China's SCS Strategy Thread

[Cheng]

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

What? Please provide a link to strong documentation for this statement.

The US has numerous air bases all over the world and has certainly not "given up," on defending them.

I believe you are basing a supposed Chinese action on a flawed assumption about US Air Bases. Not that China's decision in any case will be predicated necessarily on what the US does.

Two is the umber if you want to get down to what you absolutely have to have. With two, the only times you may have durations where you do not have one available is when one of thjem is in for a long overhaul. Otherwise, for the normal maintemamce cycles you can get by with scehduling the other to cover those periods. As it is, for the PLAN this will not apply because they ultimately are going to have more than two.

The carrier group is far more flexible, it can get to places and come at them in a maner that land based air cannot, and/or would have a more difficult time maintaining presence there, and it is well defended, even in the event it is found.

All of that adds to the cost benefit ratio. The fact is, every maritime power that can afford any type of aircraft carrier is building them...even in the austere times in which we live...from STOVL carriers, to STOBAR to CATOBAR. They are doing so because they see the benefit of being able to have that mobile airfield over basing everything on land.

China will end up with more than two carriers. Probably four or five. She is embarking on this path precisely because she sees the benefit, and is developing the poliies and operational procedures and metrics on how they will be utilized and applied with the Liaoning.

Ref: US giving up on defending airbases in the Western Pacific.

Here's a USNWC paper, but there is lots of RAND stuff etc

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It boils down to the fact that:

1. US airbases in the Western Pacific are well within range of ballistic and cruise missiles launched from China.
2. These missiles are launched from mobile trucks and relatively cheap.
3. The missiles are also precision weapons capable of destroying Hardened Aircraft Shelters and disabling runways.
4. Defending against these missiles requires very expensive air defense systems such as Patriots or AWACS/Fighters - which are limited in number.

For example, a precision cruise missile launched from a truck costs $0.5million and can destroy a $100million fighter parked in a Hardened Aircraft Shelter.

Shooting this missile down requires:

2x Patriot Missiles costing $4million to $6million. These are launched by a very expensive patriot air defense battery
2x AIM-120 Missiles costing $0.6million to $2.8million. These are launched by very expensive fighter planes.

===

China and Taiwan have long accepted that each other's airbases are vulnerable, and that it is ultimately pointless trying to shoot down incoming missiles.

But their response has been to:
1. disperse aircraft so the missiles don't know where to attack
2. to build super-hardened airbases underground or in mountains
3. simply to build more offensive cruise missiles, and destroy aircraft parked on the ground.

Remember that most of China's strategic objectives all lie within 1500km of the Chinese mainland - which is well within the range of land-based aircraft and missiles. This includes the SCS.

===

In comparison, Aircraft Carriers become very useful if you need to project power in distant theatres where you can no longer rely on airbases.

And for China, the top priority is the continued flow of oil from the Middle East, and the associated sea lanes.

===

As for China forward deploying a single carrier group in say the Middle East, I think it would require almost 3 carriers given the distance involved.

So the estimate of 4-5 carriers becomes 5-6 carriers.

In the future, I see China and the US having to work a lot more closely together, on the quagmire that is the Middle East.

 

[Scyth]

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

We've seen that the US has given up on defending vulnerable fixed airbases, and has gone with dispersed packages of 4 Raptors.

I seriously doubt that the US has given up defending their airbases.

So China probably has similar plans, given that it has historically operated on the assumption that its airbases would be under attack.

China also has a number of spare airbase capacity as its air fleet has downsized, just like everybody else in the world

The US has done things in a certain way because of their strategy and other factors. You can't draw the same line to China because China may follow a different strategy and has to take into account (different) factors (and weigh them differently).

I also forgot that you need 3 ships in order to keep 1 on station at any time.

Therefore the revised figures are as follows:

Total Costs

3x Carrier groups each with 30x J-15 : $27 Billion
Airbase with 60x J-11 : $4.8 Billion

With that sort of cost disparity, it makes sense to use land-based aircraft whenever you can.

I've said it before and will say it for the last time: it's very difficult to come to useful conclusions based on financial figures alone, because you can "play" with the numbers in so many ways that it will lead to so many different conclusions.

Yes, you need 2/3 CSGs to have one on station every time, but let's "play" with this figure: park your CSG at home port and fly your aircraft from there. You won't need an escort package as you can use your land base assets and maintenance should be kept to a minimum (you don't need a 100% working propulsion for example). Furthermore, you only need 1 aircraft carrier and not 2 or 3. Of course, one would say that you would better be better off with a land base in such a situation, which is correct. However, the cost figures are less skewed towards the land base compared to your calculations.

Again, focusing on the cost aspect only will ignore the tactical, strategic and political usefullness of a CSG. You can park a mobile airfield at the other side of the world, which is impossible with an airbase on land. With an airbase on land you'll need to have allies who will allow you to take off and land from their soil. For an aircraft carrier you don't need to have allies. Park a CSG in international waters and you are good to go. You argue that it's better, because it's cheaper, to use aircrafts taking off from an airbase on land compared to from an aircraft carrier, but when you really go to war (whether it's in the lower end of the spectrum or in the higher end), you absolutely want to have all the assets and their corresponding advantages that you can bring regardless of the costs.

If one focuses on cost figures alone, like some politicians do, one could better dismantle their military because they can reason: it's cheaper to use airbase on land compared to CSGs (even though you sacrifice the mobility and other advantages of a CSG), it's cheaper to use only drones for an airforce compared to fighters (even though you'll sacrifice some capabilities of manned fighters), it's cheaper not to go to war compared to fighting a war and because you already decided that you won't go to war, it's cheaper to not have a military.

Ref: US giving up on defending airbases in the Western Pacific.

Here's a USNWC paper, but there is lots of RAND stuff etc

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It boils down to the fact that:

1. US airbases in the Western Pacific are well within range of ballistic and cruise missiles launched from China.
2. These missiles are launched from mobile trucks and relatively cheap.
3. The missiles are also precision weapons capable of destroying Hardened Aircraft Shelters and disabling runways.
4. Defending against these missiles requires very expensive air defense systems such as Patriots or AWACS/Fighters - which are limited in number.

For example, a precision cruise missile launched from a truck costs $0.5million and can destroy a $100million fighter parked in a Hardened Aircraft Shelter.

Shooting this missile down requires:

2x Patriot Missiles costing $4million to $6million. These are launched by a very expensive patriot air defense battery
2x AIM-120 Missiles costing $0.6million to $2.8million. These are launched by very expensive fighter planes.

China and Taiwan have long accepted that each other's airbases are vulnerable, and that it is ultimately pointless trying to shoot down incoming missiles.

But their response has been to:
1. disperse aircraft so the missiles don't know where to attack
2. to build super-hardened airbases underground or in mountains
3. simply to build more offensive cruise missiles, and destroy aircraft parked on the ground.

Remember that most of China's strategic objectives all lie within 1500km of the Chinese mainland - which is well within the range of land-based aircraft and missiles. This includes the SCS.

I'll need some time to digest that paper and although I've some doubts about that paper, it at least highlights the benefit of a CSG that I already pointed out before.

In comparison, Aircraft Carriers become very useful if you need to project power in distant theatres where you can no longer rely on airbases.

Agreed partly, see above: you can't bring enough assets to a war.

 

[Cheng]

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Did you just suggest parking a very expensive aircraft carrier at port, and then flying aircaft off it?

How is that different to an airbase?

The whole point of an aircraft carrier is that it is a mobile airbase.

===

Let's do the figures again for the SCS scenario which is within 1500km of the Chinese coast, and let's be generous with the carrier figures.

Carrier Option = $18 Billion
Only 2x Carrier groups are required, each with 30x J-15

Airbase Option = $18 Billion
180x J-11 : $14.4 Billion
60x IL-78 Tankers: $3 Billion
Other costs: $0.6 Bilion

The total cost of $18 Billion is the same, but with an airbase you can put 180 planes over the SCS with much more capability than 30 planes from a carrier.

What option do you pick? Jeez

Especially since carriers are big and noisy targets, and the PLAN is particularly weak at anti-submarine operations.

===

In addition, 180x J-11s based in Hainan could also establish air superiority over the whole of Vietnam and the Philippines, and thereby "solve" the SCS problem by another route.

30 planes from a carrier cannot do the same.

I seriously doubt that the US has given up defending their airbases.


The US has done things in a certain way because of their strategy and other factors. You can't draw the same line to China because China may follow a different strategy and has to take into account (different) factors (and weigh them differently).



I've said it before and will say it for the last time: it's very difficult to come to useful conclusions based on financial figures alone, because you can "play" with the numbers in so many ways that it will lead to so many different conclusions.

Yes, you need 2/3 CSGs to have one on station every time, but let's "play" with this figure: park your CSG at home port and fly your aircraft from there. You won't need an escort package as you can use your land base assets and maintenance should be kept to a minimum (you don't need a 100% working propulsion for example). Furthermore, you only need 1 aircraft carrier and not 2 or 3. Of course, one would say that you would better be better off with a land base in such a situation, which is correct. However, the cost figures are less skewed towards the land base compared to your calculations.

Again, focusing on the cost aspect only will ignore the tactical, strategic and political usefullness of a CSG. You can park a mobile airfield at the other side of the world, which is impossible with an airbase on land. With an airbase on land you'll need to have allies who will allow you to take off and land from their soil. For an aircraft carrier you don't need to have allies. Park a CSG in international waters and you are good to go. You argue that it's better, because it's cheaper, to use aircrafts taking off from an airbase on land compared to from an aircraft carrier, but when you really go to war (whether it's in the lower end of the spectrum or in the higher end), you absolutely want to have all the assets and their corresponding advantages that you can bring regardless of the costs.

If one focuses on cost figures alone, like some politicians do, one could better dismantle their military because they can reason: it's cheaper to use airbase on land compared to CSGs (even though you sacrifice the mobility and other advantages of a CSG), it's cheaper to use only drones for an airforce compared to fighters (even though you'll sacrifice some capabilities of manned fighters), it's cheaper not to go to war compared to fighting a war and because you already decided that you won't go to war, it's cheaper to not have a military.




I'll need some time to digest that paper and although I've some doubts about that paper, it at least highlights the benefit of a CSG that I already pointed out before.



Agreed partly, see above: you can't bring enough assets to a war.

 

[Scyth]

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Did you just suggest parking a very expensive aircraft carrier at port, and then flying aircaft off it?

How is that different to an airbase?

The whole point of an aircraft carrier is that it is a mobile airbase.

===

Let's do the figures again for the SCS scenario which is within 1500km of the Chinese coast, and let's be generous with the carrier figures.

Carrier Option = $18 Billion
Only 2x Carrier groups are required, each with 30x J-15

Airbase Option = $18 Billion
180x J-11 : $14.4 Billion
60x IL-78 Tankers: $3 Billion
Other costs: $0.6 Bilion

The total cost of $18 Billion is the same, but with an airbase you can put 180 planes over the SCS with much more capability than 30 planes from a carrier.

What option do you pick? Jeez

Especially since carriers are big and noisy targets, and the PLAN is particularly weak at anti-submarine operations.

===

In addition, 180x J-11s based in Hainan could also establish air superiority over the whole of Vietnam and the Philippines, and thereby "solve" the SCS problem by another route.

30 planes from a carrier cannot do the same.

I will highlight some words to help you comprehend what I was trying to say...

I seriously doubt that the US has given up defending their airbases.


The US has done things in a certain way because of their strategy and other factors. You can't draw the same line to China because China may follow a different strategy and has to take into account (different) factors (and weigh them differently).



I've said it before and will say it for the last time: it's very difficult to come to useful conclusions based on financial figures alone, because you can "play" with the numbers in so many ways that it will lead to so many different conclusions.

Yes, you need 2/3 CSGs to have one on station every time, but let's "play" with this figure: park your CSG at home port and fly your aircraft from there. You won't need an escort package as you can use your land base assets and maintenance should be kept to a minimum (you don't need a 100% working propulsion for example). Furthermore, you only need 1 aircraft carrier and not 2 or 3. Of course, one would say that you would better be better off with a land base in such a situation, which is correct. However, the cost figures are less skewed towards the land base compared to your calculations.

Again, focusing on the cost aspect only will ignore the tactical, strategic and political usefullness of a CSG. You can park a mobile airfield at the other side of the world, which is impossible with an airbase on land. With an airbase on land you'll need to have allies who will allow you to take off and land from their soil. For an aircraft carrier you don't need to have allies. Park a CSG in international waters and you are good to go. You argue that it's better, because it's cheaper, to use aircrafts taking off from an airbase on land compared to from an aircraft carrier, but when you really go to war (whether it's in the lower end of the spectrum or in the higher end), you absolutely want to have all the assets and their corresponding advantages that you can bring regardless of the costs.

If one focuses on cost figures alone, like some politicians do, one could better dismantle their military because they can reason: it's cheaper to use airbase on land compared to CSGs (even though you sacrifice the mobility and other advantages of a CSG), it's cheaper to use only drones for an airforce compared to fighters (even though you'll sacrifice some capabilities of manned fighters), it's cheaper not to go to war compared to fighting a war and because you already decided that you won't go to war, it's cheaper to not have a military.


I'll need some time to digest that paper and although I've some doubts about that paper, it at least highlights the benefit of a CSG that I already pointed out before.


Agreed partly, see above: you can't bring enough assets to a war.

I'd also appreciate if you could discuss with me without using "Jeez" and similar expressions.

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Ref: US giving up on defending airbases in the Western Pacific.

Here's a USNWC paper, but there is lots of RAND stuff etc

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

It boils down to the fact that:

1. US airbases in the Western Pacific are well within range of ballistic and cruise missiles launched from China.
2. These missiles are launched from mobile trucks and relatively cheap.
3. The missiles are also precision weapons capable of destroying Hardened Aircraft Shelters and disabling runways.
4. Defending against these missiles requires very expensive air defense systems such as Patriots or AWACS/Fighters - which are limited in number.

Are you familiar with what the US Naval War College is?

It is not a place where US Policy is either set or decided. It is a place where bright, young naval personnel are sent to learn, and to publish their ideas and opinion so they can be fleshed out.

The value of a War college document is simply to get people talking and thinking. The VAST majority of them never, ever lead to any policy.

To take a War college document like this and jump to the conclusion that the US has given up on defending its bases in the WESPAC is incredulous. It would be like saying some Phd dissertation by a very dedicated humanitarian about the need for the nations of the world to devote 50% of their GDP to feeding impoverished people in Africa is somehow now the policy of the UN Security Council.

I have news for you...it's not going to happen.

The US does have very sophisticated air defenses at places like Okinawa and Guam and continually improves them.

 

[Cheng]

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Are you familiar with what the US Naval War College is?

It is not a place where US Policy is either set or decided. It is a place where bright, young naval personnel are sent to learn, and to publish their ideas and opinion so they can be fleshed out.

The value of a War college document is simply to get people talking and thinking. The VAST majority of them never, ever lead to any policy.

To take a War college document like this and jump to the conclusion that the US has given up on defending its bases in the WESPAC is incredulous. It would be like saying some Phd dissertation by a very dedicated humanitarian about the need for the nations of the world to devote 50% of their GDP to feeding impoverished people in Africa is somehow now the policy of the UN Security Council.

I have news for you...it's not going to happen.

The US does have very sophisticated air defenses at places like Okinawa and Guam and continually improves them.

Yes, there are very sophisticated air defenses at places like Okinawa and Guam and the US continually improves them.

In the case of Okinawa, there are currently not enough air-defense platforms available to guarantee airbase survivability, nor have super-hardened facilities been built.

The technology and cost trends means that offensive missiles win over expensive defenses.
Okinawa is close to both China and Taiwan, so neutralising/deterring the F-15E airwing has always been a priority.


Here is the one of the RAND reports I mentioned, published by a former DNI

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

There were also some other RAND reports looking at how vulnerable Okinawa and Guam are.

This is another one, but older

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Jeff Head]

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Yes, there are very sophisticated air defenses at places like Okinawa and Guam and the US continually improves them.

In the case of Okinawa, there are currently not enough air-defense platforms available to guarantee airbase survivability, nor have super-hardened facilities been built.

The technology and cost trends means that offensive missiles win over expensive defenses.

Okinawa is close to both China and Taiwan, so neutralising/deterring the F-15E airwing has always been a priority.

Here is the one of the RAND reports I mentioned, published by a former DNI

There were also some other RAND reports looking at how vulnerable Okinawa and Guam are.

You are posting a few studies and papers by independent individuals and groups.

The bottom line is this. There has been absolutely no decision made, no policy set forth, and none seriously contemplated that calls for the US to stop defending its bases in the WESPAC. The US never has, and is not contemplating such a thing.

There may be a few people who talk about it, but the US has an open and free press, and it is vast with published documents from individuals and groups that would call for almost anything you can imagine. But that is so far away from being any kind of policy decision, or any leaning towards such a policy that it is, as I said early, incredulous.

As I said, there is no policy for the US to abandon the defense of its bases. And that is what you asserted. That somehow the US has realized it might as well not defend those places. That is simply hogwash. . In fact, it continues to strengthen them.

 

[plawolf]

Guys, I think we have strayed a little from the South China Sea.

 

[Jeff Head]

Guys, I think we have strayed a little from the South China Sea.

Good point Plawolf.

No need for any further US WESPAC base defense talk. Back to the SCS.

 

[Kvitoya]

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

The US does have very sophisticated air defenses at places like Okinawa and Guam and continually improves them.

Also the US is reconstructing Saipan as a military base with the goal of countering PLA missiles. For those who don't know Saipan is about 200km NE of Guam.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!