China's SCS Strategy Thread

Wrought

Senior Member
Registered Member
What I hate even more is that every time they have to wait until things get to a serious point before thinking about correcting them. Image has no value in this world, and Israel never has to worry about their image.

Do you think Israelis are happy that Canada, UK, France, and Australia have decided to recognize Palestine? They invest in hasbara for a reason.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Only a fool starts a fight when he is already winning without fighting.
 

cft4201

New Member
Registered Member
I think this incident reminds me of another one during the Second World War. When the Royal Navy used a carrier (HMS Glorious) for anti-submarine warfare. And the end result was that Glorious was sunk, and afterwards they weren't used for that purpose again for the duration of the war.

But here instead of having a carrier conducting ASW, we have a destroyer conducting an ramming manoeuvre. I'm more inclined to believe that the commander of 164 is at fault rather there being an institutional issue. If the intention was to ram the Philippine vessel with a DDG then that Philippine vessel will stand absolutely zero chance and essentially be vaporized. I think it is somewhat unlikely that the top brass would approve of such an action at least in this stage.
 

zhangjim

Junior Member
Registered Member
1) 2008 Tibetan unrest — now quelled.

2) 2011 Xinjiang unrest and terrorism — now quelled. Xinjiang one of the safest places in.

3) 2019 Hongkong unrest — now quelled. Even former cucks shop in Shenzhen now.

4) 2022 Pelosi Visit — allowed three branches of PLA to salami slice like there is no tomorrow. Diminished ROC readiness and equipment lifespan while improving coordination within Chinese Air Force and Navy.
I won't comment on the fourth item, but although the first three issues seem to have been 'solved', the cost paid is heavy.
If we investigate the causes of these events, the current outcome is to make up for the consequences of the loss of principles, lax management, and decision-making mistakes made in the past.
 

4Tran

Junior Member
Registered Member
It's unfortunate that this collision happened and it's even sadder that there appears to have been some loss of life. But as I said about the Han Kuang exercise, it's better that these accidents happen in peacetime than at war. At least the consequences are much more controllable, and the entities involve can figure out what went wrong and how to prevent such incidents in the future.

What I hate even more is that every time they have to wait until things get to a serious point before thinking about correcting them. Image has no value in this world, and Israel never has to worry about their image.
On the contrary; it's acting rashly and trying to get on top of the situation too quickly that ends up causing unfortunate problems. If they deliver a good response, nobody will care that it took a couple of weeks to formulate it. If they deliver a poor response, nobody will care that they did so immediately. China has had a pretty good record of keeping its head and being a model of how countries should behave in minor incidents like this.
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
There was 2 crew member at the very front of the bow right before the collision happened, survival seems unlikely given the damage sustained by the CCG vessel. Since there was no official announcement about this matter hence there are no official "confirmation" on casualties.
View attachment 157901
Why were they stationed at the front bow of the ship in the first place?
 

Bellum_Romanum

Brigadier
Registered Member
Unfortunately, I don't believe that there will be confirmation of casualties during this period of time.
It seems that the official narrative is to keep quiet and continue along, hopefully the PLA learns a lesson and not use expensive, valuable assets in such a manner in the future.
This tragic accident show that there's no such thing as risk free operations and never ever assume that your enemy's will falter merely at the sight of your shiny toys since China's PLAN has not made itself and established its OPERATIONAL PROWESS IN COMBAT. Combined that with the unfortunate reality that most of China's neighbors like the Philippines DO NOT FEAR ANY POTENTIAL CHINESE armed conflict due to the stupendous anti-China propaganda, deliberate ignorance of ancient and contemporary Chinese history, the rise and the establishment of the CPC-PRC; the Sino-Japanese War in 1930 (Where China held 60% of the Fascist Japanese Army) all the way to the conclusion of WWII etc...
 

Engineer

Major
The PCG vessel in the incident was BRP Suluan (MRRV-4406), a Parola-class patrol vessel, made in Japan. The vessels of this class have are 321 tons in displacement and have a rated top speed of 25 knots.

The CCG ship 3104 is a Type 056 with a similar top speed, but at 1500 tons is nearly 5 times in displacement. The Type 056 appears to be a suitable vessel to chase after a Parola-class. It can bully the much smaller vessel in ramming maneuvers. However the smaller vessel is obviously more nimble. The CCG have smaller and more nimble vessels, but for that situation, 3104 was the CCG vessel available, and on paper, suitable for the confrontation.

The main problem is the presence of the Type 052D DDG 164 at the scene. Why is a DDG involved in a coast guard confrontation concerning fishing disputes? Up until recently, this was always the CCG's domain. Was the DDG just passing by? Or had it overstepped it's duties by getting involved in coastguard work?
Ah, no wonder. I thought the Filipinos have been pimping their ships. Turned out the ships were made in Japan. Yeah, there is no way 056s will be able to catch up, as faster ships are needed, not ships with the same top speed. If I remember correctly, back in the days of confrontation over Diaoyudao, CCG always got outmaneuvered and only won at the end due to numerical supremacy.
 
Top