I think you didn't even bother to read the link I post. They already think of such problem and there is a reason why it's called real time tracking.. let me repeat. It's not difficult to locate a big CVBG group on ocean anymore. We are not more in the 80s. Both US , NATO and China has means to locate each other CVBG group as long as satellite is intact.
There is a reason why when China successfully shot down a satellite in 2007 that send a chill and become a big issue to US.
Actually, it's quite difficult to locate an Aircraft Group in the Oceans.
As I said before,
REAL TIME TRACKING does
NOT exist, the core requirement for real time tracking is you can automatically identify the target and move asset into the area to survey it, which in current day technology term, its impossible.
Satellite give you a pin hole view of an area and even with high optical zoom and high level positioning equipment, you can only look at a fraction of the ocean at any time.
Before you comment on how stupid my word is. Try this
Get a drone, and fly it onto a road, pick up a car randomly and try to follow it using your camera on the drone only. You will see how hard it is to track a moving target, now imagine, you need to look for a particular car, not just a random car, and your drone is not under your control and will go by a certain paths/orbits.
And again, US does not "Freak Out" about China testing Anti-Satellite missile, you cannot hit them all because there are always going to be some satellite behind the earth at where you are, and there are some Satellite that positioned outside your missile range. And also, Military Satellite have countermeasure to deal with such things.
Well whats the maximum number of ships China has actually projected (in peacetime) anywhere past the eastern island chain (where much higher level intel sharing is already an issue)...much less into the Indian ocean (past the chokepoints controlled by not so friendly countries...who also have their contribution in intel sharing with broader networks)...esp with all the requisite support and logistics needed?
A lot of this is stuff you only figure out after you have done it at some level to begin with. Then comes the actual war modelling when things don't go to plan compared to the peacetime exercise. This is all very much like the real time logistics that do not favour China at all in the Tibetan plateau+Himalayan mountain passes in the way w.r.t South Asia.
@jhungary @gambit @Indos @AUSTERLITZ @Vergennes your thoughts?
The problem with Chinese Navy is not their number, they have more than enough number to break thru any chain, however, the core problem they have is bases that can replenish. In fact, the PLAN have more ship than they have base for replenishment.
How easy to break open first and second chain? Very easy, you go from China, then one port and then the other, Then you can break open onto the island chain and go where you want, however, if China is in war, that is a different story, port outside China will close unless they are Chinese Port or the country that host that port is allied with the Chinese in war. The problem with Chinese navy is that they don't have enough friendly port outside China, there are a few location that I would say will open to China regardless, Pakistan and North Korea, the thing is, both country is bordering China, which mean their port will not give Chinese much advantage on expedition warfare.
Let's say if US is at war with China, then about 2/3 of the country around where China want to go to break out of first/second island chain is either neutral or against China. Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore would be against China (on the account of they are allied to the US) while Indonesia, Vietnam, Philippine, Thailand are neutral toward China, they may not open their port to Chinese ship in a case of Chinese-US war
Logistically, China is not geared for blue water adventure, with a very small (actually tiny) if you compare them to the US, US have about 180 to 200 logistic ship (up to 2000 if the US decided to federalise the Merchant Marine) and around 78 overseas bases, while China have 18 replenishment ships, that number is alright if China have overseas bases litter all over the world (like the UK and France) but the fact is, PLAN don't have any overseas bases, which mean all their supplies, in case of war, would have to be brought in directly from China, if so, 18 ship is not remotely enough.
That is the major drawback of Chinese Navy, not their technology, not their number, and if this is not solved, China will always going to be Coastal Navy because if they venture out of their supply line, they will be stranded out there.
