China's Military Strategies

[black-hawk_101]

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.

China's neighbors are not happy with them as they looking to kick them hard anytime.

 

[j20blackdragon]

And yes drinking water and food, lol, yes, the carrier can desalinated water, but what about thecrew for destroyer, cruiser, submarine, ooler and replenishment ship, did they all have that capability? So, if they cant, what do they all drink? And what about food, do you farm in the carrier?

You're a professional?

About Us

Propelled by four quick-response General Electric LM2500 Gas Turbine Engines couple with two Controllable Pitch Propellers (CRP), MASON has tremendous maneuverability and a top speed in excess of 32 knots. Three Allison 501 Gas Turbine Generators provide the electricity to power the ship. MASON creates potable water through two Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Plants which can produce 24,000 gallons of fresh water per day.

 

[jhungary]

You're a professional?

About Us

Propelled by four quick-response General Electric LM2500 Gas Turbine Engines couple with two Controllable Pitch Propellers (CRP), MASON has tremendous maneuverability and a top speed in excess of 32 knots. Three Allison 501 Gas Turbine Generators provide the electricity to power the ship. MASON creates potable water through two Reverse Osmosis Water Purification Plants which can produce 24,000 gallons of fresh water per day.

dude, i am a professional. But can you actually read?

I said, I Know Carrier can make water But will you have enough for the whole fleet? The whole fleet dont just have carriers you know?

So, even a heavy load oiler and replenishment ship use gas turbine engine with nuclear reactor? And the crew of oiler and replenishment ship dont drink water?

Please do learn to read before comment. Thanks

 

[j20blackdragon]

dude, i am a professional. But can you actually read?

I said, I Know Carrier can make water But will you have enough for the whole fleet? The whole fleet dont just have carriers you know?

So, even a heavy load oiler and replenishment ship use gas turbine engine with nuclear reactor? And the crew of oiler and replenishment ship dont drink water?

Please do learn to read before comment. Thanks

Keep talking. You're just embarrassing yourself further.

 

[jhungary]

Keep talking. You're just embarrassing yourself further.

View attachment 206329

dude, I HAVE ALREADY SAID WARSHIP CAN DESALINATE WATER, my question is do they have enough for the whole fleet.

You do know USS Carl Vinson can desalinize 400,000 gallon per day of drinking water thenselves but they themselves need 200,000 to 250,000 gallon per day and thats with a 4900 crew, that make about 100 gallon a day per man. (not just for drinking but washing, bathing and etc)

So an AB destroyer have about 350 crew and can only produce 32000 gallon per day, which they need 35000 gallon per day itself, and oiler and replenishment ship cannot make fresh water, so who is going to fork out the 40000 or 50000 gallon per day for them?

I am not embrassing myself as I already said the stuff you quite, but you , on the other hand is making an *** out of your reading and comprehension skill.

Please do go back to my 2 previous post and check what I said.

 

[Genesis]

Keep talking. You're just embarrassing yourself further.

View attachment 206329

dude, just stop, I gone down that route before, and couldn't even convince the dude war means war. Use your time to read a book, punch a table or something.

oh and I know the dude that needs to be unnamed wants to respond to this, you could, but I won't see it, ever.

 

[UKBengali]

@jhungary : Give it up dude with this nonsense of lack of food, water, fuel or ammunition.

Up to Hawaii, the Chinese could easily support multiple CBGs for extended periods of operations against the US. Now please do not think that Hawaii could act as any sort of supply base for US carriers in wartime as China would launch thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles at it to render it pretty useless.

With the US bases in Asia also out of action, then the US will have to sail all the way from the West coast to try to engage the Chinese in the Western Pacific.

Best for the US to pack up and vacate Asia and China will be the new Asian hegemon

 

[jhungary]

@jhungary : Give it up dude with this nonsense of lack of food, water, fuel or ammunition.

Up to Hawaii, the Chinese could easily support multiple CBGs for extended periods of operations against the US. Now please do not think that Hawaii could act as any sort of supply base for US carriers in wartime as China would launch thousands of ballistic and cruise missiles at it to render it pretty useless.

With the US bases in Asia also out of action, then the US will have to sail all the way from the West coast to try to engage the Chinese in the Western Pacific.

Best for the US to pack up and vacate Asia and China will be the new Asian hegemon

As I said in the first post, if thats what you think, then US will surrender the territories in the Asia Pacific and call it a quit, just because you say they can, happy? lol?

lol a thousand missile and Hawaii will be rendered useless lol, do notify me when they do launch a thousand missile, so to give me time to get some popcorn and watch the show

 

[Brainsucker]

The US is all bark and no bite.

If a naval blockade is so simple, why not do it on Iran first? Block their oil exports. Not enough balls to do it?

Air-Sea Battle is equally worthless. US airstrikes against ISIS have been ongoing since September 2014. Have they been beaten yet?

And what about your relation with Pakistan, Africa countries, South America, etc? what about your one belt / one road plan? what about your 4th fleet plan? If you think that China still can interact with the world after annexing Myanmar and some of ASEAN Countries, then you're dreaming. Everyone will call you as the next NAZI if you do that. And no body will consider you as a friend, because you're not trustworthy, if you follow Martian's plan. Good luck to life like in '60 again.

If US Navy block Malacca Strait, Why China must attack 3 Countries (Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia) to Annex Malacca Strait?
That Waste of Energy.

If US Navy Block Malacca Strait, China still have Another "Easy" Route to counter that.

China Can Send their Troops to help Defend Pakistan and Iran.
From Gwadar Port-Pakistan, China can build Oil Pipeline and Railway to China Mainland via Western Route. And also Build Pipeline From Iran Oil Well to Pakistan and to China Mainland.

So, if US Navy block Malacca Strait in order to Prevent Oil Flowing to China Mainland. That's will become USELESS !

China Still Have Better Route, From Iran, Pakistan to China via Western Route.

The problem is why China need to annex Myanmar, their friend. That's the problem. Instead of annexing Myanmar, why don't sign a defense pact like NATO with them and put your military assets in Myanmar, Pakistan, and Srilangka? That's will realize the 4th fleet plan without compromising China's reputation.

Why the PLAN 4th Fleet in the Indian Ocean is important, and Myanmar, Bangladesh, Srilangka, and Pakistan is PRC future? Because with the realization of the 4th fleet, means that the American position in Singapore will have to face a new challenge from another direction. From the west, and the American base in Diago Garcia and India also has to face China there. That will open a new area to contest. That's why right now US push Indonesia to their side. Look at IMOL and the prospect of US base in Natuna.

Although this 4th fleet won't be enough, but it is a progress. So with that excellent plan already laid down by PLAN, why they have to annex Myanmar and some of ASEAN countries?

 

[SipahSalar]

1.) Missile strike DO NOT ever render a base permanent inoperatable. In Six day war, Egypt Airbase was bombed and strafed by the Israeli everyday, simply because the Israeli bomb them by day, Egyptian fixed them by night.

NOTHING can render a base permanently inoperable, not even a 100 Durandals. But once a base is inoperable, ie Aircraft cannot use the base to perform the required missions, the situation snowballs.
The Egyptian example you mentioned is perfect as a case study. Their bases were inoperable, as the aircraft stationed there could not be used, the IAF was free to operate in Egyptian AIr Space for sufficient time that no aircraft were left. So even when the airbase becomes operational again, it is kind of pointless if you have no aircraft.

2.) US does not need to get close to China to block Chinese route out. Set aside if DF21D actually work or not, let say that they do, unless they can set it up at Pusan in South Korea or at Java in Indonesia, they would have no effect on the American Fleet, because thats where the 3 choke points connecting China with North and South Pacific and Indian Ocean located.

What you are mentioning is essentially a modern version of siege warfare. If you go back and read about siege warfare, the larger the enemy, the less likely the siege is to succeed. That said, it's not even a completely enveloping siege. As all of China's Land borders will remain accessible.
In this assumption i did not even question whether USA will have the capacity to actually implement the said Siege, as even that is questionable but even more certain is the success of the siege.

 

[Brainsucker]

NOTHING can render a base permanently inoperable, not even a 100 Durandals. But once a base is inoperable, ie Aircraft cannot use the base to perform the required missions, the situation snowballs.
The Egyptian example you mentioned is perfect as a case study. Their bases were inoperable, as the aircraft stationed there could not be used, the IAF was free to operate in Egyptian AIr Space for sufficient time that no aircraft were left. So even when the airbase becomes operational again, it is kind of pointless if you have no aircraft.

What you are mentioning is essentially a modern version of siege warfare. If you go back and read about siege warfare, the larger the enemy, the less likely the siege is to succeed. That said, it's not even a completely enveloping siege. As all of China's Land borders will remain accessible.
In this assumption i did not even question whether USA will have the capacity to actually implement the said Siege, as even that is questionable but even more certain is the success of the siege.

I agree with your upper post. While lower post, that also has another matter. Even with China long border, there are also a lot of neighbor countries around China too. The Malaca and Sunda Strait alone will only close the China's sea route to the Middle East or Africa. But remember, There are also Myanmar, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the west. Without a good relation with these people, China can only go through the west via their SCO friend's territory. And that's mean, you have to go around = more cost for transportation.

 

[gambit]

I dont know about how hard and dirty can get in the Air Force,...

The cable TV is out ? What is this shit...?!?!?!?

And lol, i remember Italy, nice place, but seems you fly boys have a low threshold for comfort. Try to imagin if you want to go number 2 in Iraq or Afghanistan, in the middle of a firefight...

When I was stationed at MacDill, where SOCOM is headquartered, I made friends with a few guys who were USAF Combat Controllers and Pararescue. Those guys often came back stink. They went no. 1 and no. 2 while under cover when they had to support the SEALs or Rangers.

going back to topics, the OPs Strategy of annexing everything in sight when there is a problem is laughable. And i am quite amaze that people actually jumping on the band wagon lol.

They support the silly notion not because they have any clue on what involves in territorial annexation politically and militarily, and they seems to think that what Russia did and what the US did not do, means such a thing is easy and that China can do the same to any Asian country and would get away with it. This is sheer ignorance and nothing more than that.

 

[jhungary]

NOTHING can render a base permanently inoperable, not even a 100 Durandals. But once a base is inoperable, ie Aircraft cannot use the base to perform the required missions, the situation snowballs.
The Egyptian example you mentioned is perfect as a case study. Their bases were inoperable, as the aircraft stationed there could not be used, the IAF was free to operate in Egyptian AIr Space for sufficient time that no aircraft were left. So even when the airbase becomes operational again, it is kind of pointless if you have no aircraft.

Lol, but then you have to ask yourselves, if this is a case between China And US, in contest of island airfield, Will US ever going to run out of Aircraft??

The problem with your assumption is you use the example that I used to show no missile can render a base permanently inoperable. The problem with Egyptian Air force and IAF is, Egyptian does not have a single aerial tanker they could use during the 6 days war, that mean by the time the Egyptian can deploy the "Reserve" Aircraft to the frontline AB, they were again being bomb out by the Israeli.

Problem with the US-China situation is, US actually did studied the 6 days war on the Egyptian Point of view, the fact is, in case of a war, if there is a risk of missile attack from China, US would simply vacate all aircraft from an operatable airbase and group them to USAF Airbases outside the Chinese Missile range, and use them as the strategic reserve.

At the same time, they would move the Aircraft originally located outside the Chinese Missile Range (Say Hawaii) and used them to spearhead a strike into Chinese Heartland, since you can calculate the trajectory from where the missile is coming from, the USAF could simply send those first wave aircraft, together with Aerial Refuelling asset, to engage the Cruiser Missile Site first. Then use the Escape (strategic reserve) to replace any lost from the first wave.

Problem with today warfare, not like when they are fighting in 6 days war, is that geographical location become closer, even the physical location unchanged, which bring the battlefield closer.

What you are mentioning is essentially a modern version of siege warfare. If you go back and read about siege warfare, the larger the enemy, the less likely the siege is to succeed. That said, it's not even a completely enveloping siege. As all of China's Land borders will remain accessible.

In this assumption i did not even question whether USA will have the capacity to actually implement the said Siege, as even that is questionable but even more certain is the success of the siege.

Any OCS and Military Academy Graduate would have disagree with the red bolted part.

the larger the enemy, the easier the siege, that is if you do it right.

I don't know how far you know about Military History but the capital battle the Great General of Julius Caesar fought is a Siege of Gaul during the battle of Alesia. Where Caesar Army were outnumbered by the Gaul 4 to 1. It was 333000 Gaul being sieged by 60000 Caesar Legion.

Of course, if you cannot perform a total Siege, then everything we said is a moot point, and by the way, I am talking about a Naval Blockade, not a land blockade. I don't know why you are talking about land border.

The cable TV is out ? What is this shit...?!?!?!?

lol dude, that's just a statement, never served in the AF, so I don't know how dirty and hard can it get....

When I was stationed at MacDill, where SOCOM is headquartered, I made friends with a few guys who were USAF Combat Controllers and Pararescue. Those guys often came back stink. They went no. 1 and no. 2 while under cover when they had to support the SEALs or Rangers.

Well, usually, you just go in your pants if you have to do either no1 or no2, well, you just let it rip...

If you are lucky, you will bring a long some adult diaper with you, but if you are SF, it's a bit hard simply you don't know when are you getting deployed...

They support the silly notion not because they have any clue on what involves in territorial annexation politically and militarily, and they seems to think that what Russia did and what the US did not do, means such a thing is easy and that China can do the same to any Asian country and would get away with it. This is sheer ignorance and nothing more than that.

lol, I don't actually know what's worse, people spamming about annexation or people who spam about nuking other

 

[SipahSalar]

I agree with your upper post. While lower post, that also has another matter. Even with China long border, there are also a lot of neighbor countries around China too. The Malaca and Sunda Strait alone will only close the China's sea route to the Middle East or Africa. But remember, There are also Myanmar, India, Pakistan and Afghanistan to the west. Without a good relation with these people, China can only go through the west via their SCO friend's territory. And that's mean, you have to go around = more cost for transportation.

It would cost more but it will just be an inconvenience. Question is what supplies does it need from the sea routes? The most crucial one is fuel. They have Russia right next door. Also China has the biggest shale gas reserves in the world. SO a sea blockade may not have the same effect that people like to imagine.

Problem with the US-China situation is, US actually did studied the 6 days war on the Egyptian Point of view, the fact is, in case of a war, if there is a risk of missile attack from China, US would simply vacate all aircraft from an operatable airbase and group them to USAF Airbases outside the Chinese Missile range, and use them as the strategic reserve.

In most studies i have come across, it will be a pre-emptive strike. So no chance of evacuation. But, even if we go with your proposed scenario you need to realize that what you are saying is actually a retreat. You need to understand the consequences of that retreat. Chinese aircraft in the area will be free to operate, secondly it will leave US navy ships dangerously exposed. Any other land installations will also be exposed. So I don't think US will ever consider your proposed retreat.

At the same time, they would move the Aircraft originally located outside the Chinese Missile Range (Say Hawaii) and used them to spearhead a strike into Chinese Heartland, since you can calculate the trajectory from where the missile is coming from, the USAF could simply send those first wave aircraft, together with Aerial Refuelling asset, to engage the Cruiser Missile Site first. Then use the Escape (strategic reserve) to replace any lost from the first wave.

Now you are delving into Armchair General territory. I like to rely on numbers, strategy can be imagined all day long. Firstly you need to realize China has 1000s of missiles. Secondly, If you retreat, you just left a massive area open for Chinese aircraft to operate and form a dense defence network. You will need to cover a huge area of hostile airspace to reach those missiles. Also if aircraft do reach those missiles, what's the trade off? It will take forever to destroy them all, secondly, US will be trading Fighter planes for chinese missiles. That's not a fair bargain.
Thirdly, you need to realize Chinese strategy. Everywhere i have come across mentions that in any conflict, Chinese strategy will be to prioritize Refueling Aircraft and AWACs. In fact that's the major drive behind the development of the Chinese Stealth planes. Instead of entering dense air defence networks, they are meant to sneak up to these fat ladies and then retreat. Also refueling aircraft are usually used over friendly territory, not contested air space. That's aerial warfare 101. One more thing i'd like to add is to perform airstrikes from bases as far as hawaii, you will need much much larger infrastructure at those air bases, even then the strategy will be very limiting. After all it will be Hawaii vs China. Who do you think has the advantage? China trying to defend its mainland, with access to all resources and logistics? Or US trying to fight China from Far Off Bases? Extremely unrealistic strategy. Is the US military so superior that they can take on China from Hawaii?

Any OCS and Military Academy Graduate would have disagree with the red bolted part.

the larger the enemy, the easier the siege, that is if you do it right.

I don't know how far you know about Military History but the capital battle the Great General of Julius Caesar fought is a Siege of Gaul during the battle of Alesia. Where Caesar Army were outnumbered by the Gaul 4 to 1. It was 333000 Gaul being sieged by 60000 Caesar Legion.

Of course, if you cannot perform a total Siege, then everything we said is a moot point, and by the way, I am talking about a Naval Blockade, not a land blockade. I don't know why you are talking about land border.

WHAT? Bring me a reference please. You are the first person to say that sieges are easier against larger enemy. The siege vs Gaul was actually just a single town center, how can you compare that to blockading Chinese mainland? You can't blockade a massive nation like China, it's statistically impossible.

 

[Brainsucker]

It would cost more but it will just be an inconvenience. Question is what supplies does it need from the sea routes? The most crucial one is fuel. They have Russia right next door. Also China has the biggest shale gas reserves in the world. SO a sea blockade may not have the same effect that people like to imagine.

What about your shipments to other countries? I think China is a huge exporter country. There are a huge of shipment that being shipped from the mainland to everywhere in the world? You can reach it from another place, but isn't that just raise the transportation cost, thus it will affect the price? And if your country can't sell your product, then what happen to your companies? They can't maintain their daily operational, thus have to reduce their worker?

It's okay, China still can manage to stand. But what kind of China? The '60 China? the '80 China? or the Mighty China after the 2000? That's why I always say that China have to find away to thwart the US attempt to surround them. Not by adding your enemies, but to add more friends and allies. Because it is the only way you can stand against the US annoying strategy. I'm sure your government know about this. That's why PRC always do everything with careful plan and step. And Martian's invasion to Myanmar.... what we should call it? Myanmar Martian Attack? Is not the solution for PRC. It will only cause more trouble.