Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PLAN force projection sans carriers?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
    Hehehehehahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah? Before or after India lands a man on the moon?
    Hopefully before the landing on the moon. The same goes for the Nerpa too.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by ace16807 View Post
      Earlier this year I wrote a paper in response to James Holmes' "China and Imperial Germany" article arguing that the PLAN in particular currently doesn't pose, nor will it pose in the future, as significant threat to the USN as the Kaiserliche Marine did to the RN during the turn of the 20th century up to WW1.

      As part of my concluding remarks I speculated the purpose of their current carrier program and, in a larger sense, their aspirations of greater projection capabilities. However, that brought me to a question that I didn't quite answer in the paper. Why bother with a significant carrier program at the moment? Granted, a carrier is the epitome of naval power projection and the PLAN's carrier program is more or less the public poster child of their growing capabilities. But from a pragmatic stand point, how useful would a carrier or possibily in the near future a few carriers be? The PLAN would be at a significant disadvantage re carrier numbers for the near future when matched against the USN. Clearly, they've been working to narrow that gap by developing their infamous "carrier-killers", but no doubt their carriers are just as vulnerable as oursare, if not more so.

      I suppose what I'm getting at is, is a legitimate carrier program for the PLAN necessary? I went on further in my paper speculating that the PLAN might be better off allocating resources to developing amphibious capabilities through more LPDs etc. The PRC would like to portray itself as being nowhere near as "imperialistic" as the US in their regional and international influence, but carriers are inherently a highly visible, offensive asset. On the other hand, if it enhanced its amphibious capabilities through LPDs, LHAs and the sort, they not only avoid the public exposure of wanting to build its offensive naval capabilities (although admittedly they lose the public appearance of building its naval capabilities) but they also assets more suited for MOOTW abroad as well as build a more credible threat in the Taiwan straits as a gambling chip.

      This idea might be complete madness, but thoughts?
      I am in communications with Dr Holmes, if you wish, i can forward on your behave.
      “the misery of being exploited by capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all” -- Joan Robinson

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Dreadnought View Post
        Brazil's Sao Paulo as well thought they still had her in limited services for pilot training. The site I found seems pretty up to date and listing her as in service.

        Aircraft Carriers: List of aircraft carriers by country
        San Paulo might as well be put into the same class as a Majestic. There isn't much utility in one that a LHD couldn't forseeably do.

        I don't see the aversion to LHD's either. Juan Carlos is on trials as either a carrier or LHD.

        Put the San Paulo along side Juan Carlos, capability wise with an F-100 in tow then the LHD is more influential.
        Ego Numquam

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by ace16807 View Post
          This idea might be complete madness, but thoughts?
          You're thinking military. As PLA watchers have long since learned, the PLA thinks first and foremost political. The military aspects comes second, especially warfighting. Currently, the PLA is a deterrence force 1st and foremost, it is a war fighting force second. Bear in mind, deterrence is not warfighting. I know it is a damned hard concept since deterrence to us means don't do this or I will beat you up. But if the other guy just stands there and do nothing, says nothing, it makes you stop for a second to consider - does he know kung fu? After a certain point though, you couldn't care less and then proceed to the fight but it made you pause to look for signs to learn what he knows.

          A carrier is a political asset, considering that when the VARYAG sails, she would not be in any position to conduct combat operations, let alone air strike package operations. However, a Chinese carrier sailing through disputed EEC, say through Vietnamese waters, would send signals loud and clear to Hanoi.

          The same, however, could not be said of Japanese waters since a wolf pack of LOS ANGELES would be waiting.

          You have to imagine what the mere presence of a carrier in disputed waters mean and then you can understand its worth to the PRC.

          Comment


          • #20
            ^^^^ The problem with that premise is that one of the countries may say, "**** the Chinese. I am gonna do what I want and see how the Chinese respond." In short, they may call China's bluff and when they do, they will lose more than what a military oriented force can do.

            The job of a military-oriented force is to give the political side flexible options, not an end unto itself.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
              ^^^^ The problem with that premise is that one of the countries may say, "**** the Chinese. I am gonna do what I want and see how the Chinese respond." In short, they may call China's bluff and when they do, they will lose more than what a military oriented force can do.

              The job of a military-oriented force is to give the political side flexible options, not an end unto itself.
              With what?

              In the case of the Vietnamese and the Philippines, they have to beg for political support from their allies, Moscow, and Washington. Can you imagine Moscow or Washington sending a submarine over fishing rights?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                With what?

                In the case of the Vietnamese and the Philippines, they have to beg for political support from their allies, Moscow, and Washington. Can you imagine Moscow or Washington sending a submarine over fishing rights?
                They may, if their national interests suit them. After all, Washington and Moscow sent ships to the Artic Circle over fishing and oil drilling rights.

                Comment

                Working...
                X