Future Air-Sea war with China
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Tullahoma TN
Posts: 482
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future Air-Sea war with China
Here's something worth a look: future Air-Sea war with China.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicati...irSea_Batt.pdf
Not much emphasis on traditional aircraft carrier operations:
"...Naval surface forces move to preplanned stations, e.g., AEGIS ships to BMD
stations, high value units move/stay beyond enemy threat ranges and may
employ operational deception ..."
In other words, keep the aircraft carriers safe, so as to keep the CVN capital ships "in being." Sort of like the RN's dreadnoughts after Jutland.
http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publicati...irSea_Batt.pdf
Not much emphasis on traditional aircraft carrier operations:
"...Naval surface forces move to preplanned stations, e.g., AEGIS ships to BMD
stations, high value units move/stay beyond enemy threat ranges and may
employ operational deception ..."
In other words, keep the aircraft carriers safe, so as to keep the CVN capital ships "in being." Sort of like the RN's dreadnoughts after Jutland.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
ME, welcome back.
There have been several novels based on a future conflict between the US and PRC. The flash point has often been Taiwan and a major feature is the blindsiding on the CVN group either by the threat from SSK/SSN or in one or two by actually crippling the CVN.
Of course the main weakness in these novels is why possibly the world's largest producer of cheap consumer goods would attack possibly the world's largest consumer of such goods.
IMHO Globalisation makes war between major players improbable.
There have been several novels based on a future conflict between the US and PRC. The flash point has often been Taiwan and a major feature is the blindsiding on the CVN group either by the threat from SSK/SSN or in one or two by actually crippling the CVN.
Of course the main weakness in these novels is why possibly the world's largest producer of cheap consumer goods would attack possibly the world's largest consumer of such goods.
IMHO Globalisation makes war between major players improbable.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wouldn’t last long if we ever got into a full on shooting match with the PRC. If it stayed conventional then purely because of a simple numbers issue we would get our collective arrse handed to us on a plate in short order.
The only other alternative means going nuke early on and no-one would win that wee tat-a-tat.
The only other alternative means going nuke early on and no-one would win that wee tat-a-tat.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: 2 m South of Radstock VRP
Posts: 2,042
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pontius Navigator
IMHO Globalisation makes war between major players improbable.
China builds rare-earth metal monopoly | The Australian
CHINA has triumphed in a 15-year quest to become the "ultimate monopolist" in the supply of rare earth metals - a dominance that industry experts say could give Beijing control over the future of consumer electronics and green technology.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 786
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you revise how China got to its present position you would realise that we should not have to be in fear of her militarily, had it not been for the actions of the “international community”.
In 1979 Vietnam stood up to China on its own and didn't do that badly – she liberated Cambodia from the genocidal Khmer Rouge which was backed by PRC. PLA then invaded Vietnam and a short, bloody war ensued.
From Wiki:
“The PLA lacked adequate communications, transport, and logistics. Further, they were burdened with an elaborate and archaic command structure which proved inefficient in the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area)....Runners were employed to relay orders because there were few radios—those that they did have were not secure. The Cultural Revolution had significantly weakened Chinese industry, and military hardware produced suffered from poor quality, and thus did not perform well. These shortcomings did not stop the PLA from executing all its tactical plans. The strategic goal of rescuing China's Khmer Rouge allies, however, failed completely. Vietnam was able to occupy the whole Cambodia soon afterward.”
Perhaps the USA should have sold Taiwan the 4 Aegis equipped destroyers.
The “international community” moved much high tech manufacturing to China from the Asian “Tiger” economies (remember them, the MBAs' darlings?), looting the assets and money from them in the process, thereby weakening them as political forces in the region.
And perhaps of specific relevance to this forum, there was the defence technology cooperation between Israel and China summarised rather well in this must-read article in Asia Times on line Dec 4, 2002 “Israel's role in China's new warplane” By David Isenberg. Asia Times
Did someone say globalisation stops aggression? - only if you are not a sovereign nation independent of the “international community”, saddled with debt that can never be cleared - surrender any rights to controls (eg tariffs) on imports, forget about preserving essential industries and technologies within your nation, forget about immigration controls and the preservation of your way of life, indeed allow the very concept of a nation state to dissolve around you, and, yes, globalisation would have reduced the incentives for nation states to war with each other.
How do Taiwan's policies fit with this?
In 1979 Vietnam stood up to China on its own and didn't do that badly – she liberated Cambodia from the genocidal Khmer Rouge which was backed by PRC. PLA then invaded Vietnam and a short, bloody war ensued.
From Wiki:
“The PLA lacked adequate communications, transport, and logistics. Further, they were burdened with an elaborate and archaic command structure which proved inefficient in the FEBA (Forward Edge of Battle Area)....Runners were employed to relay orders because there were few radios—those that they did have were not secure. The Cultural Revolution had significantly weakened Chinese industry, and military hardware produced suffered from poor quality, and thus did not perform well. These shortcomings did not stop the PLA from executing all its tactical plans. The strategic goal of rescuing China's Khmer Rouge allies, however, failed completely. Vietnam was able to occupy the whole Cambodia soon afterward.”
Perhaps the USA should have sold Taiwan the 4 Aegis equipped destroyers.
The “international community” moved much high tech manufacturing to China from the Asian “Tiger” economies (remember them, the MBAs' darlings?), looting the assets and money from them in the process, thereby weakening them as political forces in the region.
And perhaps of specific relevance to this forum, there was the defence technology cooperation between Israel and China summarised rather well in this must-read article in Asia Times on line Dec 4, 2002 “Israel's role in China's new warplane” By David Isenberg. Asia Times
Did someone say globalisation stops aggression? - only if you are not a sovereign nation independent of the “international community”, saddled with debt that can never be cleared - surrender any rights to controls (eg tariffs) on imports, forget about preserving essential industries and technologies within your nation, forget about immigration controls and the preservation of your way of life, indeed allow the very concept of a nation state to dissolve around you, and, yes, globalisation would have reduced the incentives for nation states to war with each other.
How do Taiwan's policies fit with this?
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
GBZ,
What you seem to suggest is that the Superpower (Russia) could have gone to war with its rival (USA) as the latter had cornered all the earth's rare material (money).
Swap names and materials and the premise suggests USA would be the aggressor.
Now they wouldn't, would they?
What you seem to suggest is that the Superpower (Russia) could have gone to war with its rival (USA) as the latter had cornered all the earth's rare material (money).
Swap names and materials and the premise suggests USA would be the aggressor.
Now they wouldn't, would they?
