Take Note, America: 5 Weapons of War China Should Build Now

[vsdave2302]

To truely understand the implications of the China-Vietnam War, I would refer you to read Henry Kissinger's Book - On China. Vietnam & China are what they are today because of the gamble we took & it paid off.

Can you subdue vietnam? It is the question here.

 

[jhungary]

I find this funny how someone can write a check list without regarding the intention.

We are not talking about building a computer for School, Work or Game where you can buy just the one for all 3 purposes, making/purchasing military hardware is very limited on the scope you intent to use.

And without making sure what Chinese goal is in the future, making a list seems nonsensical.

To know what China are going to make next, one need to know what Chinese needed to do next. A clear set of goal is a must before anyone should start thinking of a checklist of "Must Have"

Right now, what Chinese needed is to dominate in her own region, which mean a close contest combat and deterrence power, which would definitely make building a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier, Heavy Transport, Sea Control vessel and SSBN not really standing that high on the list.

The reason behind is, to challenge the US, which was always said to be the ultimate goal, first China is going to need to emerge from Asia unchallenged. Otherwise, you are not challenging US, but all of her allies in the Asian Pacific Region. When China show them who's boss in the region, then you will let US dangle in the Pacific alone, that would be the time you challenge the United States. To do that, Chinese need an array of close combat capability, and rapid deployment equipment. Why do you need a nuclear aircraft carrier?? When all the potential enemy were simply within your Airfield range?

I mean, Chinese are not fighting Japanese in the Atlantic, or Indian in the South Pacific. The purpose of an Nuclear Aircraft carrier is for Ocean-going support, where when you are expect to fight someone far away and you do not have the use of an Airfield. But all of the other country in Asia is within hand reach, you don't sail your carrier 100 nautical mile from Tsingtao to bomb the Japanese, or sail it 50 nautical mile from Hainan and bomb Vietnam. You need a Carrier if you intent to fight the Australian, in their side of Pacific/Indian Ocean...

Same goes to Heavy Transport, you don't actually need heavy transport or sea control vessel, when you have a land border to almost anyone in the region.

Any Sea/Land war in Asia with China is going to be close quarter, why on earth Chinese need nuclear A/C when you can bomb just about every one in the region? Why on earth Chinese need Long range heavy transport when they have a land border to almost everyone?? What Chinese need is to improve the Littoral/Coastal Support vessel, a few sea-going frigate and destroyer, that way you can proper denied any access to the area Chinese are fighting, whatever else is not too high on the build/wish list IMO

 

[vsdave2302]

I like the way you slip India into the sentence, so quietly, looks so natural.
Incredible.

Thank. After all one chinese like something of mine(irrespective of intention of post) . I thought they will dislike evrything.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

You can write here whatever is taught to you. You do not have the access to neutral third part information. You can rant CPC voice here. It is not your fault. You can think anything. You can think that J 20 is better than F22, JF 31 is a F35 killer. You can include your noicy Junk subs in to top 10, You can consider yourself space power for your failed moon mission and so on... List is too long. Here you have the advantage to believe everything. I really envy you.

Maybe you are secretly an Indian basher? You wanna attract more backlash comments against India here?

Since I could even rarely find the Indian members who are as brainless as you.

Thank. After all one chinese like something of mine(irrespective of intention of post) . I thought they will dislike evrything.

We only dislike those brainless boasters like you.

 

[vsdave2302]

I find this funny how someone can write a check list without regarding the intention.

We are not talking about building a computer for School, Work or Game where you can buy just the one for all 3 purposes, making/purchasing military hardware is very limited on the scope you intent to use.

And without making sure what Chinese goal is in the future, making a list seems nonsensical.

To know what China are going to make next, one need to know what Chinese needed to do next. A clear set of goal is a must before anyone should start thinking of a checklist of "Must Have"
Right now, what Chinese needed is to dominate in her own region, which mean a close contest combat and deterrence power, which would definitely make building a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier, Heavy Transport, Sea Control vessel and SSBN not really standing that high in the list.

The reason behind is, to challenge the US, which was always said to be the ultimate goal, first China is going to need to emerge from Asia unchallenged. Otherwise, you are not challenging US, but all of her allies in the Asian Pacific Region. When China show them who's boss in the region, then you will let US dangle in the Pacific alone, that would be the time you challenge the United States. To do that, Chinese need an array of close combat capability, and rapid deployment equipment. Why do you need a nuclear aircraft carrier?? When all the potential enemy were simply within your Airfield range?

I mean, Chinese are not fighting Japanese in the Atlantic, or Indian in the South Pacific. The purpose of an Nuclear Aircraft carrier is for Ocean-going support, where when you are expect to fight someone far away and you do not have the use of Airfield. But all of the other country in Asia is within hand reach, you don't sail your carrier 100 nautical mile from Tsingtao to bomb the Japanese, or sail it 50 nautical mile from Hainan and bomb Vietnam. You need a Carrier if you intent to fight the Australian, in their side of Pacific/Indian Ocean...

Same goes to Heavy Transport, you don't actually need heavy transport or sea control vessel, when you have a land border to almost anyone in the region.

Any Sea/Land war in Asia with China is going to be close quarter, why on earth Chinese need nuclear A/C when you can bomb just about every one in the region? Why on earth Chinese need Long range heavy transport when they have a land border to almost everyone?? What Chinese need is to improve the Littoral/Coastal Support vessel, a few sea-going frigate and destroyer, that way you can proper denied any access to the area Chinese are fighting, whatever else is not too high on the build/wish list IMO

Hey Guy,

Did you type such a long post in Just 2 minute to respond my post?

 

[jhungary]

Hey Guy,

Did you type such a long post in Just 2 minute to respond my post?

Not responding to you, just a response to the OP article

 

[Aepsilons]

No country can subdue other country in modern age. CHina is unable to do that to tiny Vietnam. It is a question of protecting our interest and our land , sky and sea. We can protect our land and sky and humiliate them in sea.

China's intervention in Vietnam was not to conquer the country, it was to reign in the Vietnamese expeditionary force in Cambodia. It was a political tool , and you have to understand the nature of the Sino-Soviet contention and how this ideological difference influenced foreign policies.

 

[Pangu]

Can you subdue vietnam? It is the question here.

You are mistaken, the objective was not to subdue Vietnam. It was never the intention either politically nor militarily. The war was an interesting interplay among the US, the USSR & China. Vietnam was conduit for our challange against the USSR influence in Indo-China, & the formalization of partnership with the US back then. The bonus was the gradual weakening & disintegration of Vietnam's Indo-China ambition.

 

[vsdave2302]

Not responding to you, just a response to the OP article

OK.

 

[vsdave2302]

China's intervention in Vietnam was not to conquer the country, it was to reign in the Vietnamese expeditionary force in Cambodia. It was a political tool , and you have to understand the nature of the Sino-Soviet contention and how this ideological difference influenced foreign policies.

Ok Guy

I simply say you that subduing other nation is not possible here. Had it been possible, China had done that instead of what they do to vietnam.

 

[Aepsilons]

I find this funny how someone can write a check list without regarding the intention.

We are not talking about building a computer for School, Work or Game where you can buy just the one for all 3 purposes, making/purchasing military hardware is very limited on the scope you intent to use.

And without making sure what Chinese goal is in the future, making a list seems nonsensical.

To know what China are going to make next, one need to know what Chinese needed to do next. A clear set of goal is a must before anyone should start thinking of a checklist of "Must Have"

Right now, what Chinese needed is to dominate in her own region, which mean a close contest combat and deterrence power, which would definitely make building a Nuclear Aircraft Carrier, Heavy Transport, Sea Control vessel and SSBN not really standing that high on the list.

The reason behind is, to challenge the US, which was always said to be the ultimate goal, first China is going to need to emerge from Asia unchallenged. Otherwise, you are not challenging US, but all of her allies in the Asian Pacific Region. When China show them who's boss in the region, then you will let US dangle in the Pacific alone, that would be the time you challenge the United States. To do that, Chinese need an array of close combat capability, and rapid deployment equipment. Why do you need a nuclear aircraft carrier?? When all the potential enemy were simply within your Airfield range?

I mean, Chinese are not fighting Japanese in the Atlantic, or Indian in the South Pacific. The purpose of an Nuclear Aircraft carrier is for Ocean-going support, where when you are expect to fight someone far away and you do not have the use of an Airfield. But all of the other country in Asia is within hand reach, you don't sail your carrier 100 nautical mile from Tsingtao to bomb the Japanese, or sail it 50 nautical mile from Hainan and bomb Vietnam. You need a Carrier if you intent to fight the Australian, in their side of Pacific/Indian Ocean...

Same goes to Heavy Transport, you don't actually need heavy transport or sea control vessel, when you have a land border to almost anyone in the region.

Any Sea/Land war in Asia with China is going to be close quarter, why on earth Chinese need nuclear A/C when you can bomb just about every one in the region? Why on earth Chinese need Long range heavy transport when they have a land border to almost everyone?? What Chinese need is to improve the Littoral/Coastal Support vessel, a few sea-going frigate and destroyer, that way you can proper denied any access to the area Chinese are fighting, whatever else is not too high on the build/wish list IMO

Gary,

Excellent analysis.

Ok Guy

I simply say you that subduing other nation is not possible here. Had it been possible, China had done that instead of what they do to vietnam.

You're welcome, Guy.

 

[AMDR]

To me, How China develops their Sub-Surface capabilities will tell how they plan to counter US in terms of Air-Sea Battle Doctrine.

Will they rely on SSNs to to go after the carriers and convoys? or do they have more confidence in their HGV and stealth plane programs? or will they have an equal mix of both?

Soviet Submarines gave the USN a major headache during the Cold War, will China try the same idea?

Next:
How much confidence do they have in their carrier programs? To what degree will PLAN develop a ASW doctrine to counter the large number of USN SSNs that pose a threat to any CBGs?

Type 002 and 003 carrier programs look solid to me. Type 052D and the Type 055 are also solid with good AAW capability. Both have room for 2 helicopters each so it's obvious that ASW will become a major concept for them and for good reason, they would have to ward off large amounts of fast attack submarines from their carriers.

Also keep in mind that Warfare itself is entering a new stage, like the 60s and 1880s. The things we know now might not even be relevant in 30 years. Hypersonic weapons, Lasers, automous systems, and nanotechnology will redefine warfare as we know it. China and America will be at the spear's tip when it comes to this stuff.

 

[Shotgunner51]

I don't agree with the article.

USA designed her military to project power among the lesser power states like Iraq and Afghanistan and to deter the major powers like Russia and China with ICBMS.

If China does not want to project power onto Middle East and Africa, mimicking US military is stupid.

IMO, China's main strategy for this decade is be the undisputed power of SCS. The other powers there lack a sophisticated military so mass producing "work horse" ships like 056 corvette and 054A frigate, as well as conventional submarines is the proper way to go. These ships are cost effective enough to patrol all of SCS and powerful enough to defeat her rivals there. With enough quantity, these ships can also deter the US navy from projecting power there as well.

At the same time, China needs to build a better amphibious assault capability with more LPD like 071 and maybe a helicopter carrier like the Izumo.

USA designed its military according to the needs as you have described, China have very different needs hence different design. Fundamental difference is that PLA only needs to secure Chinese interests, which it is increasing globalized, while US has a lot more international responsibilities to carry since post WWII. For example on the agenda of maritime trading routes, in the foreseeable future China's can still basically count on the status quo, however China also foresees that there will areas where current world order cannot reach. So China should design its conventional military according to those needs, like reaching Africa, ME, S Asia, South America, etc.

And you were right, major powers use strategic force like ICBMS to deter each other.

Here's my POV on the 5 US weapons that article suggests China.

Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carriers:

China does need CVN or CV platforms however the scale wouldn't be as big as US, needs are different as said.

The priority is not to build platforms ASAP using existing tech and replicate the US fleet, but to secure relevant sub-system techs to cater for future naval warfare, e.g. electro-magnetic catapult, UAV drones, next gen AWACS, etc. Only with maturity of these techs as pre-condition I would expect PLAN starts to mass produce CV/CVN, otherwise the building progress will be cautiously controlled.

Regarding the Liaoning (CV-16), PLAN has positioned it as training vessel, knowing naval aviation is an area that its personnel has significant lack of experience. These programs will continue to run in parallel with the tech preparations.

Cruise Missile Nuclear Submarines or SSGNs:

I agree with the author. On top of being part of strategic deterring capability, such weaponry would also be useful in conventional warfare.

Air Superiority UAV:

UAV very naturally, it dictates what future warfare is like

Sea Control Ship

As the author said, the PLAN is on the right track with ships like Type 071 amphibious transport dock. And I agree with you, PLAN is already planning large flat deck amphib like Izumos e.g. project 081, hopefully that will further improve PLAN's amphib capability is such need arises.

Heavy Lift

Just as sea control ships, it's indeed very urgent for China to build a strategic airlift force, the lack of capability here is even more severe compared to that in it's maritime transport. To match PLAAF's need, a fleet of about 300 Y20 or equivalent is required for a minimal projection capability.

To me, How China develops their Sub-Surface capabilities will tell how they plan to counter US in terms of Air-Sea Battle Doctrine.

Will they rely on SSNs to to go after the carriers and convoys? or do they have more confidence in their HGV and stealth plane programs? or will they have an equal mix of both?

Soviet Submarines gave the USN a major headache during the Cold War, will China try the same idea?

Next:
How much confidence do they have in their carrier programs? To what degree will PLAN develop a ASW doctrine to counter the large number of USN SSNs that pose a threat to any CBGs?

Type 002 and 003 carrier programs look solid to me. Type 052D and the Type 055 are also solid with good AAW capability. Both have room for 2 helicopters each so it's obvious that ASW will become a major concept for them and for good reason, they would have to ward off large amounts of fast attack submarines from their carriers.

Also keep in mind that Warfare itself is entering a new stage, like the 60s and 1880s. The things we know now might not even be relevant in 30 years. Hypersonic weapons, Lasers, automous systems, and nanotechnology will redefine warfare as we know it. China and America will be at the spear's tip when it comes to this stuff.

The fundamental motive is very different, ideological Soviets tried to gain offensive advantage over the US i.e. annihilate US capitalism from earth, while China focus on doing business in the current status quo which is so far very happy. Now major powers just maintain "minimum" (each has own definition though) strategic deterrance (ICBM, SSBN, SSGN, etc you may include ASAT, TMD) vs each other, just to ensure no one is suicidal enough to press the button, other than that pure waste of money.

China's intention is clear, while it's business going global, the current status quo might not be able to provide security to their interests (we've seen Sudan, ISIS, hostile soverign governments), hence PLA is compelled to develop its projection capability of conventional forces. Again, this "minimal" concept applies here. Taking into account of defense spending vs taxpayers' willingness (I for one hate see my hard earned money wasted), I cannot expect China to build a navy anywhere close to the size of USN (American taxpayers get used to pay for big defence budgets).

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

We Japanese know of this mistake. We believed that we could conquer China, and it was the greatest catastrophe ever to befall for Japan. China cannot be conquered in modern times. It is impossible to subdue that behemoth.

Japan almost did. The only reason Japan didn't is because it got distracted by expanding the war outside China. If Japan had just stayed in China it would probably still be there today. How the heck would anybody be able to kick you out???

If anything it was Japanese arrogance that lost the war not Western arrogance. Japan simply opened too many fronts (like Hitler did by invading Russia). If it didn't there probably wouldn't have been as much re-supply of Chinese forces from the India/Russia route to help bog you down. Japan gave the British a good reason to start that.

 

[Viet]

China's intervention in Vietnam was not to conquer the country, it was to reign in the Vietnamese expeditionary force in Cambodia. It was a political tool , and you have to understand the nature of the Sino-Soviet contention and how this ideological difference influenced foreign policies.

I encourage you to read more histories and backgrounds as just instead of spewing chinese propaganda.
the fact is
if cambodia did not invade vietnam and nor killed our people, we had not intervened.
if cambodia just only butchered their own people, we would have ignored. the khmers killed vietnamese people living in cambodia as well.

the genocide in cambodia was a chinese sponsored mass kilings. that is the fact. when our army annihilated the cambodian army in the blitzkrieg, we captured 10,000 chinese military advisers there.

To truely understand the implications of the China-Vietnam War, I would refer you to read Henry Kissinger's Book - On China. Vietnam & China are what they are today because of the gamble we took & it paid off.

I admit you are right at this point. VN was not smart in dealing with the crises back then.