|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 22, 2015 8:44:57 GMT -6
Figured this would generate some discussion, as earlier we dissected a comparison of the IJN and the PLAN: medium.com/war-is-boring/to-defeat-china-in-a-conflict-america-should-study-world-war-ii-43610f7d6f17Personally I think the idea is a little too pat; this is not the 1940s. Unrestricted naval warfare against shipping (much of which is probably neutral-flagged) doesn't seem like something that would fly in the 21st century. There's also the matter that backing nuclear-armed nations into a corner by cutting their economic lifelines is a very risky game. First of all, this site's credibility after the F-35 article leaves a little bit to be desired. Second, I agree, that this is not 1940 and China, a land power, is not Japan. Japan was and is a maritime nation based on 2000 islands, no natural resources and not enough arable land to feed her people. She was not a fully developed industrial power in 1940 so the comparison is not valid. Large pictures of Essex class carriers and WWII air wings does not convince me. The Chinese have over 100 million barrels of oil stored inland away from the coast, where we cannot get at it. Almost all naval wars are based on trade warfare, this is a given in naval warfare. It's all based on interdiction of trade routes and the Chinese are aware of it. This is the reason for the increase in their naval strength. I think, for our discussion, we should endeavor to find better sources both Pentagon and think tanks that can provide a much better view of the issues. I think this could be an interesting discussion provided it is based on real data and real naval strategy, not a backward glance at a seventy five year old war.
UPDATE: As a start, here are three sites, including two US Energy department sites:
www.indexmundi.com/energy.aspx?country=cn www.eia.gov/beta/international/country.cfm?iso=CHN www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=15531
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Jul 22, 2015 10:32:34 GMT -6
There are some factors that would make unrestricted naval warfare more, not less, effective today than during WW2.
For one thing, with a large portion of shipping neutral-flagged, you won´t have to sink them all to take them out of play; once neutral shipping starts getting sunk, the owners (who presumably have no stake in seeing China last through the war, beyond what they get paid to transport cargo to China) will start pulling out of the "China trade", especially since no insurance in the world will pay for losses due to war, and it is doubtful that the PRC could offer shipping lines sufficient compensation in case of loss to make the risk worthwhile. Which means that before long, the available shipping pool would be sharply reduced, limited to Chinese-owned hulls.
For another, most shipping supplying China being resources (mostly, I assume, oil from the Middle East), this shipping will have to cross vast stretches of ocean that is WAY too far from China proper for the PRC to even attempt to protect it. Japan´s oil and resource shipping routes were covered by many air and naval bases from one end to the other, whereas China simply cannot do anything to protect its shipping until it has at the very least entered the South China Sea.
Lastly, US capabilities for find ships in the vast open ocean are a lot better than during WW2 - especially under conditions of total naval supremacy outside the South and East China Seas -, and only an utterly suicidal crew would even try to sneak past US naval patrols in a superheavy oil tanker, even if the US somehow neglected to patrol the predictable choke points.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 23, 2015 6:44:30 GMT -6
There are some factors that would make unrestricted naval warfare more, not less, effective today than during WW2. For one thing, with a large portion of shipping neutral-flagged, you won´t have to sink them all to take them out of play; once neutral shipping starts getting sunk, the owners (who presumably have no stake in seeing China last through the war, beyond what they get paid to transport cargo to China) will start pulling out of the "China trade", especially since no insurance in the world will pay for losses due to war, and it is doubtful that the PRC could offer shipping lines sufficient compensation in case of loss to make the risk worthwhile. Which means that before long, the available shipping pool would be sharply reduced, limited to Chinese-owned hulls. For another, most shipping supplying China being resources (mostly, I assume, oil from the Middle East), this shipping will have to cross vast stretches of ocean that is WAY too far from China proper for the PRC to even attempt to protect it. Japan´s oil and resource shipping routes were covered by many air and naval bases from one end to the other, whereas China simply cannot do anything to protect its shipping until it has at the very least entered the South China Sea. Lastly, US capabilities for find ships in the vast open ocean are a lot better than during WW2 - especially under conditions of total naval supremacy outside the South and East China Seas -, and only an utterly suicidal crew would even try to sneak past US naval patrols in a superheavy oil tanker, even if the US somehow neglected to patrol the predictable choke points. Good points. Shipping rates and insurance rates will rise, causing economic woes around the world. This might pressure China to come to an accommodation with the US. I agree that the PRC probably can't protect all of their ships, everywhere. Shipping routes for China are just as hazardous as they were for Japan because she would be using the same narrow seas to move the goods. This trade war would disrupt all shipping into and out of the Far East.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 23, 2015 9:38:48 GMT -6
One mistake in that article. Admiral Raymond Stark authorized "Execute unrestricted air and submarine warfare against Japan." He was until the change of command after January 1942, the Chief of Naval Operations. Admiral Thomas Hart was the CinC of the Asiatic Fleet and as such, could not without authorization from Stark and the President, initiate unrestricted submarine warfare in his area. The instructions would be disseminated down to all area commanders for execution.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Jul 23, 2015 15:12:40 GMT -6
There are some factors that would make unrestricted naval warfare more, not less, effective today than during WW2. For one thing, with a large portion of shipping neutral-flagged, you won´t have to sink them all to take them out of play; once neutral shipping starts getting sunk, the owners (who presumably have no stake in seeing China last through the war, beyond what they get paid to transport cargo to China) will start pulling out of the "China trade", especially since no insurance in the world will pay for losses due to war, and it is doubtful that the PRC could offer shipping lines sufficient compensation in case of loss to make the risk worthwhile. Which means that before long, the available shipping pool would be sharply reduced, limited to Chinese-owned hulls. For another, most shipping supplying China being resources (mostly, I assume, oil from the Middle East), this shipping will have to cross vast stretches of ocean that is WAY too far from China proper for the PRC to even attempt to protect it. Japan´s oil and resource shipping routes were covered by many air and naval bases from one end to the other, whereas China simply cannot do anything to protect its shipping until it has at the very least entered the South China Sea. Lastly, US capabilities for find ships in the vast open ocean are a lot better than during WW2 - especially under conditions of total naval supremacy outside the South and East China Seas -, and only an utterly suicidal crew would even try to sneak past US naval patrols in a superheavy oil tanker, even if the US somehow neglected to patrol the predictable choke points. Good points. Shipping rates and insurance rates will rise, causing economic woes around the world. This might pressure China to come to an accommodation with the US. I agree that the PRC probably can't protect all of their ships, everywhere. Shipping routes for China are just as hazardous as they were for Japan because she would be using the same narrow seas to move the goods. This trade war would disrupt all shipping into and out of the Far East. Minor nitpick: Insurance rates will NOT rise. As I pointed out, damage due to war (and civil war and internal unrest) is excluded from all forms of insurance. You *might* get Lloyd´s of London to cover it, but they´re really more a betting pool than an insurance company, but the "Names" (the one who provide the money) aren´t stupid - as soon as they realize war is brewing, they´ll pull out of covering shipping to or from China.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 23, 2015 16:12:43 GMT -6
Good points. Shipping rates and insurance rates will rise, causing economic woes around the world. This might pressure China to come to an accommodation with the US. I agree that the PRC probably can't protect all of their ships, everywhere. Shipping routes for China are just as hazardous as they were for Japan because she would be using the same narrow seas to move the goods. This trade war would disrupt all shipping into and out of the Far East. Minor nitpick: Insurance rates will NOT rise. As I pointed out, damage due to war (and civil war and internal unrest) is excluded from all forms of insurance. You *might* get Lloyd´s of London to cover it, but they´re really more a betting pool than an insurance company, but the "Names" (the one who provide the money) aren´t stupid - as soon as they realize war is brewing, they´ll pull out of covering shipping to or from China. No problem, good information for the discussion. I don't understand why they wouldn't go up for the combat area around the Far East but I'll go with what you have said.
UPDATE: I found this statement in a document from a shipping insurance company:
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jul 23, 2015 20:43:55 GMT -6
Economics and shipping aren't an area I know much about, but I get the feeling that while unrestricted naval warfare might be more effective in the modern age, it may also be more complicated (especially as a lot of the nations presumably allied against the PRC in this scenario are themselves trade-dependent island nations). Unless it's the rest of the planet vs. the PRC, there are going to be a lot of third parties displeased with having some of the busiest global trading routes disrupted and they are probably more likely to try and get both sides to back down than gang up on one - especially given the amount of business the world does with the PRC. If we want to look at an example of how this would work in the modern age, the Iran-Iraq "Tanker War" might be a small-scale example.
Another factor is that this job would be going to second-line assets rather than subs, DDGs, and fast-movers. You're not going to waste a six- or seven-figure torpedo or AShM on an unarmed and unescorted merchant ship and mining a common-use seaway is a bad idea. Also, blasting unarmed civilian vessels plays really badly on the world news circuit. More likely you'd see light surface vessels like the LCS or various small allied combatants doing Visit, Board, Search, and Seizure operations at choke points while the front-line assets keep PRC military forces from interfering.
I think an overall problem - one I see in a number of PRC-centric scenarios - is the presumption that a war between the US and PRC will be a straight-up winner-take-all slugfest. I don't necessarily buy that; I think a more likely scenario is a short, sharp conflict over a bunch of rocks like the Spratleys or Senkakus where both sides have to decide how much they're willing to lose over said rocks. In that case, it may be best if the guy on the short end of the stick is given an option to de-escalate the situation without admitting complete defeat. That is not necessarily something that comes with a total blockade, where you have your hands figuratively on the other guy's throat. If the blockade only affects the disputed territory, that may be a different story.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 24, 2015 9:34:54 GMT -6
I need to do more research on the issues of economic warfare, the PRC and the Allied nations such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines possibly Vietnam, Singapore etc. Like you, I am not really very knowledgeable about the subject.
This Far East trade war, if we want to apply that name, is more a problem for the nations mentioned above and they must take the lead. Frankly, no more Vietnam's for the US. We will provide some naval and air support but they must decide how to fight the problem, not us. Being a Vietnam era veteran, colors my opinions about war in the Far East. In my opinion, China has caused enough grief for the Western world since the fall of the Chinese Empire at the turn of the century. She caused the Japanese to invade then move south which was the underlying reason for Pearl Harbor and the Pacific War, Korea where she pushed the North Koreans and the Vietnam war. Let the Far East solve their problems.
The Japanese, after WW1, realized that the next war would be a long war of attrition and began to develop mobilization plans and increase heavy industries. The concept was to get the whole country involved in war production but they had to acquire more natural resources. This also required reducing military spending. Military spending has to be reduced to improve economies but the 1931 Mukden incident then the 1937 Marco Polo incident, caused the Imperial Japanese Army to invade China and this destroyed the attempts to build a self-sufficient economy. The Southern Operation that led to Pearl Harbor was the result and the rest is well documented.
If the Chinese are attempting the develop the same self-sufficiency, fighting a trade war will not further that goal, but will probably destroy those attempts. However, countries will do exactly what is detrimental to their best interests, many times. It means that with conscious efforts, they can further their social and economic goals farther without such a war.
|
|
|
Post by sirchaos on Jul 25, 2015 3:24:55 GMT -6
Minor nitpick: Insurance rates will NOT rise. As I pointed out, damage due to war (and civil war and internal unrest) is excluded from all forms of insurance. You *might* get Lloyd´s of London to cover it, but they´re really more a betting pool than an insurance company, but the "Names" (the one who provide the money) aren´t stupid - as soon as they realize war is brewing, they´ll pull out of covering shipping to or from China. No problem, good information for the discussion. I don't understand why they wouldn't go up for the combat area around the Far East but I'll go with what you have said.
UPDATE: I found this statement in a document from a shipping insurance company:
I worked in the insurance business for about 4 years, although not in marine insurance. Exclusion of war, civil war and internal unrest was always presented as absolutely ironclad, because of the great risks and the potential for absolutely incalculable amounts of damage. I was thus surprised that some form of war coverage does indeed exist, as seen here: www.willis.com/documents/publications/industries/marine/Marine_Hull_Info.pdf (4th page) Note, though, the last sentence on that page: "Marine War policies also automatically terminate following an outbreak of war between any of the major powers." A war between the US and China would certainly be covered by that provision. My guess is that War Risk or Marine War policies are meant to cover such things as happened in the Persian Gulf in the 80s, when Iran attacked other nation´s oil tankers.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 25, 2015 11:49:47 GMT -6
No problem, good information for the discussion. I don't understand why they wouldn't go up for the combat area around the Far East but I'll go with what you have said.
UPDATE: I found this statement in a document from a shipping insurance company:
I worked in the insurance business for about 4 years, although not in marine insurance. Exclusion of war, civil war and internal unrest was always presented as absolutely ironclad, because of the great risks and the potential for absolutely incalculable amounts of damage. I was thus surprised that some form of war coverage does indeed exist, as seen here: www.willis.com/documents/publications/industries/marine/Marine_Hull_Info.pdf (4th page) Note, though, the last sentence on that page: "Marine War policies also automatically terminate following an outbreak of war between any of the major powers." A war between the US and China would certainly be covered by that provision. My guess is that War Risk or Marine War policies are meant to cover such things as happened in the Persian Gulf in the 80s, when Iran attacked other nation´s oil tankers. I believe that we should assume that any regional Far East war, could have a detrimental effect on the world economies including insurance rates. This might spur the nations involved to resolve the action quickly. It could cause a depression in many of nations involved, hard to predict. Maybe the study of the past can illuminate the possible course, except national economies are much more intertwined than in the past.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 7, 2015 18:20:13 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Oct 19, 2015 19:51:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Oct 19, 2015 20:23:17 GMT -6
Vladimir probably should spend more time examining things internally and not worry about the Syrian's.
|
|
|
Post by steel selachian on Jul 17, 2016 15:34:35 GMT -6
Posting this for conversation - www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4450/this-retired-perry-class-frigate-just-won-t-sink-after-being-severely-pummeled-during-rimpac-16My take is that the author (who has a noted dislike of the LCS program) is overstating the "survivability" of the FFG-7 target shown here. We see it hit by a couple bombs of unknown size, what appears to be an AShM (probably Harpoon, but possibly something smaller) and a sub-launched torpedo. It's unclear whether the bombs and AShM were dummy exercise shots or live warshots; the torpedo was certainly live although it looks like it was fused for a direct side-on impact rather than the usual keelbreaker (which would have snapped the target in half). I tend to take the view that if you've lost weapons, sensors, and propulsion your only option is to pray for calm seas and an enemy who wants to save ammo. In a real fight that ship would have been very badly hurt after the bombs and missile and a dead hulk after the torpedo strike.
|
|
|
Post by oldpop2000 on Jul 17, 2016 16:21:00 GMT -6
Posting this for conversation - www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/4450/this-retired-perry-class-frigate-just-won-t-sink-after-being-severely-pummeled-during-rimpac-16My take is that the author (who has a noted dislike of the LCS program) is overstating the "survivability" of the FFG-7 target shown here. We see it hit by a couple bombs of unknown size, what appears to be an AShM (probably Harpoon, but possibly something smaller) and a sub-launched torpedo. It's unclear whether the bombs and AShM were dummy exercise shots or live warshots; the torpedo was certainly live although it looks like it was fused for a direct side-on impact rather than the usual keelbreaker (which would have snapped the target in half). I tend to take the view that if you've lost weapons, sensors, and propulsion your only option is to pray for calm seas and an enemy who wants to save ammo. In a real fight that ship would have been very badly hurt after the bombs and missile and a dead hulk after the torpedo strike. Here is an article that relates the hits and damages to OHP class frigates. They seem to be very tough ships, but I can't disagree that if the enemy is really attempting to sink an OHP frigate, it will get it done. dailycaller.com/2015/10/04/tough-little-ships-that-could-remembering-the-perry-class-frigates/
|
|