The South China Sea's Gathering Storm
https://japantoday.com/category/worl...rcraft-carrier
Impressive work.
quote: “Equipped with the latest weaponry and aircraft-launch technology, the Type 003 ship’s capabilities are thought to rival those of Western carriers, as Beijing seeks to turn its navy, already the world’s largest, into a multi-carrier force.”
Impressive work.
quote: “Equipped with the latest weaponry and aircraft-launch technology, the Type 003 ship’s capabilities are thought to rival those of Western carriers, as Beijing seeks to turn its navy, already the world’s largest, into a multi-carrier force.”
A few points from joli's linked article.
I remember the long term effort Admiral Gorshkov led in the Soviet Union to make the Soviet fleet a blue water navy.
China is doing the same thing, on a similar time frame. An advantage that they have is that they have the industrial base and the economy to back it up.
How soon will they put out a film like Top Gun, one wonders?
The link I first saw for this news item is here.
The Type 003 employs a catapult launch, which experts had said appears to be an electromagnetic-type system like one originally developed by the U.S. Navy. China's official Xinhua News Agency confirmed the Fujian employed the electromagnetic system in a report on Friday's launch. Such a system puts less stress on the aircraft than older steam-type catapult launch systems, and the use of a catapult means that the ship will be able to launch a broader variety of aircraft, which is necessary for China to be able to project naval power at a greater range, Rahmat said.“These catapults allow aircraft deployed to carry a more extensive load of weapons in addition to external fuel tanks,” Rahmat said.
“Once it is fully operational, the PLAN’s third carrier would also be able to deploy a more complete suite of aircraft associated with carrier strike group operations including carrier onboard delivery transport and airborne early warning and control airframes, such as the KJ-600.”
China’s People's Liberation Army Navy, or PLAN, has been modernizing for more than a decade to become more of a “blue water” force — one capable of operating globally rather than being restricted to remaining closer to the Chinese mainland.
“Once it is fully operational, the PLAN’s third carrier would also be able to deploy a more complete suite of aircraft associated with carrier strike group operations including carrier onboard delivery transport and airborne early warning and control airframes, such as the KJ-600.”
China’s People's Liberation Army Navy, or PLAN, has been modernizing for more than a decade to become more of a “blue water” force — one capable of operating globally rather than being restricted to remaining closer to the Chinese mainland.
China is doing the same thing, on a similar time frame. An advantage that they have is that they have the industrial base and the economy to back it up.
How soon will they put out a film like Top Gun, one wonders?
The link I first saw for this news item is here.
It seems they already did, unfortunately….
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/re...lm-ever-167797
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/re...lm-ever-167797
(Hat, Coat, Exit!)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia OZ
Age: 75
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 53 Likes
on
46 Posts
https://japantoday.com/category/worl...rcraft-carrier
Impressive work.
quote: “Equipped with the latest weaponry and aircraft-launch technology, the Type 003 ship’s capabilities are thought to rival those of Western carriers, as Beijing seeks to turn its navy, already the world’s largest, into a multi-carrier force.”
Impressive work.
quote: “Equipped with the latest weaponry and aircraft-launch technology, the Type 003 ship’s capabilities are thought to rival those of Western carriers, as Beijing seeks to turn its navy, already the world’s largest, into a multi-carrier force.”
I think the Chinese Armed Forces are exactly where the Russian armed forces is today in the Ukraine. Senior leadership chosen for political fealty over military competence, operational doctrine that is rigid and not adaptable to actual battlefield conditions, a lack of the critical senior NCO cadre, ineffective joint arms capability and capacity, lack of logistical support, and finally the same kabuki theatre set piece exercises that supposedly demonstrate “capability”.
Just like the West has consistently over estimated the Soviet military capability during the Cold War to justify the massive in the Military Industrial complex, I see the same dynamic developing now over our response to the Chinese Military.
There is a lot more to the successful projection of force than the kit. Effective command and control, well trained and effective personnel, integrated logistics, and adaptive doctrine are what makes the spiffy ships lethal.
I think the Chinese Armed Forces are exactly where the Russian armed forces is today in the Ukraine. Senior leadership chosen for political fealty over military competence, operational doctrine that is rigid and not adaptable to actual battlefield conditions, a lack of the critical senior NCO cadre, ineffective joint arms capability and capacity, lack of logistical support, and finally the same kabuki theatre set piece exercises that supposedly demonstrate “capability”.
Just like the West has consistently over estimated the Soviet military capability during the Cold War to justify the massive in the Military Industrial complex, I see the same dynamic developing now over our response to the Chinese Military.
I think the Chinese Armed Forces are exactly where the Russian armed forces is today in the Ukraine. Senior leadership chosen for political fealty over military competence, operational doctrine that is rigid and not adaptable to actual battlefield conditions, a lack of the critical senior NCO cadre, ineffective joint arms capability and capacity, lack of logistical support, and finally the same kabuki theatre set piece exercises that supposedly demonstrate “capability”.
Just like the West has consistently over estimated the Soviet military capability during the Cold War to justify the massive in the Military Industrial complex, I see the same dynamic developing now over our response to the Chinese Military.
Force projection seems a lower priority for China, they project money much more effectively than we project force.
One "problem" the Chinese military have is that they haven't been fighting anyone for years.
All armed forces become full of older, more cautious, yes men in such conditions
When a serious war breaks out it's normally a disaster for the first part - then whole bunch of SO's are removed and things start to improve
All armed forces become full of older, more cautious, yes men in such conditions
When a serious war breaks out it's normally a disaster for the first part - then whole bunch of SO's are removed and things start to improve
One "problem" the Chinese military have is that they haven't been fighting anyone for years.
All armed forces become full of older, more cautious, yes men in such conditions
When a serious war breaks out it's normally a disaster for the first part - then whole bunch of SO's are removed and things start to improve
All armed forces become full of older, more cautious, yes men in such conditions
When a serious war breaks out it's normally a disaster for the first part - then whole bunch of SO's are removed and things start to improve
This definitely applies to the Chinese force projection methodology, they have a well oiled methodology, infrastructure on credit with political benefits and consequences.
I'd also think that the talents that make an effective military commander might be considered dangerous from the CCP's perspective.
A very interesting article that has relevance for both the US and China. Russia is living the issue and not doing so well it seems. Autocracy's are generally not good at learning from their mistakes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ailure/309148/
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine...ailure/309148/
One "problem" the Chinese military have is that they haven't been fighting anyone for years.
All armed forces become full of older, more cautious, yes men in such conditions
When a serious war breaks out it's normally a disaster for the first part - then whole bunch of SO's are removed and things start to improve
All armed forces become full of older, more cautious, yes men in such conditions
When a serious war breaks out it's normally a disaster for the first part - then whole bunch of SO's are removed and things start to improve
Regarding 'meatware', generally I'm quietly impressed whenever I've met NCOs from western militaries. I wonder if I'd feel the same about their Chinese counterparts? I'm not so sure. The thing is, I wonder how many true believers there are amongst their number, and how many actually quite like western culture etc and don't really see it as that much of a threat? These things all count when it comes to the crunch.
I think all Chinese have been brought up over the last 150 years to believe that the "West" is only intent on plundering them and doing them down.
I believe they are intensely, even insanely, patriotic - think Japan 1940 here - who think that any criticism (or anything other than total adulation) is a sign of a potential enemy. On the other hand I don't see many signs that they have a "mission" to take over the whole world and run it themselves - as Chou En Lai said years ago "Invade India? Another 800 million people? Are you mad???".
These attitudes are not a great basis for fighting a war TBH - unfortunately they may well cause a war - one that no side really needs or wants.
I believe they are intensely, even insanely, patriotic - think Japan 1940 here - who think that any criticism (or anything other than total adulation) is a sign of a potential enemy. On the other hand I don't see many signs that they have a "mission" to take over the whole world and run it themselves - as Chou En Lai said years ago "Invade India? Another 800 million people? Are you mad???".
These attitudes are not a great basis for fighting a war TBH - unfortunately they may well cause a war - one that no side really needs or wants.
Interesting article in this weeks Economist
The Chinese spokesman was responding to a report by Bloomberg, a news agency, that Chinese military officers, during meetings in recent months with American counterparts, have repeatedly asserted that there are no international waters there. It said this had caused concern among senior American officials.
At least in public, China’s argument does not appear to have changed. It does not explicitly say that all waters in the strait are its sovereign territory. The words “sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction” refer to the various types of control to which it claims a right in different parts of the strait, which varies in width from 70 to 220 nautical miles. China gives these areas the same names, and specifies their width, as other countries do under the un
Convention on the Law of the Sea, or unclos (which China has ratified and America has not). It counts the area between its “territorial baseline” and a parallel line 12 nautical miles seaward as sovereign territory (see map). It claims the next 12 nautical miles beyond that as a “contiguous zone” where it has broad law-enforcement rights. That zone, and a band of sea beyond that, form the country’s “exclusive economic zone”, or eez. If there were space (which there is not in the Taiwan Strait), this could stretch to 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Like most other countries, America treats eezs as the high seas, accepting only a few restrictions such as
on rights to fishing and the extraction of minerals. China has a more sweeping view of its rights. It objects to any intelligence-gathering or exercises by military vessels or aircraft in its eez. It also demands
that foreign military vessels passing through the first 12-nautical-mile band (exercising “innocent passage”, as unclos calls it) get permission first. America refuses to comply.
China’s public statements often use language that blurs the distinction between sovereign waters and the eez. That may be intentional. It would clearly like others to believe it can veto any military passage
through the strait.
The Chinese spokesman was responding to a report by Bloomberg, a news agency, that Chinese military officers, during meetings in recent months with American counterparts, have repeatedly asserted that there are no international waters there. It said this had caused concern among senior American officials.
At least in public, China’s argument does not appear to have changed. It does not explicitly say that all waters in the strait are its sovereign territory. The words “sovereignty, sovereign rights and jurisdiction” refer to the various types of control to which it claims a right in different parts of the strait, which varies in width from 70 to 220 nautical miles. China gives these areas the same names, and specifies their width, as other countries do under the un
Convention on the Law of the Sea, or unclos (which China has ratified and America has not). It counts the area between its “territorial baseline” and a parallel line 12 nautical miles seaward as sovereign territory (see map). It claims the next 12 nautical miles beyond that as a “contiguous zone” where it has broad law-enforcement rights. That zone, and a band of sea beyond that, form the country’s “exclusive economic zone”, or eez. If there were space (which there is not in the Taiwan Strait), this could stretch to 200 nautical miles from the baseline. Like most other countries, America treats eezs as the high seas, accepting only a few restrictions such as
on rights to fishing and the extraction of minerals. China has a more sweeping view of its rights. It objects to any intelligence-gathering or exercises by military vessels or aircraft in its eez. It also demands
that foreign military vessels passing through the first 12-nautical-mile band (exercising “innocent passage”, as unclos calls it) get permission first. America refuses to comply.
China’s public statements often use language that blurs the distinction between sovereign waters and the eez. That may be intentional. It would clearly like others to believe it can veto any military passage
through the strait.
We may see some new capabilities in the Seventh Fleet soon. The first Flight III Arleigh Burke Class DDG (Lucas) should be up and running next year. They have the AN/SPY-6 radar (my, how far we've come since the SPY 1 days) which I've been doing some looking into in Unclassified sources.
It requires more power but it has some impressive capabilities, to include an assessed (maybe in a future patch?) capacity for jamming. I remember the SPY-1 on the Ticonderoga CG's had the ability to do a sort of 'burn through jamming' capability (the idea being to be able to 'see' through a deliberate jam on one threat axis (Badgers/Bears, et al with ASM raids being the expected threat).
That was almost 40 years ago.
The ten pound brains have apparently been hard at it in improving what a phased array can do.
How does this influence aviation? Well, what I suspect is that if you get into the jamming cone, strange things may happen. (Heck, in the SPY-1 days, if the aft array was in high power our nav system often dropped off line as we approached to land, and our digital watches would go to zero!).
It requires more power but it has some impressive capabilities, to include an assessed (maybe in a future patch?) capacity for jamming. I remember the SPY-1 on the Ticonderoga CG's had the ability to do a sort of 'burn through jamming' capability (the idea being to be able to 'see' through a deliberate jam on one threat axis (Badgers/Bears, et al with ASM raids being the expected threat).
That was almost 40 years ago.
The ten pound brains have apparently been hard at it in improving what a phased array can do.
How does this influence aviation? Well, what I suspect is that if you get into the jamming cone, strange things may happen. (Heck, in the SPY-1 days, if the aft array was in high power our nav system often dropped off line as we approached to land, and our digital watches would go to zero!).
No - even if Taiwan WAS part of China proper then the map shows you can still sail down the Strait
Only if the Chinese care about ILOS, which their "9 dash map" (SCS) from back in Kuomintang days, which CCP has seen fit to now assert as their baseline indicates that they may not.
I guarantee shipping companies will comply with the required notifications and requests for permission. That lays the groundwork for future transit restrictions.
The Chinese government says that everything inside the"nine dash line" is Chinese sovereign territory. From their point of view, that's the end of the argument.
Now, they are getting to the stage where they can enforce their position. "Who cares about ILOS? Not us!"