Chinese Naval Might

[Patroklos]

What makes you think the Chinese are really that interested in projecting naval power a great distance from home? They don't need to do so in order to achieve hegemony in Asia.

As long as we can instakill China by denying them access to African/Middle East resources they are a second teir power.

Them being able to control their littorals (and yes, it would be a bloody mess for the US to control anything within shore based missile range of China) is useful for immediate defense, but no realistic US strategy against China would call for us needing to control those littorals.

[Felch]

As long as our Navy is complacent in their thinking, and continues to underestimate China's growth, we'll have a dim future ahead.

[Darius871]

As long as we can instakill China by denying them access to African/Middle East resources they are a second tier power.

Bingo, thread over, nothing to see here folks.

[Drake Tungsten]

You guys do know that China has a land route to the Middle East and its resources, right? Positive relations with Iran and the Stans are a lot more important to Chinese resource security than a power-projecting navy is.

[Patroklos]

Did you just insinuate that China has a chance in hell of transporting even a single digit percentage of their seaborne resource trade via overland routes? Seriously?

Assuming the produce several dozen super highways/several dozen rail corridors/several dozen pipelines through some of the most inhospitable terrain on the planet and through a half dozen countries all in under a decade, this would be even easier to interdict that sea trade.

China has one option to secure its resource lifelines and that is to build a blue water navy that can challenge the combined might of Europe/North America/Asia at the same time. There is no possibility of inside the next half century.

[Darius871]

^^^
| | |

[Drake Tungsten]

Did you just insinuate that China has a chance in hell of transporting even a single digit percentage of their seaborne resource trade via overland routes?

Yes. Maybe you should read up on China's activities in Central Asia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan-China_oil_pipeline

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asia%E2%80%93China_gas_pipeline

[Darius871]

Then change "even a single digit percentage" to "even a double digit percentage" - so what? The instakill result would be the same. Those articles list the pipelines' maximum discharges upfront.

That, and as Patroklos said, a stationary pipeline's even easier to interdict than a number of ships.

[Drake Tungsten]

You act as though those are the only pipelines that are ever going to exist. China's getting a pipeline extension from Russia in the next few years and the possibility of extending pipelines to Iran and maybe even Iraq is there. And building new pipelines is a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than building a blue-water navy that will only be needed in a major war with the US that might not ever happen.

[Darius871]

You act as though those are the only pipelines that are ever going to exist. China's getting a pipeline extension from Russia in the next few years and the possibility of extending pipelines to Iran and maybe even Iraq is there. And building new pipelines is a hell of a lot cheaper and easier than building a blue-water navy that will only be needed in a major war with the US that might not ever happen.

BFD; wake me up when their capacity reaches anything near China's gargantuan 6.93 bbl/day, and even then I'll still tell you that the USAF/USN will make quick work of it.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'll still tell you that the USAF will make quick work of it.

Good luck getting the basing rights in Central Asia for that.

[Darius871]

I'll still tell you that the USAF will make quick work of it.

Good luck getting the basing rights in Central Asia for that.

A) I DanS'ed you. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USN#Aircraft.

B) Even B-2's and B-1's have an operational range of ~7,000 miles, which is just barely within range of Diego Garcia depending on the target, and is even more likely within range of the "undisclosed forward operating location" also used against Iraq, but in any event B-52's have an operational range of ~12000 miles. If the pipelines would be worth losing a few bombers over, and they would be, they'd be toast inside 48 hours.

[Felch]

Assuming the produce several dozen super highways/several dozen rail corridors/several dozen pipelines through some of the most inhospitable terrain on the planet and through a half dozen countries all in under a decade, this would be even easier to interdict that sea trade.

If only the Chinese had some massive source of cheap labor. You know how we had all those guys to build our transcontinental railroad? I forget where they came from...

[Drake Tungsten]

A) I DanS'ed you.

The USN is even less capable of striking a Chinese pipeline in Xinjiang. Using carrier-based airpower in Afghanistan was hard enough.

Even B-2's and B-1's have an operational range of ~7,000 miles, which is just barely within range of Diego Garcia depending on the target, and is even more likely within range of the "undisclosed forward operating location" also used against Iraq, but in any event B-52's have an operational range of ~12000 miles.

You think China is just going to sit by as B-1s and B-52s lumber over the Himalayas? B-2s are the only plausible option, but that's a hell of a risk to take with a $2 billion dollar plane.

[Darius871]

You think China is just going to sit by as B-1s and B-52s lumber over the Himalayas? B-2s are the only plausible option, but that's a hell of a risk to take with a $2 billion dollar plane.

Hence my other DanS. Geez, you keep the quote page up that long?

If the pipelines would be worth losing a few bombers over, and they would be, they'd be toast inside 48 hours.

Also, the USN's role would not just be adding bombers but providing fighter support for USAF bombers. They could mitigate to acceptable losses.