Jump to content


Photo

Thresholds Of Prc Military Power

China PLAN PLAAF

  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#21 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,508 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 02 April 2018 - 0908 AM

The PLAN continues to grow in leaps and bounds. But they still will always suffer from a geographical disadvantage and short term have to deal with largely hostile choke points.

Its also not clear to me how truly effective it is as a fighting force. The number of units and their individual capability seems impressive on paper. But how well does a formation share information, SAM coverage, etc? How well does their combat system manage automated engagements? I think their offensive potential is pretty clear, in terms of numbers and types of AShMs, aircraft, and submarines. Its not clear to me that they would be very effective on the defense, both in terms of AAW but especially ASW. It's hard to get an understanding of their level of training and tempo of operations as well as the extent to which they've tested any of their weapons systems in anything like a real world scenario. Its worth noting that any testing or training they do in salt water is observable by the USN and that this heavily limits what they can test or train for without tipping their hand. The DF-21 for instance has never been tested over water to the best of my knowledge. As opposed the US having three different coasts that are all but sanitized of unfriendly naval units. I can't imagine how they can even give a submarine a shake down cruise without exposing almost as much information to the USN as they themselves gain.

Right now they can exert a lot of firepower inside the first island chain but would have a difficult time focusing ISR or offensive assets outside of it. And even within that area, a war with the US would likely thin out their surface fleet fairly quickly with the ASW disadvantage and the US finally adopting a modern AShM for its bombers.

RE: RECTAC12 - "Their Naval Air Force still lacks the long range ASM required to tackle a US CVN"

They most definitely do have long ranged supersonic anti shipping missiles in the form of YJ-12. These are roughly on par with Kh-22 in terms of range and speed, if rather much lighter in warhead. The latest H-6K that have new turbofans instead of turbo jets can lift a half dozen of these weapons and by one count there are a hundred of these in service; certainly they number in the dozens. So they have a credible strike force and weapon system, given solid target info. Which inside the first island chain they are likely to have, at least early in a conflict.
  • 0

#22 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 02 April 2018 - 1235 PM

One point of inconsistancy is that you say the PLAN is still no where near the size to dominate those water regions. But then you say that the US has no interest and suggest that the US will continue to withdraw like with TPP. If the US is out, then the PLAN stands a much better chance in achieving its goals.

I'm leaving it at that.

.

Not incosistency, I think the US needs to define where its strategic interests lie and plan accordingly rather than be fixated on the Middle East.

 

This doesn't exclude building strong partnerships with Japan, Korea and Taiwan, but also with ASEAN countries, but not only from the military point of view, but as part of an overall package in which the total is more than the parts.

 

By leaving TPP but still looking at this area from an strictly military point of view, the risk of confrontration increases as the PRC still "insulted" by the freedom of navigation exercises, but potential partners only feel they will become sepoys to the US and the history of being US allied in the region is rather poor.

 

If, however, the US doesn't find a compelling interest in the region because these are not allies but rivals, then the smart move would be to move out and let them duke it out with the PRC individually or as a group, with the US benefitting from the competition.


  • 0

#23 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 02 April 2018 - 1240 PM

The PLAN continues to grow in leaps and bounds. But they still will always suffer from a geographical disadvantage and short term have to deal with largely hostile choke points.

Its also not clear to me how truly effective it is as a fighting force. The number of units and their individual capability seems impressive on paper. But how well does a formation share information, SAM coverage, etc? How well does their combat system manage automated engagements? I think their offensive potential is pretty clear, in terms of numbers and types of AShMs, aircraft, and submarines. Its not clear to me that they would be very effective on the defense, both in terms of AAW but especially ASW. It's hard to get an understanding of their level of training and tempo of operations as well as the extent to which they've tested any of their weapons systems in anything like a real world scenario. Its worth noting that any testing or training they do in salt water is observable by the USN and that this heavily limits what they can test or train for without tipping their hand. The DF-21 for instance has never been tested over water to the best of my knowledge. As opposed the US having three different coasts that are all but sanitized of unfriendly naval units. I can't imagine how they can even give a submarine a shake down cruise without exposing almost as much information to the USN as they themselves gain.

Right now they can exert a lot of firepower inside the first island chain but would have a difficult time focusing ISR or offensive assets outside of it. And even within that area, a war with the US would likely thin out their surface fleet fairly quickly with the ASW disadvantage and the US finally adopting a modern AShM for its bombers.

RE: RECTAC12 - "Their Naval Air Force still lacks the long range ASM required to tackle a US CVN"

They most definitely do have long ranged supersonic anti shipping missiles in the form of YJ-12. These are roughly on par with Kh-22 in terms of range and speed, if rather much lighter in warhead. The latest H-6K that have new turbofans instead of turbo jets can lift a half dozen of these weapons and by one count there are a hundred of these in service; certainly they number in the dozens. So they have a credible strike force and weapon system, given solid target info. Which inside the first island chain they are likely to have, at least early in a conflict.

 

I beg to differ, YJ-12 is half the size and lethality of the Kh-22, so it doesn't guarantee that its launching platform can survive long enough to fire them with a reasonable chance of success unless heavily escorted, limiting its effect to the waters around Taiwan and the SCS (see the maps JasonJ has posted and it clearly shows the limits of PRC airpower). More than enough, though, to deal with the local navies.


  • 0

#24 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,508 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 02 April 2018 - 1507 PM

Range is still in 300-400km range, which while short of Kh-22 is enough to make interception before launch very difficult. The CAP would have to be pretty far out.

They definitely have a much smaller warhead, but their speed is such that a few hits should ruin a CVs day.
  • 0

#25 urbanoid

urbanoid

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,970 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Lodz, Poland

Posted 02 April 2018 - 1532 PM

If, however, the US doesn't find a compelling interest in the region because these are not allies but rivals, then the smart move would be to move out and let them duke it out with the PRC individually or as a group, with the US benefitting from the competition.

 

The US benefitting from the competition? Not if PRC gets the upper hand, then the US will have to deal with a lot stronger enemy later.


  • 0

#26 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 02 April 2018 - 2008 PM

 

One point of inconsistancy is that you say the PLAN is still no where near the size to dominate those water regions. But then you say that the US has no interest and suggest that the US will continue to withdraw like with TPP. If the US is out, then the PLAN stands a much better chance in achieving its goals.

I'm leaving it at that.

.

Not incosistency, I think the US needs to define where its strategic interests lie and plan accordingly rather than be fixated on the Middle East.

 

This doesn't exclude building strong partnerships with Japan, Korea and Taiwan, but also with ASEAN countries, but not only from the military point of view, but as part of an overall package in which the total is more than the parts.

 

By leaving TPP but still looking at this area from an strictly military point of view, the risk of confrontration increases as the PRC still "insulted" by the freedom of navigation exercises, but potential partners only feel they will become sepoys to the US and the history of being US allied in the region is rather poor.

 

If, however, the US doesn't find a compelling interest in the region because these are not allies but rivals, then the smart move would be to move out and let them duke it out with the PRC individually or as a group, with the US benefitting from the competition.

 

 

Amerika-san 助けって!お願い!

help.jpg

 

 

:)


  • 0

#27 Nobu

Nobu

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,527 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 02 April 2018 - 2208 PM

The ultimate nightmare scenario for Washington in the Pacific appears to be raw Chinese power in Pan-Asian alliance with advanced Japanese naval traditions and know-how.

 

If keeping Japan and China at each other's throats is not a policy goal, it certainly should be. Something so beneficial should not be left up to chance alone.


  • 0

#28 JasonJ

JasonJ

    takoyaki8plz

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Osaka

Posted 02 April 2018 - 2336 PM

The ultimate nightmare scenario for Washington in the Pacific appears to be raw Chinese power in Pan-Asian alliance with advanced Japanese naval traditions and know-how.

 

If keeping Japan and China at each other's throats is not a policy goal, it certainly should be. Something so beneficial should not be left up to chance alone.

 

It's really up to China though. Japan isn't the only country that China is pissing off. They dare to piss off most of their neighbors but then try to force them under their wing with sheer pressure and phony carrots. Its the same formula within their borders really, with Tibet and Xinjiang being examples. Following the Taiwan or Hong Kong model would do a lot. The big military itself is not the issue, nor is it general Chinese identifiable culture elements as Japanese can use them, Chinese visitors, certainly not the food.. its their foreign policy, lack of transparency, support to DPRK regime survival and using them as a bargaining chip, etc. Even regards to Russia with the Ukraine and the UK poisoning, it is still pointed out by the talking heads about how even if the elections are rigged, they still had one. Even if Putin is like a czar, people can still demo against Putin. Even those things are not possible in China in regards to voting and Xi. I still think it is a bit much on downplaying that, but still fair points I would say. Japan could adjust to a much more friendly posture with China, or with at least, the PRC government, but it is on China, and I think were quite past that point of possibility by now. But if the US goes stupid, it just might make China the better of two evils. But that isn't going to happen anytime soon. According to this Japanese survey made available in English, which is probably detailed enough to satisfy all those except maybe the Germans and the select few exceptionally grumpy senior members, as of Oct 2017, feelings of affinity with the US stand at 78.4%, with China it's 18.7%. For those Europeans and Brexitians that might be curious to know about with Russia after having said those points, it's 18%, less than even with China, even if just by a little.


  • 0

#29 Josh

Josh

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,508 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, New York City

Posted 03 April 2018 - 0833 AM

The ultimate nightmare scenario for Washington in the Pacific appears to be raw Chinese power in Pan-Asian alliance with advanced Japanese naval traditions and know-how.
 
If keeping Japan and China at each other's throats is not a policy goal, it certainly should be. Something so beneficial should not be left up to chance alone.


I don't think anyone even contemplates the Chinese and Japanese getting along at a strategic level, to be honest. That would be like NATO planning for Poland and Russia to join forces.
  • 0

#30 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 03 April 2018 - 1319 PM

 

If, however, the US doesn't find a compelling interest in the region because these are not allies but rivals, then the smart move would be to move out and let them duke it out with the PRC individually or as a group, with the US benefitting from the competition.

 

The US benefitting from the competition? Not if PRC gets the upper hand, then the US will have to deal with a lot stronger enemy later.

 

 

Just competing between themselves will preclude a stronger enemy later. See WW1.


  • 0

#31 Tranquil

Tranquil

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 63 posts

Posted 05 April 2018 - 0230 AM

A point that's rarely touched on is unlike Sam who's well known imperialistic goal was to colonise the world with hamburgers and hollywood.  

 

What does Chow actually want? Is it acceptance at the big boys table as a peer, economic hegemony in Asia or does he want to take the primary role in world leadership?


Edited by Tranquil, 05 April 2018 - 0230 AM.

  • 0

#32 KV7

KV7

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,335 posts

Posted 05 April 2018 - 0250 AM

A point that's rarely touched on is unlike Sam who's well known imperialistic goal was to colonise the world with hamburgers and hollywood.  

 

What does Chow actually want? Is it acceptance at the big boys table as a peer, economic hegemony in Asia or does he want to take the primary role in world leadership?

China is primarily focused on internal development, its role in world affairs is a means to secure this objective. It is wary that the U.S has the means (and potentially the desire to defeat it even at some large cost to the US) and stall its developmental progress or worse. The main threats considered to be addressable via diplomacy and military expansion is a conventional air/naval war and blockade of Chinese trade. One Belt/Road is partially a mechanism to establish a multiplicity of trade routes that cannot all be blocked.

China does not need or have any grand imperial ambition, it has the resources to simply buy anything it needs, and moreover the returns to heavy handed imperialism are now very slight at best and probably negative, especially if the spheres of influence have to be fought for, rather than inherited from a previous era, as the US has. This would seem to not be a threat, but US commitment to being a hyper-power/ hegemony is extremely strong, for example, despite getting a net negative return on its positions in the ME, the US will not relinquish them easily; support for Israel is almost unquestionable etc. - on the other hand this commitment is very hard to sustain long term due to the extremely unfavorable long term economic trends.

This latter point create some rational fear on the part of the Chinese- that the US will panic over their declining relative economic power and seek to 'rectify' the situation via war - this was more or less openly stated as a desirable strategy in the Project For a New American Century documents.


Edited by KV7, 05 April 2018 - 0251 AM.

  • 0

#33 RETAC21

RETAC21

    A la lealtad y al valor

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Madrid, Spain
  • Interests:Military history in general

Posted 05 April 2018 - 1226 PM

business-environment-in-china-29-728.jpg

business-environment-in-china-30-728.jpg

From here: https://www.slidesha...onment-in-china


  • 0





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: China, PLAN, PLAAF

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users