China's SCS Strategy Thread

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
I've heard several times, claims that the SCS island bases that China has built are "sinking" and take a lot of resources to maintain. Is there any truth to this or is it just Western social media propagandists pushing these claims? If there is some truth to it, what's China doing to maintain its islands there?
Good question. Artificial islands need maintenance as default because they are not solid rock formations. This is true for even more famous and coastal artificial islands like Dubai's Palm Island. So yes, Chinese SCS islands would need maintenance to not shrink. But I don't think that would be particularly hard or expensive. These are not aircraft that need constant maintenance.

The Western media usually don't lie. More often they cherrypick or twist facts.
 

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
What a cringe take, they make straight up lies all the times out of thin air.
Most of their reality distortion is like this.

The growth figures are real. The conclusions are twisted. This is what they do 99% of the time. They take something, mix in their biased comment and serve them together as a news article. Lying is usually done by NGOs and US State Department.
 

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
Most of their reality distortion is like this.

The growth figures are real. The conclusions are twisted. This is what they do 99% of the time. They take something, mix in their biased comment and serve them together as a news article. Lying is usually done by NGOs and US State Department.
I will not reply further due to offtopic, but take a look at this:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


As well as numerous examples of organ harvest Uighur, etc.

US State Department can lie yes, but these media also repeat the lie for years so they are also lying.
 

davidau

Senior Member
Registered Member
Most of their reality distortion is like this.

The growth figures are real. The conclusions are twisted. This is what they do 99% of the time. They take something, mix in their biased comment and serve them together as a news article. Lying is usually done by NGOs and US State Department.
they are trained to lie!
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
Some updates:

According to Wanwanese news media, Shandong and her CSG has entered the SCS after passing through the Luzon Strait from the Philippine Sea today.

0071RHuRgy1hf5uvvtymxj30qo0hsq5u.jpg

In the meantime, many Murican warplanes hover in the vicinity of Shandong and her CSG, including RC-135V, EP-3E, KC-135R and a suspected P-8A.

008pTJr2ly1hf5y04hr3pj32b61b31kx.jpg

Personal comments:
1. Looks like someone is looking for more chaffs in their aircraft engines...
2. In the meantime, even with Fujian, China has too few carriers right now. China should procure ~6-9 carriers and ~10 smaller flat-decks in the coming years...
 
Last edited:

henrik

Senior Member
Registered Member
I've heard several times, claims that the SCS island bases that China has built are "sinking" and take a lot of resources to maintain. Is there any truth to this or is it just Western social media propagandists pushing these claims? If there is some truth to it, what's China doing to maintain its islands there?

That depends on how it was built. For example the Hong Kong international airport was built on artificial island. It does not require much maintenance at all.
 

FairAndUnbiased

Brigadier
Registered Member
Some updates:

According to Wanwanese news media, Shandong and her CSG has entered the SCS after passing through the Luzon Strait from the Philippine Sea today.

View attachment 114789

In the meantime, many Murican warplanes hover in the vicinity of Shandong and her CSG, including RC-135V, EP-3E, KC-135R and a suspected P-8A.

View attachment 114790

Personal comments:
1. Looks like someone is looking for more chaffs in their aircraft engines...
2. In the meantime, even with Fujian, China has too few carriers right now. China should procure ~6-9 carriers and ~10 smaller flat-decks in the coming years...
A fleet of 2 STOBARs, 3-4 CATOBAR CVs and and 3-4 CVNs is enough. And if smaller flatdecks are necessary, I think more cheap STOBAR is better than amphibious flatdecks with no launcher or arrestor system.

despite propaganda, STOBARs are much more capable than amphibious flatdecks as the limit for fighter launching is almost always the arresting system. Catapult launched fighters can take off from a ramp under their own power like the F-18 and Mig-29 demonstrated but they can't stop without an arrestor.

I also think the catapult is much more expensive and complicated than the arrestor so the marginal cost of upgrading a helicopter carrier or STOVL carrier into a STOBAR is much lower than upgrading to a CATOBAR.

That's why UK's carriers are crippled: they're ski ramp but don't have an arrestor system: they can't recover fixed wings so they need a STOVL plane. If they added an arrestor they could launch both F-35B and F-35C but they won't because the ideology in the west says STOBAR sucks... So they basically have a big, expensive, non amphibious version of a 075 LHD instead.

A cheap mini Shandong with a 20-25 fighter complement at 40k tons for <$1 billion would be sufficient to complement the 80k-90k ton CATOBARs.
 
Top