Pacific Forces Series Threads are designed to create a civil, mature dialogue about the diplomatic, economic, geopolitical, and military relations that exist between nations that are invested in the Indo-Pacific region. This new edition of Pacific Forces General, replacing Pacific Forces General Lite, will give a quick recap on what has happened, or is happening in the Indo-Pacific Region., between full scale Pacific Forces General threads. The general layout will be posting the given source at hand, then briefly explain key points/areas of discussion from said sources, I will not be completely covering every part of the sources, due to time concerns, and encouraging people to fill in holes I intentionally leave open. Fully reading the source material entirely is encouraged, but I understand that not everyone is as invested into the Indo-Pacific as I am, so at least think out your thoughts/comments before you post. Please ignore blatant shitposters, or attempts at derailing the thread. If a poster seems to be a troll, they probably are, try to keep it civil and stay on topic.
Note: I will try to refrain from discussing Naval procurement and shipbuilding topics, for I feel that those two topics can deserve their own threads to be properly discussed. This thread will revolve around naval operations, and newer/rising concepts.
/PFB/ Pacific Forces Bulletin
Other urls found in this thread:
news.usni.org
news.usni.org
news.usni.org
news.usni.org
news.usni.org
news.usni.org
news.usni.org
news.usni.org
news.usni.org
news.usni.org
youtube.com
defensenews.com
documentcloud.org
royalnavy.mod.uk
youtube.com
twitter.com
/PFG/ Related News:
Note, this is not all encompassing, I may very well miss occurrences/developments. I will largely ignore exercises/fleet developments. If you want me to discuss them, post them.
>news.usni.org
The Littoral Combat Ships are finally getting underway, and after a force reset, that has impacted most of the surface force (as far as I am aware), including the LCS fleet. It’ll be very interesting to see how 7th Fleet uses the LCS, because despite all of its flaws, and a lot of (justified) controversy, they will serve a very useful, and critical role going into the future, especially in Western Pacific archipelagos. From the article:
>Brown told reporters during the Friday call that the LCS was built to be a single-mission ship – in the case of these LCSs deploying in 2019, anti-surface warfare (ASuW). He said the ships would focus on ASuW-only activities like partner-building exercises, fisheries patrols and other work suitable for a small surface combatant.
Fisheries patrol could indicate 2 things, either A, patrolling US territory waters for some form of illegal activity, or B, patrolling regional states territorial waters/fisheries from illegal fishing, specifically from China. If some of you are not aware, generally speaking China conducts what the US has labeled “Gray Zone Operations” where they have a combination of civilian fishing vessels, maritime militia ships (armed merchants), “Coast Guard” vessels, and actual PLAN warships operate with each other, so that Chinese fishing boats can fish in contested waters and control the chain of escalation, so that the nation being infringed upon cannot effectively react. Bringing a small, littoral ship like the LCS gives not only international backing, but an effective asset for regional nations to utilize in attempting to counter China’s Gray Zone Operations, which has become a highlighted priority for 7th Fleet. The LCS, and to the extent the FFG(X) will be extremely useful for presence operations, and mutual trust building exercises that don’t warrant a full fledged DDG/CG, now that they are being tailor trained for high end war fighting.
>news.usni.org
John Richarson, the Chief of US Naval Operations, met with his PLAN counterparts to continue dialogue pertaining to both nations maritime and naval activities in the Western Pacific. Not much to say honestly, I’ll leave this to you guys to comment on.
>news.usni.org
I’m only posting this so that other people get the chance to see it, and possibly discuss it in the future. I have enough to read as it is, so I unfortunately have no comments on this.
>news.usni.org
Jow Forums memes on the Fitzgerald and McCaine collisons pretty hard, and the new report about the status of those respective bridges. Not to defend the actions of those involved, it’s downright embarrassing that the USN has been pushed to this point, but with that being said, and to make light of a two dark occurrences, the Navy seems to have interpreted these accidents as a rightful kick in the ass. To quote the article above
>head of his Tuesday remarks, he told USNI News in a media call that “in 2018, especially at the beginning of 2018, I had to focus on man, train and equip, and I had to focus on making sure that, A) the surface force understood what our standards were, because we have really high standards in the surface force, and then B) that we were meeting those standards. Meeting standards doesn’t win wars; meeting standards produces survivors. Now that we’ve done that in 2018, this drive for excellence is what produces winners.”
Now before shitposters pile in here to meme, I am not defending the actions of the officers onboard the Fitz and McCaine, nor the higher ups that let this happen. I wanna see heads role, I want to see careers end, I want to see people locked up. To say that FY 18 was not, at least, a sharp change in pace in how Bridge crews are certified, trained, or operate, is just plain ignorant. Search previous /PFG/s for how the USN has went about the implementation of drastic changes. Now, as of what the quote implies, we’re going from overhaulin basic certification/training on general ship maneuvers, to actual high end simulation training. To quote:
>The Navy has a single Combined Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) and Anti-Submarine Warfare (ASW) Trainer (CIAT) in San Diego, with a second one coming online in Norfolk this summer. Boxall said “it’s better than what we have at sea.”
>news.usni.org
To help back up my previous point that there is certainly positive things to take from the two collisions of 2017.
>For example, the Navy Safety Center is in the midst of a six-year process of digitizing its safety reports. With that information, other commands could use create models that could tell commanders when their ships are most at risk for collisions, Moran said. On Wednesday, Naval Seas Systems Command said they were working on ways to collect and tabulate data to give a better sense of predictive maintenance needed on a ship.
>“People who have data think they own that data. People wearing uniforms, Navy civilians who have data think they own that data,” Moran said. “My message to them is that you don’t own that data, the Navy owns that data. Contractors work with us. This data is our data and it needs to come back to us.”
It certainly seems that the Navy, if not the military entirely, is going to start cutting through bureaucracy like a hot knife through butter, and rightfully so. We are no longer in the era of low end, low intensity conflicts, we no longer have the luxury of time being on our side. We are no longer in the Post-Cold War stroll that has encapsulated US Foreign Policy for the past 30+ years. If China wants to be taken as a serious, real geopolitical/strategic adversary, then lets take the gloves off. No more memeing, no more scoffing, play hardball. The US Government is taking the prospect of an adversarial PRC as a VERY real threat. I think the general public, and amateur analysts should do the same.
>The data conversation is also part of the Navy’s nascent drive to integrate AI and other tools into how the service will back decisions in combat. The Pentagon writ large has identified AI and supporting technologies that would allow forces to react faster than adversaries in combat as a key effort in which the U.S. is losing its edge to China. The Navy has tasked the service’s Digital Warfare Office to lead the push to apply AI and machine learning to operations.
>The service has largely kept quiet developments undertaken by the office.
>news.usni.org
No real comments, article speaks for itself. I’ll leave this for you guys
>news.usni.org
The USS Wasp, which has been stationed in Japan for just over a year now, has been operating throughout the Western Pacific with VMFA-212, the first F-35B squadron to be deployed onto a ARG. It seems that the Wasp was only deployed to 7th Fleet to test out/gauge how the F-35B does on an actual real world, realistic deployment, as well as incorporating the platform into actual ARG/MEU/Amphib operations, giving data for the boys back in the US.
It Seem that the USS America will play a more fixed wing centric role when it deploys, due to it being an LHA, and not an LHD. It has been said a few times that the America is aimed to test and flesh out new operational concepts, as well as actual flotilla disposition/composition. Might be used as an ad-hoc light carrier, maybe to act as afiresupport platform going into the future, primarily carrying 12+ F-35Bs to provide CAS to a landing force on a contested island? Tell me what you guys think.
This is one of the juicy articles I hope most of the thread revolves around.
>news.usni.org
>The Marine Corps is further developing concepts like the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations and Littoral Operations in a Contested Environment
Think of US A2/AD zones, forward staging areas/resupply points
>but there are some materiel changes the Navy will need to make, such as upgunning amphibious ships and connecting amphibs into the surface combatants’ and aircraft carriers’ tactical grid, leaders said last week at the Surface Navy Association’s annual national symposium.
Not really surprising, but a high end amphibious operation will not just be an ARG/ESG doing their own thing, it will play into a much, much larger and cohesive force. They will need a CSG to provide CAP/BARCAP, anti surface attack, regular CAS, and even ASW operations, same for DDGs/SAGs. More on this later.
>That level of integrated naval operations could be needed to take an island somewhere – natural or manmade.
We are now going to train our entire fleet to invade and capture Chinese man made islands.
>But it certainly will be required when a great power competition pits a whale against an elephant, or maybe two elephants – a global maritime power, that’s us, against a regional land power hegemon with home-field advantage. In that long war, maritime superiority is necessary but not sufficient for the whale to beat the elephant,” Coffman said, noting the Marines were readying themselves to conduct day-to-day competition, deterrence against malign actions, and, if necessary, major combat operations in this high-end environment.
>“So what we need to do is reinvigorate naval maneuver warfare, linking sea control and power projection in order to win current and future fights.”
Think of large scale fleet exercises from the late Cold War/ mid 90s.
>news.usni.org
Continued reading for post above, if this stuff interests you
>news.usni.org
We sailed through the Taiwan Strait again. VERY interested in how Taiwan will play into US Foreign Policy/Military Strategy going into the future now that we don’t really care what the PRC has to say about our interactions with real China. Especially now that it seems like we actively want to piss them off.
>youtube.com
Video that a few of these articles have been referencing, and even then it isn’t the actual Surface Navy Association 2019 conference. HIGHLY recommend everyone to watch the whole video.
Major points
>traditional ARG/MEUs are not deemed obsolete/ineffective at fighting a great power war/conflict. USN/USMC will have to test out new operational/tactical/deployment/and flotilla concepts to become effective again. See posts above.
>USS America/Tripoli might spend a lot of their deployment times in WESTPAC
Finale: The United States is now planning to conduct a “Global Maritime Exercise” in 2020, now that this is intentionally left vague, with little information, I think that if one were to connect dots, it’s pretty obvious what this implies. Earlier throughout last year I have read from multiple sources that have stated that the USN wants to start conducting “Fleet Problems” that are more than just surface groups conducting high end exercises(which will happen on it’s own), but entire fleets operating as a cohesive, strategic force that will respond to a flashpoint, since the US now seems to think that flashpoints will become the most likely catalyst for pitting two opposing great powers into direct conflict.
Interpret this how you will.
China, you wanted to be taken as a serious geostrategic adversary, be careful what you wish for
---End of first posts---
China's population eclipses that of the USA, Europe, Japan, and Australia combined.
YOU WILL LOSE in the long run.
What's the point in the America class assault ships?
Seems like they are a downgrade in capability across the board, for 1 or 2 more f35s to fit on the deck.
>piss bottles and kettlebells
>half the equipment in the CIC not actually working
Until china has another civil war and the dragon eats itself.
My 20+ yrs experience with Mainland Chinese tells me one thing. Individuals care about themselves far more than any cause, or nationalistic binding. Give them a hint of self advancement, profit, or dare I say, freedom, and things will get really messy.
This is highly presumptuous, of course. /PFG/ Guy's posts point to a more sensible position.
On that note, I must say /PFG/ Guy, is, in my opinion, an exemplary non-faggot. Equal to Oppenheimer, and Dragon029, in his field.
Thankyou OP, you're not a faggot today.
They're in the midst of a pretty serious demographic decline so I wouldn't be so sure about that. That, and in a shooting war a population that large can just as quickly become a liability as opposed to an asset. They can only arm as many people as they can afford to and their nominal GDP is smaller than that of the U.S. However, even though their PPP (arguably more useful for military purposes) is higher than that of the U.S. in shooting war on their home terf it's unlikely that they'll be operating at anything resembling similar levels of non-wartime productivity. Beyond that though none of this matters. The fact is that after the Chinese Navy is defeated, the war is for all intents and purposes over.
Compared to what? The Wasp? I think it's worth saying that the addition of even two F-35s to the America class is a pretty significant capability. But in the end it depends on hour you're trying to use the thing in the first place. The Amphibious landing capability of an individual ship may be diminished but these operate within the context of multiple ships in a landing force. Not exactly me defending it, just me asking what about this new configuration makes it so much worse per say.
Do you know which /PFG/ this was? I don't recall you numbering them. It would be good to see this info though.
I miss Dragon. The threads with Opp was fun to read but somewhat above my level of understanding, but the F35 threads with Dragon was the sweet stuff.
I’ll write about it in a little more detail later, but suffice it to say the flight 0 Americas have massively more hanger space and aviation fuel capacity than the Wasp. It even carries more fuel than the QE.
Oh really? So where do you think this user gets his negative impression from?
This faggot pretends to know about the region, but cannot tell you about the role of the most important country in the region, Malaysia
>t. Mike
Keep talking, don’t mind me, just spraying for bugs.
动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门
Nukes.
There is more to flying fixed wing aircraft than how many fit on the deck.
defensenews.com
All W76 warheads have been upgraded to W76-1.
Yes, nukes. Sweet, sweet nukes
>It even carries more fuel than the QE.
How do you know how much fuel the QEs (plural since there's two) carry? When as far as I'm aware, that isn't public record.
Lockheed inadvertently displayed their FFG(X) at SNA 2019.
*yawn*
Call me when there's the low-yield ready.
What ever happened to the RATTLRS program?
Looks like the ship is next to be unlocked in some kind of World of Warships-knockoff
>Lockshart making ships
Let ingalls handle this one.
Either cancelled or evolved into Sea Dragon.
The other potential Sea Dragon being a 21 inch SM-6.
Are you even aware what HII's FFG(X) is?
I wish someone would write a piece on Jow Forums regarding the Japanese Occupation of Taiwan and the White Terror (after Japan got crushed in 1945 and lost grip of Taiwan, the KMT losing a war with the ChiComms fled to independent Republic of Formosa and made much more terrifying despots than Japan).
I'd like to think my parents, having family who lived through Feb 28th, 1947 and witnessed the White Terror, would be more supportive of 2A rights.
But the 38 year long martial law period might have raised boomers in Taiwan to be (outwardly appearing) boring, unimaginative, and docile people.
Looks like the American FREMM and not the enlarged Freedom.
>No more memeing, no more scoffing, play hardball.
Anyone else get a feeling that once the brass has had their go at turning this into concrete actions, the end result will mostly just be even less sleep for everyone involved?
mothballed and/or merged into another black project
We knock out a power grid and the cities will riot apart
Could just drop airborne rabies over mainland China.
Give it a week before they turn to eating each other as all the labradoodles have gone rabid
Is this a new battlefield 4 dlc?
An adaptation of the NSC, if I'm not mistaken
Given that the deckhouse is a literal brick, I can see why they ditched the AEMS
Hey fellas, try to avoid discussing procurement related topics in the thread. Ill try to make a thread dedicated to shipbulidng/modernization/general procurement in the future
Its from LM's interactive display they have at conventions.
Apologies, and that does sound like a fun thread
>I'm the goofball shilling for my bigger Burke design
For now, I had a weird idea: what if the Russkies move the Kuz to Kamchatka for repairs and let it putter around the Pacific for a bit in cooperation w/Chyna?
>The United States is now planning to conduct a “Global Maritime Exercise” in 2020, now that this is intentionally left vague, with little information, I think that if one were to connect dots, it’s pretty obvious what this implies. Earlier throughout last year I have read from multiple sources that have stated that the USN wants to start conducting “Fleet Problems” that are more than just surface groups conducting high end exercises(which will happen on it’s own), but entire fleets operating as a cohesive, strategic force that will respond to a flashpoint, since the US now seems to think that flashpoints will become the most likely catalyst for pitting two opposing great powers into direct conflict.
Isn't the QE supposed to have the full air wing by 2020? She and an America class would make excellent stand ins for Chinese carriers for an OpFor force. With the "global" in the title I would like to imagine an exercise where an Atlantic based carrier group has to do a high speed run to the Pacific in order to support and carrier battle group.
Do we know anything about future Chinese exercises? Large scale amphibious exercises might tip their hand but it would interesting to see how the branches of the PLA perform together.
I'd imagine the loss of pride for the Russians would make such a thing unlikely to happen
>Apologies, and that does sound like a fun thread
Dont sweat it man, no biggie.
>I'm the goofball shilling for my bigger Burke design
The Burke design is becoming the big dumb ya dingus.
>For now, I had a weird idea: what if the Russkies move the Kuz to Kamchatka for repairs and let it putter around the Pacific for a bit in cooperation w/Chyna?
Half expecting the Kutz to be a write off desu. Their Pacific fleet is a joke and wont be able to break out of The Sea of Japan.
>Isn't the QE supposed to have the full air wing by 2020?
Iirc she hits IOC/Carrier Op cetified in 2020, but not CSG Op certified until 2021, when she does her first deployment in the SCS.
>She and an America class would make excellent stand ins for Chinese carriers for an OpFor force.
They defintely would, but they'll probably use actual CVNs for Opfor, since the CNO, Sec of the Navy, among others have been quoted saying they wanna pit CSGs against eachother. They also said they wanna incorporate allied CSGs into these Fleet Problems, so who knows.
>With the "global" in the title I would like to imagine an exercise where an Atlantic based carrier group has to do a high speed run to the Pacific in order to support and carrier battle group.
I think itll be more along the lines of 3rd Fleet supporting 7th Fleet in hypothetical flashpoint. Not a "true" global operation. But who knows desu
Should be /PFG/ 11 or 10.5, check desuarchieve. If you still cant find it lmk and ill just post the links.
That would be interesting as the Kuz would be based up North with the Liaoning in the south, but the Russian Pacific Fleet is very small compared to the North Fleet so offensive operations would be no go but an joint exercise would be interesting. Allow the Chinese to practice attacking a carrier.
The America class has made some sacrifices in capability in comparison to the Wasp, but this is due to the changing nature of the whole amphibious ready group in the future. With the San Antonio having already replaced the Austins and providing far more capability, and also set to replace the LSDs, USN amphibious groups are going to see a surplus of available space and capability. Therefore it's only logical to shift it around.
Wasp, America Flight 0, and America Flight 1.
Full load displacement - 41,772 | 43,745 | 43,329
Aviation Support (ft2) - 31,559 | 47,284 | 38,049
Cargo fuel, JP-5 (gal) - 585,000 | 1,330,000 | 585,000
Well Deck LCAC Capacity - 3 | 0 | 2
Hangar area (ft2) - 18,745 | 28,142 | 28,142
Vehicle stowage area (ft2) - 28,645 | 18,911 | 16,011
Troop Capacity: 1687 (1871 surge) | 1687 (1871 surge) | 1462 (1612 surge)
Looking at it, it's pretty easy to see here the justifications the navy is considering. Vehicle stowage went way down with the America. The Flight 1 lost even more vehicle stowage and also had to get rid of a troop berthing in order to get a smaller well deck back and keep much of it's enhanced aviation capability at the same time. But the replacement of the older LSDs with the San Antonio will get pretty much all of this back.
Likely the two Flight 0 ships will be mainly in the "Lightning Carrier" role, which their massively inflated aviation capability makes them well-suited for. The Flight 1s will continue in the traditional role of the Wasps, but with the ability to focus more on aviation thanks to greater capabilities elsewhere in the naval group.
The information was released in a Royal Navy press statement.
>The answer: 4,000,000 litres of F-76 for the ship and 3,000,000 litres (~800,000 gallons) of F-44 for the embarked aircraft.
F-44 and JP-5 are the same thing btw.
Kek, how did you reach 10.5?
I don't think the QE is supposed to have a full air wing until 2023. She's supposed to have USMC pilots and F-35s for her first deployment due to this.
General question: how do Chinese anti-air/missile defenses stack up against something like Aegis? Could a task force of Chinese destroyers effectively defend a CSG from air attack? They're building out a ton of new vessels and trying to make more carriers, but can they carry out effective carrier ops in a hostile environment?
Noone knows for real, but CMANO test results show:
A single 052D is very capable of defending against conventional saturation-type air attacks by harpoons and SLAM-ER at maximum detection range of their ship-borne AEW&C helicopters.
LRASM will shorten that engagement distance considerably (until the shipborne AESA will "burn through" the stealth), but anything short of firing dozens against a single ship will be very likely defeated.
Impressive, the scenario stands.
I just saw this, thanks man :3
Im better than Opps and Dragon though. They smell like crayons
10.5 was a "/PFG/ Lite, the precessor to what /PFB/s are. So i just was gonna call them half of a real /PFG/ thread.
I like this layout better though
Furthermore, CMANO has the problem that it uses extremely conservative stats for chinese weapons and units. The 052D's main naval SAM, the HQ-9B, for example, has been confirmed in recent chinese airshows to be an active radar + ImIR seeking missile with a range beyond 200km. But in the game, they are modeled with their early 2010s guestimated stats of 170km and semi-active/TVM+IR seeking missile, which severely limits its capability to engage sea-skimmers beyond horizon.
Recent TV footages have featured 052Ds shooting down sea-skimmer targets at extended ranges, while PLAN insiders have revealed details about the CEC capabilities on newer Chinese warships since the 051C class.
So, yeah. I would judge the more recent HQ-9B variants to be comparable with a shorter ranged SM-6 in terms of capability.
Much accuracy, much scenario standing.
The 101 Nanchang, leadship of the Type 055 DDGs soon to be delivered to the PLAN!
I'm confident a few people will recognize this map, as I see people paraphrasing Peter Zeihan all the time these days. My question for /PFG/ is this; what are the chances of the US+allies adopting an at-arms-length naval strategy regarding China? It seems plausible that the PLAAN can be boxed in close to its own territory. From there the US or a coalition can simply interdict all attempts to supply China with petroleum, as far away as the Indian Ocean if necessary, and force an end to the war by crashing their economy and running their military out of fuel. This could take longer than a straight up slugfest but in my layman reasoning it sounds like a method to beating China while incurring very few losses preferable to the thought of deploying Marines to Asia and risking all sorts of shenanigans on land and in the littoral zone.
Go on and try to bomb Russia to prevent them supplying oil to China.
Because Russia has now become China's biggest oil supplier over Saudi Arabia.
And interdicting "chinese tankers" is impossible, since they all sail under non-chinese flags and might as well supply Taiwan, Japan, South Korea as well. You can only blockade the entire SCS, but this hurts your allies more than China, since China has a land-route for oil and gas while e.g. Japan doesnt.
Away from my PC for day, cant really give an actual response. Ill give an actual in depth reply later tonight. Fantastic question.
>Because Russia has now become China's biggest oil supplier over Saudi Arabia.
Top supplier, sure but Russia alone is nowhere near enough. Import, export, and consumption figures are in the map I posted. Russia has the European market to import to, and it's oil infrastructure in the Far East is far too primitive to handle Chinese much demand. Even if all the oil was no longer needed in Europe and magically transported to the PRC, it would still fall far short of what China needs to keep going, especially in wartime. Its pipelines in Asia aren't close to making the difference either.
>And interdicting "chinese tankers" is impossible, since they all sail under non-chinese flags and might as well supply Taiwan, Japan, South Korea as well.
I know this is easier said than done, but I'm sure some methodology could be worked out. Perhaps routing all tanker traffic through certain corridors outside of which ships will be intercepted. I imagine it's pretty easy to tell when a ship is heading for Shanghai or Shenzhen instead of Taipei or Tokyo. It would surely be a hassle, but it would seem to risk far fewer assets than a more involved naval strategy.
China is also the biggest customer of Russian oil and gas, getting more from Russia than even whole of Europe combined.
Not bad for "primitive infrastructure"...
In the end, China itself isnt an oil-poor country either. Those oil fields in the Tarim basin and Gobi deserts are huge in their own right.
Blockade would hurt for a moment, but China is very fast in economic mobilization and a war-time economy will use less petroleum than their civilian economy, especially with rationing and priority for the war-machine.
Before 1990 China was even an oil exporting country.
Chinese oilfield related.
Oil production, within the top 5.
finally a chink containment thread. good job OP
More detailed oil field map.
Bottom line is that people should really forget about blockading China's energy lines to bring it down.
People think that China is like a second Imperial Japan or Germany or something, while in reality, they are more like the USSR.
You do not blockade huge continental empires in hopes to bring them down. It just doesnt work.
Do your Three Gorges Dam strike or whatever instead. Would cause more damage than some attempt of replicating Napoleon's continental blockade.
How much of that would meet their enormous requirements? What about food, for that matter? The CCP only has support because they've managed to enrich the middle class.
The difference between consumption and production the concern, not just their raw output. It doesn't matter how impressive Chinese production is if they need double or triple that to keep going.
>Do your Three Gorges Dam strike or whatever instead.
I am curious about this though. Has any comprehensive analysis been done on what the results of a dam break at Three Gorges?
>Produces 4,189,000 bbl/day
>Consumes 13,226,000 bbl/day
That's a huge gap which if disrupted would be utterly devastating to the Chinese economy. Furthermore, according to a state funded report by China University of Petroleum, Chinese oil production is peaking. So if the CCP believes that it won't be able to produce significantly more than it already does, what makes you think it will?
"A review of physical supply and EROI of fossil fuels in China" by Jian-Liang, Jiang-Xuan Feng, Yongmei Bentley, Lian-Yong Feng, Hui Qu
My scenario stands.
You do know that China's consumption is based on being the factory for the entire world?
What will happen when China's trade is blockaded in a war? Will China still engage in being the factory for the world or will they naturally reduce their consumption because their civilian economy has basically ended?
>The CCP only has support because they've managed to enrich the middle class.
And the middle class will continue to support them when it is the West who is declaring war on China for the sole reason that China doesnt want to stop advancing. If there is anyone who supports the regime, it is the middle class - not just because the CCP delivers growth, but also because they are scared of what will come after the CCP. Political turmoil and civil war is still fresh in their minds and they are scared of losing everything that they have gained in the last 40 years.
Chinese middle class is thus very supportive of authoritarian leadership since they believe that only a dictatorship can maintain peace and social cohesion. The fun thing is that the Chinese do not even think that they are a dictatorship because they are culturally inclined to accept paternalistic governments anyway.
youtube.com
>What about food, for that matter?
Food is not a problem when they have mobilized for war-economy. Not only they import grain from Russia, their domestic self-sufficiency for rice and wheat stands at 95% and what they import is for expanding their plate since middle class people want to eat more meat.
But this will change during war mobilization and the end of the civilian economy.
Those large starvations of the 1950s were caused not because of bad crops or insufficient farmlands, but due to stupid economic policies - and China had only 400 million people at that time. So there were no real reasons for those famines to happen aside of Mao's retarded policies.
China in the 70s already had a billion people and imported no food from anywhere and they were still self-sufficient. If there was a blockade, they would scale down meat production and ration food to preserve food supply.
>Food is not a problem when they have mobilized for war-economy
>40,000 civilians eaten
cope
cope
cope
cope
yikes
>China still developing its first railgun
>America is already adapting railgun tech to other weaponry
>number of american(british) railguns put on an actual ship: 0
Read the first post
>Please ignore blatant shitposters, or attempts at derailing the thread. If a poster seems to be a troll, they probably are, try to keep it civil and stay on topic.
Or those factories will be repurposed for munitions. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the Chinese vs. the US ability to replace munitions and equipment.
So the USCGC Bertholf was recently deployed to the Western Pacific. Does the Coast Guard deploy ships overseas like this often?
I can't help it, sorry
The vast majority of Chinese consumption of oil is for transportation. The massive urbanization that has occurred in China is possible thanks to the fact that Chinese agriculture can be put into trucks and driven to local supermarkets. If Oil supply is limited to just Chinese production you would see large increases in food costs and all sorts of headaches. Furthermore an American blockade isn't the only possible crisis. I would argue a greater risk is Iran vs KSA heating up into a shooting war which closes the Strait of Hormuz with a US which is indifferent due to it's own energy independence. The Chinese economy would grind to a halt and insolvency rates would skyrocket as their massive debts have been made with the assumption of high growth. There are many ways China can get screwed in an increasingly chaotic world due to their lack of energy security and the US has all the incentives to let the Chines house of cards fall apart.
>Im better than Opps
You and me are going to fight.
>You do know that China's consumption is based on being the factory for the entire world?
Not the guy you're replying to but the guy who first brought up Chinese oil consumption/imports. This is a very good point, Chinese oil consumption would certainly decrease if a war started. However, I think you are drastically underestimating just how terrible the effects of that are for the CCP. If the civilian economy ends, as you muse, then that's the beginning of the end for their government. They derive legitimacy from their ability to deliver on growth and improved quality of life. When that faucet stops, say goodbye to Chinese unity. With the trade war putting the squeeze on them already, we've seen their leadership focus on nationalism over prosperity. In a shooting war where the US is really jerking on the economic levers, they won't last long. That as much as oil itself was my point in my post.
Bring it on you sentient titan ll
Soon...
The W76-2? I think the more interesting question is what the delivery platform will be.
cringe
>cope
There's significant quantities of oil in the SCS littoral so unless your strat fences them off from there you're going to have problems.
In a naval war I don't see how China can secure the SCS littoral for exploitation. It will be far too at risk from Japan, Taiwan, the US, and whoever else has a bone to pick with the chicoms. That oil is something they can make use of if they won the war, but certainly not during.
I agree but the scenario condition specified interdicting supply at the Indian Ocean. My, perhaps foolish, assumption is that CH could intimidate SCS neighbours enough to industrialize some oilfields.
I guess it depends on scenario details, example; if CH had already wiped Vietnam's fleet, owned Taiwan, and increased militarization of the SCS islands, it would be much harder to stop them.
i've always thought that a naval war between china and USA would be a disaster for the chinese. their entire coastline is surrounded by US allies and countries hostile/wary of china.
>japan
>korea
>philipines
>vietnam
>palau
>guam/marianas
>now singapore as well?
they could just completely wreck the ability of china to do any trade over the ocean. complete blockade of the whole country. while the naval war is ruining the entire economy, i would encourage separatist movements in the uirgur provinces, tibet, hongkong, and make the taiwan independence official. i bet india would use the chaos to nip a bit of land away as well.
anyone know what side indonesia stands on? on one hand they must be afraid of china, on the other hand they are muslim and probably hate the US. on the other hand they probably hate china more because they are muslim.