joshuatree
Captain
I expect more of surveillance planes and J-11BHs. But I think JH-7As would be too aggressive a posture for now since they are fighter bombers. Hopefully maybe the AG-600s will be available too.
PLAN SCS Bases/Islands/Vessels (Not a Strategy Page)
- Thread starter lilzz
- Start date
I expect more of surveillance planes and J-11BHs. But I think JH-7As would be too aggressive a posture for now since they are fighter bombers. Hopefully maybe the AG-600s will be available too.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Why the antique J-8 jets?
SinoSoldier
Colonel
I don't think that US DoD or media will care whether these jets are air superiority or bombers; in fact, few observers know that the J-11BHs are not capable of carrying air-to-surface weapons.
joshuatree
Captain
Most likely but why give them or the neighboring states more ammo? The J-11BHs I would say just because you want a twin engine interceptor for meet and greets. But probably even then, they be unarmed to reflect a defensive monitoring posture.
SinoSoldier
Colonel
Yes, but why not make the most out of it? Whether these are J-11Bs or JH-7As will make no difference in how they will be received.
joshuatree
Captain
Well, that's where the politics and diplomacy come into play. Even the Russians intercepting USS Ross with a Su-24 was unarmed.
>>>>> MODERATION: Removed comparisons and war talk. <<<<<
Better for China to be a reasonable and peaceful Super Power and be friends to most neighboring nations. It doesn't seem to be going towards this direction judging from its recent assertive operations in the South and East China Seas. All the move towards cooperation thru' China's AIIB (Asian International Infrastructure Bank) would be meaningless and unsuccessful if there are hostilities in the Asian region.
Better for China to be a reasonable and peaceful Super Power and be friends to most neighboring nations. It doesn't seem to be going towards this direction judging from its recent assertive operations in the South and East China Seas. All the move towards cooperation thru' China's AIIB (Asian International Infrastructure Bank) would be meaningless and unsuccessful if there are hostilities in the Asian region.
Last edited by a moderator:
antiterror13
Brigadier
You may remember 1 April 2001 Hainan incident ?
China is going to continue to expand its military presence in both ECS and SCS, that is an inevitability and would have occurred regardless of territorial disputes. The need to secure SLOCs was always going to be a goal for China as its seaborn trade and dependence on energy increased.
However greater assertiveness regarding territorial disputes does not mean China is interested in conquering its neighbours or seizing their resources through force, nor does it mean China is interested in unilateral escalation regarding disputed territories or that China is unwilling to sit on the negotiating table. Of course the conditions where peaceful resolution is achieved is the problem at hand. Everyone wants peace and resolution on their terms, and China's actions are to provide itself with more negotiating tools and to bring many of the opposing claimants to the negotiating table without having to resort to conflict.
China's present and projected economic and industrial prowess makes war an unattractive option for it, except in particular situations where a red line is crossed or where an unacceptable escalation occurs (say, Taiwanese independence or if for some reason an opposing claimant in the South China Sea starts sinking Chinese shipping or coast guard boats). Certainly the need for conquest to support economic growth does not quite exist, and economic economic integration such as through means of AIIB and the One Belt One Road initiative are initiatives to reduce the likelihood of conflict by acting as the carrots of Chinese foreign policy, while in the other hand is the stick of greater military capability, both of which will try to be used in a way to get countries to adopt certain specific decisions more in line with Chinese interests. Geopolitics 101, really.
An extensive and formal alliance against China is also at this stage unlikely, given many nations which China may have disputes with also have disputes with each other. Many of those nations also benefit greatly from trade with China and China is the largest trading partner of many of them. If one day those nations are willing to settle disputes with each other and when they also no longer benefit from a positive relationship with China, and if their territorial disputes with China are identified as a sufficient threat, then a formal military alliance becomes much more realistic.
I think the eventual optimal Chinese goal is to have a western pacific where the territorial disputes are settled (preferably peacefully, in China's favour or at least on China's terms) and where a Chinese military presence throughout the entire western pacific is present and on relatively friendly terms with the military of neighbouring countries, all with a significant reduction in US military presence in the region as well where China's SLOCs and mainland are not threatened by USN CSGs, air bases or undersea forces.
This requires greater economic integration and extensive economic incentives, the need for China to push hard but not too hard on its territorial disputes, but also the need to develop greater strength in general, to achieve a peaceful transition.
Last edited by a moderator:
Could be room for 3 airfields there.