Directly confronting US or Russian territory is a recipe for nuclear war. And I don't see any need for China to do this in order to achieve its objectives.
China's SCS Strategy Thread
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
Directly confronting US or Russian territory is a recipe for nuclear war. And I don't see any need for China to do this in order to achieve its objectives.
antiterror13
Brigadier
absolutely and China get everything they want from Siberia like timber, and other important resources, by trade
As long as China can trade for the resources with Russia it has no need to physically hold the land. It could have been a problem if Russia was either failing to extract the resources or failed to sell to China but that is clearly not the case.
I have to say that I don't quite understand where a lot of the discussions on this thread is going, so I'm going to push this a different direction. Why is south china sea important and how can China utilize it?
The first question is quite easy. Most of the energy exports from the middle East and Africa passes through the region on their way to East Asia. Similar, all of the trade activities pass through the region on their way from Europe. Right now, USN or any of the countries around there like Australia, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia can easily choke off that sea lane in the even of a major dispute. There is not much China can do about that. That's a huge security threat for China striving for the super power status. There is always talks of energy exploration in South China Sea, but I don't see that as important as China's trade dependencies.
The second question is more interesting. This is a good article explaining the strategic importance . As long as China has a major military presence in the water with the carriers and submarines, it will be hard for any foreign power to display the military bases they have already set up. Just as importantly, they can attempt to neutralize the vast submarine threat by building an underwater. For example, they can fully built out (if they haven't already) an vast undersea hydrophone network to detect not just surface fleet but also submarines. That along with all the ASW helicopters from heliport in the region and surface warships would allow them to more easily track the quietest submarines. Something that would be hard to do with their diesel submarine fleet.
More importantly, the Spratley bases have already finished construction . They can house 72 fighter jets along with 4 large aircraft. In the even of a war, that could mean 30 J-20s, 36 J-16s, 6 J-16Ds, 4 Y-20 variants. It could even be temporarily used to refuel H-20s. I estimate Spratley bases to be about 1000 km from Singapore or the straits of Malacca. Any Chinese military presence in the region will need to be able to provide legitimate threat to that particular area. 2 large carriers + 1 LHD would allow them to carry an air wing of probably 70 J-35s, 30 J-15 variants, 10 KJ-600, UAVs and maybe 50 helos of different variety. If we combine the air force and the naval presence, they would have numerical advantage in 5th generation aircraft, AWACs, EW aircraft and heavy 4th generation aircraft against individual countries in the area and probably even if they were to face 2 USN groups along with its allies. PLAN carrier groups alone would be quite the force. The addition of J-20s, J-16s and Y-20U or Y-20 AWACs would allow them to maintain numbers in the region. In normal scenarios, I'd say that 1 J-35 on a carrier would give them more air time than 1 J-20 flying from 1000 km away. However, the permanent air bases allow them to quickly rotate J-20s from other regiment into the regions. If they have 300 to 400 J-20s overall, then maybe 250 of them would be available for operation at any time. They could essentially rotate the available J-20 units through Spratleys 2 brigades at a time, so that the pilots and the aircraft can have some downtime afterward for relaxation and maintenance. Of course, they could also rotate carrier groups, but that would take longer time. With enough Y-20Us from Spratleys and Hainan, J-20/J-16s with drop tanks could loiter for some time even if they have to fly 900 km into the theater.
The other thing is that Spratley base also give them the possibility of bombing Australian naval base at Darwin, Cairns and maybe even perth at light load. Since Australia is likely to help USN in any war scenario, PLAAF has to be prepared to bomb naval bases where Australian submarines or surface combatants operate from. With refueling along the way, they can probably carry sufficient payload to effectively attack those bases. Without refueling, they'd be more limited. Realistically, the only way they could potentially take out Australia from battlefield is to drop a lot of bombs in those regions. You don't really want to send a carrier group there while advanced submarines are actively operating in the region. They don't really have to worry about long range land based SAMs around Australian naval bases. I don't know how much Australia has invested in tracking VLO aircraft. There is a good chance they have not done much investment due to lack of such threat. As such, they would only need to fly around any surface combatants (like Hobart class) with advance air radar and SAM.
The first question is quite easy. Most of the energy exports from the middle East and Africa passes through the region on their way to East Asia. Similar, all of the trade activities pass through the region on their way from Europe. Right now, USN or any of the countries around there like Australia, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia can easily choke off that sea lane in the even of a major dispute. There is not much China can do about that. That's a huge security threat for China striving for the super power status. There is always talks of energy exploration in South China Sea, but I don't see that as important as China's trade dependencies.
The second question is more interesting. This is a good article explaining the strategic importance . As long as China has a major military presence in the water with the carriers and submarines, it will be hard for any foreign power to display the military bases they have already set up. Just as importantly, they can attempt to neutralize the vast submarine threat by building an underwater. For example, they can fully built out (if they haven't already) an vast undersea hydrophone network to detect not just surface fleet but also submarines. That along with all the ASW helicopters from heliport in the region and surface warships would allow them to more easily track the quietest submarines. Something that would be hard to do with their diesel submarine fleet.
More importantly, the Spratley bases have already finished construction . They can house 72 fighter jets along with 4 large aircraft. In the even of a war, that could mean 30 J-20s, 36 J-16s, 6 J-16Ds, 4 Y-20 variants. It could even be temporarily used to refuel H-20s. I estimate Spratley bases to be about 1000 km from Singapore or the straits of Malacca. Any Chinese military presence in the region will need to be able to provide legitimate threat to that particular area. 2 large carriers + 1 LHD would allow them to carry an air wing of probably 70 J-35s, 30 J-15 variants, 10 KJ-600, UAVs and maybe 50 helos of different variety. If we combine the air force and the naval presence, they would have numerical advantage in 5th generation aircraft, AWACs, EW aircraft and heavy 4th generation aircraft against individual countries in the area and probably even if they were to face 2 USN groups along with its allies. PLAN carrier groups alone would be quite the force. The addition of J-20s, J-16s and Y-20U or Y-20 AWACs would allow them to maintain numbers in the region. In normal scenarios, I'd say that 1 J-35 on a carrier would give them more air time than 1 J-20 flying from 1000 km away. However, the permanent air bases allow them to quickly rotate J-20s from other regiment into the regions. If they have 300 to 400 J-20s overall, then maybe 250 of them would be available for operation at any time. They could essentially rotate the available J-20 units through Spratleys 2 brigades at a time, so that the pilots and the aircraft can have some downtime afterward for relaxation and maintenance. Of course, they could also rotate carrier groups, but that would take longer time. With enough Y-20Us from Spratleys and Hainan, J-20/J-16s with drop tanks could loiter for some time even if they have to fly 900 km into the theater.
The other thing is that Spratley base also give them the possibility of bombing Australian naval base at Darwin, Cairns and maybe even perth at light load. Since Australia is likely to help USN in any war scenario, PLAAF has to be prepared to bomb naval bases where Australian submarines or surface combatants operate from. With refueling along the way, they can probably carry sufficient payload to effectively attack those bases. Without refueling, they'd be more limited. Realistically, the only way they could potentially take out Australia from battlefield is to drop a lot of bombs in those regions. You don't really want to send a carrier group there while advanced submarines are actively operating in the region. They don't really have to worry about long range land based SAMs around Australian naval bases. I don't know how much Australia has invested in tracking VLO aircraft. There is a good chance they have not done much investment due to lack of such threat. As such, they would only need to fly around any surface combatants (like Hobart class) with advance air radar and SAM.
Great write up. I want to add a couple of considerations.
Thus far, the U.S. have not talk of blockades. The big question is, why not? Well, trade with the U.S. obviously would be excluded from the blockade, trade with Europe would likely be excluded if we don't wish to make Europe our enemy. That leaves oil. China can obviously buy oil from Russia. China can also ship oil from Iran by providing DF17, DF26 etc. to Pakistan and Iran, creating a shield in which the merchant ships would pass through. Underwater detection network in key areas plus type 54 would be out hunting the subs. I am sure China is ok with trading some merchant ships and type 54 for some of the Seawolves. China can also blockade Japan. This would change the political landscape in East Asia and the Middle East. Taking a step further, China can bomb and then occupy the U.S. bases along the first island chain. This would surely change the political landscape in East Asia as the U.S. can no longer protect Japan or South Korea. Given how much we have to lose, the U.S. will not risk that to do a blockade.
Also don't forget the land based passages. If a blockade were to happen in the Strait of Malacca, China can ask adjoining countries for passage to Singapore. Please note that Singapore is connected to China by land, albeit adjoining other countries. At times of war, I am pretty sure that China can persuade Laos, Cambodia, Thailand etc. to provide passage. Similarly, if Australia joins in war effort against China, a deal could be struck with Indonesia to grant passage. Indonesia has been under the thumb of Australia, I am sure they would be happy to share some of the spoils in a war against Australia. China can send her strong army down through Singapore, hop some islands via Indonesia and take Australia that way. The subs in this case has become irrelevant since the passage is mostly through land. Once a base is established in Northern Australia, it is game over.
Besides the potential for counter offensive capabilities it is also good for defensive capabilities. At least temporarily. If any war over Taiwan happened then any moves in the SCS put those assets at greater risk of being intercepted.
That buys some protection along the Southern Coast of China but more importantly. It will buy a lot of time. I don’t think the US + allies will fully commit on the Southern Front until the SCS is dealt with.
It may allow more assets and resources to be diverted towards Taiwan (at least initial stages) until it’s necessary for them to return.
antiterror13
Brigadier
wooow, awesome. Would it better use ICBM to "threat" Aussie of "bombing" Darwin and Perth and even Sydney ?
ICBMs are quite expensive. You would use it as a strategic asset. Something like a base or a port needs to be persistently and repeatedly bombed. Bombers/fighter bombers are much better suited for the job. If and when H-20 comes on line, that would be a very good instrument for bombing Australia if it comes to that.
I would not trust most of ASEAN countries to join China's side in a war. Most of these countries would want to stay neutral. I think in general, China will have to moderate some of its SCS positions in order to get more support from ASEAN countries. Vietnam is a lot cause. It's also close enough to China that they would not dare to do anything funny in a war. More importantly, Spratleys are more strategically important than Paracels. As China continues to fortify those air bases, it might get some level of acceptance from other countries over time. It's far easier to settle those islands with Philllipines and Malaysia vs Vietnam. if they can reach an agreement with Philippines and Malaysia, then China can work on assuming dominating position with ASEAN countries. That would include exports, free trade zones and such. If it can reach that, it has much fewer concerns in the area. Singapore is likely to also stay neutral in any conflict if it knows China can flatten it. When we get to that point, the main threat to Chinese trade route are USN, RAN and India.
Aside from Spratleys, China could also work on getting a naval base in Cambodia. A large size military base there would really give their Air Force complete access over Malacca straight. They'd also be able to ferry over their fighter jets/bombers via Laos air space. It'd be far easier to convince Cambodia/Laos to switch to China's side rather than Thailand. A base with protected hangars and long air strip in Cambodia would also allow them to bomb Australia's Perth naval base.
If we look beyond just SCS, they'd also need to establish something closer to Gulf of Hormuz. The most obvious place would be Gwader port in Pakistan. That's extremely strategically located. A fleet of J-20s/flankers would put India in a very weak position. It would also offer them adequate protection on oil transport.
100% not. You must never threaten another country with nuclear weapon unless you want get treated like a pariah internationally. More importantly, Australia would laugh it off, because any attack against Australia would face nuclear retaliation from America. that's not a path you ever want to take
In peace times, you are correct. No one want to pick sides. In times of war, China could be quite persuasive. These countries might not be able to refuse such an offer, just as someone being asked from Don Corelone for a favor might find similarly. Once China takes Singapore, Indonesia will also be staring down a large military across the strait and in a similar position.