What's new

Vietnam Defence Forum

Well, the thing is, you need to deploy enough military assets to make it clear that taking over those islands is not going to be a walk in the park (like it would be in the case of the Filipino islands), it has to be clear that attacking the islands means war and there is a price to pay and there can be retaliation. By the way, Vietnam can destroy the chinese held islands with the upgraded Scud missiles (CEP of 30 to 50 meters and range up to 700 km).

Here is my piece:

Vietnamese Spratly Islands multi layer defensive system (this analysis applies only to the bigger islands):

First line of defense (up to 150 km range): EXTRA (long range guided rockets).

Second line of defense (up to 40 km range): Accular guided rockets. 130 & 122 mm howitzers.

Third line of defense (up to 10 km range): Kornet anti tank missiles, Light tanks (PT-76) or medium tanks (T-54 / 55). The islands have a sizable forces of enclosed T-34-85 and even M-48 tanks, they're protected by hardened steel cases and concrete bunkers.

Fourth line of defense (up to 3 km range): direct line of sight light artillery (23 / 37 / 85 mm), MATADOR anti tank missiles, other anti tank missiles, RPG type weapons (RPG-7, SPG-9, RPG-29), AGS-17 grenade launcher, 12.7mm heavy machine guns.

Against helicopter assault: Shoulder mounted Igla missiles, 23 / 37 mm anti aircraft guns and even anti tank and RPG weapons.

Air assets: The islands can deploy armed helicopters.

Passive defense: The island have steel-reinforced concrete obstacles around the islands, like the poles in Bach Dang river and/or steel obstacles on Normandy. That would slow the enemies vessels down, also act as artillery marks. The artillery still has some use, but its not really effective against fast moving landing boats.

Conclusions: Everything is small, mobile and easy to hide and protect.

Notes: Large weapon systems (anti ship missiles, air defense systems, etc) are too difficult to hide and too vulnerable against the enemy initial shelling and or missile / roket attacks. Also, deploying sophisticated systems like anti ship missiles, etc, those systems have to be maintained, but can't do that properly in a small island. And lets not forget that the environment in those islands is very nasty to equipment, very nasty marine environment.

If you are going to attack these islands, you are first going to deploy plenty of assets and you are going to cut them off and then apply heavy suppression fire to destroy most of what is there and then you make your move. Its very difficult to defend against that, you can have landings coming from all directions and by air.

Now that the chinese have large bases in their newly expanded islands only makes the situation far worse. The already have 3 large air bases from where they can deploy a significant number of fighter jets as well as AWACS aircrafts. Its just a matter of time until they deploy large air defense systems which will cover the air space of the Vietnamese islands. They can also deploy long range rocket launchers to shell the islands, Vietnam has no defense against that, so there is no point in deploying large, sophisticated systems, they can't survive.

Look at what happened on the Falkland islands and those islands are far bigger, the Argentinians deployed 15,000 men and heavy artillery, but in the end they surrendered because they were cut off and had no chance of getting supplies. Actually, precisely because they deployed too many troops, the supply issue was even bigger. You can only deploy so much in an island that is 60,000 s/m (that's the biggest island, Spratly island, although its getting expanded now).

In my view those islands are not defensible against a big power like China. You can only try to do some damage to the attacking party before you lose the island, but you can't keep them. That would require air and naval assets that Vietnam does not have and also long range missiles.

Still, only so much can be deployed in a very small island and in the end, can't stop a large landing force. Remember all those Japanese islands during WW2, all much bigger and with a lot of Japanese troops, but all were taken. Islands are not defensible against a superior enemy that can cut off the island and keep a blockade.

That's also why all those chinese islands can be easily destroyed / taken by the Americans if they want to.
if the chinese want to start the war, launching an invasion, I think they won't start small but will send an armada of amphibious vessels and warships. If they set sail from Hainan, it is a question how to hide the armada before other nation spy satellites and surveillance vessels?

There is a considerable sea distance for the Chinese to get the invasion force into position.

Once the Chinese attack forces are detected, some 10 minutes after they are departing, we would have the time to put our island defense into positions, alerting the Marines, calling our patrolling warships at sea into assistance, mobilizing surface warships and submarines from the home hand, bringing coastal artillery batteries.

The Chinese can mask the invasion by declaring it as a naval exercise. it would bring them a bit more time.

Until now we have a three No's policy. It will end at the moment the Chinese fire the first shot.

We will bring the war to the entire SC sea, to Paracels, Spratlys, to China. We will bring America, Japan, Russia, India into the war.
 
if the chinese want to start the war, launching an invasion, I think they won't start small but will send an armada of amphibious vessels and warships. If they set sail from Hainan, it is a question how to hide the armada before other nation spy satellites and surveillance vessels?

There is a considerable sea distance for the Chinese to get the invasion force into position.

Once the Chinese attack forces are detected, some 10 minutes after they are departing, we would have the time to put our island defense into positions, alerting the Marines, calling our patrolling warships at sea into assistance, mobilizing surface warships and submarines from the home hand, bringing coastal artillery batteries.

The Chinese can mask the invasion by declaring it as a naval exercise. it would bring them a bit more time.

Until now we have a three No's policy. It will end at the moment the Chinese fire the first shot.

We will bring the war to the entire SC sea, to Paracels, Spratlys, to China. We will bring America, Japan, Russia, India into the war.

Well, they can also build up forces in the islands that they have in the Spratlys. There are many ways to do deception and achieve surprise. The attacking party has the advantage and they can count on having air and naval superiority. The Kilos can do some damage. The air force as it is at present, would be outnumbered. This is not easy man, but the best tool for Vietnam I think is ballistic missile retaliation against their bases in Spratlys, Paracels and Hainan.
 
Well, they can also build up forces in the islands that they have in the Spratlys. There are many ways to do deception and achieve surprise. The attacking party has the advantage and they can count on having air and naval superiority. The Kilos can do some damage. The air force as it is at present, would be outnumbered. This is not easy man, but the best tool for Vietnam I think is ballistic missile retaliation against their bases in Spratlys, Paracels and Hainan.
It is difficult or impossible for the Chinese to hide an invasion fleet close to our islands. Sure they can say their army, their warships and landing vessels are on holiday, but the moment they fuel they arm they depart will reveal their intention.

Yes we need ballistic missiles to turn them into ashes. Their bases their vessels into scraps.
 
Everybody has something to give to the thread, nobody is capable of having all the information. No worries man. Just post whenever you find something interesting. Actually, the big Daddy of the thread is @Viet, he is the one that started the thread and he is the one that does the most posts by far and when the thread is slow, he keeps it alive.

Somebody else asked me the same a few days ago. I have ZERO military experience; military things is a hobby of mine for many years, I read a lot about it, I try to understand it in depth as much as I can, that's all.

If you are thinking about amphibious assault in terms of how the Vietnamese islands can defend from a chinese amphibious assault, yes, I did put together a whole piece in the past about how the defense of the islands can work. I'll look at my files and I'll post it later, but let me tell you in advance that given the military balance in the area and the big difference of assets and capabilities, if China wants to take the islands, they will. There is no 2 ways about that and I've been told that by a naval officer in very blunt terms. Just think about the Japanese held islands in ww2. No matter how many troops and assets you put there, if the enemy controls the overall area and has control of the air and sea and massive naval and amphibious assault forces, they will take the islands just how the Americans did. Vietnam can make them pay a price, but that's all that can realistically be done at the moment.
Also thank to you

You provide great stuffs in this thread.

Actually I m not too much worried by a possible Chinese invasion.

Chinese are a bunch of cowards. They tend to attack Vietnam when our country is in trouble, having serious economic problem, civil war or similar things. Even that they need others to back then when fighting us. During the Le and the Nguyen, despite the huge imbalance of power, they did not dare attacking Vietnam
 
Also thank to you

You provide great stuffs in this thread.

Actually I m not too much worried by a possible Chinese invasion.

Chinese are a bunch of cowards. They tend to attack Vietnam when our country is in trouble, having serious economic problem, civil war or similar things. Even that they need others to back then when fighting us. During the Le and the Nguyen, despite the huge imbalance of power, they did not dare attacking Vietnam

Yes, their typical style is to attack by surprise, that's what they did in 1979 and 1988.
 
Chinese are a bunch of cowards. They tend to attack Vietnam when our country is in trouble, having serious economic problem, civil war or similar things. Even that they need others to back then when fighting us. During the Le and the Nguyen, despite the huge imbalance of power, they did not dare attacking Vietnam

They tend to attack when an opponent is unprepared and perceived as weak. They did so to India in 1962. We have thankfully learned from it and never given them another opportunity since. We gave them a bloody nose back in 1967. Vietnam has to harness its strengths and always be prepared. But Viets are tough mofos (as seen in 1979 and of course in Vietnam war) so Chinese wont dare to do more than just words now. They have already rallied enough countries against them in some way....I dont think they will dare give an excuse for an official anti PRC "NATO" to be formed.

Yes, their typical style is to attack by surprise, that's what they did in 1979 and 1988.

I am familiar with 1979. Was 1988 a bunch of more minor skirmishes? I know Vietnam had some skirmishes with Thailand too under the occupation of Cambodia.
 
Yes, their typical style is to attack by surprise, that's what they did in 1979 and 1988.
more than just these two events

the attacked us (South Vietnam) in 1974 when we were at civil war, and when the war with America was not over.

in 1978, when they mis-used Cambodia as proxy, killing our ethnics in the country, attacking our border cities.

in 1979 chinese full scale invasion following our retaliation in Cambodia.

in 1988 when our economy was facing serious trouble, facing international sanction. we were short of everything, could not affort to continue the war.

to mention, they tried to sabotage USSR weapon delivery to North Vietnam during the Vietnam war.

They tend to attack when an opponent is unprepared and perceived as weak. They did so to India in 1962. We have thankfully learned from it and never given them another opportunity since. We gave them a bloody nose back in 1967. Vietnam has to harness its strengths and always be prepared. But Viets are tough mofos (as seen in 1979 and of course in Vietnam war) so Chinese wont dare to do more than just words now. They have already rallied enough countries against them in some way....I dont think they will dare give an excuse for an official anti PRC "NATO" to be formed.



I am familiar with 1979. Was 1988 a bunch of more minor skirmishes? I know Vietnam had some skirmishes with Thailand too under the occupation of Cambodia.
true.

if China was as small as Vietnam, we would slap their face once in the morning, once at noon time, and at the end of the day, we kick them once in the butt before they go to bed.
 
They tend to attack when an opponent is unprepared and perceived as weak. They did so to India in 1962. We have thankfully learned from it and never given them another opportunity since. We gave them a bloody nose back in 1967. Vietnam has to harness its strengths and always be prepared. But Viets are tough mofos (as seen in 1979 and of course in Vietnam war) so Chinese wont dare to do more than just words now. They have already rallied enough countries against them in some way....I dont think they will dare give an excuse for an official anti PRC "NATO" to be formed.



I am familiar with 1979. Was 1988 a bunch of more minor skirmishes? I know Vietnam had some skirmishes with Thailand too under the occupation of Cambodia.

1988 is when they did a surprise attack in the Spratlys and took over 6 islands and reefs which is where they've been doing the land reclamation recently.
 
the girls with M1 Carbine (US origin)
9.jpg




with standard Vietnam made AK rifles
5.jpg



2.jpg



5_88388.jpg


11.jpg
 
Well, the thing is, you need to deploy enough military assets to make it clear that taking over those islands is not going to be a walk in the park (like it would be in the case of the Filipino islands), it has to be clear that attacking the islands means war and there is a price to pay and there can be retaliation. By the way, Vietnam can destroy the chinese held islands with the upgraded Scud missiles (CEP of 30 to 50 meters and range up to 700 km).

Here is my piece:

Vietnamese Spratly Islands multi layer defensive system (this analysis applies only to the bigger islands):

First line of defense (up to 150 km range): EXTRA (long range guided rockets).

Second line of defense (up to 40 km range): Accular guided rockets. 130 & 122 mm howitzers.

Third line of defense (up to 10 km range): Kornet anti tank missiles, Light tanks (PT-76) or medium tanks (T-54 / 55). The islands have a sizable forces of enclosed T-34-85 and even M-48 tanks, they're protected by hardened steel cases and concrete bunkers.

Fourth line of defense (up to 3 km range): direct line of sight light artillery (23 / 37 / 85 mm), MATADOR anti tank missiles, other anti tank missiles, RPG type weapons (RPG-7, SPG-9, RPG-29), AGS-17 grenade launcher, 12.7mm heavy machine guns.

Against helicopter assault: Shoulder mounted Igla missiles, 23 / 37 mm anti aircraft guns and even anti tank and RPG weapons.

Air assets: The islands can deploy armed helicopters.

Passive defense: The island have steel-reinforced concrete obstacles around the islands, like the poles in Bach Dang river and/or steel obstacles on Normandy. That would slow the enemies vessels down, also act as artillery marks. The artillery still has some use, but its not really effective against fast moving landing boats.

Conclusions: Everything is small, mobile and easy to hide and protect.

Notes: Large weapon systems (anti ship missiles, air defense systems, etc) are too difficult to hide and too vulnerable against the enemy initial shelling and or missile / roket attacks. Also, deploying sophisticated systems like anti ship missiles, etc, those systems have to be maintained, but can't do that properly in a small island. And lets not forget that the environment in those islands is very nasty to equipment, very nasty marine environment.

If you are going to attack these islands, you are first going to deploy plenty of assets and you are going to cut them off and then apply heavy suppression fire to destroy most of what is there and then you make your move. Its very difficult to defend against that, you can have landings coming from all directions and by air.

Now that the chinese have large bases in their newly expanded islands only makes the situation far worse. The already have 3 large air bases from where they can deploy a significant number of fighter jets as well as AWACS aircrafts. Its just a matter of time until they deploy large air defense systems which will cover the air space of the Vietnamese islands. They can also deploy long range rocket launchers to shell the islands, Vietnam has no defense against that, so there is no point in deploying large, sophisticated systems, they can't survive.

Look at what happened on the Falkland islands and those islands are far bigger, the Argentinians deployed 15,000 men and heavy artillery, but in the end they surrendered because they were cut off and had no chance of getting supplies. Actually, precisely because they deployed too many troops, the supply issue was even bigger. You can only deploy so much in an island that is 60,000 s/m (that's the biggest island, Spratly island, although its getting expanded now).

In my view those islands are not defensible against a big power like China. You can only try to do some damage to the attacking party before you lose the island, but you can't keep them. That would require air and naval assets that Vietnam does not have and also long range missiles.

Still, only so much can be deployed in a very small island and in the end, can't stop a large landing force. Remember all those Japanese islands during WW2, all much bigger and with a lot of Japanese troops, but all were taken. Islands are not defensible against a superior enemy that can cut off the island and keep a blockade.

That's also why all those chinese islands can be easily destroyed / taken by the Americans if they want to.

in Natuna case, our scenario will be focused on deploying mobile assets and platform meanwhile reconstructing Natuna to become our very Pearl Harbour, to become Navy and airforce main base (including building bunker and elaborate system of underground facilities).

flanking movement is what we need to counter them
 
in Natuna case, our scenario will be focused on deploying mobile assets and platform meanwhile reconstructing Natuna to become our very Pearl Harbour, to become Navy and airforce main base (including building bunker and elaborate system of underground facilities).

flanking movement is what we need to counter them
sis the chinese have no intention to invade Natura. they only want to the waters around the island as evidenced in the 9 dsh line and repeated declaration of historic fishing ground. from the strategic point, Indonesia is in a much more comfortable position. you have no common land border, nor see demarcation with the chinese. lucky indonesia.
 
I am familiar with 1979. Was 1988 a bunch of more minor skirmishes? I know Vietnam had some skirmishes with Thailand too under the occupation of Cambodia.

One thing people miss, from 1986 to 1987 Op Falcon was is effect followed by Op Chequerboard, PLA was not at all in good position.

And as deescalation began on LAC, China did this

Google search Johnson_South_Reef_Skirmish ( sorry I cant post link right now).
 
sis the chinese have no intention to invade Natura. they only want to the waters around the island as evidenced in the 9 dsh line and repeated declaration of historic fishing ground. from the strategic point, Indonesia is in a much more comfortable position. you have no common land border, nor see demarcation with the chinese. lucky indonesia.

That's true, they made official statements saying that they have no claims to the Natuna islands, but they also said that they have overlapping claims to some of the waters since they are "traditional chinese fishing grounds".

I guess next they will say that the Indian Ocean is a traditional chinese fishing ground and that ancient chinese navigators were the first to discover and named Australia and New Zealand.
 
if the chinese want to start the war, launching an invasion, I think they won't start small but will send an armada of amphibious vessels and warships. If they set sail from Hainan, it is a question how to hide the armada before other nation spy satellites and surveillance vessels?

There is a considerable sea distance for the Chinese to get the invasion force into position.

Once the Chinese attack forces are detected, some 10 minutes after they are departing, we would have the time to put our island defense into positions, alerting the Marines, calling our patrolling warships at sea into assistance, mobilizing surface warships and submarines from the home hand, bringing coastal artillery batteries.

The Chinese can mask the invasion by declaring it as a naval exercise. it would bring them a bit more time.

Thats almost next to impossible, China doesnt have such amphibious capabilities neither they have superiority over seas.
How they dodge SSNs of US, UK, France & of Russia?
The China already feeling the heat and her windpipe chocking further with each passing year.

Let me post some interesting articles.

Part 1 - Undersea Webs - US-Japan SOSUS Against Soviets/Russia

INTRODUCTION

A steady development of Internet writing on the all platform Western sea surveillance system SeaWeb (often referred to on Sub Matters) is becoming more specific.

Two Australian Professors, Desmond Ball at the Australian National University and Richard Tanter at Melbourne University, produced a major book on how China’s naval forces are surrounded by undersea sensors. The book is The Tools of Owatatsumi (free Download from ANU Press) of January 2015. Using data from the book Hamish McDonald on April 18, 2015 published an excellent essay "Japan and US enclose Chinese coast within sensor net"

Readers may recall Submarine MattersHow to Trap the Chinese Dragon – SeaWeb’s Fixed Undersea Array, September 4, 2015


ARTICLE

In 2016 an increasing level of detail is surfacing on the (possible) undersea sensor array's extension (or pre-existence) northwest of Indonesia in India's Andaman and Nicobar Islands region.

Where all this is going is that Prasun K. Sengupta on his TRISHUL website has reported on discussions at Day 2 of DEFEXPO INDIA 2016 (March 28 -31, 2016) of April 15, 2016 titled. Prasun K. Sengupta's report is excellent (and 7 pages long). So I will brea it into 4 parts over 4 days.

A longer title could also be A SeaWeb (US, Japan, Australia, India) Quadrilateral Developing.
Part 1 - Undersea Webs
[I have highlighted parts and added links where useful]
"A web of strategic projects is now taking firm shape as India enters into closer multilateral military cooperation relationships with Japan,Australia and the United States, as well as regional powers like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam. Matters began taking on urgency in late September 2014, after US President Barack Obama and PM Modi have pledged to intensify cooperation in maritime security. Following this, on March 16, 2015 the defence ministers of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) at the end of the two-day 9th ASEAN Defence Ministers’ Meeting in Langkawi, Malaysia, collectively stated that they wanted India to play a far bigger role in both the Indian Ocean Region (IOR) and the South China Sea.

In the near future, therefore, under the auspices of the US–India Defence Framework Agreement, foundational pacts like the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum Agreement (CISMOA), and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA) [see explanation of BECA and other acronyms], are likely to be inked by the two countries later this year.

Concurrently, Japan can be expected to extend funding from the Japan International Cooperation Agency for the upgradation of naval air bases and construction of new ELINT/SIGINT stations along the Andaman and Nicobar chain of islands, which is made up of 572 islands (of which only 34 are presently inhabited), stretching around 470 miles north to south.

But most importantly, preliminary planning has commenced on a Japan-financed project that calls for

1) laying of an undersea optical fibre cable from Chennai to Port Blair; and

2) the construction of an undersea network of seabed-based surveillance sensors stretching from the tip of Sumatra right up to Indira Point. Once completed, this network will be an integral part of the existing US-Japan ‘Fish Hook’ sound surveillance (SOSUS) network [See The Tools of Owatatsumi (ANU Press, January 2015) Map 4, Page 54] that will play a pivotal role in constantly monitoring all submarine patrols mounted by China’s PLA Navy (PLAN) in both the South China Sea and the IOR.

nc3i.jpg


This network will in turn be networked with theIndian Navy’s (IN) high-bandwidth National Command Control and Communications Intelligence network (NC3I) [above], which has been set up under the IN’s National Maritime Domain Awareness (NMDA) project at a cost of Rs.1,003 crores [US$150 million]. At the heart of the NC3I is the Gurgaon-based, Rs.453 crore Information Management and Analysis Centre (IMAC), whose systems integration software packages were supplied by Raytheon and CISCO.

Oblique references to all these developments were made in the joint statement that was issued last month after the visiting US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter held delegation-level talks with his Indian counterpart Manohar Parrikar. The joint statement spoke about: A) new opportunities to deepen cooperation in maritime security and maritime domain awareness; B) commencement of navy-to-navy discussions on submarine safety and anti-submarine warfare; and

3) enhancing on-going navy-to-navy discussions to cover submarine-related issues.
undersea%2Barray%2BAsia-Pacific.jpg


US-Japan Fish Hook SOSUS network [Map above]

The US was always interested in Japanese and Indian locations for its SOSUS stations. Initially called Project Caesar, this involved running cables out on continental shelves and connecting them to hydrophones suspended above the sea bottom at optimum signal depths.

An ‘experimental station’ was established at the north-western tip of Hokkaido in 1957, with the cable extending into the Soya (La Perouse) Strait. It monitored all Soviet submarine traffic going in and out of Vladivostok and Nakhodka in the Sea of Japan.Undersea surveillance systems and associated shore-based data collection stations code-named Barrier and Bronco were installed in Japan in the 1960s. Acoustic data collected at these sites was transmitted by US defence communications satellites to US Navy (USN) processing and analysis centres in the US.In the 1970s, a network between between Japan and the Korean Peninsula was commissioned.


By 1980, three stations at Wakkanai (designated JAP-4), Tsushima (JAP-108) and the Ryukyu Islands (RYU-80) were operational in Japan, along with earlier stations built in the Tsushima Straits and the Okinawa area. The existence of old cables at Horonai Point in north-west Honshu, which during the Cold War led out to SOSUS arrays in the Sea of Japan, has been widely described by scuba divers. By the mid-1980s the SOSUS hydrophone arrays stretched from southern Japan to The Philippines, covering the approaches to China.

After the collapse of the USSR and the decline of the submarine threat to the US in the early 1990s, the USN allowed its SOSUS systems in the north-west Pacific to atrophy, although some arrays were retained in working order so as to support civilian scientific research (such as tracking whales and monitoring undersea volcanic activity). According to a USN directive issued in August 1994, all seabed-based fixed-arrays in the Pacific were placed on ‘hot standby’; personnel would ‘not be routinely assigned to monitor fixed-array data’ unless that data was required for operational purposes, but in practice the probability of being able to reconstitute them to full operational status was ‘extremely low’."

Here is the original article

Undersea Webs
A web of strategic projects
is now taking firm shape as India enters into closer multilateral military cooperation relationships with Japan, Australia and the United States, as well as regional powers like Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam.

US%2BSECDEF%2BAshton%2BCarter%2Bwith%2BDefence%2BMinister%2BManohar%2BParrikar%2Bon-board%2BINS%2BVikramaditya.jpg


In the near future, therefore, under the auspices of the US–India Defence Framework Agreement, foundational pacts like the Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Agreement (LEMOA), Communication Interoperability and Security Memorandum Agreement (CISMOA), and Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement for Geo-Spatial Cooperation (BECA), are likely to be inked by the two countries later this year. Concurrently, Japan can be expected to extend funding from the Japan International Cooperation Agency for the upgradation of naval air bases and construction of new ELINT/SIGINT stations along the Andaman and Nicobar chain of islands, which is made up of 572 islands (of which only 34 are presently inhabited), stretching around 470 miles north to south. But most importantly, preliminary planning has commenced on a Japan-financed project that calls for 1) laying of an undersea optical fibre cable from Chennai to Port Blair; and 2) the construction of an undersea network of seabed-based surveillance sensors stretching from the tip of Sumatra right up to Indira Point. Once completed, this network will be an integral part of the existing US-Japan ‘Fish Hook’ sound surveillance (SOSUS) network that will play a pivotal role in constantly monitoring all submarine patrols mounted by China’s PLA Navy (PLAN) in both the South China Sea and the IOR. This network will in turn be networked with the Indian Navy’s (IN) high-bandwidth National Command Control and Communications Intelligence network (NC3I), which has been set up under the IN’s National Maritime Domain Awareness (NMDA) project at a cost of Rs.1,003 crores. At the heart of the NC3I is the Gurgaon-based, Rs.453 crore Information Management and Analysis Centre (IMAC), whose systems integration software packages were supplied by Raytheon and CISCO.

Oblique references to all these developments were made in the joint statement that was issued last month after the visiting US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter held delegation-level talks with his Indian counterpart Manohar Parrikar. The joint statement spoke about: A) new opportunities to deepen cooperation in maritime security and maritime domain awareness; B) commencement of navy-to-navy discussions on submarine safety and anti-submarine warfare; and 3) enhancing on-going navy-to-navy discussions to cover submarine-related issues.

The US was always interested in Japanese and Indian locations for its SOSUS stations. Initially called Project Caesar, this involved running cables out on continental shelves and connecting them to hydrophones suspended above the sea bottom at optimum signal depths. An ‘experimental station’ was established at the north-western tip of Hokkaido in 1957, with the cable extending into the Soya (La Perouse) Strait. It monitored all Soviet submarine traffic going in and out of Vladivostok and Nakhodka in the Sea of Japan. Undersea surveillance systems and associated shore-based data collection stations code-named Barrier and Bronco were installed in Japan in the 1960s. Acoustic data collected at these sites was transmitted by US defence communications satellites to US Navy (USN) processing and analysis centres in the US. In the 1970s, a network between between Japan and the Korean Peninsula was commissioned. By 1980, three stations at Wakkanai (designated JAP-4), Tsushima (JAP-108) and the Ryukyu Islands (RYU-80) were operational in Japan, along with earlier stations built in the Tsushima Straits and the Okinawa area. The existence of old cables at Horonai Point in north-west Honshu, which during the Cold War led out to SOSUS arrays in the Sea of Japan, has been widely described by scuba divers. By the mid-1980s the SOSUS hydrophone arrays stretched from southern Japan to The Philippines, covering the approaches to China. After the collapse of the USSR and the decline of the submarine threat to the US in the early 1990s, the USN allowed its SOSUS systems in the north-west Pacific to atrophy, although some arrays were retained in working order so as to support civilian scientific research (such as tracking whales and monitoring undersea volcanic activity). According to a USN directive issued in August 1994, all seabed-based fixed-arrays in the Pacific were placed on ‘hot standby’; personnel would ‘not be routinely assigned to monitor fixed-array data’ unless that data was required for operational purposes, but in practice the probability of being able to reconstitute them to full operational status was ‘extremely low’.

Naval%2BAlternate%2BOperational%2BBase%2BProject%2BVarsha.jpg



However, in the early 2000s, facing an increasing PLAN submarine force and more aggressive PLAN submarine patrols, the USN decided that it needed a new chain of fixed arrays designed primarily to monitor the movement of PLAN submarines between the East China Sea and South China Sea on the one hand, and between the Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean on the other. Thus was born the US-Japan ‘Fish Hook Undersea Defense Line’ in early 2005, stretching from Japan southwards to Southeast Asia, with key nodes at Okinawa, Guam and Taiwan. Beginning from near Kagoshima in the southwest part of Kyushu, it runs down the Osumi archipelago to Okinawa, then to Miyako-jima and Yonaguni in the southern part of the Ryukyu Islands, past Taiwan to the Balabac Islands in The Philippines, to Lomkok in the eastern part of the Indonesian archipelago, across the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra, and from northern Sumatra to the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Three major gaps—between Yonaguni and Suao in north-east Taiwan (120km), between Kaohsiung in south-western Taiwan and the Dongsha (Pratas) Islands (450km) where the East China Sea meets the South China Sea, and across the Bashi Channel (220km) between Hengchun at Taiwan’s southernmost tip and Luzon Island in The Philippines—were plugged. In addition, the USN installed a new SOSUS network, stretching from Sasebo down to Okinawa, in 2006, when the US cable-laying ship USNS Zeus operated together with oceanographic survey vessels and nuclear submarines in this area. In July 2013, Beijing claimed that the US and Japan had jointly established ‘very large underwater monitoring systems’ at the northern and southern ends of Taiwan. One of these stretched from Yonaguni to the Senkaku Islands (about 150km), while the other covered the Bashi Channel down to The Philippines. Thus, this US-Japan undersea trip-wire around the PLAN presently extends across the Tsushima Strait between Japan and the Korean Peninsula, and from Japan’s southern main island of Kyushu down past Taiwan to The Philippines. The curve of the hook stretches across the Java Sea from Kalimantan to Java, across the Sunda Strait between Java and Sumatra, and from the northern tip of Sumatra along the eastern side of India’s Andaman and Nicobar island chain. Real-time information-sharing between the US and Japan joins the undersea defence line-up, effectively drawing a tight arc around Southeast Asia, from the Andaman Sea to Japan.

Growing Tentacles
The PLAN presently has an estimated 60 double-hulled submarines, of which 51 are diesel-electric SSKs (two Type 877EKM, ten Type 636, 13 Type 039 Song-class, four S-20/Type 041A Yuan-class, four S-20/Type 041B Yuan-class and 18 Type 035 Ming-class) and eight (four Type 091 Han-class and four Type 093 Shang-class) are nuclear-powered SSNs. In addition, there’s one Type 092 Xia-class and two Type 094 Jin-class SSBNs, with five more of the latter due for delivery in future. Also due for procurement in future are 15 single-hulled SSKs (most likely Russia’s Amur 1650-class) powered by indigenously-developed Stirling Engine air-independent propulsion systems. The number of PLAN submarine sorties has approximately quadrupled over the last seven years, with an average of 12 patrols being conducted each year between 2008 and 2015, following on from six in 2007, two 2006 none in 2005. In the Indian Ocean region (IOR), the PLAN has so far carried out three submarine patrols (all accompanied by Type 925/Type 926 submarine tenders), with the submarines being kept its vessels out at sea for 95 days during each patrol.

Type%2B091%2BHan-class%2Band%2B093%2BShang-class%2BSSNs.jpg



The PLAN’s first SSN patrol within the IOR lasted from December 3, 2013 till February 12, 2014. One Type 093 Shang-class boat left Longpo its bastion at Yulin on December 3. Ten days later, on December 13, the SSN reached the Gulf of Aden via the Ombai Wetar Strait near Indonesia. It remained on patrol in the area for nearly two months. Next to follow was the Type 039 Song-class SSK ‘Great Wall 0329’, which later docked at the China-funded Colombo International Container Terminal in Sri Lanka from September 7 to 14, 2014 along with the Type 925-class tender861 Changxingdao. This was followed by a patrol of a Type 091 SSN from December 13, 2014 to February 14, 2015. Next came a S-20/Type 041A Yuan-class SSK that docked at Pakistan’s Karachi port in late May 2015, and was accompanied by a Type 925 Dajiang-class submarine tender. From this, it can be deduced that in the years to come, the PLAN will continue with this practice of launching at the very least two annual long-distance patrols—one each by an SSN and SSK—into the IOR. Entry while remaining submerged into the IOR from either the South China Sea or the Pacific Ocean will be made through either the Lombok Strait or the Ombai Wetar Straits astride Indonesia.

Chagos%2BTrench.jpg


During future hostilities with either the US or India, the most likely destinations of PLAN’s SSNs within the IOR will be the area around Diego Garcia and the Chagos Trench. Diego Garcia is part of the Chagos Archipelago, situated on the southernmost part of the Chagos-Laccadive Ridge. To the east lies the Chagos Trench, a 400 mile-long underwater canyon that ranges in depth from less than 1,000 metres to more than 5,000 metres, and the most likely area where the IN’s SSBNs will be lurking during operational patrols.

East%2BAsia.jpg



All vessels, including warships, enjoy the right of innocent passage through archipelagic waters. Innocent passage requires a vessel to conduct continuous and expeditious transit in a manner that is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the archipelagic state. For a submarine, innocent passage means transiting on the surface, as is the case with the Malacca Strait. But the Lombok Strait astride Indonesia is not considered archipelagic waters, rather it is part of an Archipelagic Sea Lane (ASL) that carves a path from Lombok in southwest Indian Ocean, through the Flores Sea, the Makassar Strait, the Sulawesi and Celebes Seas and on to the Pacific Ocean. It is like this because Indonesia desires sovereignty within the archipelago beyond the normal 12nm territorial water limit, which can be granted in relation to archipelagic states in certain circumstances, provided the ASLs are designated. For a submarine, normal passage means transiting submerged. The other interesting thing about ASLs is that, unlike innocent passage through archipelagic waters, which can be suspended temporarily on a non-discriminatory basis, this is not the case for ASLs. Any PLAN submarine can legally transit Lombok dived. If it chooses to loiter illegally and then gets caught, it can feign normal passage.

PLAN%2BSSN%2Broute.jpg



Unlike the Sunda Strait—which forms part of a separate ASL, but is realistically too shallow for dived passage by all but the most daring/lucky of submarine operators—the Lombok Strait is relatively deep (varying between 800 and 1,000 metres). At the southern end of the Strait, where the channel is divided by the Island of Nusa Penida, a shallow sill is located. Depths rise to between 200 and 250 metres in the channel to the east of Nusa Penida. The sill is of huge importance to the oceanographic behaviour in the Strait, particularly since the Lombok Sea serves as one of two outlets (the other being the Timor Passage) for a great body of warm water that flows from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean—the so called Indonesian Throughflow. This sill, coupled with the Throughflow and tidal flow, results in relatively large current flows, typically from north to south, but is sometimes reversed. Current flows near the sill can reach 3.5 metres per second during spring tide periods. In the deeper water to the north of the sill it slows to between 0.2 to 0.5 metres. It must be noted, however, that current velocities vary as a function of depth. The upper 100 metres carry 50% of the total water transport through the Lombok Strait. Current velocities are, therefore, maximum at the surface with a sharp decrease from 75 to 300 metres. These currents are a quite significant for submarine operations, particularly diesel-electric SSKs, which must conserve battery life or that cannot take advantage of the deeper areas where the current is minimal. They also create interesting and complicated acoustic conditions for sonar on account of the varying temperature and salinity gradients across the current-related layers.
 
That's true, they made official statements saying that they have no claims to the Natuna islands, but they also said that they have overlapping claims to some of the waters since they are "traditional chinese fishing grounds".

I guess next they will say that the Indian Ocean is a traditional chinese fishing ground and that ancient chinese navigators were the first to discover and named Australia and New Zealand.
Yes imagine, you invite your Chinese business partners to your home. Next day, when returning to China, they will claim they were the first who discover your garden, your kitchen, your home, worse, Danang is Chinese, everything they see it is Chinese since ancient time. It must be Chinese humour.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom