PLA Navy and Naval Air Force

KiloGolf wrote:

What?
PLA used a limited contingent against Vietnam (no massive mobilization or allocation of forces) and set very limited goals, which they met and then f'ed off.

Isos wrote:

You don't need to cross the T today just push some buttons to launch missiles. You also need good datalinks, communication and good radars.

No need of combat experience to push buttons. All the modern navies have 0 combat experience in naval wars. All the guys that participated to the falklands or first golf war or israelo-arabs navals wars or indo pakistani naval wars are not in the navy anymore.

US have never experienced the lose of one carrier with 5000 people on bord. Wesern countries are shoked when one soldier die in afghanistan what would be their reaction to 5000 dead in a carrier sinking.

What would make them lose near their shores is the bad quality of their equipment which is in my opinion very bad in terms of quality because it is a mix of western and russian copies.

Vladimir79 wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

What?
PLA used a limited contingent against Vietnam (no massive mobilization or allocation of forces) and set very limited goals, which they met and then f'ed off.

What?
PLA used 600,000 soldiers and suffered 10% casualties, it was one of the most humiliating defeats in modern times.  They were fighting a war like it was 1914 in 1979.  Even the Viet were surprised at how easily they defeated them.  

Isos wrote:even US SOSUS doesn't detect russian subs. What makes you think that a chinese would detect western ones? Chinese technology is far behind western's. That's a fact. This SOSUS could protect a port from swimmers and subs in small space but not all the coast.

KiloGolf wrote:

Nope, only about 200k crossed into Vietnam. The rest remained in the PRC.
The aim was to stop at the gates of Lang Son and lure back PAVN forces stationed in Cambodia. Both USSR and USA were kept in the loop about the operation and its limited scope. Ultimately and upon facing C3 difficulties and failing to force Vietnam to leave Cambodia, PRC kept its promise to the Americans and Soviets, PLA trashed the place and left with the keys to Hanoi.

Ergo Vietnam was warned to stay in their place, albeit PLA's tactical setbacks (from which they got lessons learned).

Isos wrote:

Combat experience has nothing to do with this. They send a carrier with tens of frigate bomb unarmed countries. Would this "combat experience" help them if tmr an oscar fires 72 oniks on their carrier ? No.

Actually it is the opposite most of their soldier feel invincible because they don't lose any of them during those wars. If one carrier is destroyed, the crews of the other carrier will be paralized when facing subs that they can't see or groups of bombers launching their missiles 1000km away.

The loss of the 2 jets is because of the bad ship and lack of money to buy new equipment. A deployment mission for a carrier to bombs terrorist doesn't give you anything more than bombing practice target. That has nothing to do with conventional wars.

Vladimir79 wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

Nope, only about 200k crossed into Vietnam. The rest remained in the PRC.
The aim was to stop at the gates of Lang Son and lure back PAVN forces stationed in Cambodia. Both USSR and USA were kept in the loop about the operation and its limited scope. Ultimately and upon facing C3 difficulties and failing to force Vietnam to leave Cambodia, PRC kept its promise to the Americans and Soviets, PLA trashed the place and left with the keys to Hanoi.

Ergo Vietnam was warned to stay in their place, albeit PLA's tactical setbacks (from which they got lessons learned).

They mobilised 600k, 200k went in the first wave, when that was defeated they sent another 200k

Tsavo Lion wrote:
Even if so, the Chinese SOSUS is newer & will be more concentrated in key areas of coke points & therefore may be more effective.
When deployed, any ship & sub is on a war footing; it doesn't matter if weapons r being used or not. Training is conducted with or w/o actual shooting. Damage control & using radars, sonars, C4IR, actual or simulated, is part of it. The BSF "sank at least one and possibly two of the Georgian patrol boats." http://www.ponarseurasia.org/sites/default/files/policy-memos-pdf/pepm_048.pdf

A PRC pilot forced USN EP-3 to land on Hainan, & a PLAN SSK surfaced in the middle of USN CSG:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident

https://thediplomat.com/2015/12/the-chinese-submarine-threat/

So on that score they all have combat experience.

KiloGolf wrote:

I doubt that. It was just 200k PLA in 'Nam, the rest were in China pulling off landing exercises and supporting or possibly rotating.

PS. Fast forward to 2018, PRC owns the entire South China Sea, not bad for them.

Vladimir79 wrote:If you call flying too close to an aircraft that ends up killing the Chinese pilot combat experience you might as well stop now.   Aviation training in China is similar doctrine to the Soviet doctrine.  It is antiquated and not useful against the modern NATO doctrine.  Yes, sinking Georgian patrol boats is combat experience for our navy, something China doesn't have.  

Vladimir79 wrote: If China owned the South China Sea the French would not be able to sail freely and conduct training in it.  

KiloGolf wrote:

China has money and industrial base to compensate. It's the same scenario for USA vs Japan right before Pearl Harbor

KiloGolf wrote:

It's EEZ so all this is allowed during peace time. PRC owns the place when it comes to extracting and developing energy resources; and they control it at any given time if war breaks out.

KiloGolf wrote:

Vladimir79 wrote:If you call flying too close to an aircraft that ends up killing the Chinese pilot combat experience you might as well stop now.   Aviation training in China is similar doctrine to the Soviet doctrine.  It is antiquated and not useful against the modern NATO doctrine.  Yes, sinking Georgian patrol boats is combat experience for our navy, something China doesn't have.  

China has money and industrial base to compensate. It's the same scenario for USA vs Japan right before Pearl Harbor

Vladimir79 wrote:

KiloGolf wrote:

It's EEZ so all this is allowed during peace time. PRC owns the place when it comes to extracting and developing energy resources; and they control it at any given time if war breaks out.

China claims it, no one recognises it.  You don't see them drilling out in disputed areas do you?  Rosneft is drilling in Vietnam waters claimed by China, all China could do was shake its fists.  

Isos wrote:Argetina had only 6 exocet missiles and they almost won against UK that has centuries of combat experience and that had two deployed carriers ... naval war are made with missiles and radars, your crew must be good with computers, not experienced at war. Their carrier were even targeted but they manage to jam the missiles because french helped them. If they had another 24 jet annd a hundred of exocet more ...

Fighter bombers from the ground can also target ships by staying far away from its air defence missiles. You don't need a carrier for that. Again Argetina proved it.

Chinese j-20 looks more like a missile carrier with long legs than a fighter. The main threat is the US carriers not its f-35. So for defending their mainland it is more than enough. That is based on soviet doctrine of massive missile strike that doesn't require state of art technology. The carriers will need to stay far away where f-35 can't do anything. It's funny to say western navies are doing exercice there but the day there is a big incident they will become easy targets specially french one because they have 1 carrier so those ships don't have airborne escort to protect them.


The loss of a MiG-29K and an Su-33 in the same deployment is devastating but it has nothing to do with the deployment. If they have trained the crew normaly that would have occured in the barents sea because the ship is old and they don't take care of it.

KiloGolf wrote:

I think they have a two-tiered claim, maximum and desirable. Rosneft's plot is beyond their desirable area, so they let it pass.

Elaborating on Mao's concept of active defense—tactically offensive action with a defensive strategy—Chinese strategy was designed to defeat a Soviet invasion before it could penetrate deeply into China. Chinese strategists envisaged a forward defense, that is, near the border, to prevent attack on Chinese cities and industrial facilities, particularly in north and northeast China. Such a defense-in-depth would require more positional warfare, much closer to the border, in the initial stages of a conflict. This strategy downplayed the people's war strategy of "luring in deep" in a protracted war, and it took into account the adaptations in strategy and tactics necessitated by technological advances in weaponry. The PLA emphasized military operations using modernized, combined arms tactics for the dual purpose of making the most effective use of current force structure and of preparing the armed forces for more advanced weaponry in the future.

The doctrine of "people's war under modern conditions" also incorporated the use of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. China's own nuclear forces, which developed a second-strike capability in the early 1980s, provided Beijing with a credible, if minimum, deterrent against Soviet or United States nuclear attack. China repeatedly has vowed never to use nuclear weapons first, but it has promised retaliation against a nuclear attack. Chinese strategists also evinced an interest in tactical nuclear weapons, and the PLA has simulated battlefield use of such weapons in offensive and defensive exercises. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernization_of_the_People%27s_Liberation_Army#Doctrine,_strategy,_and_tactics

.. Gaps in certain capability remain—most notably in the development of some sophisticated electronic systems and sufficiently reliable and powerful propulsion systems—but China's defense industry is now producing warships and submarines, land systems and aircraft that provide the Chinese armed forces with a capability edge over most military operating in the Asia-Pacific. Where indigenous capability still falls short, China procures from Russia and, until local industry eventually bridges the gap, it hopes that quantity will overcome quality. ..According to The National Interest, Chinese industry can still learn much from Russia, but in many areas it has caught up with its model. The vibrancy of China’s tech sector suggests that Chinese military technology will leap ahead of Russian tech in the next decade.
Modernization efforts were originally planned to be completed by 2049. However, following the 10th CCP National Congress in 2017, Xi Jinping announced modernization to be completed by 2035. China watchers regard the revised timeline as a sign for the success of the reforms, although issues shortfalls remain, specifically in the areas of capability development and combat readiness of the Air Force and infantry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernization_of_the_People%27s_Liberation_Army

George1 wrote:the discussion has gone off-topic

PS. Fast forward to 2018, PRC owns the entire South China Sea, not bad for them.

China has money and industrial base to compensate.

It's EEZ so all this is allowed during peace time. PRC owns the place when it comes to extracting and developing energy resources; and they control it at any given time if war breaks out.

The loss of a MiG-29K and an Su-33 in the same deployment is devastating but it has nothing to do with the deployment. If they have trained the crew normaly that would have occured in the barents sea because the ship is old and they don't take care of it.