China's Military Strategies

[Martian2]

Malacca Strait

Challenge: US Navy controls the Strait of Malacca and bottlenecks your trade ships. What do you do?

Replies: The most obvious response is to send out your navy to be massacred. US naval strength and submarine capability in the Strait of Malacca are too strong.

In military parlance, a navy-on-navy engagement is called a frontal assault. You are fighting against the enemy's strength. It is usually suicidal. For example, you would never fight a Roman legion in a direct frontal attack. The Romans will close the ranks of their phalanx (and turtle-up as necessary) and you're done.

Does this mean the US wins? Not exactly.

1. Annex Myanmar to build new shipping ports. This bypasses the Strait of Malacca entirely. Also, establish radars and anti-ship ballistic missile defenses along the entire coast of Myanmar. This will extend Chinese naval control out by 2,000 miles.

2. Alternatively, use the PLA Army to march southward and annex along the way. The PLA Army can be used to control both sides of the Strait of Malacca.

In military terms, these are called flanking movements. You move your military strength to the enemy's weak points and let them have it.

In conclusion, it is important to be creative in dealing with a military problem. A straight force-on-force is not a good idea. Beating the US Navy at its own game is unlikely. You have to change the nature of the game itself.

 

[Martian2]

US has 750 foreign military bases. China has zero. Who's winning?

We have two diametrically opposite military strategies in the United States and China. The U.S. has a significant worldwide military footprint. China has none. Who has the smarter long-term military strategy?

The United States spends an ungodly sum of money to maintain, upgrade, and support 750 foreign military bases. The costs for personnel, dependents, transportation costs, training, rotation, etc. are mind-boggling. Furthermore, all of the money spent overseas are injected into foreign economies. There is minor mitigation in cost-sharing by Japan and South Korea.

However, the overall burden of maintaining 750 foreign military bases (including Guantanomo and Diego Garcia) places a huge financial strain on the U.S. military budget.

Thus, we see the U.S. being able to afford only one major military project in the F-35.

In contrast, China does not have to dissipate its military budget in supporting any foreign military bases. This allows China to showcase a multitude of new military weapons (e.g. Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 stealth fighters, Type 055 destroyer, Type 095 SSN and Type 096 SSBN, JL-3 SLBM, KJ-500 AEW&C, etc.).

If current trends continue, where the US carries the huge financial burden of maintaining 750 overseas military bases, we expect China to start pulling ahead in military technology (which we are starting to see with the ASBM, YJ-18 terminal-phase Mach 3 MARV ASCM, and the developing HGV).

As a historical note, keep in mind that the Roman Empire was financially bled to death by its numerous foreign garrisons. Eventually, the Romans withdrew from England and closed their foreign military bases in Britain to save money. Here we are two thousand years later and the United States is repeating the Roman experience.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

“Thus, we see the U.S. being able to afford only one major military project in the F-35.”


Arleigh Burke Flight III, Virginia Class, Ohio Class Replacement, UCLASS, Next Generation Bomber, MQ-4C, KC-46, F-35, P-8, Ford-Class, SM-3, SM-6, THAAD, PGS, America Class, F/A-XX, AN/SPY-6 and who knows what else.


Yeah, we can only afford major one project.

 

[F-22Raptor]

I couldn't tell if he was trolling or being serious. I laughed hard though.

 

[AMDR]

Arleigh Burke Flight III, Virginia Class, Ohio Class Replacement, UCLASS, Next Generation Bomber, MQ-8, KC-46, F-35, P-8, Ford-Class, SM-3, SM-6, THAAD, PGS, America Class, F/A-XX, and who knows what else.

And to add to that...

Zumwalt-class, ESSM block II , THAAD-ER, Virginia-class replacement, SR-72, GPS block IIIA

 

[Martian2]

“Thus, we see the U.S. being able to afford only one major military project in the F-35.”


Arleigh Burke Flight III, Virginia Class, Ohio Class Replacement, UCLASS, Next Generation Bomber, MQ-8, KC-46, F-35, P-8, Ford-Class, SM-3, SM-6, THAAD, PGS, America Class, F/A-XX, AN/SPY-6 and who knows what else.


Yeah, we can only afford major one project.

Arleigh Burke is an existing platform. So is the Virginia Class. The Ohio replacement is over a decade away and only in the exploratory stage. UCLASS is too small to mention; I didn't mention China's UCAVs. Next Generation bomber is too speculative. It's about two decades away.

The F-35 is a real and ongoing project that will cost over $1 trillion. The funds shortfall is seen in the plan to shut down the A-10 and other aircraft (such as stop buying F-18) to conserve money for the F-35 program.

And to add to that...

Zumwalt-class, ESSM block II , THAAD-ER, Virginia-class replacement, SR-72, GPS block IIIA

Zumwalt has been canceled after three copies. It's a failure.

GPS does not add any real capabilities and is merely an upgrade.

 

[AMDR]

Oh and how could I forget about the railgun and LRASM?

 

[Martian2]

Oh and how could I forget about the railgun and LRASM?

Railgun is not expected until 2033 and that was part of the reason the Zumwalt was canceled. The railgun is useless. Shore bombardment is not a priority. The railgun is too heavy to swivel and aim at incoming missiles.

LRASM is too minor to mention. It's merely a cruise missile.

 

[SvenSvensonov]

Oh and how could I forget about the railgun and LRASM?

The fact that we're forgetting things completely invalidates the whole discussion

Here's a few more:

 

[Martian2]

The fact that we're forgetting things completely invalidates the whole discussion

Here's a few more:

View attachment 205478

View attachment 205479

Give me a break. It's good against the Taliban. It's useless against China.

A tactical weapon with a 1.2 mile range won't do squat against an incoming Mach 10 Chinese DF-21D ASBM.

You idiots have been trolling my thread. I might have to start over with another thread on Chinese Military Strategies.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

1. Annex Myanmar to build new shipping ports.
2. Alternatively, use the PLA Army to march southward and annex along the way. T.

Maybe after that the US and all its allies simply annex all the countries you plan on trading with.

 

[F-22Raptor]

Oh and how could I forget about the railgun and LRASM?

RQ-180, next generation jammer, LRSO(replacement of agm-86), LRASM, next gen strike weapon (replacement of Tomahawk)....

 

[AMDR]

Railgun is not expected until 2033

Navy Considering Railgun for Third Zumwalt Destroyer - USNI News

 

[Martian2]

Navy Considering Railgun for Third Zumwalt Destroyer - USNI News

"Considering" means conjecture.

Do you expect me to discuss gossip? Get real.

RQ-180, next generation jammer, LRSO(replacement of agm-86), LRASM, next gen strike weapon (replacement of Tomahawk)....

Trivial weapons with tiny budgets. They are not comparable to the F-35 $1 trillion program.

You need to point to an existing program with a huge budget that has strategic value.

 

[F-22Raptor]

This rube is so out of touch with reality it's almost painful to read. Holy crap....