The Tribune: Chinese Subs Permanently Sailing in Indian Ocean

[waz]

Building ships is one thing but designating CBG for operations in IO is another. When China does get her first CBG, they are more likely to operating close to home ground consolidating against navies such USN and JMSDF with far richer naval tradition.

That makes sense, no disagreement there, but their next ships will be headed for the IO.

 

[Eminent Mainstream Media]

.
USSR was a naval power but was not known to be a shipbuilding power.

China spends less than 1.5% of GDP on defence. China should be spending more and can afford it.

Moreover, China is now a shipbuilding power and has the entire industrial eco-system to support it.

USSR made world's biggest submarine, missile cruiser, and ice breakers technological marvels which still don't have any match today what are you trying to suggest here-

China has much larger population hence the GDP spending on defense stands much less in percentage-

Naval operations is not Just shipbuilding capability- Ship building is just a part of the chain-

 

[waz]

Building and operating are two different things USSR built perhaps 200+ submarines- A country with much smaller population than China, unlimited natural resources being a top exporter of minerals, oil and gas- If at all the rate of ship building would translate to operational capability most of these 200+ boats would not have just rusted around in their naval bases- Adding to that China stands even more surrounded that USSR ever could be- at least they had the arctic- US and Japanese are sitting right at the nose of the Chinese and all they have is shallow waters-

Coming to Carrier Battle group- Let their Carrier fleet get fully operational- AFAIK they are yet to demonstrate attack capability and still are unable to carry Anti-Ship missiles while flying from deck-

Ok so you're suggesting there is an operational gap, or at least a large around turnaround time for the Chinese navy not being able to utilise their ship building capacity into battle readiness. Could you show me evidence of that.
The Chinese are not surrounded. The Japanese, with its ailing population, heading into terminal decline. Who's going to be fighting that war?
The Americans, that I will agree with. The PLAN is far from challenging the USN.

 

[Eminent Mainstream Media]

Ok so you're suggesting there is an operational gap, or at least a large around turnaround time for the Chinese navy not being able to utilise their ship building capacity into battle readiness. Could you show me evidence of that.
The Chinese are not surrounded. The Japanese, with its ailing population, heading into terminal decline. Who's going to be fighting that war?
The Americans, that I will agree with. The PLAN is far from challenging the USN.

Sir the bold lines is somewhat straight out of the some jingoistic Chinese teenager- If the ailing population was to be a worry I would dare suggest China would be the most worried with a generation of one Child policy population-

The example is their current deployment-

The 1st Chain and the second Chain which restricts their Operations in a great way-

They are yet to develop a proper logistics line- they are developing it no doubt and have succeeded to a certain degree in IOR- But still that line stands vulnerable-

Naval warfare is not building ships and operating them- Its more about Logistics and how much control you have over sea lanes- both the Naval powers the British and the Americans today excelled at It-

 

[waz]

Sir the bold lines is somewhat straight out of the some jingoistic Chinese teenager- If the ailing population was to be a worry I would dare suggest China would be the most worried with a generation of one Child policy population-

The example is their current deployment-

The 1st Chain and the second Chain which restricts their Operations in a great way-

They are yet to develop a proper logistics line- they are developing it no doubt and have succeeded to a certain degree in IOR- But still that line stands vulnerable-

Naval warfare is not building ships and operating them- Its more about Logistics and how much control you have over sea lanes- both the Naval powers the British and the Americans today excelled at It-

Jingoistic Chinese teenager, oh dear.....

China's fertility rate stands at 1.6 compared to Japan's 1.4 . They have also relaxed the one child policy, and with a vast population they have they have a demographic cushion, giving them time to tackle such an issue.

The Island strategy has had China as it's focus ever since the collapse of the USSR. What makes you think that they've only built enough vessels to accommodate this?
As for logistics the PLAN is making ground quickly, Captain Chris Carlson (retired) has wrote about this in Janes.

 

[Eminent Mainstream Media]

Jingoistic Chinese teenager, oh dear.....

China's fertility rate stands at 1.6 compared to Japan's 1.4 . They have also relaxed the one child policy, and with a vast population they have they have a demographic cushion, giving them time to tackle such an issue.

The Island strategy has had China as it's focus ever since the collapse of the USSR. What makes you think that they've only built enough vessels to accommodate this?
As for logistics the PLAN is making ground quickly, Captain Chris Carlson (retired) has wrote about this in Janes.

So you want to continue with that population part- Having more old people means more young people are needed to take care of them- Which will be the case with China- and as the living standards in China improve the fertility rates would further drop and get closer to that of Japan- Even in India nowadays people prefer only single Child in Urban areas the expenditure is too much to bear-

China may be striving to make grounds- But how much can they achieve in this is the question- and you are already talking about operating Carrier groups in IoR when they have much more at task right there at their face- Its not that they cant do It- they can obviously do It- Just for the sake of doing It or a show or a tit for tat measure- more than Carrier groups-

China may seek IoR as the area to hide its SSBN given that they don't have much to hide in shallow waters but then India, UK, US, Australia are already allied in keeping track of every Chinese SSBN which planes to enter- much like the way NATO did with USSR-

If I am not wrong India already has a space tracking station in Vietnam- which I am sure would be housing VHF, UHF listening antennas to keep a track on every Chinese sub right from Its Nuclear submarine base and US and Japanese would be assisting in It as we can see in recent revelation by the US navy officer in Delhi-

 

[Jlaw]

It does.


Well, the foe China faces - India is almost as large as China so it is understandable why both sides are in 'holdng position'. There is symmetry in numbers.

However care to explain why India has not taken Azad Kashmir which it says is it's part from Pakistan? - A foe 7 times smaller? There is extreme asymmetry in numbers and resources.

Why is the huge elephant so timid of the markhor?

Actually, India subcontinent landmass is 1/3 of China. In population size, yes both are equal more or less.

 

[Pangu]

With the imminent operation of the Djibouti supply depot, this is to be expected.

I like!

 

[IblinI]

Building and operating are two different things USSR built perhaps 200+ submarines- A country with much smaller population than China, unlimited natural resources being a top exporter of minerals, oil and gas- If at all the rate of ship building would translate to operational capability most of these 200+ boats would not have just rusted around in their naval bases- Adding to that China stands even more surrounded that USSR ever could be- at least they had the arctic- US and Japanese are sitting right at the nose of the Chinese and all they have is shallow waters-

Coming to Carrier Battle group- Let their Carrier fleet get fully operational- AFAIK they are yet to demonstrate attack capability and still are unable to carry Anti-Ship missiles while flying from deck-

 

[waz]

So you want to continue with that population part- Having more old people means more young people are needed to take care of them- Which will be the case with China- and as the living standards in China improve the fertility rates would further drop and get closer to that of Japan- Even in India nowadays people prefer only single Child in Urban areas the expenditure is too much to bear-

China may be striving to make grounds- But how much can they achieve in this is the question- and you are already talking about operating Carrier groups in IoR when they have much more at task right there at their face- Its not that they cant do It- they can obviously do It- Just for the sake of doing It or a show or a tit for tat measure- more than Carrier groups-

China may seek IoR as the area to hide its SSBN given that they don't have much to hide in shallow waters but then India, UK, US, Australia are already allied in keeping track of every Chinese SSBN which planes to enter- much like the way NATO did with USSR-

If I am not wrong India already has a space tracking station in Vietnam- which I am sure would be housing VHF, UHF listening antennas to keep a track on every Chinese sub right from Its Nuclear submarine base and US and Japanese would be assisting in It as we can see in recent revelation by the US navy officer in Delhi-

Yes I want to continue as you don't seem to understand.
Here is some news from today.

Birth rates in China rose to their highest level since 2000 last year, despite a fall in the number of women of childbearing age, say officials.

The increase follows the relaxation of China's strict one-child policy a year ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38714949

Your estimations are completely wrong i.e. that China will go the way of Japan.

I agree China has to take many steps from their current state, but they are making ground fast and I gave you the academic source you can read-up, if you subscribe to Janes.
As for the whole NATO like partnership, there is information sharing, that's a given, anything more is questionable due to the sensitive nature of the region.
I can't comment on the whole Vietnam issue, I don't know much about it.

 

[ahojunk]

If at all the rate of ship building would translate to operational capability most of these 200+ boats would not have just rusted around in their naval bases-

USSR was going bankrupt. The lack of money was what caused the ships to stay rusting in their naval bases. It was not due to their lack of technological ability.
However, China has the money, it's a net creditor nation. China's MIC is owned and control by the state, they don't build the ships to enrich some bankers and elites as in the other country. They build ships because they are needed.

China has much larger population hence the GDP spending on defense stands much less in percentage-

GDP is not related to the population size, it refers to the entire nation. You are confusing GDP with per capita GDP.
Once again, China has the money and is able to afford to spend it on its navy. My criticism is that China should spend more, not less.

Naval operations is not Just shipbuilding capability- Ship building is just a part of the chain-

To build ships, you need money. To operate the navy, you need more money. Of course, you also need the technical expertise.
Once again, China has the money and is quickly developing its technical expertise. It also has the entire military industrial manufacturing eco-system to support it. Can't say that about your country.

Remember: In very simple terms, it's still money talks, bullshit walks.

 

[Rangila]

Such is the threat that the Navy wants even the planned 100-odd naval utility copters to carry an anti-submarine weapon.

Forcing the spikes in the Indian Naval budget.
Trying to outspend Indians.
Indians will be taxed to death.

 

[Eminent Mainstream Media]

Yes I want to continue as you don't seem to understand.
Here is some news from today.

Birth rates in China rose to their highest level since 2000 last year, despite a fall in the number of women of childbearing age, say officials.

The increase follows the relaxation of China's strict one-child policy a year ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-38714949

Your estimations are completely wrong i.e. that China will go the way of Japan.

I agree China has to take many steps from their current state, but they are making ground fast and I gave you the academic source you can read-up, if you subscribe to Janes.
As for the whole NATO like partnership, there is information sharing, that's a given, anything more is questionable due to the sensitive nature of the region.
I can't comment on the whole Vietnam issue, I don't know much about it.

China or any other developed Nation will go the path of Japan- Highly urbanized societies are expensive and heavily taxed- moreover both parents have to work to keep the family running, hence no time for 4-6 kids and upbringing is as costly as It gets-

China already took a step back in demographics by one child policy- and by the time It has been relaxed- she is knocking at the doors of a developed and highly urbanized economy- Only way China to avoid a similar fate which Japan faces is to open It doors for refugees from 3rd world countries- Which IMO is a taboo for CCP-

Information is the key- You should study the case of the Nordic states and the value they added to Nato in information regrading Soviet Ship and Submarine movements-

USSR was going bankrupt. The lack of money was what caused the ships to stay rusting in their naval bases. It was not due to their lack of technological ability.
However, China has the money, it's a net creditor nation. China's MIC is owned and control by the state, they don't build the ships to enrich some bankers and elites as in the other country. They build ships because they are needed.

It was due to their technological handicap in silent propulsion that they had to go for double hulled submarines which were a lot more noisier and was easily tracked- to overcome this handicap they went for numbers, which led to a lot of their submarines sitting in docks- Ships and submarine require lots of maintenance and their life cycle costs are great hence the number strategy failed badly in the case of Soviet Russia- China has money, Soviets had resources(oil, gas, other minerals)-

GDP is not related to the population size, it refers to the entire nation. You are confusing GDP with per capita GDP.
Once again, China has the money and is able to afford to spend it on its navy. My criticism is that China should spend more, not less.

Yes GDP is related to population size, per-capita is the sum of average GDP per person- China cannot and doesn't spend as much on defense as say KSA would do because she has a lot more people to look after-and hence the Defense budget is not such a high percentage of GDP-

To build ships, you need money. To operate the navy, you need more money. Of course, you also need the technical expertise.
Once again, China has the money and is quickly developing its technical expertise. It also has the entire military industrial manufacturing eco-system to support it. Can't say that about your country.

Remember: In very simple terms, it's still money talks, bullshit walks.

To build ships you 1st need to have a use for them- China faces severe constraints as It is surrounded and her enemy is sitting right at her gates, there's a reason why the British had a great Navy and Germans, French etc couldn't even come close while having greater expertise, Money and resources- It was due to the strategic outreach of the British that they won the Naval game-

Similar Soviets with all their wish and resources which any great empire would dream to have couldn't beat the US, It was due to the strategic advantage US held over Soviet that the Soviet just couldn't match in spite of having a bigger strategic reach than China(from Atlantic to the Pacific and middle east through Black and Caspian seas)- Soviets build some amazing ships which I doubt will be matched by China ever- But they still lost-

For China to win or even come close to matching operational level of the US- she need to break the 1st island Chain 1st and then we'll see-

 

[Tehari_Haleem]

Chinese subs permanently sailing in Indian Ocean

This Two 'Chinese Mature Ladies' Already Permanently Sailed into Indian Ocean and Bay Of Bangladesh and the Ultrasonogram revealed that they'r already pregnant and will give birth to more Chinese Babies by the year 2022