China thinks it can defeat America in battle

[jhungary]

China lacks in Air Force as for Navy in next 5 years they will match up with current production rate but for Air Force its still is 10 years away

so you are claiming China can in 5 years:

build 11 supercarriers
build 7 more traditional 50k ton carrier
build 20 more LHD,LPD,LPA
Build another 30 AGEIS Destroyers
Build 15 AGEIS cruiser
Build 30 nuclear proplusion submarine?

Is that what you are saying by China matching the US in 5 years?

 

[Carlosa]

You guys have got to stop calling other people 'children' just because you do not like their premises. For as long as I have been on this forum, no one on this forum take warfare as childishly as the Chinese members. You profusely 'thank' each other for mindless drivel about 'thermonuclear' this and 'EMP' that, as if warfare is a video game. Do you even know what a .22 caliber recoil felt like ? Whereas the Americans on this forum came from the Army, Navy, and Air Force. We are waiting for a Marine. We know what it is like to ruck a hundred pounds in the heat, deafened from the roar of afterburner jet engines, felt the g forces of a high performance jet fighter, and know what it is like to be on a rolling ship in high seas. What can you guys contribute other than simplistic views of warfare drawn from video games ?

The overwhelming majority of people in this forum are amateurs that have no experience whatsoever with warfare.
The difference is, some of us, including myself, we know that we don't know Sh..t , but some here actually believe that they know and talk like if they know.

so you are claiming China can in 5 years:

build 11 supercarriers
build 7 more traditional 50k ton carrier
build 20 more LHD,LPD,LPA
Build another 30 AGEIS Destroyers
Build 15 AGEIS cruiser
Build 30 nuclear proplusion submarine?

Is that what you are saying by China matching the US in 5 years?

But of course, they can do anything............. talking that is.

 

[JSCh]

How is it "original" for submarines to operate against naval forces? Isn't that what they usually do?

Present chinese subs and ASW capabilities are far from being able to dent American sub superiority. Even the best American ASW assets which are superior to china's are not effective against American subs.

The simple truth is that China doesn't have an answer at the moment against American subs.

Let me say it again, subs are very difficult to detect. Period.

Submarine is like sniper. And yet they are more vulnerable than sniper.

Their survival depend very much on stealth, so they spent most of their time hiding. Using it in a offensive way in a limited space is quite original.

Are we back to WWII before the self-seeking torpedo? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfpack_(naval_tactic)

Please bear in mind that no matter how stealthy a submarine is, it is not invisible. i.e. it cannot hide from active sonar.

 

[Carlosa]

so you are claiming China can in 5 years:

build 11 supercarriers
build 7 more traditional 50k ton carrier
build 20 more LHD,LPD,LPA
Build another 30 AGEIS Destroyers
Build 15 AGEIS cruiser
Build 30 nuclear proplusion submarine?

Is that what you are saying by China matching the US in 5 years?

And not only that, they will also match the quality of the hardware and the experience of the crews.

Something very funny a few days ago, some Chinese admiral said that china already matched USA in terms of carrier capability. Amazing,

Submarine is like sniper. And yet they are more vulnerable than sniper.

Their survival depend very much on stealth, so they spent most of their time hiding. Using it in a offensive way in a limited space is quite original.

Are we back to WWII before the self-seeking torpedo? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfpack_(naval_tactic)

Please bear in mind that no matter how stealthy a submarine is, it is not invisible. i.e. it cannot hide from active sonar.

Sorry to tell you, but yes, it can hide very nicely from active sonar because the rubber coatings in the sub absorb the sonar waves. And by the way, the moment an active sonar goes active, the subs knows it and will attack the source of the sonar waves, so its a pretty risky business.

Did you read the links that I posted in the first page about subs defeating aircraft carrier groups, etc? I think not.

 

[jhungary]

Does not mean to take control.

Strong presence is required. Already present in Indian ocean, Arabian sea, and Bab al Mandib. A strong presence is needed in all strategic waterways. Not much difficult.

as I said before , you cannot use peace time standard to represent Power Projection, becuase in Peacetime, you can visit a port, any port by paying access fee.

The fact is China can operate as far as US West Coast and Gult of Eden is, well, no other word for it, is becuase US allows it.

Ships needs supplies, in War, only belligent country in your allies will offer you ports, and supplies, neutral and hostile will not. If in a war scenario, China were to fight in Indian Ocean, they simply cant unless India, Vietnam, Philippine, Thailands, Australia and indonesia let PLAN access their port, meaning they will have to stay alloes and fight the war WITH china, if they are neutral, they will have to sieze the ship who enter a neutral port or they will violate their neutrality. IE, subject to attacks.

Sames goes To East Pacific, there are no Island beside Hawaii in midway between pacific and ship cannot survive a transpacific journey without resupply, which take appoximateoy 20 days, so if US does not allow China access Hawaii during war time, the PLAN woukd be stranded somewhere between Hawaii and US east coast.

The other way is PLA invade and occupied those island in between their base and their objective. Thats suicidal...

And not only that, they will also match the quality of the hardware and the experience of the crews.

Something very funny a few days ago, some Chinese admiral said that china already matched USA in terms of carrier capability. Amazing,



Sorry to tell you, but yes, it can hide very nicely from active sonar because the rubber coatings in the sub absorb the sonar waves.

Did you read the links that I posted in the first page about subs defeating aircraft carrier groups, etc? I think not.

well, it would take more than 5 years to train 55000 crew for the 11 carrier alone, all that ship I put out require a total between 110000 to 150000 extra personnel, i dont see how they can get 110,000 more sailor in their navy and train them all within 5 years, let alone building the ships itself...

 

[BoQ77]

How many submarine hunter airplanes like P3C, P8A, P1 Kawasaki ... does China has ?
Vietnam has only Ka-28 fleet for ASW, that's why there's rumor about we would purchase used P-3C.

Be-12 ever been Vietnam ASW seaplane

 

[JSCh]

You guys have got to stop calling other people 'children' just because you do not like their premises. For as long as I have been on this forum, no one on this forum take warfare as childishly as the Chinese members. You profusely 'thank' each other for mindless drivel about 'thermonuclear' this and 'EMP' that, as if warfare is a video game. Do you even know what a .22 caliber recoil felt like ? Whereas the Americans on this forum came from the Army, Navy, and Air Force. We are waiting for a Marine. We know what it is like to ruck a hundred pounds in the heat, deafened from the roar of afterburner jet engines, felt the g forces of a high performance jet fighter, and know what it is like to be on a rolling ship in high seas. What can you guys contribute other than simplistic views of warfare drawn from video games ?

Well, I simply call a spade a spade. That is how I feel the article read like, it did not imply anyone as children. I am quite sure I am not the only one. This is after all, a military forum.

Sorry to tell you, but yes, it can hide very nicely from active sonar because the rubber coatings in the sub absorb the sonar waves. And by the way, the moment an active sonar goes active, the subs knows it and will attack the source of the sonar waves, so its a pretty risky business.

Did you read the links that I posted in the first page about subs defeating aircraft carrier groups, etc? I think not.

Oh, so in that case, torpedo would not be able to chase and sink sub?
How else are we going to sink sub then, using depth charge?
Maybe ramp it with destroyer?

 

[Carlosa]

Well, I simply call a spade a spade. That is how I feel the article read like, it did not imply anyone as children. I am quite sure I am not the only one. This is after all, a military forum.

Oh, so in that case, torpedo would not be able to chase and sink sub?
How else are we going to sink sub then, using depth charge?
Maybe ramp it with destroyer?

You have to be very close to detect an advance sub with active sonar and has to be a high quality, sophisticated sonar. The ones in helicopters and also the buoys launched by MPA aircraft are not good enough in most cases.

If you read about how sound propagates in the water and how that is affected by a number of variables and by the different water layers in terms of how sound propagates, then you'll understand why is so difficult to detect a sub. There are whole areas of the water where active sonar waves are not able to penetrate and subs usually are navigating in those layers of the water. Its actually a bit complex, you really need to read in depth about ASW if you want to understand it. Active sonar waves also fade very fast in the water, hence you need to be very close to the sub (and you need to have the dipping sonar at the right depth, etc, etc).

Also, a sub will detect a ship before the ship detects the sub and that usually means that the ship goes down.

A sub is the best hunter for a sub. I'm telling you again, all the exercises keep showing that is very difficult to detect a sub, they sneak undetected by the ASW frigates and their helicopters as well as by the MPA aircraft. You don't need to believe me, check about those exercises.

 

[BoQ77]

Defeat American? impossible
Battle of the Philippine Sea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jhungary]

You guys have got to stop calling other people 'children' just because you do not like their premises. For as long as I have been on this forum, no one on this forum take warfare as childishly as the Chinese members. You profusely 'thank' each other for mindless drivel about 'thermonuclear' this and 'EMP' that, as if warfare is a video game. Do you even know what a .22 caliber recoil felt like ? Whereas the Americans on this forum came from the Army, Navy, and Air Force. We are waiting for a Marine. We know what it is like to ruck a hundred pounds in the heat, deafened from the roar of afterburner jet engines, felt the g forces of a high performance jet fighter, and know what it is like to be on a rolling ship in high seas. What can you guys contribute other than simplistic views of warfare drawn from video games ?

I think not even video game lol, video game still have a logic behind it, some of their argument cannot even happen in the wildest imagination..

then again, what do I know, i am just a grunt, a private, a janitor...lol

 

[Taygibay]

Carlosa is the one that made the most sense so far.

Premises : Modern subs can fire CMs that range one 1000 km from 50 to over 100m immersion depth.
For a sub hunting plane to locate this sub, it would have to be much closer that that. A ship too.
To defend those subs, any ship with long range anti-air systems or any aerial detection firing combo will do.

We can safely suppose the US subs to fire from beyond the first line of defense : the arc from half way between the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
To push back that line beyond the Philippines would be ideal for China.

In order to achieve this, the PLA navy would need to control waters North of the Philippines in a line going to Japan.
This requires its own subs free access to the Pacific …

which is why the Senkaku/Diaoyu are essential as the area provides a natural undersea corridor to open waters
of sufficient depth to escape detection.* It also explains why Okinawa is sometimes nicknamed a giant static aircraft carrier.

To summarize, the first part of a conflict there will hinge on carriers providing protection extension to the rest by stabilizing the waters East of the second line of defense behind the Philippines from Indonesia to Japan which is why China is building these …
but definitive success will come from land based ( Chinese ) and submarine based ( US-allies ) missiles.

This shows why :
Island building and disputes are a present goal for China
Taiwan is the first acquisition targeted to push back the conflict line
Japan is intent on making its already powerful Navy able to fight for the Oriental China Sea.

Conclusion, IMHoO/analysis, China cannot defeat America now for gains beyond its seas
just as the USA have no pretensions to go fight on Chinese ground : status quo endures!

This is at the heart not only of the Chinese developments ( add space based assets there)
but also the conflict between options witnessed in US strategies for the region**.


* Resources although present are a veil of an excuse to cover strategic interests.
** Air Sea Battle vs OffShore Control. Links found 3/4 down the article page.

 

[Sanchez]

Carlosa is the one that made the most sense so far.

Premises : Modern subs can fire CMs that range one 1000 km from 50 to over 100m immersion depth.
For a sub hunting plane to locate this sub, it would have to be much closer that that. A ship too.
To defend those subs, any ship with long range anti-air systems or any aerial detection firing combo will do.

We can safely suppose the US subs to fire from beyond the first line of defense : the arc from half way between the Paracels and Spratlys to Taiwan.
To push back that line beyond the Philippines would be ideal for China.

In order to achieve this, the PLA navy would need to control waters North of the Philippines in a line going to Japan.
This requires its own subs free access to the Pacific …

which is why the Senkaku/Diaoyu are essential as the area provides a natural undersea corridor to open waters
of sufficient depth to escape detection.* It also explains why Okinawa is sometimes nicknamed a giant static aircraft carrier.

To summarize, the first part of a conflict there will hinge on carriers providing protection extension to the rest by stabilizing the waters East of the second line of defense behind the Philippines from Indonesia to Japan which is why China is building these …
but definitive success will come from land based ( Chinese ) and submarine based ( US-allies ) missiles.

This shows why :
Island building and disputes are a present goal for China
Taiwan is the first acquisition targeted to push back the conflict line
Japan is intent on making its already powerful Navy able to fight for the Oriental China Sea.

Conclusion, IMHoO/analysis, China cannot defeat America now for gains beyond its seas
just as the USA have no pretensions to go fight on Chinese ground : status quo endures!

This is at the heart not only of the Chinese developments ( add space based assets there)
but also the conflict between options witnessed in US strategies for the region**.


* Resources although present are a veil of an excuse to cover strategic interests.
** Air Sea Battle vs OffShore Control. Links found 3/4 down the article page.

China's military planner is to assure China's defence capability against anybody within a thousand kms from Chinese coast. We are not going to compare the overall capability or hardwares with anyone on a global stage. With the USA you all worshipers should know that we can break US legs in Asia, blind US eyes and communication systems in the space and destroy its surface compatants in SCS. A war near to China does give more advantages to China than to the US.

 

[Nike]

China even doesn't have SOSUS like instrument to protect their coast from Japan and American Submarine, they have the plan to install them, but it taking time, a lot of times.