|
Post by kyle on Jan 21, 2015 15:13:17 GMT -6
What China needs is something akin to the Viking ASW plane as well as the catapults. Having been out of the USN for a long while now I'm not able to keep track very well, but from what I can tell the USN surface forces still can't regularly counter USN submarines. In other words if my take is correct, a carrier group (without a defensive sub) is hard pressed to deal with an American (or presumably UK) SSN. If that is the case, a Chinese carrier is still a LONG way from the ability to survive outside land based air support range. Even near shore, I'm betting a western SSN would penetrate any ASW screen and deal with the carrier.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 21, 2015 17:28:07 GMT -6
What China needs is something akin to the Viking ASW plane as well as the catapults. Having been out of the USN for a long while now I'm not able to keep track very well, but from what I can tell the USN surface forces still can't regularly counter USN submarines. In other words if my take is correct, a carrier group (without a defensive sub) is hard pressed to deal with an American (or presumably UK) SSN. If that is the case, a Chinese carrier is still a LONG way from the ability to survive outside land based air support range. Even near shore, I'm betting a western SSN would penetrate any ASW screen and deal with the carrier. I think what they need is a lighter helo like the SH-63 with dipping sonar and good escorts that are dedicated to ASW. They will also need land based Maritime patrol bombers with MAD booms. Submarines can also help in ASW.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Jan 22, 2015 12:03:35 GMT -6
As far as I know, the Chinese subs are still behind the latest Russian subs in capabilities (sonar sensitivity, self quieting, weapons tech). I think from reading between the lines in various places that their air ASW is also decades old. If my hunch that in a wargame - blue force (CVN group) vs red force (SSN's) the blue force still tends to have difficulty - what chance does China have? I know - I'm pushing the thread to submarines...
I agree - they must increase the abilities of their helo's - both dipping sonar and sono-buoys, and get something analogous to the P-3, also with high tech sono-buoys as well as MAD.
Their carrier force isn't necessarily designed to combat the US in any case. Their ability to deter the local nations from getting out of line may be their best use. Even their though, ASW is going to be vital. Japanese SS are pretty good boats from what I can tell. The greatest value of the Chinese CV is probably deterrent value.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 23, 2015 12:20:43 GMT -6
This whole question of Chinese Naval shipbuilding could be more than just building a global navy, it might be aimed at exporting technology and building ships for other nations. The problem is, as one article says, political will and the growing resources needed to build and maintain naval ships. Technological advances could also hinder their progress, since their only real source is Russia, unless they continue to steal secrets from other nations. Nuclear submarines are not an easy technology to master and support, can they do that within budget? Can they build and support nuclear carriers with catapults? All this means a willingness of the regime leaders to invest in the political but mostly financial capital it takes to develop and provide support for these weapons plus the training. Will they be willing to put diplomacy to work to secure overseas bases and support them and the people who provide them with the bases.
Lots more questions than answers, and they are not all just technology but political and financial. Some of these articles are focused on the technology and I am not certain that is the limiting factor. Some of the countries in the far east that are the aim of this expansion in the Naval forces are not pushovers in naval warfare. The Australians, South Koreans, Japanese, and the Indian's all have extensive naval forces and three of those countries have training from the UK or the US. They are and always have been, maritime powers with wartime service. They will not be pushovers.
This is a complex subject and articles that focus on technology are not telling the whole story.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 24, 2015 9:50:40 GMT -6
I've enclosed an article that I believe is accurate and touches on many aspects of the Naval modernization for the PLA(Navy). BTW, I realize that most of you are still working and that I am retired which means I have far more time to research, read and discuss this stuff. If you don't have time now, so be it. We can still have fun and learn together. news.usni.org/2014/02/03/document-chinas-naval-modernization
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Jan 24, 2015 13:10:02 GMT -6
Interesting article - thanks for sharing. What I get from it is about what I thought was the state of affairs of the Chinese navy. They are fully aware of where their capabilities stack up against potential opponents and are on a path to learn as they progress in capabilities and technology. Their CV is their version of the Hosho or Langly and they know it. They'll learn and improve as they go. Their ASW force as I thought is well behind most western nations and Japan and Taiwan. Their surface fleet is making progress in capabilities. Subs have a long way to go too - they need a Chinese Walker (referring to Walker who spied for the Soviets and got lots of good stuff to share with them).
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 25, 2015 10:27:51 GMT -6
One aspect of this situation that needs to be pointed out is that the nations in the region will not be static while the Chinese develop their Naval force. They will be working together in alliances against her, using Australia, India and US to provide ships, training and support. We can see this type of reaction in the pre-WWI reaction by France to the increased naval strength of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The rise of the German Navy essentially pushed the Italians, French and British together and allowed Britain to move capital ships from the Mediterranean to the North Sea because France had a sizeable fleet of pre-dreadnoughts and dreadnoughts in Toulon. This kind of reaction has happened many times in history.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 25, 2015 21:30:19 GMT -6
I think the one thing that jumped out at me in that article was the note that their sub force was primarily focused on ASuW. Not good when several of your immediate neighbors (Japan and South Korea) possess sizable and capable SSK fleets, let alone once you consider PACFLT's SSNs. The Russians have pulled closer in sub quieting technology, but their sonars are still (according to reports) way behind Western subs. Have to wonder how hard it would be for the PLAN subs to find a modern SSK/SSN opponent, if their sonar tech isn't better than the Russians.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 25, 2015 22:06:28 GMT -6
I think the one thing that jumped out at me in that article was the note that their sub force was primarily focused on ASuW. Not good when several of your immediate neighbors (Japan and South Korea) possess sizable and capable SSK fleets, let alone once you consider PACFLT's SSNs. The Russians have pulled closer in sub quieting technology, but their sonars are still (according to reports) way behind Western subs. Have to wonder how hard it would be for the PLAN subs to find a modern SSK/SSN opponent, if their sonar tech isn't better than the Russians. We might be able to read into their emphasis on AsuW. This maybe an indication that we are not necessarily the primary target of their modernization effort. We are a blue water navy and will stay away from littoral zones and enclosed seas when ever possible. Their navy is not yet capable in the blue water. It really designed to isolate areas like the Yellow Sea, South China Sea and the Philippine Sea from US intervention. In that sense, AsuW does make sense, at least for now. Their modernization is aimed at regional capability, and not global, so a strong AsuW does fit that profile. We should not read more into their naval building program than what is actually there.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Jan 25, 2015 23:43:32 GMT -6
Watching China's navy grow and evolve over the last 20 years or so is quite interesting. Having been a history buff (some say nut) and in particular naval history buff I find intriguing parallels here and there. Of course the world and the technology is VERY different but never the less, similarities exist. Admittedly it's a loose similarity, but the build up of the high seas fleet prior to WW1 did exactly what Dennis/oldpop mentions - pushed countries into various camps and alliances. Arguably simply by appearing to threaten the Royal Navy the Germans increased tensions in a world that was a powder keg waiting for a spark in Serajevo. Is China 'innocently' modernizing their navy for defensive purposes? Is the modernization more sinister - leading toward a hoped for military action to bring Taiwan back into the fold and hold off intervention by foreign powers? Somewhere in between? Just by appearing to threaten the US navies dominance they automatically appear in many minds to be an adversary to it. I'm not entirely sure they are - though of course it all bears watching.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jan 27, 2015 18:33:48 GMT -6
Watching China's navy grow and evolve over the last 20 years or so is quite interesting. Having been a history buff (some say nut) and in particular naval history buff I find intriguing parallels here and there. Of course the world and the technology is VERY different but never the less, similarities exist. Admittedly it's a loose similarity, but the build up of the high seas fleet prior to WW1 did exactly what Dennis/oldpop mentions - pushed countries into various camps and alliances. Arguably simply by appearing to threaten the Royal Navy the Germans increased tensions in a world that was a powder keg waiting for a spark in Serajevo. Is China 'innocently' modernizing their navy for defensive purposes? Is the modernization more sinister - leading toward a hoped for military action to bring Taiwan back into the fold and hold off intervention by foreign powers? Somewhere in between? Just by appearing to threaten the US navies dominance they automatically appear in many minds to be an adversary to it. I'm not entirely sure they are - though of course it all bears watching. I'm inclined to give them some benefit of a doubt. Remember that just 20 years ago the PLAN was in an abysmal state. Their surface fleet was horribly outdated and good for SUW only. Their sub fleet was largely comprised of Romeo/Ming-class subs, which were 1950s designs. Their naval aviators were flying 50s- and 60s-vintage designs with limited range. By and large they haven't particularly increased their fleet numbers; they've replaced them with modern designs. Given their position in the region and world, that defense buildup is fully justifiable. I've read several accounts that point to the Gulf War in 1991 being a wakeup call for the PLA; they realized that a numerically superior but technologically obsolete military was nothing but target practice for a first-world opponent. With that said, they have been trying to use that modernized force to push some of their neighbors around and achieve regional sea control goals (as well as sea denial goals should some of their neighbors call PACFLT for help). Taiwan I do not think is a major concern for their naval buildup; the PLAAF's modernization as well as the nasty array of ballistic missiles and SAMs covering the island have largely done the job of putting it under pressure. Their naval activity seems aimed more to the south to secure the shipping lanes through the South China Sea, as well as making faces at Japan in the East China Sea.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 28, 2015 13:12:32 GMT -6
I believe that we can draw some conclusions from history but we must be careful because situations are always a little different. The Chinese have obviously realized the outdated nature of the weapons and the growing military power of the other nations in the region. They have to react. The growing problem of pirates, terrorists is also a problem. The Chinese have to assist other nations in keeping the trade lanes open and that will require more technological upgrades and specialization.
This issue of historical similarities really hinges on the difference between command of the sea and sea control. The first term is the term used by Mahan and Corbett. It actually refers to blue water more than enclosed seas and narrow seas although it is applicable. Sea control is a modern term and is more accurate because it accepts the fact that control of the seas is not permanent. A narrow or enclosed sea allows for a better space-force ratio. This will give the Chinese an advantage in many of the areas they are seeking control. With an upgraded and enlarged force, the Chinese can achieve full control of the coastal waters, narrow seas like the Yellow and South China much easier and completely. This is probably what they are attempting to gain along with keeping our forces out of the area. We will have to see the types and numbers of weapons they field and where they are placed strategically. We have to examine her prioritization of weapons to determine who she has determined is her primary opponent. I believe the focus on AsuW and fleet protection tells us that her primary opponent does not have many submarines and she is not all that concerned about that threat.
While her capabilities in many areas has improved she is still heavily dependent on foreign technology, and she is weak in the following areas: MCM, ASW, and sustained operations using large formations; essentially logistics. She also has little operational experience as I identified in another post. China still has a long way to go to be able to exert force outside her immediate shores.
As an example of how losing sea control in a narrow sea can doom a plan. It was the British naval flotillas based in Harwich, Dover and Portsmouth which continuously swept through the channel at day or night which stopped the Invasion of England, not the loss of the Battle of Britain. In fact, over the Channel, the German's had actually gain air superiority, but had lost the control of the seas. This was an identical plan to the one used against the Spanish Armada in 1588. The advantage today is our aircraft can fight in day or night and any kind of weather.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jan 29, 2015 21:35:28 GMT -6
I found an interesting quote from Thucydides in "The Peloponnese War". “What made war inevitable,was the growth of Athenian power and the fear which this caused in Sparta."
Sound familiar? Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it. ... Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them. George Santayana.
|
|
|
Post by kyle on Feb 3, 2015 15:53:52 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Feb 3, 2015 16:24:43 GMT -6
Interesting reading. Everyone wanted the Cold War to go away, be careful what you wish for. BTW, several years ago we did a cruise on the inland waterway from Amelia Island near Jacksonville to Charleston. We sailed right by Kings Bay, Georgia sub base. There was a big hanger like structure with several boats moored outside and one inside.
There is one silver lining to this cloud. We now have a target rich environment to shoot at; Russia, China, North Korea, Syria and don't forget Iran. Nice
|
|