Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

China's crippling military vulnerability

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • China's crippling military vulnerability

    They have no friends:


    By Greg Torode and Michael Martina HONG KONG/BEIJING (Reuters) - When Chinese naval supply vessel Qiandaohu entered Australia's Albany Port this month to replenish Chinese warships helping search for a missing Malaysian airliner, it highlighted a strategic headache for Beijing - its lack of offshore bases and friendly ports to call on. China's deployment for the search - 18 warships, smaller coastguard vessels, a civilian cargo ship and an Antarctic icebreaker - has stretched the supply lines and logistics of its rapidly expanding navy, Chinese analysts and regional military attaches say. China's naval planners know they will have to fill this strategic gap to meet Beijing's desire for a fully operational blue-water navy by 2050 - especially if access around Southeast Asia or beyond is needed in times of tension. China is determined to eventually challenge Washington's traditional naval dominance across the Asia Pacific and is keen to be able to protect its own strategic interests across the Indian Ocean and Middle East.


    HONG KONG/BEIJING (Reuters) - When Chinese naval supply vessel Qiandaohu entered Australia's Albany Port this month to replenish Chinese warships helping search for a missing Malaysian airliner, it highlighted a strategic headache for Beijing - its lack of offshore bases and friendly ports to call on.

    China's deployment for the search - 18 warships, smaller coastguard vessels, a civilian cargo ship and an Antarctic icebreaker - has stretched the supply lines and logistics of its rapidly expanding navy, Chinese analysts and regional military attaches say.

    China's naval planners know they will have to fill this strategic gap to meet Beijing's desire for a fully operational blue-water navy by 2050 - especially if access around Southeast Asia or beyond is needed in times of tension.

    China is determined to eventually challenge Washington's traditional naval dominance across the Asia Pacific and is keen to be able to protect its own strategic interests across the Indian Ocean and Middle East.

    "As China's military presence and projection increases, it will want to have these kind of (port) arrangements in place, just as the U.S. does," said Ian Storey, a regional security expert at Singapore's Institute of South East Asian Studies.

    "I am a bit surprised that there is no sign that they even started discussions about long-term access. If visits happen now they happen on an ad-hoc commercial basis. It is a glaring hole."

    The United States, by contrast, has built up an extensive network of full bases - Japan, Guam and Diego Garcia - buttressed by formal security alliances and access and repair agreements with friendly countries, including strategic ports in Singapore and Malaysia.

    While China is building up its fortified holdings on islands and reefs in the disputed South China Sea, its most significant southernmost base remains on Hainan Island, still some 3,000 nautical miles away from where Chinese warships have been searching for missing Malaysia airlines flight MH370.

    Military attaches say foreign port access is relatively easy to arrange during peace-time humanitarian efforts - such as the search for MH370 or during anti-piracy patrols off the Horn of Africa - but moments of tension or conflict are another matter.

    "If there was real tension and the risk of conflict between China and a U.S. ally in East Asia, then it is hard to imagine Chinese warships being allowed to enter Australian ports for re-supply," said one Beijing-based analyst who watches China's naval build-up.

    "The Chinese know this lack of guaranteed port access is something they are going to have to broach at some point down the track," he said. "As the navy grows, this is going to be a potential strategic dilemma."

    Zha Daojiong, an international relations professor at Beijing's Peking University, said the Indian Ocean search was an "exceptional" circumstance and that Chinese strategists knew they could not automatically rely on getting into the ports of U.S. allies if strategic tensions soared.

    China's navy had significantly expanded friendship visits to ports from Asia and the Pacific to the Middle East and Mediterranean in recent years, but discussions over longer-term strategic access were still some way off, he said.

    "At some point, we will have to create a kind of road-map to create these kind of agreements, that is for sure, but that will be for the future," Zha said.

    "We are pragmatic and we know there are sensitivities surrounding these kinds of discussions, or even historic suspicions in some places, so the time is probably not right just yet," he said.

    "I expect to see more friendship visits, and on-going access on a request basis. Then there is the issue of making sure the facilities can meet our needs."

    Operationally, long-range deployments such as the anti-piracy patrols and the search for wreckage of MH370 have proved important logistical learning curves, he added.

    Potential blue-water deployments of future air-craft carrier strike groups further complicates China's logistical outlook.

    China's first carrier, the Liaoning, a Soviet-era ship bought from Ukraine in 1998 and re-built in a Chinese shipyard, is being used for training and is not yet fully operational.

    Regional military attaches and analysts said it could be decades before China was able to compete with U.S. carriers, if at all.

    Tai Ming Cheung, director of the U.C. Institute of Global Conflict and Co-operation at the University of California, described the MH370 search as a "major learning moment" for the People's Liberation Army (PLA) and could lead to a push from its top brass to develop global power-projection capabilities.

    The PLA covers all arms of the military, including the navy.

    Chinese officials and analysts have bristled at suggestions by Western and Indian counterparts that Beijing is attempting to create a so-called "string of pearls" by funding port developments across the Indian Ocean, including Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Myanmar.

    Chinese analysts say the ports will never develop into Chinese bases and even long-term access deals would be highly questionable, given the political uncertainties and the immense strategic trust this would require.

    Storey, of Singapore's Institute of South East Asian Studies, said the "string of pearls" theory was increasingly seen as discredited among strategic analysts.

    So far this decade, Chinese naval ships have visited Gulf ports and other strategic points across the Middle East, including Oman, Israel, Qatar and Kuwait, after completing piracy patrols.

    But despite its rapid naval build-up, many experts believe China is a decade or more away from being able to secure key offshore shipping lanes and was still reliant on the United States to secure oil choke-points such as the Straits of Hormuz that leads to the Gulf.

    Closer to home, the disputed South China Sea offers few solutions. China's eight fortified holdings on reefs and islets across the contested Spratly archipelago are not considered big enough for a significant offshore base, according to Richard Bitzinger, a regional military analyst at Singapore's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies.
    Originally posted by lincolnboy
    After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

  • #2
    Courage can win battles but logistics win wars.

    Mark my words guys. They will dump nukes from orbit onto all of our carriers at the same time once they have better logistics, more ships, and another Obama type weak US president whom they believe will not retaliate with force.
    Magnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.

    Comment


    • #3
      So they're only missing.... all the pieces of the puzzle?
      Originally posted by lincolnboy
      After watching Games of Thrones, makes me glad i was not born in those years.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by svo855 View Post
        Courage can win battles but logistics win wars.

        Mark my words guys. They will dump nukes from orbit onto all of our carriers at the same time once they have better logistics, more ships, and another Obama type weak US president whom they believe will not retaliate with force.
        I see your blu-ray copy of Space Cowboys came in.
        ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by YALE View Post
          I see your blu-ray copy of Space Cowboys came in.
          No; the tactic that I mentioned came from a white paper study done by the PLA after Clinton transferred rocket tech to them via Loral Aerospace.
          Magnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.

          Comment


          • #6
            They did that in Def-Con 4 too.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by svo855 View Post
              No; the tactic that I mentioned came from a white paper study done by the PLA after Clinton transferred rocket tech to them via Loral Aerospace.
              I don't think they have the tech for it. Hell, with ICBM's, there's no need for a platform in orbit.
              ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

              Comment


              • #8
                It must suck to have (almost) every other country distrust you so much that they won't even allow you to have preferred porting status in any of their ports. Hell, I remember being on the first U.S. Navy ship (and an aircraft carrier at that) to port in Klang, Malaysia back in 1997. They were very happy to have us there, and rolled out the red carpet for us.
                Meanwhile, if/when Chinese Navy ships are allowed to port in a foreign country, they are probably forced to pay for good & services with gold.
                "It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom - for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by YALE View Post
                  I don't think they have the tech for it. Hell, with ICBM's, there's no need for a platform in orbit.

                  The orbital platform reduces the flight time to a few minutes vs 30 minutes with a very big launch signature. They will have the tech when the time comes. They are shooting for Pacific dominance by 2050.
                  Magnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by svo855 View Post
                    The orbital platform reduces the flight time to a few minutes vs 30 minutes with a very big launch signature. They will have the tech when the time comes. They are shooting for Pacific dominance by 2050.
                    It won't happen, if we're still the dominant player. We treat our host countries too well. They've made it clear that they want to bully other countries over maritime territory.
                    ZOMBIE REAGAN FOR PRESIDENT 2016!!! heh

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You cut down response time with an orbital platform. Despite the SPACE treaty, I'm still betting China has a few toys loaded into their satellites.
                      I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        LOL

                        Star Wars programs. SMH

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by svo855 View Post
                          The orbital platform reduces the flight time to a few minutes vs 30 minutes with a very big launch signature. They will have the tech when the time comes. They are shooting for Pacific dominance by 2050.
                          The Trident II platform travels at 13k mph and is submarine launched. There are officially 14 active submarines carrying them with a capacity of 24 missiles per vessel. Shanghai is 80 miles away from open water meaning it'd take less than 5 minutes to completely destroy it. That's with a declassified weapon first deployed 25 years ago. Imagine what kind of advancements we've made since then.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BP View Post
                            The Trident II platform travels at 13k mph and is submarine launched. There are officially 14 active submarines carrying them with a capacity of 24 missiles per vessel. Shanghai is 80 miles away from open water meaning it'd take less than 5 minutes to completely destroy it. That's with a declassified weapon first deployed 25 years ago. Imagine what kind of advancements we've made since then.
                            Especially with hypervelocity missiles.
                            I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BP View Post
                              The Trident II platform travels at 13k mph and is submarine launched. There are officially 14 active submarines carrying them with a capacity of 24 missiles per vessel. Shanghai is 80 miles away from open water meaning it'd take less than 5 minutes to completely destroy it. That's with a declassified weapon first deployed 25 years ago. Imagine what kind of advancements we've made since then.

                              Having nice toys is one thing; having the nuts to use them is another. Do you really believe that Obama would respond to an attack on our fleet that wipes it out completely if China says that it was the actions of a few rouge general and then publicly executes said generals? They would say that only military targets were harmed and beg us not to kill innocent civilians who had nothing to do with the attack. Obama or someone just like him would roll right over if forced to face that situation.
                              Magnus, I am your father. You need to ask your mother about a man named Calvin Klein.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X