I am in agreement the fact that China has no overseas bases, only a few nuclear-powered submarines, and only a handful of replenishment ships demonstrates that China does not have true blue water naval capability, they have solid green water naval capability but only peacetime blue water naval capability.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
PLAN Carrier Construction
- Thread starter escobar
- Start date
joshuatree
Captain
China doesn't need to go to the Atlantic. If she wants to establish persistent and credible carrier presence west of Guam during period of international tension, she would have problems doing so without nuclear power or a large and vulnerable fleet underway replenishment capability.
China can deploy throughout Indian Ocean to east coast of Africa in peace, yes. But she would also have a great deal of trouble keeping up conventional logistic and fueling support for any forces there during international tension.
So if her strategy calls for her to sustain credible naval carrier presence more than, say 2000 NM from Chinese shores without first acquiring offshore bases, she would likely need something akin to an all nuclear task force.
I feel people quickly overlook that an all nuclear task force still is limited by food, water, and ammo supplies. Fuel as well if we're talking about planes, helos, and amphibious gear. Aside from the sensors and armament retrofit on the nuclear cruisers costing too much, I think the USN stopped going nuclear with the ABs because of these factors. For a smaller tonnage like the AB (vs carrier), the benefits of nuclear don't overwhelming overcome the limitations of the other factors. USN is still heavily dependent on oversea bases, ports, and replenishment vessels.
I would make the counter argument that going to the Atlantic would help China's maritime strategy in many ways.
1) You don't lock in all your naval assets only in one hemisphere.
2) You establish relations with countries bordering the Atlantic that may be very useful in terms of trade and diplomacy. South America comes to mind.
3) You can potentially tap into the weapons market in that part of the world when you routinely demo your products in the form of visits.
4) You can blunt the American pivot because it would mean they need to reconsider their Atlantic interests. The pivot relies on redeploying portions of their forces from the Atlantic.
joshuatree
Captain
On the Indian Ocean the PLAN can always stop by at the port at Gwadar in Pakistan if they need any kind of replenishment.
Seychelles, Myanmar (Burma), Bangladesh, and maybe Sri Lanka come to mind as other viable alternatives for replenishment.
Seychelles, Myanmar (Burma), Bangladesh, and maybe Sri Lanka come to mind as other viable alternatives for replenishment.
but this will require a massive investment,upgrading the port facilities, such as storage ,fuel,repair,not to mention chinese ground crew.
I feel people quickly overlook that an all nuclear task force still is limited by food, water, and ammo supplies. Fuel as well if we're talking about planes, helos, and amphibious gear. Aside from the sensors and armament retrofit on the nuclear cruisers costing too much, I think the USN stopped going nuclear with the ABs because of these factors. For a smaller tonnage like the AB (vs carrier), the benefits of nuclear don't overwhelming overcome the limitations of the other factors. USN is still heavily dependent on oversea bases, ports, and replenishment vessels.
Fuel remain by far the most stringent constraint on a fossil fuel powered ship's ability to operate without outside support. It is easily feasible to provide modern destroyer sized vessel with a crew of 250 with enough food and drinking water storage for 90 or 120 days. 250 men would consume 100 tons of food and water in 90 days, tops. But it is impractical to provide bunkerage for more than 14 days of fuel for cruising at 15 knots. 14 days of cruising at 15 knots would probably consume 1000-2000 tons of fuel. So a nuclear ship may require underway replenishment only once for every 6 times a comparable fossil fuel ship may need to be refueled. Furthermore, the total tonnage of provision the nuclear ship would require during her once in 90 day resupply would be a tiny fraction of what the fossil fuel ship would need during each of her 6 tank ups. The total number of logistic vessel sorties needed, and the volume of logistic cargo, would all be vastly diminished compared to fossil fuel ships.
A nuclear ship may in fact be flexibly supplied with food by helicopter, a thing impossible for fossil fuel ship when being top up. So a Nuclear ship would not to move away from the zone of threat to be tied up along a vulnerable replenishment ship during replenshment.
Her ability to excerpt naval power in Indian Ocean during time of crisis would also be vastly more credible if she sent an all nuclear task force. Without a major and secure base in Indian Ocean, any Chinese non-nuclear naval presence in Indian Ocean could never be more than a peace time show the flag exercise.
Ahem. Pakistan?
EDIT: Nvm, beaten to the punch.
Building a navy requires a massive investment, period.but this will require a massive investment,upgrading the port facilities, such as storage ,fuel,repair,not to mention chinese ground crew.
1) You don't lock in all your naval assets only in one hemisphere.
2) You establish relations with countries bordering the Atlantic that may be very useful in terms of trade and diplomacy. South America comes to mind.
3) You can potentially tap into the weapons market in that part of the world when you routinely demo your products in the form of visits.
4) You can blunt the American pivot because it would mean they need to reconsider their Atlantic interests. The pivot relies on redeploying portions of their forces from the Atlantic.
Maybe in the future, but building massive capabilities requires prioritization. I don't see force projection into the Atlantic being in China's near term goals just yet.
Last edited:
Ahem. Pakistan is on the wrong side of India from china to form be the location of a good forward support base in case of tension with India. Chinese task force would have to circumnavigate a potentially hostile India to get to it.
I think what he means is that Pakistan itself is plenty for India to worry about even if China don't send ship there.
Ahem. Pakistan is on the wrong side of India from china to form be the location of a good forward support base in case of tension with India. Chinese task force would have to circumnavigate a potentially hostile India to get to it.
Furthermore, entire Pakistani coast is within 400 miles of Indian airspace, within the range of in refueled tactical airstrike launched from India, as well as a variety of cruise missiles launched from India. So in any tense situation with India, gwadar could hardly form a secure base for Chinese navy provided it is willing to deploy almost 4000 nm (nearing the limit of most destroyer's unrefuelled cruising range)from strait of malacca all the way around India without intermediate support bases.
Pakistan would be a good and convenient port for Chinese navy when relationship with India is relaxed. It would also be a good place from which to excerpt influence in the Persian gulf or even suez traffic provided Indian relations are relaxed. But it would not be a good place if Chinese navy wishes to deploy to Indian Ocean in response to tensions with India.
For china to operate efficiently in Indian Ocean during times of high tension with India, china would need a protected, defensible 1st class base to provide both provisioning support and maintenance support on china's side of Indian Ocean, preferray well outside the range of Indian land based air power and tactical cruise missile. The ideal location for such a base would be near the strait of malacca.
Furthermore, entire Pakistani coast is within 400 miles of Indian airspace, within the range of in refueled tactical airstrike launched from India, as well as a variety of cruise missiles launched from India. So in any tense situation with India, gwadar could hardly form a secure base for Chinese navy provided it is willing to deploy almost 4000 nm (nearing the limit of most destroyer's unrefuelled cruising range)from strait of malacca all the way around India without intermediate support bases.
Pakistan would be a good and convenient port for Chinese navy when relationship with India is relaxed. It would also be a good place from which to excerpt influence in the Persian gulf or even suez traffic provided Indian relations are relaxed. But it would not be a good place if Chinese navy wishes to deploy to Indian Ocean in response to tensions with India.
For china to operate efficiently in Indian Ocean during times of high tension with India, china would need a protected, defensible 1st class base to provide both provisioning support and maintenance support on china's side of Indian Ocean, preferray well outside the range of Indian land based air power and tactical cruise missile. The ideal location for such a base would be near the strait of malacca.
Last edited:
Other countries were mentioned, like Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (not by me of course). Besides, India doesn't have the capabilities to blockade China from the Indian Ocean, and a permanent station in Pakistan makes India's naval situation worse, not better. In a tense situation with China, not only would India have to risk inflaming conflict with Pakistan to hit that base, but it would have to decide between two flanks. It's not like an independent base could not hold out its own defence either, especially within the territory of an ally, who, btw, can give China land access to its own base, aid in resupply and logistics, and provide military support if the need arises. After all, a base is not just a location but a place where you build your military strength.Ahem. Pakistan is on the wrong side of India from china to form be the location of a good forward support base in case of tension with India. Chinese task force would have to circumnavigate a potentially hostile India to get to it.
Furthermore, entire Pakistani coast is within 400 miles of Indian airspace, within the range of in refueled tactical airstrike launched from India, as well as a variety of cruise missiles launched from India. So in any tense situation with India, gwadar could hardly form a secure base for Chinese navy provided it is willing to deploy almost 4000 nm (nearing the limit of most destroyer's unrefuelled cruising range)from strait of malacca all the way around India without intermediate support bases.
Pakistan would be a good and convenient port for Chinese navy when relationship with India is relaxed. It would also be a good place from which to excerpt influence in the Persian gulf or even suez traffic provided Indian relations are relaxed. But it would not be a good place if Chinese navy wishes to deploy to Indian Ocean in response to tensions with India.
Last edited: