Help support TMP


"China Mocks The U.K.'s Deployment Of Its Navy To Asia" Topic


24 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Remember that you can Stifle members so that you don't have to read their posts.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2012-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Showcase Article


Current Poll


Featured Movie Review


732 hits since 8 Sep 2021
©1994-2021 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?


TMP logo

Membership

Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP08 Sep 2021 9:54 p.m. PST

"With two offshore patrol vessels setting out from a UK naval base on Tuesday, the country reportedly started to permanently station its warships in the Asia-Pacific region, at a time when the US is rallying its allies to the region in an attempt to confront and contain China.

Armed with only light weapons, the UK ships are only showing off their presence after Brexit and making political statements that the UK bows to the lead of the US.

And just like the ongoing tour of the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier to the region, these vessels cannot yield any military significance or become a real threat to the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA), Chinese analysts said on Tuesday…"
Main page
link

Armand

BattlerBritain09 Sep 2021 1:12 a.m. PST

Yeah I'd agree with that and I'm a Brit :)

We've got a nice new shiny aircraft carrier but not enough planes on it to do anything with and those that are there will spend most of the time in the hangar getting their bugs fixed.

As for supporting a 'fleet' the other side of the world when the fur starts flying?

Yeah dream on.

It's just a flag waving PR stunt but don't expect anything meaningful if a crunch comes.

My 2 cents,

B

jurgenation Supporting Member of TMP09 Sep 2021 4:06 a.m. PST

Except for the fact ,the US Navies 7th Fleet might have something to say about a untested Navy.

Personal logo SBminisguy Supporting Member of TMP09 Sep 2021 6:48 a.m. PST

Wonder what the West is gonna do when China demands the Sudetenland…

Legion 409 Sep 2021 7:42 a.m. PST

China is making fun of us … the Taliban are, etc., etc. Yes "oh how have the mighty fallen". But those making the decisions at the top still are getting a [BIG] paycheck.

Wonder what the West is gonna do when China demands the Sudetenland…
They won't demand it … they will just buy it.

Thresher0109 Sep 2021 9:51 a.m. PST

Apparently the Chinese appear to know little about modern naval warfare.

Those little OPVs could provide over-the-horizon missile targeting, if they are equipped with datalink, so while they may seem innocuous and of little threat, they may indeed present a real danger.

It's good that Chinese pundits, and perhaps even their naval strategists don't know how to think outside of the box yet. I hope that continues to be the case.

The UK carrier is certainly every bit as capable as the Chinese ones, since the Chinese are having difficulties getting their aircraft back aboard their vessels safely, and they are also limited in weapons and fuel loading for takeoffs, due to their launch ramps.

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP09 Sep 2021 3:10 p.m. PST

Thanks!

Armand

Tango01 Supporting Member of TMP09 Sep 2021 3:39 p.m. PST

China Now Threatening To Send Warships Inside US Territorial Waters


link

Armand

arealdeadone09 Sep 2021 4:33 p.m. PST

China Now Threatening To Send Warships Inside US Territorial Waters

Fair enough.

Apparently it's completely legal under the Law of the Sea. Americans and British have used it against Chinese and Russians before and the Chinese have done it to the US in the past (Aleutians).

This happened in Cold War too – one noted incident US ships were 11 km and 16 km respectively from main Soviet Black Sea naval base of Sevastopol and ended up being "bumped" by Soviet frigates.

Inch High Guy09 Sep 2021 5:25 p.m. PST

1. I would expect the HMS Queen Elizabeth to deploy in a combined battlegroup with USN carriers in an anticipated or actual conflict.

2. It will be interesting to see if the PLAN is capable of deploying and logistically supporting an excursion to US territorial waters.

arealdeadone09 Sep 2021 6:04 p.m. PST

It will be interesting to see if the PLAN is capable of deploying and logistically supporting an excursion to US territorial waters.

They've already done it in 2015 when they deployed ships to Aleutians.

And again it's not 1950-53. Chinese navy isn't a bunch of WW2 era torpedo boats and armed fishing trawlers.

Chinese Navy has been deploying on anti-piracy operations to Indian Ocean for over a decade now.

Chinese naval groups have visited European ports in the last decade too including as north as Sweden and Finland.

A pleasure cruise up the US coast is not an issue.

Question:

Why do you guys base all your opinions on China on what was happening in the early 1950s?

Life in North Asia did continue after the armistice was signed on 27 July 1953. Time didn't just magically freeze.

arealdeadone09 Sep 2021 6:25 p.m. PST

Those little OPVs could provide over-the-horizon missile targeting, if they are equipped with datalink, so while they may seem innocuous and of little threat, they may indeed present a real danger.

Data links are irrelevant without the targeting sensors. Radars come in all shapes and sizes and functions.

A radar may be able to detect a ship or aircraft but not provide sensitive enough readings for targeting.

OPVs don't carry as powerful or capable radars or other sensors as warships. Eg the River class radars are 2D only (no elevation). They are a cheap unit designed for constabulary duties or 2nd world small combatants.


Whole purpose of OPVs is cheap they're are Coast Guard/patrol type ships, not warships.

So that River class OPV may detect something but it will struggle to use it for useful military purposes save notifying the rest of the fleet that something is there.


And also the OPV has no air defence at all save a 30mm gun. They also have no ASW capabilities.

As stated they're a patrol boat designed to deter pirates, smugglers and illegal fishermen, not a warship.


And all that assumes the Chinese aren't jamming the OPV or other ship's systems (yes the Chinese know about EW).


The UK carrier is certainly every bit as capable as the Chinese ones, since the Chinese are having difficulties getting their aircraft back aboard their vessels safely, and they are also limited in weapons and fuel loading for takeoffs, due to their launch ramps.

Problem isn't the Chinese carriers which are useless.

Problem is the SC Sea is close to Chinese land bases for long rang aircraft and missiles and China's massive fleet of littoral warships and submarines.

Chinese can lob truly huge amounts of firepower in the first island chain.


Even if the Chinese are as incompetent as a heroin addicted ANA deserter shooting up in some Kabul alley, some of those missiles will make it through.

And the British Navy has shrunk to such low numbers than they can't even withstand same losses as in Falklands (4 frigates/destroyers sunk and several damaged).

In fact if you sunk 4 RN warships and incurred major damage on another 4 (Falklands casualties) the RN would be left with no operational surface forces.

Thresher0109 Sep 2021 9:24 p.m. PST

"Data links are irrelevant without the targeting sensors. Radars come in all shapes and sizes and functions.

A radar may be able to detect a ship or aircraft but not provide sensitive enough readings for targeting".

Many SSMs, especially modern ones have multiple seeking radar modes, and the latest have the ARH systems, so you don't need precise data to use them. Just get them in the ballpark, and the Active Radar Homing seekers will turn on when they get within the approximate range to the target, and they can "find their way home" to hit their targets. A lot of this was available even back in the 1960s, and the new seekers are far more sophisticated today.

And, to thwart your anticipated Chinese jamming retort, you can bet at least some of the missiles will be of the Home on Jamming type, or they can switch to the HOJ mode, if the ARH homing mode is jammed.

"Chinese can lob truly huge amounts of firepower in the first island chain".

Our USN nuke subs can do the same with all of their missiles, which would no doubt happen if/when the Chinese decide to attack US or other allied forces.

arealdeadone09 Sep 2021 9:53 p.m. PST

Yes I know how modern AShm and SAMs work.

The bigger issue is the River class radar is very limited and only scans as far as the horizon itself so essentially it has to be very close to the Chinese fleet. In fact a Chinese warship with a higher situated radar mast will spot the OPV before the OPV spots the destroyer. Not to mention Maritime Patrol Aircraft.

It's a veritable suicide mission.

Same would apply if you used a Chinese coast guard cutter to spot for a Chinese battle group.

Our USN nuke subs can do the same with all of their missiles, which would no doubt happen if/when the Chinese decide to attack US or other allied forces.

Hypothetically up to this year your average US attack sub carried exactly 0 Harpoons. They stopped carrying Harpoons 25 years ago!

This year they signed an initial contract to refurbish 79 Sub Harpoons and reinstall fittings on old Los Angeles club subs.

link


This is what a lot of naval commentators have been saying for years the USN has not only ignored logistics and maintenance but core warfighting capabilities.

Heedless Horseman09 Sep 2021 10:01 p.m. PST

Why assume that the Patrol vessels are for 'Combat roles'? They are not capable… but 'hulls in water' may be able to play other roles in the 'game'.
'Teasing', 'testing', Political 'Showing The Flag'… Several Nations do the same with ineffectual vessels.

Or, there ARE 'other issues' apart from China. I would have thought that they should have been in Home Waters… but…?
RN is not all THAT stupid… they will be on a very expensive cruise for some purpose / purposes.
Maybe to 'free up' someones more useful vessel from Patrol duties… play a role in exercises… 'showcase' for potential buyers'? I don't know… it will show up.

arealdeadone09 Sep 2021 10:11 p.m. PST

Horseman,

I agree. OPVs are useful ships for constabulary and other non combat duties.

This deployment is tokenistic in reality the RN is barely sustaining its current workload with a lot of ships out of action (apparently only 1 out of 6 Type 45 destroyers) is operational and others being retired prematurely (2 Type 23s).

Basically post Brexit British government is trying to portray UK as a major and rather relevant power.

Heedless Horseman09 Sep 2021 11:52 p.m. PST

Well, we've pretty much got to start from scratch again, haven't we? LOL!

(Without Brexit, we would have eventually become sublimated into a small, irrelevant, part of an EU State… views differ, but a separate issue.).

As a lol, I can't but help being amused at the 'OLD' 'Cartoons' from 'political commentaries'… the ones with 'The British Bulldog'! Ha! Now, we are a 'small dog', 'Yapping'… but still annoying for 'Big Dogs'… just have to watch out for the Growls and WOOFS! I have a big GSD… with 'attitude'… but know that a small dog 'could' take his nose off… so… UK 'still a little relevant'.

Legion 410 Sep 2021 5:49 p.m. PST

The UK still has it's bite …

arealdeadone12 Sep 2021 4:03 p.m. PST

Legion,

Save 4 boomer subs, the UK has not bite in anything save a very short term, low risk operations like that in Sierra Leone in 2000.

It's down to the point where deploying a single armoured brigade would be a massive strain on the UK military (especially as they only have 3 and they're weak compared to your average Russian, American or North Asian armoured brigade!).


The Navy is a very thinly spread declining force with a measly 7 attack subs and 17 conventional vessels (2 are being retired early). The two carriers have virtually no fighters to operate from them (only 48 F-35s on order (and only 42 signed for) and not even all those 48 are combat birds). Total fleet is currently expected at 60 with a maybe 80.

Plans to grow frigate numbers are a joke as the Type 31 is really a large OPV and the Type 32 seems to be some sort of littoral vessel.

In reality there will only be 14 full spec frigate/destroyers 6 Type 45s (the unreliable ones of which only 1 out of 6 is currently operational) and 8 Type 26s.


That's not much bigger than Australia which plans to maintain a fleet of 12 surface combatants (3 Hobart class AWDs and 9 Type 26 Hunter class frigates). It's lower than Canada which plans 15 such vessels.

Compare to South Korea with 27 large surface combatants and 22 attack subs or Japan with 44 large surface combatants and 22 subs.

The Army is lacking in all matter of equipment air defence is inadequate (no medium or long range SAMs), they're reducing number of tanks and IFVs and a lot of other equipment is obsolete.

Most of the army is unsupported infantry battalions – literally the whole of 1st division is 20+ battalions of light infantry with limited logistics support, no artillery, extremely limited reconnaissance, no air defence, no armour etc etc.


Only 3rd division is "fully combat capable" but as mentioned it's considered weak compared to other equivalent forces.

And then the RAF whose main strength these days is decent transport capability courtesy of 30 C-17/A400s and 14 multirole Voyager tanker/transports.


RAF fighter capability is in decline the Eurofighter numbers are dwindling thanks to retirements of older aircraft and in any case it's not as good in attack role as the retired Tornado. And their only other fighter is the F-35 which they share with the navy.

Other capabilities are shrinking eg from a fleet of 7 AWACS they are going down to 3!

arealdeadone12 Sep 2021 4:28 p.m. PST

And then the real damning stuff – the British Army was effectively defeated in Iraq, having been kicked out of Basra and besieged at the airport and relying on Americans and Iraqis to clear the insurgents out of the city.

All accounts point to British military being full of arrogance because of their experience in Northern Ireland yet being totally unaware that the fighting against Islamist insurgents would be far more intense.


And again by many accounts institutional learning doesn't seem to have taken place. The British Army higher echelons simply pretended the whole thing never happened and have continued on their way.

And as such the British military continues it's long decline whilst the government plays toy soldiers with it.


Indeed the British military of 2003-06 was a much bigger and much better rounded force than it is now yet it still failed.

With near 20 years of successive cuts, it's in far worse condition now than it has probably ever been.

Legion 413 Sep 2021 9:13 a.m. PST

Save 4 boomer subs, the UK has not bite in anything save a very short term,
I'm talking the troops, pilots, etc. they still, albeit small in numbers, are generally capable, etc.,.

You can't tell me the average UK soldier, marine, sailor, pilot are not competent, capable, etc., at their job or doing their duty is need be …

British military being full of arrogance
Or maybe confidence …

Your biases are showing … again … 🤔😎

arealdeadone13 Sep 2021 5:26 p.m. PST

You can't tell me the average UK soldier, marine, sailor, pilot are not competent, capable, etc., at their job or doing their duty is need be …

An irrelevance if they lack tools to do the job and if their commanders are lacking.

Do you think unsupported light infantry battalions without artillery, armour, air defence, EW, will be of any use in a high intensity war? Especially when even the single conventional division is understrength and lacking in key capabilities.

And the debacle in Basra showed British military commanders were not competent.

Performance in Afghanistan was better but the forces opposing Britain in Afghanistan were nowhere near as aggressive or organised as the Mahdi Army.


Or maybe confidence …
Your biases are showing … again

Again you might want to do some reading.

Being overconfident is arrogance.

The British were overconfident when they took over occupation duties for Basra and there were many comments on how they would do the job much easier than Americans due to their experience in North Ireland.

Then the British Army got its butt handed to them. Over the course of a year they lost control of the city and were then besieged in two bases and then eventually withdrew in humiliation.

Even one of the American officers in General Patreus' staff said the British were defeated.

Retired British Generals blamed the government, instead of themselves for the loss.

Heedless Horseman13 Sep 2021 9:47 p.m. PST

Far too much 'political' control. left to do 'the 'Biz', without 'cards'… 'They' would not have been 'happy'… but VERY capable.
SAD thing is… as usual… 'stuck in a Bad Place' for a Sh***y reason.

From a 'civvie' viewpoint… even I know that 'Top' just says 'Make This Happen'… so it goes down the chain.
Pretty sure Brit Command would NOT have wanted the role.. but some serving officers HAD experience in NI, wheras US did not.

S**t job… and didn't work out. Not 'arrogance' as such… but, no 'management' is going to say.. 'No win possible… but I'm out of a Job unless you do your bit'!
Does not inspire!

Agree that 'Command' are too often 'lacking'… BUT that has ALWAYS been the case, 'Troops will be Troops', forever… but 'Command' has it's Fears… I never wanted promotion in work

Light Infantry, with little support… can act as a 'Fire Magnet', drawing in opposition… until,'Hopefully', heavy support comes. 'S**t Job'. But.. draw the other guys in… then Kill Them.

Legion 414 Sep 2021 8:44 a.m. PST

An irrelevance if they lack tools to do the job and if their commanders are lacking.
Does not mean the troops, are poor quality.

Do you think unsupported light infantry battalions without artillery, armour, air defence, EW, will be of any use in a high intensity war? Especially when even the single conventional division is understrength and lacking in key capabilities.
Again I understand very well about all types of Infantry ops both Light & Mech. Being trained & experienced in both plus combined arms, etc. I'm pretty darned sure in know better than you, who are doing the questioning.

And yes the UK as the US, fights combined arms warfare. But if the UK troops don't get the supporting arms to do that it is not the fault of the Grunts, etc., on the ground. Yes your leadership especially your elected & appointed officials are to blame, IMO. As our mine in many cases …

Again you might want to do some reading.

Being overconfident is arrogance.

I do a lot of reading .. I just may be reading things other than you ?. And IMO overconfidence is not the same as arrogance or hubris … IMO …

Those 3 words have different definitions …

Light Infantry, with little support… can act as a 'Fire Magnet',
Not necessarily, we learned from the VC, etc. Light Infantry can be effective. But it depends on a number of factors. Firstly the terrain, mission, etc. But yes, Light or Mech you need supporting arms in today's modern mobile type of warfare. Again Combined Arms Warfare.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.