember that the US also has a formal defense treaty with the Philippines as well.

One thing to make clear is that no one is saying an armed conflict between China and the US is imminent. And no one is saying an armed conflict is imminent between any nations in East Asia. No one is saying that. As I have pointed out numerous times, all nations will try their utmost best to avoid such conflict. What everyone is saying is that, IF an armed conflict could happen, however slim such possibility, it will be quick and small scale precisely because no one wants to fight. And under such scenario, the USN does not enjoy the strategic advantage because it cannot mass enough force in such short time to ensure absolute victory.

Correct, no one is saying an armed conflict between China and the US is "imminent". And yes, any conflict would face countervailing pressure to be as limited as possible. But my limited is clearly not your limited, and your limited is clearly not plawolf's "limited", where he envisions the destruction of the majority of the naval and air force assets of Japan in his quick and limited campaign. LOL

Keep in mind that the US military doctrine since the Vietnam War has always been that it will only enter and engage a conflict when it enjoys absolute dominance to ensure absolute victory. The amount of US forces deployed to the Western Pacific definitely does not guarantee absolute victory in a potential conflict with China. As long as the US is not cornered and forced to fight, the US won't engage in a fight with China because any such fight would violate the most fundamental military doctrines of the US. So, as long as China doesn't do something stupid like bombing/attacking a US facility, the US simply won't engage.

This is a dangerous assumption to make. US interests encompass far more than the mere protection of its facilities. Formal defense treaties are also encompassed within US interests, not so much because the US feels it is in any way 'honor-bound' to live up to its agreements, but because it clearly has self-interests in both maintaining and backing up such alliances.

Also, waiting to engage until a more opportune time and declining to engage altogether are entirely different responses. And I don't know exactly what you mean by "absolute" dominance, but the US has not had to choose to engage without a significant military advantage since the Vietnam War, so saying that it will not engage if it doesn't have a significant advantage is wrong, because it has always enjoyed such an advantage.

 

[Jeff Head]

@Iron Man @Equation @vesicles

I might add here...again.

To date, there has never been a full-up, live fire test, using the entire requisite C4SRI requirements for of the PRC's much bespoken and written about DF-21 Anti-shipping ballistic missile.

Not one.

There has not so much as been a live fire test of the missile itself against a maneuvering target at sea, even without the regional C4SRI sensor net.

Such tests would require an announcement regarding the area of ocean that would be off limits and you can bet that such a test would be very closely monitored from space, from MPAs, from vessels well away from the area, etc.and by numerous nations.

I have significant contacts in the Naval and intelligence community and you can believe me when I tell you that no such live fire test has occurred.

So...how well it performs is completely up for grabs.

Until such tests are performed, I still view they system (which they no doubt have worked obn and may have even deployed some mock, or initial equipment to the coasts) is much more a Sung Tsu ploy to get the US to fear committing resources in an area where it has strong superiority, and where those superior systems are equipped with a defense system designed to shoot down such missiles....which contrary to the DF-19, has been tested, and successfully, many, many times.

@tphuang @bd popeye @cirvine11 @SouthernSky @navyreco @FORBIN @Obi Wan Russell @Brumby

 

[Hendrik_2000]

@Iron Man @Equation @vesicles

I might add here...again.

To date, there has never been a full-up, live fire test, using the entire requisite C4SRI requirements for of the PRC's much bespoken and written about DF-21 Anti-shipping ballistic missile.

Not one.

There has not so much as been a live fire test of the missile itself against a maneuvering target at sea, even without the regional C4SRI sensor net.

Such tests would require an announcement regarding the area of ocean that would be off limits and you can bet that such a test would be very closely monitored from space, from MPAs, from vessels well away from the area, etc.and by numerous nations.

I have significant contacts in the Naval and intelligence community and you can believe me when I tell you that no such live fire test has occurred.

So...how well it performs is completely up for grabs.

Until such tests are performed, I still view they system (which they no doubt have worked obn and may have even deployed some mock, or initial equipment to the coasts) is much more a Sung Tsu ploy to get the US to fear committing resources in an area where it has strong superiority, and where those superior systems are equipped with a defense system designed to shoot down such missiles....which contrary to the DF-19, has been tested, and successfully, many, many times.

@tphuang @bd popeye @cirvine11 @SouthernSky @navyreco @FORBIN @Obi Wan Russell @Brumby

We have thru this many times. You are entitle to your opinion but it doesn't make it true.

This ASBM is no smoke and mirror . Admiral Willard the naval intelligence chief testify that indeed DF 21 D is operational in 2013 I believe

A lot of smart people has been following the progress and development of ASBM for a long time. It is not flash in the pant.

As to the test they don't have to test in sea All they have to do is aim it close to the intended target and see if the system can find it
We have seen mock up of carrier get hit by a missile

Now some people will say can they find it?. The Indian did some study and simulation based on the type of surveillance satellite and orbit which are in public domain. And their conclusion is they do have the system to find , locate, track a moving CBG