RoovialkINS Vikramaditya is clearly a force to be reckoned with.
RoovialkNot strictly Navy related — I think the Navy’s role is mostly providing security for the airspace and the waters around the island and also to maintain a permament presence in SCS in general.
With sea levels rising daily I wonder how long these Chinese man-made islands will remain above water? Did China factor climate change and rising sea levels into their SCS strategy? Or have they overreached in their attempts to establish hegemony over this body of water? One good storm could erase all of China’s hard work in an afternoon. These (below) and other Chinese journals are beginning to sound the alarm about rising sea levels in the South China sea.
http://www2.ouc.edu.cn/xbywb/english/index.asp
http://www.jto.ac.cn/CN/volumn/current.shtml
It is helpful to recall that these bases China has established are built on atolls and sandbars that are merely a few inches or feet above sea level at high tide.
RoovialkI don’t dispute that necessarily (though compared to China during previous decades they are definitely far more transparent now), but I still don’t see how such a general statement adds to the discussion about the Chinese military’s high opsec.
I’m sure the USN has detected Liaoning and tracked it whenever it went out to sea, but that doesn’t mean they’re going to tell us about it.
This is the fundamental break in your logic which makes your position fall apart — you believe that if the USN or any other military is able to detect or track Liaoning, then we would inevitably know about it, whereas in reality, there is no reason for them to tell us, the public, about what they know and do not know. If anything, it would probably be counterintuitive for them to tell the public about every time they detect Liaoning going to sea, as that would alert the Chinese Navy about the capability of USN surveillance and they could devise countermeasures or change operating procedures to inhibit USN surveillance.
Well what you say is true. Now lets turn our attention to the Russian moves in Syria. I will see you over at the Russia – Syria topic thread.
RoovialkThe value of China’s opsec is a much larger issue than one that can be summed up in a single post, but I believe that by keeping a lid on a variety of military developments and not publicizing them, it causes China’s potential opponents to underestimate their present and future capability, and it also causes China’s potential opponents to make funding and procurement decisions based on incomplete knowledge of China’s own military developments which may help China as it causes less efficient distribution of resources in its potential opponents.
As for China’s economy, I’m not sure what that has to do with our topic of discussion which is about the Chinese military’s lack of transparency.
A lack of transparency seems to be the style of modern China. That’s all that I am saying.
RoovialkYour belief that they have a suffered an accident at sea rests on the idea that they have not been out at sea, however this is a false premise because we do not know how often Liaoning has been out at sea in the first place, as I’ve said above.
The fundamental premise of your conclusion is not a logical one.
With the crowded seas Liaoning would be sailing in don’t you agree that with as high value ship as this aircraft carrier somebody would detect its movements?
RoovialkIt would obviously be far easier for us if the Chinese military lowered its opsec a little bit, but I think their overall policy has done some wonders for deceiving potential competitors about their actual military capabilities and upcoming weapons systems.
But what has China gained with their attempts at deception? I say very little. Its just like this current economic whirlpool China has found itself embroiled in. Once reality pulled the bamboo curtain back on the Chinese economy, China has been seen as a rank amateur in handling a modern economy. It is as they say: It all comes out in the wash.
RoovialkI also place Dr Erickson in quite high esteem, and most of his articles around the chinese military are quite accurate, and almost all are very well researched.
However, the original point of contention isn’t about whether respected analysts of the Chinese military exists (they obviously do — they’re far and few between, but they exist) — the original point of contention is that some posters (namely blackadam in this case) are putting up many unreliable articles and putting them up as evidence for their preconceived positions.
And please, spare us the high horse act. Your posting history is littered with claims about the Chinese military that is so contrived and based on unfounded evidence and poor leaps in logic that it’s laughable that you’re trying to speak from a position of knowledge or authority about Chinese military matters.
Please do not blame me for China’s lack of progress in certain military areas. I only observe and then draw conclusions. Place the blame for Chinese fumbling and bumbling on where it belongs: China
RoovialkThe problem is that no one is claiming China has mastered air and deck operations, nor is anyone claiming to know how long Liaoning has been out at sea… In other words, there is no evidence to suggest any of that, and few if any people had made such claims.
You on the other hand, have interpreted limited photos and video clips and generalized to make conclusions far larger and more ambitious than what can be supported by your premises.
Putting it another way — other people are saying “we don’t know how far the Chinese are with their carrier programme because we don’t have enough evidence to make any sweeping claims,” while you are saying “we know the Chinese must lack commitment to their carrier programme and are set up to fail, because we have two video clips and a handful of pictures”. I’m sure you can appreciate the difference here.
Going back to Rii’s comment — he’s not saying the Chinese Navy is competent at carrier operations, he’s saying you’re being ridiculous for trying to infer their competency from a few measly shreds of evidence and generalizing that into a much larger sweeping statement.
Lets start with China is on earth. In order to master carrier operations they must gain operational experience by going to sea. A ship as large as an aircraft carrier cannot hide for long if it is at sea. This is especially true if this fledgling carrier is the focus of attention by various nations eager to understand what China is up to and to understand Chinese intentions. I don’t know your sources or Rii’s sources but I DO know that carrier operations are a complex undertaking. And carrier skills are EXTREMELY perishable. You must practice and practice and STILL you may make mistakes.
The gold standard is the USN. And even they make occasional mistakes that result in accidents on the deck and how the carrier is handled. To imply that the Chinese have some secret training schedule that is giving them an inside track on achieving carrier proficiency in some record time is laughable on its face. You can take it to the bank that every time the Liaoning has left the docks it has had a tattle-tail like the Russians did to American and NATO carriers during the cold war. The fact that we are not hearing anything about the Chinese carrier program strongly implies that China is rethinking carrier operations.
For my personal opinion I believe that the Lioaning suffered a serious accident at sea and this has driven the PLAN back to the drawing board in how they do carrier operations.
RoovialkHow many “glowing opinions of China” are there in this forum? There are pretty much none. So why do you need to deal with this “problem” from one of the most respected posters in the forum? Andreas is hardly just another poster but an author whose books and articles are read by some of the most informed people in the military aviation circles.
Now Deino might not think so but I see this thread as well as all the other “Chinese” threads — outside the PLAAF thread — as pretty much flame bait intended to attract the same hackneyed response based on stereotypes and perceptions. But that is my opinion not Deino’s — since unlike me, he attempted to answer the original poster.
So if you think answering contrary to the prevailing anti-Chinese theme in these threads is inappropriate (by someone who is a published expert on Chinese aviation no less) then why not just post at the very beginning that no argument perceived as “pro Chinese” will be expected?
It would save the few Chinese aviation followers in this forum the time and effort to respond.
If you want to check out respected analysis on Chinese military affairs you would do good in looking at Dr. Andrew S. Erickson who specializes on the Chinese military. He is well respected in the world. Another person I hold in high regard is Peter Mathus of China Brief. He provides a structure deliberately designed to help you build a solid foundation for understanding the PLA and helping to develop a progressively more sophisticated perspective. These guys and others make a living watching China. They get paid for doing it. These sources will point you towards deeper understanding of what China is up to.
RoovialkExactly my point. Blackadam is claiming a number of articles written by people who make it sound like they know what they’re talking about but do not. In other words, if one wants to put out a convincing argument, they need to be supported by credible evidence and logic on their side.
With China involved in a active campaign of confusion and obscuration of the state of its affairs internally who can say what is credible evidence? This goes double regarding Chinese military affairs. China needs to come off its obsession with paranoia and provide meaningful facts.
RoovialkThis from someone who thinks he can judge the progress and professionalism of Chinese carrier operations from a handful of PR shots. :rolleyes:
Ok I’ll bite. Hold forth on the remarkable progress China has made with their carrier aviation program. The floor is yours. For it seems that China has virtually disappeared from the arena of carrier operations. All we have is this unicorn sighting of China building a super carrier at the Dalian shipyards. Did China somehow master years of air and deck operations in the short time the Liaoing was at sea? Is the student now the master?
RoovialkMy reaction is !. And beware of those who consider themselves ‘experts’.
RoovialkCan anyone finally ban that idiot !??
Why? Is it because he presents a view that does not agree with your glowing opinions on China?
RoovialkRoovialk, “The Nian Rebellion (simplified Chinese: 捻军起义; traditional Chinese: 捻亂; Hanyu Pinyin: niǎn jūn qǐ yì; Tongyong Pinyin: nian luan; Wade–Giles: nien-chün ch’i-yi[1] was an armed uprising that took place in northern China from 1851 to 1868, contemporaneously with Taiping Rebellion (1851–1864) in South China. The rebellion failed to topple the Qing dynasty, but caused the immense economic devastation and loss of life that became one of the major long-term factors in the collapse of the Qing regime in the early 20th century.”
The Nian Rebellion is the evidence I present for the unbalanced ratio of males to females and the problems it can cause in China
I appreciate that you prefer to view china through a lens which can de legitimate their actions, achievements and to cast them in the worst possible light, after all I’ve seen too many of your posts related to the chinese carrier programme as well.
I’m glad you have brought up the subject of the Chinese aircraft carrier Liaoning. Months have passed without a sighting of the Liaoning causing observers to wonder has the ship suffered some sort of damage that has rendered her immobile or worse. Since you specialize in all things Chinese can you comment on the status of the Liaoning?
RoovialkBlitzo:
The key part you overlooked in your response was the statement where a government with a surplus of males adopts a more swaggering, belligerent, provocative style in their foreign policy. That is the definition of China today. China is challenging everybody in Asia in an effort to look tough and not appear weak to the millions of testosterone pumped up males teeming in China. Against the back drop of an economic slow down where Chinese young men cannot find work or women this becomes a volatile mix for Asia and the world.
Chinese leadership knows that they must find something for these surplus males to do or risk having them focus their aggressions and frustrations internally. In China there is a term for such young men: guang gun-er, or “bare branches” on the family tree — males who will probably not raise families of their own because the girls who should have grown up to become their wives fell victim to female infanticide.
The “bare branch” populations in China today, comprises about 12 to 15 percent of the young adult males, and tend be overwhelmingly poor, uneducated, unskilled and possibly unemployed. With market forces and social forces slamming China from every direction, China has a tough future ahead. It is against this backdrop that China watchers are predicting some sort of war in China’s future. The last time China suffered a shortage of females there was the so called Nian Rebellion.
“The Nian Rebellion (simplified Chinese: 捻军起义; traditional Chinese: 捻亂; Hanyu Pinyin: niǎn jūn qǐ yì; Tongyong Pinyin: nian luan; Wade–Giles: nien-chün ch’i-yi[1] was an armed uprising that took place in northern China from 1851 to 1868, contemporaneously with Taiping Rebellion (1851–1864) in South China. The rebellion failed to topple the Qing dynasty, but caused the immense economic devastation and loss of life that became one of the major long-term factors in the collapse of the Qing regime in the early 20th century.”
Sign In
