Hi all,
I was recently looking at some of the Chinese units that have been included in some of the scenarios. In particular, I was looking at their carrier groups and I can see that they a quite a force to be reckoned with.
I have no problem with the scenario designer's inclusion of the various units in the group, nd I am kind of happy that they created it so that people like me would have an idea of what units typically would be included in these groups. So kudos to them for their efforts.
One thing that I noticed was that these groups would be almost impossible to destroy via missile attack. Each group, assuming that it is close to being accurate (and I believe that it is), has about 200 SAMs defending it with a range of 40 miles or more. Additionally, they have lots of short range SAMs, as well. And, with a hit percentage of 80 percent, that would be about 160 SAMs that can hit incoming missiles, plus the much shorter-ranged ones. Obviously, you would need to overwhelm this group in order to have any success, but would would take one all-out super attack to be able to get any missiles through the defenses.
The Chinese CVGs, with their attack missiles, are also a very formidable foe. I encourage you to take a look at them. They are a pretty impressive group.
Doug
Chinese CVGs are very impressive
Moderator: MOD_Command
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
Erm, imptressive?
Your point might be true, it also addressed my previous estimation of the solution for USAF, US Navy and USMC combined would be the proliferation of dual-use and stealthy Anti-ship missiles, such as SM-6, LRASM/NSM and other deep-strike weaponries. If the Chinese adversary want to best the carrier group armed with 200+ SAMs that has more than 70% PoH, they gotta need 200-300 ASMs to saturate their firepower as well, with enough redundancies if the SAM PoH is higher.
But I think there are many way to easily overwhelm a whole battlegroup, and the advanced ASM is rather not quite the best option:
1: Remember how China just pursuing the anti-sub trainings with 056A and other frigate/destroyer with new sonar systems? This is their shortcoming current as well as the short future. Anti-sub and counter-torpedo systems is just in very early fruition -- the FQF anti-torpedo depth charges from Liaoning and it's Z-18 anti-sub helicopters are good examples. They're surely noticed the importance of enemy submersibles, but far from enough to ensure their whole battlegroup immune from a dozen, if not six or less, of torpedoes from US.
2: Fighters can also act as missile interceptors, just like the anti-ship loadout solutions. The advantage of fighter is the ordinances are reloadable on deck, and doesn't need a massive missile fuel to fly to the target in an offensive strike. The more fighters to the battle, the bigger advantage than a whole fleet armed with same amount of SAMs but with no fighter. The problem is China has only 24 jets at the maximum for Liaoning, while US can easily doubled and more for one Nimitz.
and 3: Rotation issue. US has carriers so many they can perform rotation task for a long-term operation, no matter how far from their homeland. But China is right now only has one, and any long-term operation will easily runs dry for both fighters and the carrier's supplies. Even nuclear-powered carriers needs other supplies and ordinances other than ship fuel to operate, and smaller carrier will only make oversea projection much harder.
So I would say, the are formidable, if not indestructible. The term indestructible is giving zero chances to harm the carrier in the first strike. Of course you may say Chinese DF-21D/DF-26 can give first strike to US carriers, but US will have a dozen more solutions to do the same to Chinese carrier battlegroup, so it's more obvious who's on the down side.
Your point might be true, it also addressed my previous estimation of the solution for USAF, US Navy and USMC combined would be the proliferation of dual-use and stealthy Anti-ship missiles, such as SM-6, LRASM/NSM and other deep-strike weaponries. If the Chinese adversary want to best the carrier group armed with 200+ SAMs that has more than 70% PoH, they gotta need 200-300 ASMs to saturate their firepower as well, with enough redundancies if the SAM PoH is higher.
But I think there are many way to easily overwhelm a whole battlegroup, and the advanced ASM is rather not quite the best option:
1: Remember how China just pursuing the anti-sub trainings with 056A and other frigate/destroyer with new sonar systems? This is their shortcoming current as well as the short future. Anti-sub and counter-torpedo systems is just in very early fruition -- the FQF anti-torpedo depth charges from Liaoning and it's Z-18 anti-sub helicopters are good examples. They're surely noticed the importance of enemy submersibles, but far from enough to ensure their whole battlegroup immune from a dozen, if not six or less, of torpedoes from US.
2: Fighters can also act as missile interceptors, just like the anti-ship loadout solutions. The advantage of fighter is the ordinances are reloadable on deck, and doesn't need a massive missile fuel to fly to the target in an offensive strike. The more fighters to the battle, the bigger advantage than a whole fleet armed with same amount of SAMs but with no fighter. The problem is China has only 24 jets at the maximum for Liaoning, while US can easily doubled and more for one Nimitz.
and 3: Rotation issue. US has carriers so many they can perform rotation task for a long-term operation, no matter how far from their homeland. But China is right now only has one, and any long-term operation will easily runs dry for both fighters and the carrier's supplies. Even nuclear-powered carriers needs other supplies and ordinances other than ship fuel to operate, and smaller carrier will only make oversea projection much harder.
So I would say, the are formidable, if not indestructible. The term indestructible is giving zero chances to harm the carrier in the first strike. Of course you may say Chinese DF-21D/DF-26 can give first strike to US carriers, but US will have a dozen more solutions to do the same to Chinese carrier battlegroup, so it's more obvious who's on the down side.
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
Dysta,
Thanks again for you insight.
Foe the record, though, I think that I referred to the Chinese CVGs as a "very formidable foe", not "indestructible." I did say that they were almost impossible to destroy them via a missile attack. I think that you just agreed with me about that. <g>
My point, of course, was that with 200+ SAMs, you would have to launch even more than that to be able to get through, and what group of ships/planes/etc., could afford to gather together and unleash something like that unless it was guaranteed to be successful? What a joint attack that would be!
You did take the conversation to the next level, however. That, of course, being that if you can't destroy them via missile attack, how do you destroy them? I played the Spratly Spat several times, and I can occasionally put a scratch on some of their ships before I run completely out of missile ordinance. In something that I think is very true is well, and you just mentioned it, eventually the Chinese will run out of ordinance, too. And, when the Chinese run out, then it's back to the base to be replenished. In fact, the Spratly situation kind of reminds me of the all-out battles that they used to take place in Vietnam where they would spend two days or so fighting for control of one particular hill, and when they finally gain control, both sides fall back to replenish, essentially leaving the hill unattended. The Spratly thing seems to be the same thing. A big fight, but eventually everyone goes home and leaves the islands/atolls for another day. Weird.
I like the ideas of using fighters to assist in the attack. Can you imagine how much ordinance would have to be used to get this done? I'd hate to authorize all of this and fall a few missiles/attacks too short to claim victory.
I love to hear anything else that you may have on this topic. This is the first time that I have actually spent really looking into Chinese units as a whole, and I hate to admit that they are kind of interesting.
Doug
Thanks again for you insight.
Foe the record, though, I think that I referred to the Chinese CVGs as a "very formidable foe", not "indestructible." I did say that they were almost impossible to destroy them via a missile attack. I think that you just agreed with me about that. <g>
My point, of course, was that with 200+ SAMs, you would have to launch even more than that to be able to get through, and what group of ships/planes/etc., could afford to gather together and unleash something like that unless it was guaranteed to be successful? What a joint attack that would be!
You did take the conversation to the next level, however. That, of course, being that if you can't destroy them via missile attack, how do you destroy them? I played the Spratly Spat several times, and I can occasionally put a scratch on some of their ships before I run completely out of missile ordinance. In something that I think is very true is well, and you just mentioned it, eventually the Chinese will run out of ordinance, too. And, when the Chinese run out, then it's back to the base to be replenished. In fact, the Spratly situation kind of reminds me of the all-out battles that they used to take place in Vietnam where they would spend two days or so fighting for control of one particular hill, and when they finally gain control, both sides fall back to replenish, essentially leaving the hill unattended. The Spratly thing seems to be the same thing. A big fight, but eventually everyone goes home and leaves the islands/atolls for another day. Weird.
I like the ideas of using fighters to assist in the attack. Can you imagine how much ordinance would have to be used to get this done? I'd hate to authorize all of this and fall a few missiles/attacks too short to claim victory.
I love to hear anything else that you may have on this topic. This is the first time that I have actually spent really looking into Chinese units as a whole, and I hate to admit that they are kind of interesting.
Doug
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
I think I need more insight as well. Something amiss like how long the carrier last after a maintenance? Will enemy try to launch the assault when the carrier group is not ready or returning? Catching the weakest phase of the battlegroup is also considered in Chinese doctrine during the Taiwan Strait crisis. I mean, expecting a fair fight is nearly impossible for modern day, usually whom take the damage first will lose.
Same as fighters, I watched this news before, and what if the US CVBG was caught in battle with the least-prepared squadrons? 60 jets but only 30 are usable, and cannot bring the other half to be used for the first strike. This is going to be a serious concern if war breaks out too.
I will say, even China can't be so sure if a rusting Nimitz and her fighters are a good sign of (counter-)attack -- their jets are in different tiers, and China can't have a fully-loaded fighters to do as much as a hornet. A half-less of US Super Hornets are still qualitatively and quantitatively superior, same as a Nimitz carrier who did not want to stay on the frontline.
The logistical discussion of CVBG is surely a refreshing talk.
Same as fighters, I watched this news before, and what if the US CVBG was caught in battle with the least-prepared squadrons? 60 jets but only 30 are usable, and cannot bring the other half to be used for the first strike. This is going to be a serious concern if war breaks out too.
I will say, even China can't be so sure if a rusting Nimitz and her fighters are a good sign of (counter-)attack -- their jets are in different tiers, and China can't have a fully-loaded fighters to do as much as a hornet. A half-less of US Super Hornets are still qualitatively and quantitatively superior, same as a Nimitz carrier who did not want to stay on the frontline.
The logistical discussion of CVBG is surely a refreshing talk.
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
Dysta,
The article makes it sound as if they are caught in a period of transition time where they don't want to throw any more money into an air frame because they will be replacing that air frame at some point in the near future.
In comparing the two countries, it's obvious that the carrier and the air craft on board favor the US. But, China has more than enough SAMs to defend it, so it will be able to sustain a battle, until it runs out of ammo. The Spratly scenario is interesting because it has that "retreat" strategy, which I think is important. Before every completely losing ships, it seems as though the "live to fight another day" concept prevails. In fact, the Allied forces do the same thing in that scenario. Both will eventually retreat, which I think is real.
As I mentioned before, it almost seems kind of crazy to fight over an area that you can't stick around and actually defend. Like my Vietnam reference, you fight, you win/lose, and then everyone leaves. If China can't make those atolls completely self-sufficient, then they will always be subjected to being attacked and overthrown. The Chinese carrier can't stay there forever.
It reminds me of the guy who takes his big brother to school with him so that the bullies don't pick on him, and then he has to deal with the bullies on his own because his big brother eventually has to leave.
It is an interesting subject.
Doug
The article makes it sound as if they are caught in a period of transition time where they don't want to throw any more money into an air frame because they will be replacing that air frame at some point in the near future.
In comparing the two countries, it's obvious that the carrier and the air craft on board favor the US. But, China has more than enough SAMs to defend it, so it will be able to sustain a battle, until it runs out of ammo. The Spratly scenario is interesting because it has that "retreat" strategy, which I think is important. Before every completely losing ships, it seems as though the "live to fight another day" concept prevails. In fact, the Allied forces do the same thing in that scenario. Both will eventually retreat, which I think is real.
As I mentioned before, it almost seems kind of crazy to fight over an area that you can't stick around and actually defend. Like my Vietnam reference, you fight, you win/lose, and then everyone leaves. If China can't make those atolls completely self-sufficient, then they will always be subjected to being attacked and overthrown. The Chinese carrier can't stay there forever.
It reminds me of the guy who takes his big brother to school with him so that the bullies don't pick on him, and then he has to deal with the bullies on his own because his big brother eventually has to leave.
It is an interesting subject.
Doug
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
Chinese CVBGs arent a pushover, but I wouldnt say impressive.
Impressive would be, if they had shipborne counter-stealth AEW&Cs equipped with UHF (or VHF) band radars like the E-2D, and CEC aided SM-6 equivalents that could engage sea-skimmers beyond the horizon (so, before waiting for sea-skimmers to come within 20-40 nautical miles for even the longest range SAM, the HQ-9B and Rif-M to engage). Also impressive would be if they were armed with quad-packed medium range defense missiles like the ESSM that would multiply each warship's missile defense value (China has the DK-10A as equivalent, but deployment status is pending as long as we watchers have no photo evidence).
And on the offense, Chinese CVBGs (or warships in general) would be more impressive if they had stealth missiles like the LRASM. Actually, to kill a chinese group, just use LRASM. A handful of them are enough to sink any Chinese group, since none of their weapons aside of maybe short range IR SAM are capable of engaging those extremely small RCS targets (FCR diagnosis just says 'insufficient reflection' or something). China has recognized those problems tho and are working in the KJ-600 (kinda a E-2D copy) and the YJ-20 (LRASM copy) at the moment, what I can gather from the PLA watchersphere... But until they hit the shelves and are integrated on the new chinese warships such as the Type 055 Renhai-class Cruiser, Chinese carrier groups are not very impressive compared to the USN's (which is the only standard that China ever would accept for themselves).
Of course, fighting with the weapons that the SEA nations have at the moment, which are comparable to the last generation Harpoons and YJ-83s that the USN and China uses respectively, isnt going to work against a carrier group that was (also) made to dominate the South China Sea against the other claimants in mind.
Impressive would be, if they had shipborne counter-stealth AEW&Cs equipped with UHF (or VHF) band radars like the E-2D, and CEC aided SM-6 equivalents that could engage sea-skimmers beyond the horizon (so, before waiting for sea-skimmers to come within 20-40 nautical miles for even the longest range SAM, the HQ-9B and Rif-M to engage). Also impressive would be if they were armed with quad-packed medium range defense missiles like the ESSM that would multiply each warship's missile defense value (China has the DK-10A as equivalent, but deployment status is pending as long as we watchers have no photo evidence).
And on the offense, Chinese CVBGs (or warships in general) would be more impressive if they had stealth missiles like the LRASM. Actually, to kill a chinese group, just use LRASM. A handful of them are enough to sink any Chinese group, since none of their weapons aside of maybe short range IR SAM are capable of engaging those extremely small RCS targets (FCR diagnosis just says 'insufficient reflection' or something). China has recognized those problems tho and are working in the KJ-600 (kinda a E-2D copy) and the YJ-20 (LRASM copy) at the moment, what I can gather from the PLA watchersphere... But until they hit the shelves and are integrated on the new chinese warships such as the Type 055 Renhai-class Cruiser, Chinese carrier groups are not very impressive compared to the USN's (which is the only standard that China ever would accept for themselves).
Of course, fighting with the weapons that the SEA nations have at the moment, which are comparable to the last generation Harpoons and YJ-83s that the USN and China uses respectively, isnt going to work against a carrier group that was (also) made to dominate the South China Sea against the other claimants in mind.
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
I understand what you are saying. I believe that the point that I was trying to make (it must have been poorly done on my part) was that they have over 200 SAMs and that it would be hard to get a missile attack to take them out. As I (and Dysta) mentioned, it would take well over 200 missiles to take out a significant portion of the Chinese CVG. That, to me, is impressive.
As I stated in my last message, they are no way equal to the US in the quality and quantity of their planes.
Doug
As I stated in my last message, they are no way equal to the US in the quality and quantity of their planes.
Doug
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
I mean, does it have difference between the Elizabeth carrier group with escorts armed with 200 Asters, or Japanese DDH has destroyers armed with 200 SM-2/3? Aside from PoH, range, price and launching methods (cold vs hot), I hardly see the differences.
Except the comparison to US’s short range air defense, ESSM can be quad-packed while Chinese HQ-16 cannot (in game). So the US side doesn’t need a lot of destroyers to act as carrier’s escort, but China has to have dedicated platform to protect with, like 054A.
Except the comparison to US’s short range air defense, ESSM can be quad-packed while Chinese HQ-16 cannot (in game). So the US side doesn’t need a lot of destroyers to act as carrier’s escort, but China has to have dedicated platform to protect with, like 054A.
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
200 missiles... I fly a 4 ship strike at them, each carrying 2 missiles, that means 16 shots / day without even breaking a sweat. Chinese CVBG... sunk or forced to withdraw in <12 days. Double that the number of sorties, and they last less than a week. Triple it... a few days...
It's really about what your priorities are. Essentially, every warship is in a race against the clock to accomplish its mission and withdraw before it loses the ability to defend itself. More missiles doesn't necessarily equate to a more effective defense in the sense of being able to handle a larger sized raid. It's really more about buying time before you must be replenished. Then you get into the much more complex issues of sustainment and at-sea replenishment (if it's possible).
It's really about what your priorities are. Essentially, every warship is in a race against the clock to accomplish its mission and withdraw before it loses the ability to defend itself. More missiles doesn't necessarily equate to a more effective defense in the sense of being able to handle a larger sized raid. It's really more about buying time before you must be replenished. Then you get into the much more complex issues of sustainment and at-sea replenishment (if it's possible).
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
ORIGINAL: SeaQueen
200 missiles... I fly a 4 ship strike at them, each carrying 2 missiles, that means 16 shots / day without even breaking a sweat. Chinese CVBG... sunk or forced to withdraw in <12 days. Double that the number of sorties, and they last less than a week. Triple it... a few days...
You need to remember the 052D, 055 and the carrier itself have RAM launchers, each shot of HQ-10 rated 90% PoH so that takes 5 supersonics to make 1 leaker. If the gatling is Type-1130, that leaker will also likely be nullified.
That could give 1-2 more days to stay afloat, but don’t forget how much damage the Chinese side can done in hours, let alone days.
With torpedoes and Type-212 or the equivalent of silent subs, 12 torpedoes will done a much quicker job, render all the air defense (except the anti-torp on a carrier) useless.
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
I agree with you assessment, if you fire enough missiles over a period of time then the CVG (or whatever group) will eventually have to withdraw from the area to replenish. As I stated before, it sincerely reminds me of war in Vietnam where you would spend three days trying to defeat or destroy the enemy at some dumb hill, and then everyone withdraws from the area to replenish. The battles in the South China Sea seem very similar to me. I think that the scenario designer did a good job to try and capture that reality. I have played that scenario numerous times, and it generally ends the same with one, or both sides withdrawing due to either superficial damage, or a lack of ammo, without ever really doing any "serious" damage.
Doug
Doug
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
Well, blowing up a fortification is a different matter, doesn’t it? I also remember how people says DF-21D would be useless when US carrier runs in 30+ knots, while US can MOAB the island because it won’t move.
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
ORIGINAL: DWReese
I agree with you assessment, if you fire enough missiles over a period of time then the CVG (or whatever group) will eventually have to withdraw from the area to replenish. As I stated before, it sincerely reminds me of war in Vietnam where you would spend three days trying to defeat or destroy the enemy at some dumb hill, and then everyone withdraws from the area to replenish.
The difference is that in land war you're trying to capture and control territory. At sea, nobody wants to just hang around. You want to destroy the enemy's fleet, which is somehow influencing events on land by providing strike, naval gun fires, amphibious assault, or interdicting the sea lanes. Therefore the kind of stalemate you described has a different effect at sea.
A good example of a naval stalemate would be the Battle of Jutland. The German fleet had sortied in order to interdict British shipping and lay mines in their harbors. The British, in response, sortied their fleet to stop them. In the ensuing battle, neither side managed to destroy the other fleet and the Germans eventually withdrew first. The British chose not to pursue having suffered terribly under the German guns. While tactically a stalemate, the Germans never sent their fleet out again, and were forced to confine themselves to submarine raids to interdict British shipping. Thus it was a strategic victory for the British because it effectively defeated a German center of gravity (their fleet of battleships and cruisers, which was thereafter bottled up in port).
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
I'm fine with your example, and I understand it implicitly.
That being said, the South China Sea situation seems odd to me. Allied ships can sail in, around, and through, all of the atolls, and China can protest all they want about it, but any battle would be random. If determined, the allied forces could send various platforms (ships/planes/missiles) to completely destroy the installations being built on these locations. Using your definition, they would achieve a strategic victory because they removed the installations that China was "illegally" occupying and constructing. Therefore, for the allied forces, it would seem best to simply avoid the area when Chinese vessels are around.
The Chinese vessels, as I just pointed out, can't remain in the area forever and, therefore, can't 'really" protect the atolls from attack because they can't be "on-guard" 24/7 at each of the locations. Since they could all be destroyed before the Chinese to ever arrive to stop it, it almost seems a little foolish to become this worked up by their existence, at least at this point.
Would China risk war with every nation in the region if, on any given day, and all out offensive was delivered to remove their illegal installations by taking military action? I don't know. But, the point is, unlike your mine-laying example, the installations could be destroyed (hence yielding a strategic victory) long before the Chinese could arrive to actually stop it.
Just some food for thought.
Doug
That being said, the South China Sea situation seems odd to me. Allied ships can sail in, around, and through, all of the atolls, and China can protest all they want about it, but any battle would be random. If determined, the allied forces could send various platforms (ships/planes/missiles) to completely destroy the installations being built on these locations. Using your definition, they would achieve a strategic victory because they removed the installations that China was "illegally" occupying and constructing. Therefore, for the allied forces, it would seem best to simply avoid the area when Chinese vessels are around.
The Chinese vessels, as I just pointed out, can't remain in the area forever and, therefore, can't 'really" protect the atolls from attack because they can't be "on-guard" 24/7 at each of the locations. Since they could all be destroyed before the Chinese to ever arrive to stop it, it almost seems a little foolish to become this worked up by their existence, at least at this point.
Would China risk war with every nation in the region if, on any given day, and all out offensive was delivered to remove their illegal installations by taking military action? I don't know. But, the point is, unlike your mine-laying example, the installations could be destroyed (hence yielding a strategic victory) long before the Chinese could arrive to actually stop it.
Just some food for thought.
Doug
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
I wouldn't call destroying the islands a strategic victory because they're just one piece of an interlocking system intended to insure the Chinese maintain the ability to aggressively assert their influence over all the nations dependent on the South China Sea. Destroying the installations on their islands would be destroying a Chinese center of gravity but it'd be a lower level victory. Strategic victory would be broader. Wars are fought to pursue political objectives, which is to say a specific government policy objective. A "strategic victory" is always somehow related to policy. In this case, to achieve a strategic level victory, you'd have to severely limit the ability of the Chinese government's ability to pursue their policy objectives through violent means in the South China Sea. In this case, their policy is to enforce a claim on the entire South China Sea, and influence the policies of the nations dependent on the South China Sea, possibly through violent means. The US government contests that claim in favor of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea's definition of territorial waters and while it is officially neutral on the issue of the Spratley Islands and natural resource ownership specifically, it opposes the resolution of those conflicts through violence. Knocking out the islands by themselves wouldn't advance US policy over Chinese policy, although it'd help.
The islands are just one element of an overlapping system of defenses intended to aggressively enforce the Chinese claim on the South China Sea, and potentially pursue their regional policy objectives through violent means (e.g. interdicting shipping, attacking targets on land with bombers or strike aircraft). The system also includes their surface fleet, their land based aviation, their submarines, their ballistic missiles and their cruise missiles. By themselves, the Chinese surface fleet can't protect those locations forever but they aren't there by themselves. They seized or built the islands, defended them with land based SAMs, coastal defense cruise missiles and land based aircraft. In war time they would also probably surround them with submarines and mines and sail in carrier based aircraft and long-range ship-based surface to air missiles. All of this is under an umbrella of ballistic and cruise missiles. So you can't just sink the fleet or seize the islands' installations. You can sink the fleet and still lose. You can destroy the island installations and still lose. In order to achieve the highest level victory and deny them the ability to do things like interdict shipping, you've got to defeat a multi-layered system. Any one element by itself probably wouldn't be so terrible (e.g. Ballistic missiles? Never fear! AEGIS is here!), but you don't get to fight just one element of that system, you've got to fight them all in combination simultaneously. To do that you need to figure out what balance of resources works to quickly roll back each of the layers. That's tough, and I'm not sure there's a single "correct" answer to it, which is what makes it interesting.
The islands are just one element of an overlapping system of defenses intended to aggressively enforce the Chinese claim on the South China Sea, and potentially pursue their regional policy objectives through violent means (e.g. interdicting shipping, attacking targets on land with bombers or strike aircraft). The system also includes their surface fleet, their land based aviation, their submarines, their ballistic missiles and their cruise missiles. By themselves, the Chinese surface fleet can't protect those locations forever but they aren't there by themselves. They seized or built the islands, defended them with land based SAMs, coastal defense cruise missiles and land based aircraft. In war time they would also probably surround them with submarines and mines and sail in carrier based aircraft and long-range ship-based surface to air missiles. All of this is under an umbrella of ballistic and cruise missiles. So you can't just sink the fleet or seize the islands' installations. You can sink the fleet and still lose. You can destroy the island installations and still lose. In order to achieve the highest level victory and deny them the ability to do things like interdict shipping, you've got to defeat a multi-layered system. Any one element by itself probably wouldn't be so terrible (e.g. Ballistic missiles? Never fear! AEGIS is here!), but you don't get to fight just one element of that system, you've got to fight them all in combination simultaneously. To do that you need to figure out what balance of resources works to quickly roll back each of the layers. That's tough, and I'm not sure there's a single "correct" answer to it, which is what makes it interesting.
ORIGINAL: DWReese
I'm fine with your example, and I understand it implicitly.
That being said, the South China Sea situation seems odd to me. Allied ships can sail in, around, and through, all of the atolls, and China can protest all they want about it, but any battle would be random. If determined, the allied forces could send various platforms (ships/planes/missiles) to completely destroy the installations being built on these locations. Using your definition, they would achieve a strategic victory because they removed the installations that China was "illegally" occupying and constructing. Therefore, for the allied forces, it would seem best to simply avoid the area when Chinese vessels are around.
The Chinese vessels, as I just pointed out, can't remain in the area forever and, therefore, can't 'really" protect the atolls from attack because they can't be "on-guard" 24/7 at each of the locations. Since they could all be destroyed before the Chinese to ever arrive to stop it, it almost seems a little foolish to become this worked up by their existence, at least at this point.
Would China risk war with every nation in the region if, on any given day, and all out offensive was delivered to remove their illegal installations by taking military action? I don't know. But, the point is, unlike your mine-laying example, the installations could be destroyed (hence yielding a strategic victory) long before the Chinese could arrive to actually stop it.
Just some food for thought.
Doug
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
I do understand, and agree, with everything that you are saying. But, at this point, they lack any real ability to defend themselves to any degree which would prevent their complete destruction by an opposing force before China could do anything about it.
If, on any given day, the allies decided that enough was enough and they decided to destroy all of the installations on all of the atolls, would China do something about it? Would they escalate the situation? I don't know, but they aren't anything (at this point) that will alter the balance of power in the region. But, as each day goes by, the Chinese are gathering a stronger foothold which they won't be very willing to give up. It is a situation which should be addressed soon, if it's ever going to be addressed at all.
All of this reminds me of a couple of countries (Russia and the US?) building rocket ships to travel to the moon. The first lands, exits their craft, and places a flag in the soil, and claims that the moon now belongs to the US. Then, he gets back into his rocket ship and comes home. A month later, the Russian rocket ship lands, and out pops a Cosmonaut who walks over to the US flag, and knocks it over. He then places a Russian flag into the soil, and states that the moon has now been claimed as the property of Russia. He then re-enters his rocket ship and comes home. So, who really owns the moon? The US because they were first, or the Russians who "conquered" it later? Or, no one because no one can actually live on the moon without a whole bunch of outside equipment to make it habitable? <g> To me, these atolls are similar to the moon.
Doug
If, on any given day, the allies decided that enough was enough and they decided to destroy all of the installations on all of the atolls, would China do something about it? Would they escalate the situation? I don't know, but they aren't anything (at this point) that will alter the balance of power in the region. But, as each day goes by, the Chinese are gathering a stronger foothold which they won't be very willing to give up. It is a situation which should be addressed soon, if it's ever going to be addressed at all.
All of this reminds me of a couple of countries (Russia and the US?) building rocket ships to travel to the moon. The first lands, exits their craft, and places a flag in the soil, and claims that the moon now belongs to the US. Then, he gets back into his rocket ship and comes home. A month later, the Russian rocket ship lands, and out pops a Cosmonaut who walks over to the US flag, and knocks it over. He then places a Russian flag into the soil, and states that the moon has now been claimed as the property of Russia. He then re-enters his rocket ship and comes home. So, who really owns the moon? The US because they were first, or the Russians who "conquered" it later? Or, no one because no one can actually live on the moon without a whole bunch of outside equipment to make it habitable? <g> To me, these atolls are similar to the moon.
Doug
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
I suspect those islands could defend themselves fairly well if they had to. They have airfields from which they could fly fighters and strike aircraft. They're probably protected by their own SAMs, guns, and CDCMs. Additionally ballistic missiles and land based bombers with cruise missiles could strike targets throughout most of the SCS within minutes or hours. There's probably at least a few submarines near them on any given day. There might be some ground forces on them to guard against amphibious assault. Even if there were no surface naval forces protecting them, I suspect they could probably last a while on their own. Surface naval forces sent to protect them would add to what they have.
I suspect that if any government or alliance attempted to remove those bases the Chinese government would respond fairly quickly. Fortunately, I doubt anyone would be so stupid as to be that aggressive unless the Chinese first started doing violent things like attempting to interdict shipping or attacking a country in the region. As long as nobody gets hurt, they'll all keep talking.
They're not exactly like the moon, though. The moon doesn't have natural resources worth fighting over. The islands out there probably have oil, natural gas, and fisheries. There's big money at stake so it's a little more concerning than the moon because there's something out there to make the effort of sustaining people worth it.
I suspect that if any government or alliance attempted to remove those bases the Chinese government would respond fairly quickly. Fortunately, I doubt anyone would be so stupid as to be that aggressive unless the Chinese first started doing violent things like attempting to interdict shipping or attacking a country in the region. As long as nobody gets hurt, they'll all keep talking.
They're not exactly like the moon, though. The moon doesn't have natural resources worth fighting over. The islands out there probably have oil, natural gas, and fisheries. There's big money at stake so it's a little more concerning than the moon because there's something out there to make the effort of sustaining people worth it.
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
You are thinking in terms of nations already being "at war" when the attack occurs.
What I am talking about is if TODAY, right now,this group of allied nations wanted to vanquish the Chinese from the atolls that that the courts have already said belong to them, then they could coordinate some strike missions and covertly attack them using air units and blow them to smithereens, long BEFORE China could come and help to defend them, or before the atolls could actually do anything to stop the attacks themselves.
If that's the case, then China would have to make a decision as to how it would want to retaliate. But, make no mistake, I do believe that this allied offensive action could be taken without any casualties, and it could completely remove most of the Chinese forces on these atolls, or if not, they could at least incapacitate them, long before China is in a position to do anything to stop it. And, if that's really the case, then they really are as far away as the moon, in that respect. <g>
Doug
What I am talking about is if TODAY, right now,this group of allied nations wanted to vanquish the Chinese from the atolls that that the courts have already said belong to them, then they could coordinate some strike missions and covertly attack them using air units and blow them to smithereens, long BEFORE China could come and help to defend them, or before the atolls could actually do anything to stop the attacks themselves.
If that's the case, then China would have to make a decision as to how it would want to retaliate. But, make no mistake, I do believe that this allied offensive action could be taken without any casualties, and it could completely remove most of the Chinese forces on these atolls, or if not, they could at least incapacitate them, long before China is in a position to do anything to stop it. And, if that's really the case, then they really are as far away as the moon, in that respect. <g>
Doug
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
The problem with thinking about “fight tonight” forces is that they are almost always planned for use in a contingency – not necessarily offensive actions. This is amplified when applied to middle-powers that do not have significant order of battle to sustain. Readying forces improves chances of success but also provides IW to the adversary, decreasing chance of success. The break-even point is difficult to find.
Even given only a few days of warning, I suspect the PRC forward positions in the Spratly's could sustain against an attack from the regional powers. Fiery Cross/Mischief/Subi can support a full fighter regiment, and have installations pre-built for SAM sites. When you include the forces available at Woody/Hainan, the PRCs has a significant quantitative and qualitative advantage against it immediate neighbors in the SCS (VN/MY/PH), even if they acted together. Given the relative force postures, I don’t think you could see the complete destruction, let alone removal of PRC forces. Introduction of US forces would change the balance of forces, but posturing of significant US forces is almost certainly an IW item for the PRC and makes a surprise attack even less probable (but that evolves from a regional conflict to A2AD discussion).
The question is why would any of the regional actors stage a surprise attack on PRC bases in the SCS? Their bases are even more vulnerable due to the lack of SAMs and local-basing for fighters. The inevitable PRC response would erode any relative gains, and it’s almost guaranteed that the PRC could restore operations at degraded facilities faster than it’s neighbors.
IMHO, the most likely military conflict in the SCS would be a very small-scale naval skirmish between paramilitary forces evolving from civil maritime conflict (collision at sea, etc). All involved parties are well postured for this eventuality, but PRC still retains significant overmatch. Preventing escalation to full-scale conflict is in the interest of all involved parties.
Even given only a few days of warning, I suspect the PRC forward positions in the Spratly's could sustain against an attack from the regional powers. Fiery Cross/Mischief/Subi can support a full fighter regiment, and have installations pre-built for SAM sites. When you include the forces available at Woody/Hainan, the PRCs has a significant quantitative and qualitative advantage against it immediate neighbors in the SCS (VN/MY/PH), even if they acted together. Given the relative force postures, I don’t think you could see the complete destruction, let alone removal of PRC forces. Introduction of US forces would change the balance of forces, but posturing of significant US forces is almost certainly an IW item for the PRC and makes a surprise attack even less probable (but that evolves from a regional conflict to A2AD discussion).
The question is why would any of the regional actors stage a surprise attack on PRC bases in the SCS? Their bases are even more vulnerable due to the lack of SAMs and local-basing for fighters. The inevitable PRC response would erode any relative gains, and it’s almost guaranteed that the PRC could restore operations at degraded facilities faster than it’s neighbors.
IMHO, the most likely military conflict in the SCS would be a very small-scale naval skirmish between paramilitary forces evolving from civil maritime conflict (collision at sea, etc). All involved parties are well postured for this eventuality, but PRC still retains significant overmatch. Preventing escalation to full-scale conflict is in the interest of all involved parties.
RE: Chinese CVGs are very imptrssive
Well, looks like it has steered off from Chinese CVBG a little bit. I can relate them with logistics reasons, but as Seaqueen said, SCS is right below China's stomach so any type of conflict or battle they can throw almost anything to deter aggressors in defense, if not instantaneously.
In Chain of War campaign, I am more inclined to believe China to take control SCS for escorting Chinese SSBN from US encirclement. At this level is a full-blown endgame decision when nuclear weapons step in and beneath the US surveillance. Simply put, if US jumps in, nuclear war may ensure to occur.
And I think if again, following the Vietnam War as a base reference how Chinese carrier may turns out in the end, it will be like spraying bullets in the rainforest, I will never know who is shooting at whom until either side runs out of supplies and munitions, then eventually calls off the battle. With these portable islands at the ready, China may gain a momentarily of foothold to restock the carrier for the next run. However, without reserve carriers to do the rotation, any damage or mishap for Chinese carrier will become the end of the job, and that is beyond logistical issue.
This may explain why China is simultaneously building new destroyers, carriers, nuclear powered subs while expand and utilitize the island facilities. After I posted a new thread about Parcells Island battle in 1974, China should know their limits after 4 decades already.
In Chain of War campaign, I am more inclined to believe China to take control SCS for escorting Chinese SSBN from US encirclement. At this level is a full-blown endgame decision when nuclear weapons step in and beneath the US surveillance. Simply put, if US jumps in, nuclear war may ensure to occur.
And I think if again, following the Vietnam War as a base reference how Chinese carrier may turns out in the end, it will be like spraying bullets in the rainforest, I will never know who is shooting at whom until either side runs out of supplies and munitions, then eventually calls off the battle. With these portable islands at the ready, China may gain a momentarily of foothold to restock the carrier for the next run. However, without reserve carriers to do the rotation, any damage or mishap for Chinese carrier will become the end of the job, and that is beyond logistical issue.
This may explain why China is simultaneously building new destroyers, carriers, nuclear powered subs while expand and utilitize the island facilities. After I posted a new thread about Parcells Island battle in 1974, China should know their limits after 4 decades already.